By Uche J. Udenka
The United States Expansionist Agenda: Militaristic, Economic, and Diplomatic Overtones
The history of United States expansionism is deeply entrenched in its broader geopolitical, economic, and strategic ambitions. Since its inception, the U.S. has demonstrated an active desire to expand its territories, either through diplomacy, military conquests, or economic coercion. While some of these endeavors, such as the Louisiana Purchase and the annexation of Hawaii, have been legitimized as essential to its growth, others, like the annexation of the Philippines or interventions in Latin America, have been met with criticism and resistance. In recent years, expansionist rhetoric has resurfaced in controversial declarations and proposals, including former President Donald Trump’s expressed interest in acquiring Greenland, revisiting control over the Panama Canal, and even annexing Canada. These aspirations have reignited debates about modern imperialism, sovereignty, and the extent of U.S. global influence.
Historical Context of U.S. Expansionism
The doctrine of Manifest Destiny in the 19th century justified the expansion of the United States across North America, underpinned by the belief that the U.S. was destined to spread its values and governance across the continent. The annexation of Texas (1845), the Oregon Treaty (1846), and the acquisition of vast Mexican territories through the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) showcased how the U.S. combined diplomacy, economic leverage, and military aggression to expand its borders. This approach laid the foundation for later expansionist policies. In the 20th century, U.S. expansionism evolved to focus more on economic and strategic control. The acquisition of territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines after the Spanish-American War (1898) underscored its growing global ambitions. Control over strategic waterways, such as the Panama Canal, further highlighted its geopolitical interests in dominating trade routes and securing military mobility. This historical trajectory provides context for understanding Trump-era declarations about Greenland, the Panama Canal, and Canada.
Trump’s Interest in Greenland
In 2019, former President Donald Trump publicly floated the idea of purchasing Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark. While initially dismissed as absurd by many, Trump’s proposal was rooted in strategic, economic, and environmental considerations. Greenland, the world’s largest island, is rich in natural resources such as rare earth minerals, oil, and gas—resources that are becoming increasingly accessible due to climate change-induced melting of Arctic ice. This makes Greenland a prime location for future economic exploitation and a potential geopolitical asset in Arctic affairs. Trump’s interest in Greenland also reflected the U.S. desire to counter growing Chinese and Russian influence in the Arctic. The region is rapidly emerging as a theater of strategic competition, with major powers vying for control over its untapped resources and trade routes. By acquiring Greenland, the U.S. would have secured a significant foothold in the Arctic, boosting its military and economic dominance in the region.
Denmark categorically rejected the proposal, emphasizing Greenland’s autonomy and the absurdity of selling an entire territory. While the U.S. could not forcefully acquire Greenland without violating international law, Trump’s suggestion highlighted the enduring expansionist mindset within certain segments of American leadership. It also underscored the U.S.’s readiness to pursue unconventional strategies for securing global dominance, even if they strain diplomatic relations.
Revisiting the Panama Canal
The Panama Canal has long been a symbol of U.S. strategic dominance. Constructed by the U.S. after its acquisition of the project from France, the canal was under American control from 1914 until the signing of the Torrijos-Carter Treaties in 1977. These agreements mandated the transfer of the canal to Panama by 1999. Despite the peaceful handover, the U.S. has maintained a vested interest in the canal’s operations due to its critical role in global trade and military logistics. Trump’s administration reportedly considered revisiting U.S. control over the Panama Canal, driven by concerns about China’s growing influence in Latin America. Chinese companies have been investing heavily in ports and infrastructure near the canal, raising alarms in Washington about potential strategic vulnerabilities. Trump’s rhetoric on the canal often emphasized national security, economic leverage, and the need to protect American interests in the Western Hemisphere. However, any attempt to reclaim control over the Panama Canal would face significant obstacles. First, it would violate international treaties and undermine U.S. credibility as a global partner. Second, such a move could provoke widespread resistance in Latin America, where U.S. interventions have historically been viewed with suspicion and resentment. While Trump’s statements may have been more rhetorical than actionable, they reveal the enduring expansionist aspirations that persist in U.S. policy circles.
Annexation of Canada
The idea of annexing Canada is not new in U.S. history but has largely remained within the realm of speculation and fantasy. From the War of 1812 to occasional political debates, the concept has periodically resurfaced, often as a reflection of U.S. ambitions to consolidate North America under its governance. During Trump’s presidency, there were no formal attempts to annex Canada, but his administration’s aggressive trade policies and rhetoric strained U.S.-Canada relations, leading some to speculate about long-term American goals. Annexing Canada would offer significant economic and strategic benefits to the U.S., including access to vast natural resources, increased territorial control, and a larger domestic market. However, such a move would face insurmountable challenges. Canada is a sovereign nation with a strong national identity, deeply rooted democratic institutions, and membership in key international organizations like NATO and the G7. Any attempt to annex Canada would provoke fierce resistance, both domestically and internationally, and likely result in severe economic and diplomatic repercussions for the U.S.
Trump’s divisive approach to diplomacy and his penchant for unconventional proposals may have fueled discussions about annexation among his supporters. However, the idea remains far-fetched and impractical, given the modern geopolitical landscape and the principles of international law.
Implications of Modern Expansionism
The resurgence of expansionist rhetoric under Trump reflects a broader shift in U.S. foreign policy toward unilateralism and transactional diplomacy. By openly expressing interest in acquiring territories like Greenland or revisiting control over the Panama Canal, Trump departed from the traditional emphasis on multilateral cooperation and respect for sovereignty. This approach carries significant implications: Erosion of U.S. Soft Power: Expansionist rhetoric undermines the U.S.’s image as a defender of democracy and sovereignty, alienating allies and partners.
Geopolitical Rivalries: Aggressive expansionism could escalate tensions with rival powers like China and Russia, particularly in contested regions like the Arctic and Latin America. Domestic and International Resistance: Proposals to acquire territories through economic or military means are likely to face resistance from both domestic constituencies and the international community, making such ambitions difficult to achieve.
Legal and Ethical Challenges: Modern international law prohibits the forceful acquisition of territories, limiting the feasibility of expansionist agendas. Violating these norms would damage U.S. credibility and destabilize global order.
The U.S. expansionist agenda, exemplified by Trump’s declarations regarding Greenland, the Panama Canal, and Canada, represents a continuation of historical ambitions tempered by modern realities. While these proposals were largely rhetorical and unlikely to materialize, they underscore the enduring appeal of expansionism in American political thought. The strategic and economic considerations behind such ambitions are undeniable, but their implementation would face significant legal, ethical, and practical challenges.
In a world increasingly defined by interdependence and multilateralism, the pursuit of expansionist policies risks isolating the U.S. and provoking unnecessary conflicts. As such, the future of American foreign policy will depend on finding a balance between securing national interests and respecting the sovereignty and autonomy of other nations. While expansionism may remain a theoretical aspiration for some, its practical feasibility and desirability in the 21st century are highly questionable.
•Uche J. Udenka is a social & political analyst
#AfricaVisionAdvancementTrust