Donald Trump, a grand imagination, has built up a handful of controversial foreign policy goals right now as he looks ahead to what might be his second time occupying the nation’s highest office of president. His foreign policy proposals span a concrete renaming of the Gulf of Mexico, purchasing Greenland, invading Canada, and retaking the Panama Canal. Each of their proposals has the same treatment below-their purposes, advantages, and obstacles.
Rename the Gulf of Mexico to “Gulf of America.”
1,280 × 1,280Trump takes a step further, even suggesting renaming the Gulf of Mexico into the “Gulf of America” to apparently prop up a more prominent U.S. influence in the region. He contends that under such a change, as becoming a symbolic gesture, it would reaffirm “the American footprint in the Western Hemisphere” and “increase national pride.” Perhaps it can even become part of a strategic statement over emphasizing the American control over oceans, where maritime trade routes traverse billions of dollars in annual commerce.
However, such a name would entail a lot of hurdles. The current name is historic and legal names established by international agreements, and there would likely be diplomatic bouts over naming it unilaterally. Mexico has already objected vehemently, considering the proposals an affront to its sovereignty. Further afield, the international community could also see it as needless provocation, which could adversely affect the image and relationships of the United States in the region.
Acquisition of Greenland
Trump is interested in acquiring Greenland because, as he once characterized it, this “prime real estate” has its strategic and economic potential for him. Because Greenland lies in the Arctic, it opens the door to military operations, especially against a backdrop where global powers are measuring influence in the region. Greenland is rich in natural resources, including rare earth minerals, without which electronics, batteries, and defense technologies cannot be manufactured.
Nevertheless, it is almost impossible to buy Greenland. Denmark, which administers Greenland, deemed the proposal absurd, especially because it declared the self-governing status of the island with respect to determining the futures of its people. Therefore, enormous investments like these would require huge financial remittances and diplomatic efforts that might alienate allies in Europe. Additionally, the strained relations over geopolitical issues with Russia and China, both of which are having hungry aspirations in the Arctic, could be aggravated if the U.S. continues to pursue this plan in a more aggressive manner.
Annexation of Canada into the 51st State
Annexation of Canada into the United States can, by all means, be referred to as one of the boldest schemes among Trump’s many proposals. He contends that some financial strains-persistent tariffs on goods to and from Canada-will bring the North country knocking on America’s doors. If all goes well, the U.S. would also buy itself access to rich oil and timber resources, besides some of the largest sources of freshwater on the planet. Besides, a merging of the two would also create chances for trade and growth newly borne.
But the obstacles to execution are indeed overwhelming. Canada has a separate identity and has built a strong political system of independence. The Canadian populace and leaders have never expressed any interest in becoming a part of the United States, and an effort to try to annex them would constitute a clear breach of international law. This proposal would also most likely cause widespread condemnation by the world community and further isolate the US from its allies and trading partners.
Reclaiming Panama Canal
Trump has lately been casting criticism on Panama’s current ownership of the canal claiming that it belongs to the United States thus was supposed to retrieve this trade lifeline to be put under more efficient operating and guarding. The Panama Canal is one of the most important and busy shipping routes that span the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans making it easier for people to trade globally. Bringing it back would definitely be beneficial to American economic and strategic interests, according to Trump.
Yet returning the Panama canal is not that simple. The agreement signed decades earlier transferred the canal to Panama in 1999, and shifting this arrangement will demand heavy efforts in diplomacy. Any unilateral move to retake the canal could thus trigger strong opposition between Panama and other nations dependent on its functioning. Disruption of world supply chains would be caused by such a move, affecting the US with dire economic and political repercussions.
A broader range of implications of Trump’s foreign policy plans
At the beginning, these proposals raise significant questions about the motivation and timing of Trump and the plans’ wider impact on international relations. Indeed, why has he begun to push them now? Such initiatives may represent for Trump an effort to leave a legacy as a president who brought America’s strength and power into something that might be regarded as a new age. They also fall under his “America First” policy since they would focus on foreign dependency reduction and increase U.S. dominance over key assets.
But the reality that these proposals are put into practice is probably close to zero. Major hurdles abound for each proposal. The proposals have been rendered overwhelmingly unviable so far with international responses to them. Many leaders are already throwing the proposals into the basket of the impossible and potentially destabilizing. Pursuit of such goals is costly collateral damage in relations with important allies and undermines some efforts at global issues such as climate change, security, and trade.
Critics claim that they see in these ideas a rather naive grasp of international diplomacy, or governance for that matter. The execution of the plans will not only isolate the U.S. but also hurt its global reputation, and it will likely incur an economic and political backlash. Supporters, however, regard the initiative as a bold step to reaffirm America’s dominance at stake against the status quo.
Watch Report Here
Bold Vision or Unrealistic Ambition?
Trump’s foreign policy plans spell out the bold, grab-the-headlines ideas that he is so fond of. While there are theoretical benefits from such ideas, it is very doubtful whether any practical implementation will ever take place. They would interchange navigating serious legal, diplomatic, and logistical obstacles, and pursuing them could easily cause damage to close U.S. relationships with key allies and trading partners.
Findings bare crucial questions regarding the moderation between daring leadership and real bottom politics they engender. Whether they are real roadmaps for bending America’s will or trails left open for political posturing, they have set many tongues wagging about the history of U.S. foreign policy.
Affiliate
As political discussions evolve, many focus on the impact of early education (if you’re a parent, consider exploring resources like Lovevery’s educational toys
