When I first started writing for Pipe Dream in 2023, one of the first potential ideas I wanted to explore was the idea to unite Canada and the United States into a united North American state. There were interesting positions to explore, but the idea seemed too unrealistic and niche to be of any relevance to modern politics, and I shelved the article idea soon after. It seems ironic now that one of the key mainstream political issues at hand is precisely this idea, the only difference being that the hopes for democratic integration now seem to be overpowered by an irredentist posture against U.S. neighbors. Donald Trump’s rhetoric regarding the future of Canada and Greenland may appear powerful to his base but there are greater risks regarding the United States losing its diplomatic spheres of influence.
The desire to annex Greenland and the relevant strategic implications go a long way back in U.S. history. For the purposes of understanding the current situation, it is important to understand why Trump specifically wants to have Greenland. In a press conference reiterating this intention, he stated that Greenland ought to be taken over from Danish rule for the purpose of “protecting the free world,” which from the start is contradictory as Denmark is a NATO member and the United States already operates bases on Greenland that can be used in times of war. The more practical justification behind this move is likely the rich underground resources on the island, most of which are as of yet untapped but highly desirable for the production of advanced weaponry and equipment.
The same dynamic may easily apply to Trump’s repeated claims about the need to add Canada as the “51st state.” Setting aside all legal and logistical issues, the strategic reason behind such a sudden motivation is likely the broad range of natural resources Canada has for industrial manufacturing and production of specialized equipment. Trump’s own words point towards this being the truth, as he said that “economic force” will be used to integrate Canada, suggesting that subjugating the Canadian political and economic apparatus by pressuring the government in Ottawa might be the planned strategy. Nevertheless, the idea that the United States would openly pursue territorial claims is already an unsettling development, as it shows the readiness of the new political establishment to ignore concepts such as sovereignty and diplomacy to strengthen itself at the expense of its weaker neighbors.
As of me writing this article, there is no immediate military action taking place, and the whole issue is perceived internationally as both a concern and an exaggerated farce. Nevertheless, the long-term geopolitical damage may have already been done, and it may already be too late to salvage certain strengths of the United States’ foreign policy. Namely, open calls to violate Greenlandic or Danish sovereignty weaken the integrity and value of any alliance the United States is in or can join in the future.
There is nothing to suggest that the United States won’t also come after Svalbard, Okinawa or perhaps the islands in the Caribbean with the same pretext of “defense implications,” which would certainly turn the United States into an untrustworthy country. Such a scenario is the ultimate nightmare of any foreign policy official, as losing reputation by pursuing irredentism often turns nations into pariah states, as happened with Nazi Germany, Napoleonic France and Ba’athist Iraq. Recent claims over Canada and Greenland mimic the territorial pursuits of these examples from history — their revanchism and aggression led to their isolation from the rest of the world and their eventual demise. The U.S. is now following the exact same patterns through irredentist aggression, which can lead to geopolitical damage it may never recover from.
However even more concerning than the United States losing prestige abroad is the concern that it may lose strength at home, as annexing Canada through pressure could expose the worst weaknesses of the American political system. Canada’s political culture emanates from British laws and involves a highly evolved parliamentary system. Similarly, Canadian culture and civil society are fundamentally different from the United States in that functions, such as taxation, welfare and representation, occur in ways very different from the American model. Among Canadians, unification is already an overwhelmingly unpopular idea, according to polls. A “fait accompli” annexation, that is, a move to incorporate Canada without public support, would only make the United States inherit the discontent of 36 million people and an unresolvable internal divide. This is even before we mention the problems that would arise from taxation, administration, education and Québec, but the main problem would be that maintaining unity would be nigh impossible.
The United States simply cannot function as a global power without the alliances and networks it forges with other nations. Territorial pursuits go directly against this philosophy and carry the immediate risk of political isolation through the severing of ties and the economic downturn as a result of more trade wars with antagonized countries. The only thing becoming bigger from such a move would be the name “United States of America” appearing in a larger font on a map — everything else about this country is instead bound to become weaker and more impotent. Precisely for these reasons, arrogant territorial ambitions must be put aside to prevent the United States from tarnishing its international position completely.
Deniz Gulay is a sophomore majoring in history and Russian.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.