Donald Trump is renewing his calls for the U.S. to purchase Greenland from Denmark, citing national security, a move met with immediate rejection from Greenland’s government. Simultaneously, he’s threatened to retake control of the Panama Canal due to rising shipping costs, despite the 1977 treaty transferring control to Panama. These actions, alongside suggestions of annexing Canada, are seen by some as a negotiating tactic to leverage concessions from allied nations, echoing his past business strategies. Greenland and Panama have both firmly rejected his claims.
Read More
President-elect Trump threatened to reclaim U.S. control of the Panama Canal, citing allegedly unfair fees charged by Panama and expressing concerns about potential Chinese influence, despite China’s lack of control over the canal’s administration. This assertion drew immediate condemnation from Panamanian President Mulino, who declared Panama’s sovereignty non-negotiable and defended the canal’s fee structure. Trump’s threat, unprecedented in its directness, marks a potential shift in U.S. foreign policy and lacks legal basis under international law. The Panama Canal, a crucial waterway for global trade, was transferred to Panamanian control in 1999 following agreements signed in 1977.
Read More
Trump’s suggestion to retake the Panama Canal if transit fees aren’t lowered is a dramatic escalation, raising eyebrows internationally. The statement itself is startling, given the implications of unilaterally seizing another nation’s sovereign territory. It suggests an approach to international relations that prioritizes aggressive unilateral action over diplomacy and negotiation.
This action, if implemented, would be a clear violation of international law and norms, potentially triggering significant diplomatic backlash and jeopardizing US relations with numerous countries. Beyond the legal ramifications, such a move could severely damage America’s standing in the global community, undermining its credibility and leadership.
The claim seemingly stems from a dispute over transit fees, implying a belief that the US has some inherent right to influence or control these prices.… Continue reading
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood