At the beginning of the new year, the elected president of the United States and Republican Donald Trump, who is about to enter the White House for the second time, has frequently made wild remarks, coveting the territory and sovereignty of four countries. He has adopted a posture of “making America’s territory and sovereignty bigger,” creating unease among neighboring countries and stirring up widespread grievances. Trump has displayed an even more reckless and arbitrary bullying attitude compared to his first term. This behavior has not only shocked and annoyed allies and partners such as Canada, Mexico, Panama, and Denmark but has also embarrassed the outgoing Democratic administration, forcing it to respond through various channels to extinguish and sanitize his outrageous statements and actions.

Trump’s series of behaviors that lack the dignity of a major power leader and violate the norms of international relations reflect his extremely selfish “American exceptionalism” and “America first” hegemonic stance. These behaviors suggest that “Trump 2.0” will further disrupt the world order, international relations, and exacerbate competition and conflicts among major powers, accelerating the isolation of the United States and fueling global “anti-Americanism.”

On January 8 (Eastern Time), Trump ignored worldwide condemnation and deep concerns by posting a so-called “new map” on his social media platform. This map integrated the United States, Canada, Greenland (Denmark), and even parts of Mexico and Central America into a single entity, marked in yellow, erasing national borders. The Gulf of Mexico appeared more like an inland sea within this super-sized yellow territory. Although Trump did not add any text annotation, it was immediately clear to people that this represented Trump’s vision of a new continent and a new world map—his publicly touted “new version of the U.S. administrative map.”

On January 7, Trump had released a yellow North American map combining the United States and Canada into one, with the words “UNITED STATES” prominently covering nearly the entire North American continent. On the same day, Trump explicitly stated during a press Q&A that he would not rule out using “military or economic coercion” to gain control of the Panama Canal and Greenland. He proposed renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America,” claiming “the name sounds beautiful.”

Trump’s idea of bringing Greenland and the Panama Canal under U.S. control is not new, dating back to his first term or even earlier. It reflects his traditional hegemonic thinking and strategic insecurity, willing to control all international waterways to “make America great again.” His reasoning is the fear that these two strategically significant shipping chokepoints could fall into the hands of China or Russia, while he also covets Greenland’s rare earth resources. Essentially, this stems from a “declining hegemony syndrome” and an upgraded version of the “China threat theory,” further straining relations between China, Russia, and related countries.

Trump’s obsession with Greenland has long been evident, and it is difficult to distinguish whether it is driven by his desire for U.S. hegemony or personal wealth. This also exposes the hypocrisy of his denial of global warming and opposition to carbon emission controls. It shows that he is fully aware of the prospects and reality of global warming, Arctic ice melting, and the changing pattern of global shipping routes caused by excessive carbon emissions.

Western media have revealed that Trump has long plotted to purchase Greenland. In 2019, Trump confirmed reports that he had been urging his aides to study how the United States could buy Greenland, calling the transaction “essentially a large real estate deal.” In 2020, the Trump administration reopened the U.S. consulate in Greenland to strengthen ties and expand influence. In summary, Greenland holds at least threefold strategic value for the United States: access to high-quality mineral resources, control of a military high ground, and dominance over the Arctic and Arctic shipping routes.

Located in northeastern North America and the Arctic Circle, Greenland is the world’s largest single island with a population of only 75,000. It has been a Danish autonomous territory since 1814, and it contains abundant mineral, natural gas, and oil resources. Of the 34 “critical raw materials” identified by the European Commission as crucial for Europe’s future, 25 are found in Greenland. These include lithium and graphite, essential for manufacturing batteries, wind turbines, and electric vehicles, materials that are likely to be dominated by China in the future. Currently, global lithium production is concentrated in Australia, Chile, and China, while China controls 65% of graphite production capacity. Western experts argue that if the U.S. can control Greenland’s rare earth resources, it can completely isolate China from the “big walls and high gates” of Western technology and industry.

In the current era, where traditional fuel-powered vehicles are declining and competition in the new energy vehicle market is fierce, Trump and the American capital group behind him are as eager for Greenland as sharks smelling blood. They wish to immediately annex it to establish a competitive advantage for the United States over Europe and China in battery and electric vehicle manufacturing. This desire reflects not only Trump’s instinct as a businessman-turned-politician but also the driving force of capital expansion.

Greenland is home to the U.S.’s northernmost Thule Air Base, permanently hosting U.S. troops and a ballistic missile warning system. Through the 1951 Greenland Defense Agreement, the U.S. and Denmark established a bilateral, extensive defense cooperation relationship, granting the U.S. rights to possess and use bases on the island. Today, amid global reductions in U.S. military presence and increasing great-power competition, especially as Europe seeks greater independence and distances itself from transatlantic ties, firmly controlling Greenland allows the U.S. to better counter geographically advantaged Russia and a Europe striving for strategic autonomy, diplomatic independence, and military strength.

Greenland is also a “northern midway station” for the U.S., serving as a sea and air gateway to Europe. As climate change accelerates the melting of Arctic ice and glaciers, Arctic shipping routes are expected to become navigable year-round, providing a shorter route from American and West Pacific ports to Europe. Dubbed a “Cold Water Suez Canal,” its economic, military, and strategic value is undeniable. In recent years, Russia has intensified its development of Arctic shipping routes and port construction along these routes, while China proposed the “Ice Silk Road” in 2018, strengthening Sino-Russian cooperation. These developments have increased U.S. strategic anxiety and heightened the Trump administration’s desire for Greenland.

Trump even used China and Russia as “scarecrows” to alarm America’s European partners, claiming, “For national security reasons, we need Greenland. I’m talking about protecting the free world… There are Chinese ships everywhere, Russian ships everywhere. We won’t let this happen.” Hours before issuing his aggressive statement about Greenland, Trump even sent his son to visit the island—a clear sign of his urgency.

After his resurgence, Trump proposed that the U.S. must control the Panama Canal, echoing his aspirations for Greenland to secure U.S. interests. This move explicitly targets China and serves the U.S. national strategy of containing China’s normal development. Trump claimed, “The Panama Canal is crucial to the U.S., but it is now operated by China,” complaining that Panama “misused” the “gift” of the canal’s return, violated bilateral agreements, and charged U.S. ships “higher” tolls than those from other countries, subjecting the U.S. to unfair treatment. The Panamanian government has firmly rejected such accusations.

The Panama Canal, connecting the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean, was constructed by the U.S. between 1904 and 1914, significantly shortening shipping routes from Asia to U.S. East Coast ports. In the 1970s, the U.S. and Panama signed a treaty to ensure the canal’s permanent neutrality. In 1979, the U.S. handed over control of the canal to Panama. In 1999, U.S.-Panama cooperation ended, and the canal is now operated by a Hong Kong-based company. Trump’s allegations against the Chinese company managing the Panama Canal are part of his broader strategy of politicizing commercial cooperation and geopolitics, attempting to sow discord between China and Panama while leveraging geopolitical and commercial blackmail against both.

Trump’s recent display of expansionist ambitions and his unveiling of a “new map” of the United States have caused widespread panic. Western public opinion generally fears that the United States, already the fourth-largest country by land area in the world due to its military conquests, is attempting to return to the era of gunboat diplomacy and expand its territory through force and plunder. This could potentially rewrite the world’s geographic, geopolitical, and political map. In particular, Greenland, as an autonomous territory, theoretically and legally has the freedom to choose independence and sovereignty through a referendum. However, it has long been at odds with the central government, causing the Danish government to be especially alarmed by Trump’s remarks.

In 2009, Denmark and Greenland’s autonomous government reached an agreement stating that Greenland could only declare independence after holding a nationwide referendum. Greenland’s Prime Minister Múte Bourup Egede stated in this year’s New Year’s address: “Now is the time for our country to take the next step,” adding that Greenland should break free from the shackles of the colonial era and represent itself on the international stage. While Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen publicly opposed the U.S. using military force to control Greenland, he also stated that “everything should proceed with respect for the people of Greenland.” Analysts believe these remarks indicate that although Greenland is geographically and economically intertwined with Denmark, the possibility remains that the United States could leverage its status as the world’s sole superpower to pressure or entice Greenland into independence, or even to make it one of the United States’ federal states.

Given Trump’s aggressive posture toward Greenland and the potential risk of Greenland’s Inuit population seeking independence from colonial rule, Denmark has recently taken a series of measures to avoid the worst outcomes. Denmark’s Ministry of Defense announced the strengthening of Greenland’s military defenses and infrastructure, demonstrating its determination to safeguard Arctic territory and sovereignty. King Frederick X of Denmark made the first modification to Denmark’s national coat of arms since 1972, emphasizing and reinforcing the territorial sovereignty of Greenland and other regions.

The United States’ European allies have almost unanimously condemned Trump’s territorial ambitions regarding Greenland. They worry not only that Trump may use economic and military means to forcibly annex Greenland but also that, if the United States employs military force to seize the island, it could trigger NATO’s collective defense mechanism, set a precedent for NATO countries to invade other member states, and force the other 30 member states to defend Denmark, leading to a catastrophic “NATO civil war.”

Trump’s dangerous rhetoric has also created a diplomatic crisis for the outgoing Biden administration, shaking the transatlantic relations and alliance system that the Democratic Party has worked hard to maintain. U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken recently stated that Trump’s proposals are unrealistic and will not be implemented, emphasizing that the Biden administration believes close cooperation with allies yields better results than actions that may alienate them. The U.S. Embassy in Denmark declared on January 9 that there are no plans to increase the U.S. military presence in Greenland. On January 8, the U.S. Department of Defense also stressed that it is unaware of any plans to “invade” Greenland, stating that such scenarios are matters for the next administration to discuss.

Trump’s expansionist rhetoric has also caused significant distress to Canada and Mexico, demonstrating a bottomless disregard for political and diplomatic norms, akin to “even the fox preys nearest its home”. Trump has repeatedly claimed that Canada should become the “51st state” of the United States, even breaking diplomatic protocol by directly confronting visiting Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau, leaving him deeply embarrassed and provoking widespread outrage across Canada’s political spectrum. As for Trump’s provocation of renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the “American Gulf,” Mexican President Sheinbaum sharply responded, “Why can’t we call the United States ‘Mexican America’?” She displayed a 17th-century world map to the media, which not only clearly marked the “Gulf of Mexico,” a geographic name recognized by the United Nations, but also identified the current territory of the United States as “Mexican America.”

Observers believe that while Trump’s desire for control over Greenland and the Panama Canal seems genuine, his ambitions over Canada’s sovereignty and the Gulf of Mexico appear to be more of a high-pressure tactic—a “Trump-style” strategy to coerce the two countries into making more concessions on trade tariffs. From a broader perspective, however, Trump’s threats to control Greenland and the Panama Canal also serve as strategic blackmail against Europe, China, and even Russia. These moves aim to force the EU to make trade and industrial concessions to the United States; pressure NATO’s European partners to increase their defense budgets from the original 2% of GDP to 5%, thereby alleviating the U.S. burden; and compel China and Russia to acquiesce to the U.S. in great-power competition.

Considering the recent frequent public interventions in European domestic affairs by Trump’s close ally, Elon Musk, it is evident that the governance style of “Trump 2.0” would be even more bullying than his first term. This approach blatantly disregards international norms, diplomatic etiquette, and global order regulations, signaling that Trump’s next four years could bring endless troubles to the world and plunge the globe into a period of uncertainty and pervasive fear.

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.

The Lebanese Parliament elected Joseph Aoun as the new president. Since the term of former Lebanese president Michel Aoun expired in October 2022, no candidate had been agreed upon in parliament. Notably, the election of Michel Aoun also took more than two years.

Joseph Aoun, an army commander and member of the Free Patriotic Party, was once allied with former president Michel Aoun and his son-in-law, former foreign minister Jibran Bassil. However, he later became an independent political figure. Initially, his candidacy was rejected by Lebanon’s most influential Christian politicians, Jibran Bassil and Samir Geagea. Despite their reluctance, both eventually supported his candidacy. Notably, Jaca had ambitions to become president himself. According to the Lebanese National Accord, the president must be a Maronite Christian.

Political environment during the election process

This election underscores Lebanon’s complex and often contradictory political landscape. The new president, closely aligned with the United States and Washington’s strategic interests, benefitted significantly from international backing. Aoun’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia, where he met with the defense minister and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s brother, further strengthened his position. Divided Sunni factions also supported Aoun, largely in line with Saudi Arabia’s preferences.

International actors such as the United States, France, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia played crucial roles in the electoral process. This external involvement highlighted Lebanon’s enduring struggle for independence in its internal affairs. Ironically, parties identifying as ‘anti-Hezbollah’ celebrated this foreign intervention as a victory against Hezbollah, despite their rhetoric against external interference.

Suleiman Franjieh, leader of the Maronite Marada Movement, backed by Hezbollah and its ally Amal Movement, withdrew his candidacy in favor of Joseph Aoun to build broader consensus. Franjieh’s decision, made a day before the election, rendered Aoun’s victory a foregone conclusion.

Hezbollah’s resistance and strategic vision

Despite political attacks and betrayals, Hezbollah remains a formidable force in Lebanon. The group has consistently demonstrated its ability to adapt to adverse circumstances and execute complex political strategies.

As Hezbollah Secretary General Naim Qassem recently emphasized, Hezbollah’s approach extends beyond military resistance, encompassing a broader strategic vision shaped by evolving circumstances. Recognizing shifting power dynamics in the Middle East, Hezbollah continues to act in ways it perceives as protecting Lebanon’s interests.

Important questions for the future of Lebanon

Will the new president, Joseph Aoun, succumb to the influence of the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and their allies—key players in his election—or will he prioritize Lebanon’s sovereignty and internal stability?

Since the general elections in May 2022, Lebanon has yet to form a new government. The pre-election prime minister and cabinet remain in place on an interim basis. Aoun must now appoint a prime minister and assemble a government within Lebanon’s fractured political framework. This process is likely to face delays as factions vie for control over key ministries, potentially extending the tenure of the current interim government.

A crucial decision for the Lebanese Army is appointing Joseph Aoun’s successor as Chief of the General Staff. This choice will significantly impact internal security and the delicate balance between Western interests and Hezbollah. As the 60-day ceasefire with Israel nears its end, concerns are mounting over the Lebanese Army’s ability to maintain security alongside UNIFIL troops south of the Litani River. Per the National Accord, the Chief of General Staff must also be a Maronite Christian.

Why Joseph Aoun could be elected now?

Why did Aoun, whose election had been stalled for two years, finally secure the presidency? The primary reason lies in Hezbollah’s waning influence within Lebanon, the decline of the Assad regime, and the broader weakening of the resistance axis. A secondary factor is Lebanon’s dire need for international funding and support for reconstruction, particularly in southern regions, the Beqaa Valley, and Beirut, which were devastated by the recent war.

Had Hezbollah’s candidate, Suleiman Franjieh, or any other contender aligned with Hezbollah been elected, international aid would have been unlikely. Riyadh and Washington viewed this election as leverage. Without a president acceptable to the international community, financial support for Lebanon’s reconstruction was improbable. Additionally, with Assad’s regime weakened, Lebanon has devolved into an internally fragmented, institutionally bankrupt, and diplomatically isolated nation—a significant concern for regional powers.

Lebanon’s new president assumes office amidst deep political divisions and significant foreign interference. While his election signals a shift in the nation’s leadership dynamics, challenges remain. Forming a government, balancing domestic and international interests, and maintaining internal stability will test Joseph Aoun’s leadership. Ultimately, Lebanon’s future hinges on its leaders’ ability to transcend factionalism and prioritize national sovereignty and unity.