SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
imperialism
Trump Adviser Admits Seizing Greenland Is About Fossil Fuels, Raw Imperialism
"It's oil and gas. It's our national security. It's critical minerals," the next national security adviser told a Fox News host.
Jan 09, 2025
Amid mounting fears over U.S. President Donald Trump's interest in purchasing or potentially even invading the Danish territory Greenland, his incoming national security adviser made the reasons why quite clear in a Wednesday interview on Fox News.
Speaking with Fox host Jesse Watters about Trump's recent comments on Greenland, Congressman Mike Waltz (R-Fla.), his incoming national security adviser, expanded on the president-elect's Tuesday declaration that Denmark should give the autonomous island northeast of Canada to the United States "because we need it for national security."
Walz said that "this is not just about Greenland. This is about the Arctic. You have Russia that is trying to become king of the Arctic with 60-plus icebreakers, some of them nuclear-powered. Do you know how many we have, Jesse? We have two, and one just caught on fire. This is about critical minerals. This is about natural resources. This is about, as the polar ice caps pull back, the Chinese are now cranking out icebreakers and pushing up there as well. So, it's oil and gas. It's our national security. It's critical minerals."
"And Denmark can be a great ally, but you can't treat Greenland—which they have operational control over—as some kind of backwater. It's in the Western Hemisphere, multiple presidents have tried to bring it into our sphere," Waltz continued, noting Donald Trump Jr.'s personal trip to the island on Tuesday. "As you just saw from Don Jr. landing up there, that people of Greenland, all 56,000 of them, are excited about the prospect of making the Western Hemisphere great again."
Rather than acknowledging Greenland residents' concerns about and opposition to Trump's recent interest—positions echoed by Danish and other European leaders—Watters expressed that, if he lived there, he would prefer to be "on the American side of things" rather than affiliated with Denmark, then refocused on the discussion of natural resources.
Waltz told him that "you're starting to see shipping lanes and shipping coming across the North side, the famous Northwest Passage. That all has to be secured, Jesse. And right now we don't have a single base in the North side of Alaska and we need the Canadians to step up. They're next to last in NATO defense spending."
The Trump adviser also tied the president-elect's desire to take over Greenland to some of his other proposals, such as designating Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations, reclaiming the Panama Canal—possibly by force—and renaming the Gulf of Mexico. Waltz did not mention Trump's pitch to make Canada, whose prime minister just announced his resignation, the 51st state.
"So this is about reintroducing America in the Western Hemisphere, whether that is taking on the cartels, the Panama Canal, Greenland, the 'Gulf of America'—which I love, I'm waiting to see the maps redrawn," Waltz said. "You can call it Monroe Doctrine 2.0, but this is all part of the America First agenda and it's been ignored for far too long."
"Call It Monroe Doctrine 2.0" - Trump National Security Advisor Mike Waltz on Greenland and Panama Canal
Read his full comments - https://t.co/OURdqs2A3r
"The famous Northwest Passage has to be secured... taking on the Mexican cartels, the Panama Canal, Greenland... You can… pic.twitter.com/y3uyuP23Og
— RCP Video (@rcpvideo) January 9, 2025
While Trump and his allies promote a fresh wave of imperialism ahead of the January 20 inauguration, others are highlighting its connections to U.S. history—including political economist C.J. Polychroniou, who addressed how "Trump's second administration seems set on advancing a new version of Manifest Destiny" in a Thursday opinion piece for Common Dreams.
"Imperialism seems to be Trump's new theme, but his overall vision of power is reminiscent of U.S. imperialist attitudes of the 19th century. He seems to believe that territorial expansion of the boundaries of the United States would make the country safer, stronger, and more prosperous," Polychroniou wrote. "Of course, this could all just be a symptom of Trump's arrogance and ignorance, but there can be no denying that imperialism is embedded in U.S. political culture. The U.S. has been preparing for a future global conflict for quite some time now, first with Russia and then with China."
"The truth is that U.S. imperialism never died," Polychroniou stressed, pointing to the nation's massive military budget and hundreds of bases around the world. "Of course, imperialism has taken new forms in the 21st century and the dynamics of exploitation have changed. But imperialism is still about world hegemony and a struggle for the control of strategic resources."
