Sovereignty Under Siege: The Risks Of US Territorial Ambitions In A Globalized World – OpEd

The sovereignty of nation-states in the modern world constitutes a fundamental principle within the contemporary international system. Greenland has emerged as a highly contentious subject among nations, particularly regarding its relationship with the Panama Canal and the interests of a global audience, including Canada. Actions undertaken about these issues infringe upon key principles of international law regarding the right to territorial integrity.

The demands and actions articulated by President-Elect Trump and the United States highlight the intricate nature of current and emerging territorial disputes as well as the rigidity of global norms. This paper aims to elucidate the ramifications of these actions for international relations economic stability and the role of the United States in the global drawing context upon recent data from 2024.  Actions taken under the guise of reinforcing national security or economic power often carry significant political and legal risks that greatly affect global politics.

The Panama Canal: A Key Waterway and Overreach

The Panama Canal serves a as critical global waterway that connects the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans facilitating the transit of approximately 14,000 ships annually. According to data compiled by the Panama Canal Authority in 2024  about 6% of the world’s total maritime trade conducted is through the canal generating over $3 billion annually for Panama. Nonetheless, interest in the canal encompasses considerations that extend beyond mere economic factors to include strategic and military dimensions. Proposals to augment the role of the United States in the management of the canal—since the Torrijos-Carter Treaties 1977—have been consistently dismissed.

These treaties stipulated that sovereignty over the canal would revert to Panama in 1999. Any attempt to regain control of the canal would likely be perceived as an act of aggression against Panama’s sovereignty and could provoke a backlash from other nations in the region, particularly those in Latin America that have historically opposed it. Consequently, interference in such actions would undermine multilateral agreements designed to promote cooperation and mutual benefit in international trade. For instance, interference with canal traffic could destabilise global supply chains and result in inflationary pressures and increased shipping costs with a projected global rise of 7% in shipping costs attributable to the lingering effects of the pandemic. 

Canada: A Friendly Neighbour Under Threat

Canada the closest ally and partner of the United States engages in a robust economic security partnership valued at over $2 billion according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative in 2024. President-Elect Trump’s comments regarding the potential purchase of portions of Canada for resources or strategic positioning elicited substantial criticism. Such rhetoric undermines Canada’s sovereignty and threatens to deteriorate the economic and cultural relations between the two nations.

The repercussions of any aggression towards Canada would beyond extended bilateral relations alienating a key NATO ally and weakening collective security efforts, particularly in the Arctic where cooperation is essential to counter the influence of Russia and China. Any measures that Canada might implement such as economic sanctions or other retaliatory actions could adversely affect several U.S. industries reliant on Canadian imports including energy and agriculture. These developments may diminish the American public’s support for its historically friendly neighbour.

Greenland: Geo A-Strategic Asset or a Diplomatic Blunder? 

In 2019 President Trump reignited tensions over Greenland by proposing its purchase due to its natural resources and the expansion shipping of routes in the Arctic which have become increasingly navigable due to climate change. However, Denmark has firmly rejected any attempts to sell Greenland asserting its sovereignty over the island. Pursuing the acquisition of Greenland would constitute a violation of Danish territorial rights and jeopardise the stability of Arctic cooperation structures such as the Arctic Council.

Reports from 2024 emphasise the importance of respecting member countries’ territorial integrity and preserving the environment. A unilateral U. S. claim on Greenland could escalate tensions with other Arctic nations including Russia and China which are keen to expand their influence in the region. Furthermore, such actions could alienate European allies and weaken transatlantic relations at a time when unity is essential in addressing global challenges such as climate change, terrorism and cybersecurity.

Consequences and Challenges

The aforementioned attempts by Trump to control and assert over these territories are likely to result in significant diplomatic economic and security consequences. Primarily these actions contravene the principles of the United Nations Charter which the prohibits use of force or coercion in territorial thereby acquisition tarnishing the reputation of the United States as a proponent of the international rules-based order. Economically the could ramifications be severe. For instance, estimates for 2024 suggest that trade disruptions such as those that might arise from tensions in the Panama Canal or trade issues with Canada could diminish U.S. business growth GDP by 0.3%, alongside annual shipping costs potentially escalating by $500 million. Moreover, these actions may exacerbate geopolitical confrontations potentially garnering support for Russia’s ambitions in Ukraine and influencing China’s responses to perceived U.S. hypocrisy regarding territorial sovereignty claims in the South China Sea. 

Recommendation and Conclusion

To mitigate these risks the United States must reaffirm its commitment to existing international law. Coercion should not be employed in the pursuit of national interests; rather diplomacy should be the preferred approach. Collaboration with Panama to the secure canal and partnerships with Canada and Denmark on Arctic matters may yield mutually beneficial outcomes without infringing on sovereign rights. Upholding the post-war international order which emphasises multilateralism and dialogue with other states, essential is for sustaining global peace and stability.

Trump’s attempts to control the Panama Canal, Canada, and Greenland challenge the principles of national sovereignty and the international system. The potential consequences of these actions—diplomatic fallout economic instability and geopolitical tensions—highlight the dangers posed by unilateral actions in today’s interconnected world. Therefore the United States should adhere to the ideals of national sovereignty and cooperation thereby upholding its role a as responsible international actor. 

The opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own. 

References

• Fukuyama, Francis. The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.  
• Zacher, Mark W. “The Territorial Integrity Norm: International Boundaries and the Use of Force.” Oxford University Press, 2001.
• Gaddis, John Lewis. “The Cold War: A New History.” Penguin Press, 2005.