Greenland and the Panama Canal: Vigilance or Imperialism?

We live in a day of unprecedented change. With President-elect Donald Trump's second inauguration only days away, the flurry of information and speculation about his second term has been overwhelming. This noise is only compounded by the fact that most of today’s media seem more interested in settling some scores with Trump as they lick their wounds of electoral defeat than they are in actually reporting on his policy proposals. One of their favorite things to mischaracterize is his foreign policy, specifically regarding Greenland and the Panama Canal as imperialism and expansionist.

So into this mess of noise, we will assess what Trump has actually proposed and the political and strategic history of these regions. Before considering Greenland and the Panama Canal together in their similarities, we’ll take a look at them individually. We’ll start with Greenland.

The Strategic Significance of Greenland

Greenland is an island located in the Northern Atlantic Ocean. It is about three times the size of Texas. If you evenly distribute the population, it works out to about 1 person for every 9,500 acres, making it the least densely populated region in the world. Why then, would the island be important?

Although numerous strategic elements play into the importance of Greenland, the geopolitical pivot point of this is an area referred to by military strategists as the “Greenland-Icelandic-United-Kingdom gap,” shortened to the GUIK. It is an imaginary line that goes from Greenland, through Iceland, and to the northern coast of the United Kingdom. Effectively, control of the GUIK gap is among the most significant elements to controlling access to the Atlantic Ocean from the Arctic Ocean, being a key strategic area during World War II, for instance. In addition, Greenland is also highly significant from a nuclear security perspective, since in many cases, a ballistic missile flight over the Arctic Ocean provides the shortest route to the United States.

Yet, why is the region such a chokepoint of United States security?  Wouldn’t a mere increased military presence in the region address these concerns? The answer lies in the uncertain future of Greenland. Although the region has been controlled by Denmark historically, the region passed the Greenlandic Self-Government Referendum in 2008. This effectively placed the control of Greenland outside of Denmark. This also is the platform for the eventual independence of Greenland.

This brings it to the key element of American national security, without the specific protection of the Danish military, this critically strategic island would be left to its own defense, or, in a more likely scenario, would have to military support from other nations, including the United States. Worse yet, an adversarial nation like China could potentially exploit the situation of the weak nation, and establish a strong presence on the island, which would be in line with its ambitions to be a “polar great power” by 2030.

Looking into the future, strong presidential leadership would foresee the necessity of addressing this problem. Trump’s proposal to expand United States influence in Greenland is a strategic move that would establish American security before a security vulnerability is created by a new, sparsely populated, militarily weak nation -on America’s doorstep.

The Status of the Panama Canal

Swinging to the other side of the globe, we have the Panama Canal. At the outset, it's important to recognize that the Panama Canal was built by the United States and primarily for the United States.  President Theodore Roosevelt commissioned the building of the canal, facilitated by the signing of the Hay-Bunau-Varilla Treaty of 1903. In addition,  70% of all shipping going through the canal is either coming from the United States or going to the United States.

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed the Torrijos–Carter Treaties, which transferred the canal gradually and then entirely to Panama control by 1999. Much to the chagrin of then California Governor Ronald Reagan, who said prior to the treaty being signed: “We built it, we bought it and we're going to keep it." Ironically, just six years after the treaty, in 1983, Panama entered the narco-dictatorship of Manuel Noriega, who said upon declaration of a state of war with America in 1989: “We the Panamanian people will sit along the banks of the canal to watch the dead bodies of our enemies pass by.” Noriega was ousted weeks later by the United States, yet the irony remains that the United States had ceded control of the canal to a nation that would kill American servicemen a few years later.  

Yet, control of the Panama Canal is not merely a historical matter, the Panamanian government has actually subcontracted out the management of the Panama Canal ports on the Pacific and Atlantic sides to Panama Ports Company which is a subsidiary of Hutchison Whampoa, a Chinese company.

When we take all of these things into account, realize this: a Chinese-owned company controls the Panama Canal ports and arguably has the ability to conduct surveillance on any ship that come through the Panama Canal -including any US Navy ships.  While some might be quick to say that this company is not controlled by the Chinese Communist government, the Chinese National Intelligence Law of 2017 requires that “all organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts.”

It doesn’t take much to realize that China’s tentacles controlling the primary ports for a canal that primarily is for American shipping presents an insidious threat to this country.

Trump’s Leadership

In light of the significance of Greenland and the Panama Canal, Trump's desire to increase American influence in these areas is not the proposal of an imperialist. Instead, his foresight and recognition of the importance of these areas demonstrate leadership. It is uncertain exactly what will be done in both regions. Yet the fact remains: Trump is going to prioritize American national security. He will prioritize it regardless of the ridicule of the mainstream media, as he seeks to apply the principle that the “the price of Liberty is eternal vigilance.”

I look forward to having such a leader in the White House next week.

Subscribe for more articles like this: lighthousepolicyadv.com/subscribe