Understanding Trump’s Greenland Comment: Concerns Over China’s and Russia’s Expanding Influence

WASHINGTON—Comments made recently by President-elect Donald Trump regarding the possible use of military or economic actions to exert control over Greenland have raised international alarm. While many perceive his statements as extreme, there exists a longstanding agreement among U.S. national security experts that the increasing presence of China and Russia in the Arctic is troubling and requires urgent attention.

Trump has previously expressed similar concerns about the Panama Canal, voicing his dissatisfaction with the increasing dominance of Chinese state-owned enterprises in its management.

“I’m not going to commit to that,” Trump mentioned on January 7 when asked if he would dismiss the use of military or economic pressure regarding both Greenland and the Panama Canal.

His remarks made during a press conference at his Mar-a-Lago estate left many journalists confused, leading to several follow-up inquiries for clarification.

He underscored that the United States needs both areas for economic and national security considerations.

According to Michael Walsh, a U.S. foreign policy expert, one unintended benefit of Trump’s rhetoric is that it fosters public dialogue on issues that are usually dealt with privately, as he conveyed to The Epoch Times.

Related Stories

“It stirs discussion and debate. And you’re seeing that right now. You hear people on the metro talking about Greenland and Panama,” Walsh stated.

Many observers are left wondering if Trump genuinely considers using military action or if his remarks were merely a negotiation strategy aimed at altering the current dynamics in each area.

“It could be a negotiating tactic—who knows?” Walsh added.

Nevertheless, he stressed the importance of understanding the context for the public to accurately interpret Trump’s statements.

“One of the issues in this entire discussion is that many people do not comprehend the context. Even most political figures do not grasp the context,” he noted, referencing the increasing risks surrounding Greenland, the world’s largest island.

Walsh, who served as an advisor for President Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign focusing on Asia-Pacific security issues, underscored U.S. apprehensions regarding the potential independence of Greenland and the Faroe Islands—two self-governing territories of Denmark.

While Trump has predominantly centered his comments on Greenland, the U.S. has been attentive to the situation in both territories, according to him.

During Trump’s initial term, the State Department sought to strengthen ties with both islands to mitigate Russian and Chinese actions in the Arctic. These concerns continued into Biden’s administration, which unveiled an Arctic strategy in 2022 aimed at countering rising competition, particularly concerning China’s “Polar Silk Road.” Walsh pointed out that both administrations hold similar assessments regarding the threats in the region.

“There’s not much difference between the two administrations when it comes to assessing the risks in the region,” Walsh stated.

Even with Denmark being a close NATO ally, the U.S. fears that Denmark’s control over these islands might diminish if they pursue independence.

Over the last eight years, risks have amplified, influenced partly by internal political dynamics in Denmark regarding the islands.

“The U.S. and Denmark have enjoyed a long-standing partnership, which has functioned effectively,” Walsh remarked. “The concern is that if they attain independence, they may not remain a partner of the United States regarding Greenland or the Faroe Islands.”

Danish Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen stated on January 8 that while Greenland might pursue independence, it is improbable to become a U.S. state.

“We completely acknowledge that Greenland has its own aspirations. Should they materialize, Greenland will gain independence, although it’s unlikely to aim for becoming a federal state within the U.S.,” Rasmussen mentioned.

On January 8, the Greenland government also reacted to Trump’s remarks, asserting that “Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders” and that its future will be determined by its own residents.

However, Greenland expressed interest in enhancing ties with the United States, especially regarding economic cooperation, mining, and the development of its mineral resources. Greenland also reiterated its commitment to collaborating with the United States and NATO allies to ensure security and stability in the Arctic, especially considering the shifting political dynamics in the area.

“The Cabinet is eager to foster relations with President-elect Donald Trump and his administration,” the statement outlined.

Competition in the Arctic

In recent years, China has been aggressively advancing its commercial and military capabilities in the Arctic, with Russian and Chinese naval fleets increasingly operating in tandem in the region.

“Greenland’s significance arises from the increasing importance of the Arctic itself,” said Gordon Chang, political analyst and China specialist, in an interview with The Epoch Times. “Both China and Russia are aiming to dominate the Arctic.”

The region proved crucial during the Cold War due to its strategic sea routes in the Atlantic, yet post-Cold War, many have disregarded their significance, Chang concluded.

Global warming has led to heightened activity in the Arctic, likely escalating competition and tensions in the region, as highlighted in a July report by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

The CSIS report, referencing estimates from the U.S. Geological Survey from 2008, spotlighted the vast resources of the region, which include approximately 90 billion barrels of oil and 1,669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, representing about 22 percent of the world’s undiscovered conventional oil and natural gas.

The Arctic also harbors trillions of dollars worth of minerals, including silver, copper, gold, nickel, iron ore, and rare earth elements.

Additionaly, Greenland hosts a significant U.S. military base equipped with missile warning and space-surveillance systems.

Chang disagrees with Trump’s proposal for military intervention in Greenland, emphasizing that no justification exists for such action.

While the global landscape is not peaceful, particularly with both Russia and China employing force, he cautioned that Trump’s remarks might incite increased aggression worldwide.

