The recent diplomatic standoff between the United States and Colombia, triggered by the U.S.’s deportation of Colombian citizens on military aircraft and in handcuffs, serves as a microcosm of the Trump administration’s aggressive and uncompromising foreign policy approach. Colombian President Gustavo Petro, deeming the deportations humiliating, initially refused landing permission for the U.S. planes. This act of defiance, however, quickly backfired. Trump, seizing the opportunity to flex his political muscle, retaliated with swift and severe economic sanctions, including a 25% tariff on all Colombian exports to the U.S. and a travel ban on Colombian citizens, with the threat of escalating the tariffs to a crippling 50% within a week. Faced with the potential devastation of his nation’s economy, Petro was forced to capitulate, highlighting the vulnerability of smaller nations against the economic might of the United States under Trump’s leadership.
This incident transcends a simple bilateral dispute. It underscores Trump’s broader strategy of utilizing economic and political pressure to achieve his foreign policy objectives, a strategy reminiscent of past eras of great power politics. The episode serves as a stark warning to other nations currently in Trump’s crosshairs – Denmark, Panama, and Canada – all countries whose territories have become subject to Trump’s acquisitive ambitions. The pattern is clear: Trump makes a demand, often outlandish, then backs it up with threats of economic or political repercussions. This approach, characterized by a disregard for traditional diplomatic protocols, raises concerns about the stability of international relations and the potential for escalating tensions.
Denmark finds itself embroiled in a similar power struggle with Trump over Greenland. Despite repeated assertions from Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen that Greenland is not for sale, Trump remains undeterred, even resorting to veiled military threats. Frederiksen’s attempts to navigate the situation diplomatically, offering increased economic cooperation, have been met with continued pressure from Trump, who reiterated his threats in a recent heated phone conversation. This underscores Trump’s seeming disregard for diplomacy, preferring a confrontational approach that leaves little room for negotiation. This “take it or leave it” stance, backed by the implied threat of American power, places smaller nations like Denmark in a precarious position.
Panama faces a comparable predicament regarding the Panama Canal. President José Raúl Molino has unequivocally stated that Panama will never relinquish control of the canal. However, the impending visit of Trump’s Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, to Panama City, likely carrying a reiteration of U.S. demands and associated threats, signals the escalating pressure on Panama. The parallels with the Colombian situation are evident: a smaller nation facing an aggressive demand from the U.S. backed by implicit threats of economic or political retaliation. This pattern suggests a deliberate strategy on the part of the Trump administration to utilize its economic and political leverage to reshape the international landscape to its advantage.
The underlying principle driving Trump’s foreign policy appears to be a revival of “might makes right,” a philosophy that prioritizes the interests of the powerful over international norms and cooperation. This approach echoes historical precedents of powerful nations imposing their will on weaker ones, such as Hitler’s annexation of Czechoslovakia or Russia’s invasion of Georgia. Under Trump, diplomacy and negotiation seem to have taken a backseat to unilateral demands and coercive tactics. The Colombia incident, with its rapid escalation from a diplomatic disagreement to economic sanctions, exemplifies this approach. The absence of consultation with the State Department or the National Security Council further underscores the centralized nature of Trump’s foreign policy decision-making, adding an element of unpredictability to international relations.
The question remains: how should other nations respond to this aggressive posture? Former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien provides a potential model. In response to Trump’s suggestion that Canada could become the “51st state,” Chrétien penned a public letter urging Trump to reconsider his approach. He further proposed a summit between the leaders of Canada, Denmark, Panama, and the EU Commission President to coordinate a collective response to Trump’s bullying tactics. This suggests that a unified front, presenting a combined economic and political weight, might be the most effective strategy to counter Trump’s aggressive unilateralism. Whether such a coalition can be effectively forged remains to be seen, but the increasing number of nations facing Trump’s demands creates a potential common ground for resistance. The challenge lies in balancing the need to defend national sovereignty with the desire to avoid escalating tensions and maintaining crucial economic and political relationships with the United States.
