NEW YORK — Donald Trump, who once campaigned on an "America First" platform asserting that the U.S. should no longer act as the world's policeman, has recently shifted to a potential imperialist agenda aimed at Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal. Since securing a second term, Trump has made provocative statements suggesting that military force might be used to assert control over these territories and pressuring Canada to become the 51st state of the U.S. “Canada and the United States, that would really be something,” Trump stated, arguing that eliminating the “artificially drawn line” would enhance national security. Such remarks mark a significant departure from historical norms concerning territorial integrity and could significantly escalate tensions internationally as adversaries perceive America's leadership as increasingly aggressive.

The rhetoric espoused by Trump has drawn sharp criticism from various quarters, with John Bolton, his former national security adviser, remarking, "If I’m Vladimir Putin or Xi Jinping, this is music to my ears." Analysts suggest that Trump's statements resonate with a 19th-century worldview reminiscent of colonial powers, which poses a dire risk given the current geopolitical climate where border tensions are already high, particularly with Russia's ongoing invasion of Ukraine and China's claims over Taiwan. Gerald Butts, a former adviser to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, further commented on Trump's heightened self-confidence, indicating, "This is maximum Trump," highlighting a shift from uncertainty to assertiveness.

On popular platforms, Trump's allies, including Charlie Kirk, have voiced strong convictions about the necessity of U.S. control over Greenland, framing it as a reflection of a revitalized American identity. Kirk remarked that such a move would symbolize the “resurrection of masculine American energy" and likened it to the spirit of Manifest Destiny. Supporters argue that security threats, including rising Chinese and Russian investments in the Arctic, necessitate a strong U.S. presence in Greenland and the Panama Canal, critical for international shipping routes.

Interestingly, Trump's team promotes this imperialist discourse as protecting national interests, citing the fact that nearly half of U.S. shipping containers transit through the Panama Canal, controlled largely by Hong Kong-based entities. Trump’s transition spokeswoman, Karoline Leavitt, defended the approach by underscoring, “Every decision President Trump makes is in the best interest of the United States and the American people.” However, Michael McFaul, former U.S. ambassador to Russia, termed this new rhetoric as detrimental to America’s national security, asserting, “Allies are our superpower” and emphasizing, “We will be best at addressing those threats with allies.”

The international community has reacted strongly too, with Canadian officials expressing frustration. Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc stated, “The joke is over,” suggesting Trump's words are designed to create confusion and fear among allies. Responding to Trump's alleged proposal to rename the Gulf of Mexico to the "Gulf of America," Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum showcased humor by quipping that North America should be referred to as “América Mexicana.”

Panama, too, solidified its stance, emphasizing the non-negotiable sovereignty over the Panama Canal, which has been under its control for more than two decades. “One thing is certain: the sovereignty of our canal is not negotiable and is part of our history of struggle,” remarked Panama’s foreign minister, Javier Martínez-Acha. Meanwhile, NATO experts express concern over the potential for conflict, with some arguing that if Trump were to pursue forceful actions without international backing, he could find himself at odds with NATO obligations to protect allied territories.

The ramifications of Trump's renewed imperial rhetoric extend to a reconsideration of traditional U.S. alliances. As geopolitical tensions rise, experts caution that underestimating the complexities of international diplomacy could have unforeseen consequences, urging the former president to stabilize, not destabilize, relations with neighbors and allies alike. As debates continue regarding strategic decisions, the specter of American policy shifts looms large, emphasizing the need for cohesive and considered foreign strategies amidst an evolving global landscape. [AP] [SCMP]