Rep. Mike Waltz (R-Fla.), who is set to serve as Trump’s national security adviser, defended Trump’s comments on Greenland.

“This concerns critical minerals and natural resources,” he relayed to Fox News on January 8. “The Chinese are ramping up their icebreaker production and heading into the region. It involves oil and gas, tied directly to our national security.”

The Russian “50 Years of Victory” nuclear-powered icebreaker is seen at the North Pole on Aug. 18, 2021. Ekaterina
Anisimova/AFP via Getty Images

Biden has thus far refrained from commenting on Trump’s remarks.

During a press briefing on January 8, John Kirby, spokesperson for the National Security Council, opted not to provide a direct response and instead referred to statements made by foreign officials.

“It wouldn’t be appropriate for us to weigh in and pass judgment,” he remarked, choosing a more measured tone rather than denouncing Trump’s commentary about allies.

China’s Dual-Use Infrastructure

During his January 8 visit to Capitol Hill, reporters again questioned Trump concerning the potential military action in Greenland. In response, he alluded to a recent visit to Greenland by his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr.

“We received applause upon our arrival yesterday,” the president-elect recounted, describing the reception as “like a love fest.”

Trump Jr. took a day trip to Greenland on January 7, reportedly for videography purposes linked to podcasting.

Trump reiterated his discontent with the high fees imposed by Panama on the United States and its navy, especially in light of the fact that the United States originally built the Panama Canal. He also made clear that he would not permit China to gain control of this strategically essential channel.

Chinese firms, such as Landbridge Group and Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison Holdings, currently operate terminals at both ends of the canal.

Trump’s remarks regarding the Panama Canal reflect escalating concern among U.S. lawmakers about China’s increasing influence in Latin America. The State Department warned in 2022 that Beijing’s acquisition of technologies, facilities, and infrastructure in Latin America may serve dual purposes.

General Laura Richardson, who previously led the U.S. Southern Command, voiced worries in July 2022 about Chinese state-owned entities managing ports adjacent to the Panama Canal, suggesting that these facilities could be repurposed for military intents.

“We should be cautious, but this is a wide-ranging issue,” she remarked at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado.

“This mirrors the same tactics they have employed in Africa, Asia, and Europe; it’s nothing new.”

In his posts on social media, Trump expressed frustration with China’s encroaching influence over the canal, noting that it was constructed by the U.S. over a century ago at significant financial and human cost.

“Merry Christmas to all, including the amazing Chinese soldiers, who are lovingly yet illegally operating the Panama Canal … consistently ensuring that the United States pours billions into ‘repair’ funds, while remaining silent about ‘anything’,” Trump wrote on December 25, discussing the Chinese regime’s extensive influence over the waterway.

“I’m pleased President Trump brought this issue to light because the Chinese have the capability to blockade the canal in the event of conflict,” Chang expressed.

The Panama Canal, inaugurated in 1914 after a decade of construction spearheaded by the U.S., was gradually returned to Panama under a treaty signed by President Jimmy Carter in 1977.

In 1999, Panama assumed complete control over the canal, which has since become one of the world’s busiest shipping routes, bridging the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. On December 31, Panama marked the 25th anniversary of the canal’s handover.

Under the 1977 Neutrality Treaty, the U.S. and Panama agreed that the canal would remain perpetually neutral, ensuring equal access and tolls for all nations. Therefore, any challenge by China to this agreement might necessitate U.S. military intervention.

“The Panama Canal is essential to our nation. It’s controlled by China. We transferred management of the canal to Panama, not China, and they have exploited it. They’ve misused that benefit,” Trump stated during his January 7 press conference.

Democratic Criticism

During his press conference, Trump also proposed renaming the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America,” expressing dissatisfaction with Mexico regarding migrants.

However, numerous Democrats have condemned these remarks, characterizing them as distractions.

“House Democrats believe we were not sent to Washington to invade Greenland, rename the Gulf of Mexico, or forcibly seize the Panama Canal,” stated House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) during a January 8 press conference. He emphasized that their main priority is addressing rising costs for American families.

In an interview with CNN on the same day, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) criticized Trump’s comments on the Panama Canal and Greenland, asserting that the U.S. has historically respected other nations’ sovereignty. She noted that these remarks served as a distraction from his controversial appointments including Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) echoed similar sentiments, framing Trump’s comments as an attempt to divert attention from his tax cuts.

Previous Military Intervention

If Trump opts for military force to uphold the neutrality agreement, it would not mark the first instance of U.S. intervention in Panama.

Retired Lieutenant-General Keith Kellogg, designated to serve as Trump’s special envoy for Ukraine and Russia, stated he had commanded an assault brigade during the 1989 invasion of Panama under President George H. W. Bush, aimed at deposing Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega.

“We actually reclaimed the Panama Canal back in the late 80s during Operation Just Cause and returned it to them three weeks later,” Kellogg informed Fox News on January 8.

“I believe his point regarding the Chinese operating the canal is valid,” Kellogg said. He noted that over 70 percent of the commerce passing through the canal is American, emphasizing, “It is vital to our national interests that the canal remains sovereign.”