U.S. Expansionism Under President Trump

In the 19th century, the United States has been historically attracted to territorial expansion, from the idea of Manifest Destiny to the strategic military bases around the world in the 20th and 21st centuries. Following President Donald Trump, expansionist rhetoric resurfaced, including the proposed obtuse territorial acquisitions of Greenland, Canada, Gaza and the Panama Canal. In raising these ambitions, they have been met with concerns that they are not in line with the rules-based international order that has followed World War II. In this article, we explicate the diplomatic situations, legal effects, global reactions, and the strategic reasons behind these expansionist proposals and evaluate the implications of their implementation to the entire world’s stability. The first wave of United States’ territorial expansion (1803: Louisiana Purchase and 1845: Annexation of Texas) was generated in connection to Manifest Destiny (the idea that the U.S. was destined to spread across North America). After the Spanish-American War, overseas expansion included the annexation of Hawaii (1898) and the holding of influence over the Philippines and Puerto Rico. After World War II, the international system shifted from state and adherence to the rules of anarchy to that based on the rules of a rules based order where national sovereignty and territorial integrity are enshrined in the UN Charter. In retrospect, it is difficult not to notice America’s transformation from an expansionist government whose past included maintaining its global order through institutions such as the United Nations and NATO, supporting a position of this order.

President Trump even suggested buying Greenland from Denmark in 2019 on the basis that it is both strategic and economically advantageous. Denmark and Greenlandic officials immediately rejected the proposal and reiterated support for Greenland’s autonomy and territorial integrity. Although it was renounced, the plan expressed a reappearance of a type of expansionist impulse in U.S. policy making. The Trump administration reportedly was polling Canadians to see if they would want to join the U.S. as its 51st state. Such proposals were largely speculative but they only increased diplomatic tensions. The notion was categorically rejected by Canadian officials, who insisted upon the foundation of national sovereignty and the preternatural gap between governance, and therefore identity. It was through the Torrijos-Carter Treaties that the U.S. handed over control of the Panama Canal to Panama in 1999. But conversations occurred in the Trump administration that it should retake control on the grounds of economic and security interests. Right away, this idea was met with opposition from Panama, from Latin American nations, and from international bodies, because it was aimed at invading Panama’s sovereignty.

The suggestion of U.S. control over Gaza was perhaps the most controversial of Trump’s proposals. One that was such a move would have political and geopolitical ramifications that would be profound, heightening regional tensions in an already volatile Middle East. If adopted, it would have been a disaster for the sovereignty of the Palestinians and the fruitless diplomatic efforts to achieve some form of peace. According to the United Nations Charter (Article 2), the principle of national sovereignty is upheld and no territory may be acquired by force or coercion. The expansionist rhetoric of Trump also clashed with these fundamental values, and the legal question then becomes whether such action is legitimate. The modern principles of voluntary acquisition of territory by sovereign entities are held as a proposition of international law scholars. International community is known to resist expansionist policy violations of sovereignty as in the case of Crimea’s annexation by Russia in 2014. Due to Trump’s expansionist rhetoric, his words were met with a negative reaction from U.S. allies, particularly European and NATO members. In the case of Denmark and Canada, their sovereignty was reaffirmed, and Latin American nations regarded discussions about the Panama Canal as a direct threat to regional stability. The expansionist talk undermined U.S. credibility as a standard bearer of the rules based international order. The compromised relations with Washington gave cause for concern over America’s global leadership and its continued commitment to international norms. Geopolitical and economic considerations had spurred Trump’s ambitions over expansionism. U.S. interests in counteracting Russian and Chinese influence were attracted to Greenland’s great mineral resources and its strategic location in the Arctic. Just as much, the Panama Canal would give economic leverage over the world trade routes.

Rhetoric surrounding expansionism was fired up by nationalist sentiments. Trump’s ‘America First’ approach was aimed at making U.S. power as strong as possible to safeguard national security and facilitate economic growth and, like Donald Trump himself, appealed to a populist base that holds higher importance on territorial acquisitions. Expansionist rhetoric was resurfacing in hopes of setting dangerous precedents for other nations with land craving. An expansion pursued by a major power such as the U.S. would only embolden enemies such as Russia, China, India, and others that have claims of territories they staked, thus making global relations even more unstable. Expansionist policies are stressful multilateral institutions like the UN and NATO to the point where diplomatic action to peacefully resolve disputes is frustratingly threatened. As expansionism picks up, international cooperation might fall apart and conflicts might increase more, international governance mechanisms might be less effective. 

And the revival of expansionist rhetoric by the Trump administration clashed with the post war principles of the international order. These proposals only represented a symbolic shift in American foreign policy debate, but they reflected the increased concern over the lack of respect for the sovereignty and norms of the international system. International law and multilateral diplomacy must be adhered consistently regardless, if not more, than before as global stability and the prevention of territorial disputes turning into major conflicts depend on it.

The Author, Aleena Saeed is an independent researcher, analyst and content writer. Her expertise lie in analysing foreign policy of great power.