"The U.S. continues to exercise imperial power by using all its available tools and weapons to make the world conform to its own whims and wants as it tries to shore up its declining economic dominance," he added. "But with Trump's return to the White House, and armed as he appears to be with a new version of Manifest Destiny, U.S. imperialism may become more aggressive and even more dangerous to world peace. If that turns out to be the case, the world is headed for an even more violent future."
In a Thursday piece for The Nation also exploring Greenland's "strategically significant" location and the global superpowers vying for more regional control, national affairs correspondent John Nichols highlighted that Greenland Prime Minister Múte Egede of the democratic socialist Inuit Ataqatigiit party and Erik Jensen, leader of the social democratic Siumut movement, have both responded to Trump's comments by emphasizing that their territory "is not for sale."
As Nichols detailed:
Both Inuit Ataqatigiit and Siumut favor independence for the island, which is now a self-governing territory of the Kingdom of Denmark. Eighty percent of the votes in Greenland's 2021 election were cast for pro-independence parties. And Egede now says: "The history and current conditions have shown that our cooperation with the Kingdom of Denmark has not succeeded in creating full equality. It is now time for our country to take the next step."
The goal, explains the prime minister, is to "remove the shackles of colonialism."
"Work has already begun on creating the framework for Greenland as an independent state," according to Egede, who signaled in his New Year's address that a referendum could be held as soon as this year.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Imperialism Atop Western Warmongering
The hypocrisy of the so-called "highly-developed" or "rule-of-law" democracies knows no bounds.
Jan 09, 2025
Conflicts across the world’s regions experienced a further surge in 2024, according to data provided by Armed Conflict Locations & Event Data (ACLED)—an independent, international non-profit organization that collects data on real time on locations, actors, fatalities, and types of all reported political violence and protest events around the world. While Ukraine and Gaza are considered the two major global hotspots of conflict, violence increased by 25 percent in 2024 compared to 2023 and conflict levels have experienced a two-fold increase over the past five years, according to ACLED. The intensity and human toll of armed conflicts are also on the rise as more civilians are exposed to violence and the number of actors involved in violence is proliferating.
What is also noteworthy about the data on violence collected by ACLED is that neither democracy nor more development appears to constrain violence. In fact, the data collected by ACLED shows that countries with elections in 2024 experienced much higher rates of violence than countries without elections.
As militarism and warmongering are pushed to new heights, the rhetoric of peace also goes into full swing.
Speaking of electoral democracies, warmongering talk is also sharply on the increase in developed nations, courtesy of major leaders of the western world, and comes with a rising militarism. Mark Rutte, NATO’s recently appointed secretary-general, warned last month that “danger is moving toward us at full speech” and that the west must face the fact that “what is happening in Ukraine could happen here too.” He urged NATO to “shift to a wartime mindset” and implored the citizens of NATO countries to tell their banks and funds that “it is simply unacceptable that they refuse to invest in the defense industry.” UK’s prime minister Keir Starmer has zealously endorsed the widening of NATO’s war against Russia and recently gave Ukraine permission to use Storm Shadow cruise missiles inside Russia. And Joe Biden delivered a warmongering rant at his final address to the United Nations (UN) General Assembly on September 24, 2024, urging an expansion of alliances against Russia and China and threatening Iran.
Warmongering is a constant element in the never ending obsession of U.S. presidents since the end of the Second World War to pursue a policy of what Andrew Bacevich described a few years ago as “militarized hegemony until the end of time.” Indeed, since the breakout of the Ukraine conflict, Washington has been more than eager to wage a proxy war against Russia while the U.S.-led western military bloc (NATO) has increased its military presence in the eastern part of the Alliance, seeks to expand its southern flank to Africa and looks toward the Indo-Pacific as part of its global approach to security. Meanwhile, all major western states have been behind Israel in its destruction of Gaza, offering the Jewish state an extraordinary level of support (weapons, cash and political support) as it carries out war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Of course, as militarism and warmongering are pushed to new heights, the rhetoric of peace also goes into full swing. Western hypocrisy knows no bounds. Biden spoke of the need for a peaceful world in his final address to the UN although he has done everything in his power to prolong the war in Ukraine and ensure Gaza’s destruction. His administration has vowed to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian and has fueled Israel’s war in Gaza, making the U.S. complicit in war crimes in Gaza.
Geopolitical forecasts for 2025 are grim.
The Biden administration did very little to prevent Russia from invading Ukraine as it totally ignored the question of Ukraine’s membership into NATO and has denied massacres, genocide and ethnic cleansing taking place in Gaza by the Israel Defense Fores (IDF). In fact, Biden himself called the International Criminal Court’s decision to issue an arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu “outrageous.” The icing on the cake was when Biden’s Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, who will go down as the worse Secretary of State since World War II, had the audacity to write in a recent essay in Foreign Affairs that the United States is a country that, unlike Russia and China, seeks a “world where international law, including the core principles of the UN Charter, is upheld, and universal human rights are respected.”
Unsurprisingly, geopolitical forecasts for 2025 are grim. ACLED projects an annual increase of 20 percent in levels of violence in 2025. And then there is Trump’s return to the White House which surely adds another layer of unpredictability to an already volatile and highly dangerous world.
Imperialism is still about world hegemony and a struggle for the control of strategic resources.
Trump’s second administration seems set on advancing a new version of Manifest Destiny with threats of retaking the Panama Canal, which the U.S. ceded to Panama in 1999, forcibly buying Greenland, which is controlled by Denmark, and calling Canada “the 51st State,” a remark he repeated shortly after Justin Trudeau’s resignation.
Imperialism seems to be Trump’s new theme, but his overall vision of power is reminiscent of U.S. imperialist attitudes of the 19th century. He seems to believe that territorial expansion of the boundaries of the United States would make the country safer, stronger, and more prosperous. Of course, this could all just be a symptom of Trump’s arrogance and ignorance, but there can be no denying that imperialism is embedded in U.S. political culture. The U.S. has been preparing for a future global conflict for quite some time now, first with Russia and then with China.
Imperialism seems to be Trump’s new theme, but his overall vision of power is reminiscent of U.S. imperialist attitudes of the 19th century.
The U.S. set the theater for a conflict with Russia by orchestrating the 2014 coup in Ukraine, treating the country in turn as a NATO ally in all but name and subsequently engaging in military provocations with the hope of inducing Russia to embark on a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which finally occurred on February 24, 2022. And it has been following the same scenario in the Asia-Pacific region by making Taiwan and the South China Sea the fuse for conflict.
The truth is that U.S. imperialism never died. And how could it when the U.S. still maintains around 750 military bases in at least 80 countries and territories (U.S. bases represent over 90 percent of the world’s foreign bases) and spends more on defense than the next nine countries combined, which include major powers such as China, Russia, India, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom? There are more active-duty U.S. Air Force personnel in Britain than in 40 U.S. states.
Of course, imperialism has taken new forms in the 21st century and the dynamics of exploitation have changed. But imperialism is still about world hegemony and a struggle for the control of strategic resources. Military and economic/natural resource interests are interrelated, and the major capitalist states are all caught in an inescapable struggle for survival, power, and prestige. In its turn, the U.S. continues to exercise imperial power by using all its available tools and weapons to make the world conform to its own whims and wants as it tries to shore up its declining economic dominance. But with Trump’s return to the White House, and armed as he appears to be with a new version of Manifest Destiny, U.S. imperialism may become more aggressive and even more dangerous to world peace. If that turns out to be the case, the world is headed for an even more violent future.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Panama Canal and the Mistreated Treaties
On December 22, 2024, the elected president of the United States, Donald Trump, announced that he would demand that Panama "give him back the canal."
Dec 23, 2024
Washington, D.C. January 22, 1903—Secretary of State John Hay and the Colombian commercial attaché in the United States, Tomás Herrán, signed the treaty that would give the United States the right to resume construction of the Panama Canal that the French had abandoned when they were almost halfway done. Colombia would agree to cede a strip of land on its isthmus to the United States for 100 years in exchange for ten million in a single payment and $250,000 per year. A few miles off the coast of Panama, the warship Wisconsin remains stranded to provide moral support for the negotiations.
Congress in Washington immediately approved the treaty, but it was rejected in Bogotá. There were doubts about sovereignty and about the benefits derived from this agreement. Mathematics, also practiced in that country, said that it would take the Colombian people 120 years to receive the same compensation that had been offered to be paid in one lump sum to the New Panama Canal Co.
On April 15, the United States envoy, Mr. Beaupre, sent a telegram to the secretary of state about the mood of the Colombian people: “There is at least one clear fact. If the treaty were put to the free consideration of the people, it would not be approved.” The Colombian Senate voted unanimously against its ratification.
Without ever having set foot outside his country, on August 27, President Theo Roosevelt wrote three letters describing the Colombians as “ignorant,” “greedy,” “despicable little men,” and “corrupting idiots and murderers.” Also, “I could never respect a country full of that kind of people… Trying to deal with Colombia as one deals with Switzerland, Belgium, or Holland is simply absurd.” Days later, he sends some packages with dollars to organize a revolt that will be called Revolution.
Problem solved. On November 18, the Hay-Bunau-Varilla treaty was signed in Washington, by which “the United States guarantees the freedom of Panama” in exchange for Panama ceding authority and all rights over the canal, free of any tax. As usual, the Panamanians were not invited to sign the new treaty. The $250,000 annually previously offered to Colombia would not be paid until a decade after the canal’s opening. There is nothing like having a powerful navy to do good business. The previous Treaty of Peace and Commerce signed by Colombia and the United States in 1846 was also violated. As in Cuba, as in Puerto Rico, article, now article 136 assured Washington the power to intervene in any inconvenient situation. Still, rebellions are symbolic. Washington has decreed that citizens of that country cannot acquire weapons. Imperial practice is old: Treaties are signed so the weak will comply.
In the United States, voices are raised against what several congressmen call dishonesty and imperialism. Sen. Edward Carmack protests, “The idea of a revolution in Panama is a crude lie; the only man who took up arms was our president.” Sen. George Frisbie Hoar, a member of the commission investigating the war crimes that will go unpunished in the Philippines, rejects the versions about the Revolution in Panama and adds, “I hope not to live long enough to see the day when the interests of my country are put above its honor.”
Of course, this matter of honor can be fixed. The president resorts to the old resource of “we were attacked first.” As President James Polk did to justify the invasion of Mexico in 1846 or President William McKinley to occupy Cuba in 1898, Roosevelt invents a story about threats to the security of certain American citizens in the area. Like Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, when he denied in front of television cameras any involvement in the military coup in Chile in 1973, Roosevelt assured Congress and the public that Washington was not involved in the Revolution in Panama. On December 6, 1904, he gave a speech before Congress on the need to once again expand the Monroe Doctrine “to see our neighbors stable, orderly, and prosperous.” Otherwise, “intervention by a civilized nation will be necessary… The United States must, whether it wants to or not, intervene to solve any serious problem by exercising the power of international police.”
In 1906, Roosevelt visited the construction sites in Panama. He would be the first American president to dare to leave his country. On board, the USS Louisiana, Roosevelt wrote to his son Kermit, “With admirable energy, men, and machines work together; the whites supervise the construction sites and operate the machines while tens of thousands of blacks do the hard work where it is not worth the trouble to use machines.”
Despite the hard work of Panamanians, they are portrayed as lazy. Journalist Richard Harding Davis had already echoed the sentiment of the time: “[Panama] has fertile lands, iron, and gold, but it has been cursed by God with lazy people and corrupt men who govern it… These people are a menace and an insult to civilization.”
In 1909, the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, based on Roosevelt’s boastful statements to a class at a California university, investigated “the unilateral decision of a former president to take Panama from the Republic of Colombia without consulting Congress.” Considering Colombia’s requests to The Hague, the commission will question different protagonists. On November 6, 1903, three days after the revolution in Panama, the State Department sent a cable to its consul in Colombia informing that “the people of Panama, apparently unanimously, have resolved to dissolve their ties with the Republic of Colombia.”
Congressman Henry Thomas Rainey reads the cable from Washington in Congress. Rainey clarifies: “I do not believe any of this is true… When the Revolution occurred, only 10 or 12 rebels knew of the plans, apart from the Panama Railroad and Steamship Co. managers.”
It would be necessary to wait until 1977 when President Jimmy Carter’s government signed an agreement that the United States would return the canal to Central American country on the last day of 1999, three years before the mandatory rental period expired. A year earlier, at an event in Texas, the former governor of California and future president, Ronald Reagan, would declare: “It does not matter which ram dictator is in power in Panama. We built it! We paid for the canal! It’s ours, and we’re going to keep it.”
Omar Torrijos will be the dictator Reagan alluded to. Torrijos will claim sovereignty over the canal and will die, like other rebel leaders from the south, in a plane crash.
Imperialism is a disease that not only kills those who resist it but also does not let those who carry it inside live.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular