In his inaugural address on January 20, Donald Trump announced that under his presidency, "the United States will once again consider itself a growing nation – one that (...) expands our territory (...) and carries our flag into new and beautiful horizons." With these words, the American president developed his own vision of manifest destiny. To the original idea that the American nation has a divine mission for global expansion, the new White House occupant favors the concept of a world in which what he considers to be the great powers, namely the United States, China, and Russia, have a vocation to exercise absolute control and maximum exploitation of their spheres of influence.
In this context, three territories have repeatedly been the targets of his expansionist aims. The first is Canada, for which he has continually proclaimed its destiny to become the 51st American state. The second is the Panama Canal, which he has stated he wants to "take back." The third is Greenland, a territory under Danish sovereignty, about which he told NBC on March 30: "We'll get Greenland. Yeah, 100%," before adding, "There is a good possibility that we could do it [this annexation] without military force," but "I don't take anything off the table."
Among these three targets, President Trump and his advisers consider Greenland, due to its internal political situation and the very nature of this territory, to be the most vulnerable prey. As the White House works on scenarios for taking control of this island, let us have no illusions: the era of bravado and verbal provocations of Trump's first term is behind us. We have entered a phase where each day brings us closer to what could be the annexation by the United States of a territory belonging to a member state of the European Union.
Guilty passivity
If such an annexation were to occur, it could mark the death of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). How can we imagine the survival of a military alliance in which the main power has seized the territory of another member? How can we envisage that bonds of trust would be maintained across the Atlantic when the United States would have violated the sovereignty of Denmark, an ally that has paid the heaviest price in Afghanistan relative to its population?
You have 58.82% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.