Trump's Greenland bid may stir nationalist unrest on the island — experts

When the US President-elect Donald Trump first argued that the frontiers of American power need to be stretched into Canada and Denmark's autonomous Greenland, and southward to include the Panama Canal, it was dismissed as a joke.

It became serious when Trump doubled down on his rhetoric in his next remarks, declining at a presser to rule out military or economic force to have the US take control of Greenland, as well as the Panama Canal.

Since then, countries and their leaders have responded to Trump in their own way. But if Trump goes ahead with his plans after his January 20 inauguration, experts say, there is a potential to unsettle established international norms and stir nationalist uprisings.

"I highly doubt Trump could legally seize Greenland, or Panama through force," Joshua Busby, a foreign policy expert, tells TRT World.

Trump's rhetoric could spark a nationalist uprising in the territory that lies between the Arctic and Atlantic oceans, possibly driving the island to pursue independence from Copenhagen, even if a referendum may not pass, analysts say.

"The President-elect's efforts to meddle in the affairs of Greenland might lead it to pursue independence from Denmark, and it would probably seek to become a member of the European Union," says Busby, who is also a distinguished scholar at the Robert S. Strauss Center for International Security, University of Texas.

Unlike its neighbours — Iceland (1944), the Faroe Islands (1946), and Newfoundland (1948) — Greenland has never held a referendum.

Many experts liken Trump's calls to an ongoing pattern of upending diplomatic conventions. But these remarks are not mere bluster.

In recent days Representative Andy Ogles, a Republican from Tennessee, introduced a bill called the "Make Greenland Great Again Act," which would authorise the incoming Trump administration to begin negotiations with Denmark over the potential purchase of Greenland.

The rollercoaster of events appears to be the latest chapter in a saga that started back in 2019 when Trump suggested buying the island, only for Denmark to quickly reject the idea.

Greenland's appeal to the US is easy to see as it's not only strategically located in the Arctic but also holds vast natural resources, including rare earth metals that are essential for technology today.

The US already maintains a major military presence at Thule Air Base (on the northwest coast of Greenland) that hosts Space Delta 2's surveillance systems, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the US Space Force advanced missile detection and space awareness capabilities.

Any serious attempt to acquire the island would almost certainly clash with Denmark’s sovereignty, not to mention international norms.

Monroe Doctrine

Other specialists like David Gibbs, a history professor at the University of Arizona, argue that Trump's comments are likely less about actual annexation and more about shaking up the status quo.

"It's possible he (Trump) is trying to unsettle the situation as a negotiating tactic. This is a strategy to improve his position, for any future negotiations with these countries," Gibbs told TRT World.

Analysts warn that Trump's views are reminiscent of 19th-century geopolitics, an era when the Monroe Doctrine dominated US foreign policy.

While Greenland has been linked to Denmark for centuries, its growing autonomy and increasing importance on the global stage means that its path to independence is becoming more plausible.

Some of its leaders are already looking toward that possibility, and Trump's remarks might just speed up that process.

"The reality is we are going to work with the US — yesterday, today and tomorrow," Greenland’s Prime Minister Mute Egede said at a news conference in Nuuk this week.

"We have to be very smart on how we act. The power struggles between the superpowers are rising and are now knocking on our door," he added.

Strategic intent or flashy distraction?

Thousands of miles away, Trump's comments about another theatre — the Panama Canal — have stirred up memories of the fraught history surrounding the waterway.

Completed in 1914 and handed back to Panama in 1999, the canal remains a vital link between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.

Gibbs dismisses any chance of the US taking control of the canal, calling the idea "blatantly illegal."

"There's no legal basis for annexing the canal," he says, "whether under the Monroe Doctrine or any other legal framework."

Still, some speculate that Trump's fixation on the canal is less about territorial control and more about economic interests.

"Maybe Trump just wants Panama to keep Chinese companies out of the ports, or to reduce fees for American companies using the canal," Busby suggests.

While Gibbs urges people not to overreact to Trump's provocations, they're still part of a broader strategy of brinkmanship.

"Everyone knows Trump doesn't take these ideas entirely seriously, so we shouldn't be too concerned," he says.

But as Busby points out, nationalist movements have often gained momentum from external interference. "Nationalist sentiments are powerful and unpredictable forces," he says.

It's a reminder also that Trump's comments, even if not backed by serious action, could have far-reaching consequences.

Greenland's role in global climate research and its vast Arctic resources add further complexity to the situation.

Analysts suggest that the real intention behind the rhetoric may be to draw attention to issues that would otherwise be overlooked, compelling both global leaders and the public to focus on matters that might not be on the radar.

"The current moves (by the incoming President) seem to lack any broad strategic logic," Busby adds. "It's hard to tell if it is just meant to grab attention."