Donald Trump, the President-elect of the United States (U.S.), is likely to surprise the world during his second term. His remarks about Panama, Greenland, and even Canada should not be dismissed as mere indiscretions. Considering his persistent focus on these issues, it seems the U.S. is preparing to adopt a strategy that deviates significantly from its traditional approach.
The U.S.’s imperialist approach has historically differed from European-style imperialism. Western European countries, constrained by limited territories and resources during the colonial era, expanded outward to secure economic gains. Nations such as Britain and France sought to dominate economically valuable regions by occupying territories worldwide.
In contrast, the vast landmass and abundant natural resources of the U.S. rendered such motivations largely unnecessary. When the country underwent its industrial revolution, it still had vast, resource-rich land to cultivate. Today, with one of the world’s most productive service economies, direct territorial occupation for economic gain is often unnecessary or impractical.
American-style imperialism prioritizes security over economic conquest. For the U.S., the goal is not to control large territories but to dominate critical trade routes, especially maritime ones, and to restrict rivals’ access to vital resources like energy.
Rather than occupying large areas, the U.S. focuses on small, strategically significant, and defensible regions. These regions are typically sparsely populated, pose minimal security risks, and limit rivals’ strategic options. This strategy minimizes administrative burdens while maximizing security interests. From this perspective, the number of regions of interest to the U.S. is limited.
U.S. strategic priorities
The U.S. already controls several strategically significant territories in the Pacific. Territories like the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, and American Samoa, acquired during the 19th century and World War II, are crucial for U.S. security, military bases, and control of Asia-Pacific sea routes.
If the U.S. seeks to extend its influence in Africa, small island states such as São Tomé and Príncipe could become strategic focal points. São Tomé, with its population of 200,000 and advantageous location, provides access to West Africa, offering potential military and logistical superiority across a wide region stretching from South Africa to Senegal.
Similarly, Yemeni islands like Socotra are strategically significant. Socotra’s location provides access to the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea, and the eastern coast of Africa. However, seizing such islands would require a long-term U.S. commitment to Africa, a strategy historically avoided by American administrations.
New trade routes
Regions like Panama and Greenland, which Trump has highlighted, could impose significant administrative and infrastructural burdens on the U.S.
For example, while the Panama Canal holds immense strategic value, Panama’s large population and social challenges, including drug trafficking, present administrative hurdles. With over 4 million people and persistent security concerns, direct control of Panama is unnecessary, especially since the U.S. already holds full transit rights and military privileges over the canal.
Greenland, by contrast, gains prominence due to the growing strategic importance of the Arctic. Melting glaciers are opening new trade routes, and Greenland’s control is key to leveraging these opportunities. However, its vast and challenging terrain makes complete control costly, despite its sparse population. Furthermore, Denmark, which currently governs Greenland, maintains a strong alliance with the U.S. and already fulfills American security demands there. Annexing Greenland could strain U.S.-Denmark relations and pose a diplomatic burden, making such a move impractical. Nonetheless, Trump appears to favor direct U.S. sovereignty over Greenland, citing economic justifications.
The future of American strategy
The current U.S. security strategy is based on indirect control mechanisms. Instead of direct territorial control, it seeks to minimise the costs and reactions of local populations by maintaining its influence in strategic regions in cooperation with allied countries. The adoption by the U.S. of an expansionist strategy based on territorial occupation will entail many risks. We hope that with Trump we have buckled up for a brave new world and identified the risks and opportunities for our country.
