A BOOST TO BULLIES EVERYWHERE?

Which is the real Trump? The one who talked cordially to Barack Obama at the Jimmy Carter funeral? Or the one who claims the right, should it seem necessary, to absorb Canada, Greenland and Panama into the U.S.? 

Rudeness at a televised funeral cannot benefit anyone interested in the public’s approval, i.e. it cannot benefit Trump. His civility towards Obama during that event made perfect sense. It could not, however, remove the fear that Trump’s return to the White House would provide a boost to bullies worldwide and of all ages, whether these bullies are located at the head of a nation, in a school’s playing fields, or anywhere else.

According to Dan Hamilton of Washington DC’s Brookings Institution (as quoted on NPR), much of Trump’s rhetoric on Greenland, Panama, and Canada was “bombast and bluster, a tried and true tactic — to sort of disorient your negotiating partner, put them on the back foot because you want to get a better deal for the real goals that you have.” 

And what are Trump’s “real goals”? We were told (also on NPR) that “in the case of Greenland and Panama” these goals include “keeping China and other potential adversaries at bay.” This would be a 21st century extension of the U.S.’s Monroe Doctrine of the 19th century, which required European powers to desist from interfering in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere.

STRATEGIC GREENLAND 

“We need Greenland for national security purposes,” Trump has said: “I'm talking about protecting the free world. You look at — you don't even need binoculars — you look outside. You have Chinese ships all over the place. You have Russian ships all over the place. We’re not letting that happen.” 

As ice caps shrink in the near future, and the Arctic gets warmer, global shipping in regions close to the North Pole would become viable. NPR quotes Brent Sadler of the Heritage Foundation as saying: “Geography really matters, and Greenland's geography is extremely strategic. We don’t want a Chinese economic or military presence right there at a very critical pathway for an attack against the United States.” 

Living as part of the kingdom of Denmark for more than two centuries, Greenland has enjoyed “home rule” or autonomy from 1979. It has also hosted a U.S. military presence from the time of World War II. Apart from wanting to strengthen that presence, Trump would like (says Hamilton) “better access for the United States” to “critical minerals” which Greenland possesses in substantial quantities. Other lands too, including China, are interested in these “rare earths” of Greenland. In fact, the tech industry worldwide is hungry for them. 

As for Panama, lying half a hemisphere south of Greenland, Beijing is an immediate factor there. Chinese companies are active, it seems, in running ports at both ends of the critical Panama Canal through which ships move between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. 

Asserting their independence, Panama’s leaders seem to have spoken out strongly against Trump’s threats and also reiterated their resolve to keep the canal open to all shipping. 

HEIGHTENED TENSIONS? 

It is clear that we should expect heightened tensions between a Trump administration and the proud but hard-pressed countries of Latin America. As for Canada, almost everyone expects its Conservative Party to replace the Liberals in elections that must take place before the end of October this year. While the country is sharply divided on economic and immigration policies, even the Canadian right does not appear to admire Trump’s domineering style.

Whatever Trump’s intentions, Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at Brookings, asks us not to underestimate him. While calling Trump’s reference to the possible use of military force “crazy talk,” O’Hanlon adds: "I think you have to err on the side of taking any president or president-elect at his or her word and believing that this could often be the forewarning of something that really may happen.” 

Will a Trump-led U.S. make our world even harsher and more unequal than it is? Will scales everywhere be tilted to favor coercion by the advantaged, the rich, and the strongly armed? Will a Trump-led U.S. make our world more dangerous?

As president, Trump will wield considerable power. Largely dominated by him, the Republican Party controls both the Senate and the House. The brake that even one of these two bodies could have imposed on the White House is not very visible right now. That other great bastion of power, the Supreme Court, much of it filled by persons proposed by Trump, has supported his policies in most cases. 

Even so, the U.S. is a good deal more than Donald Trump. Four years ago, the top court firmly squashed Trump’s energetic bids to “win” an election he had lost. Only a few days back, moreover, this court declined Trump’s request to bar any punishment on the hush money case where he had been found guilty. The Supreme Court knew that Trump could not be given time in prison. In the event, he was not even fined. But the fact that the Supreme Court permitted a lower court to award Trump a sentence showed that even a president-elect in the U.S. does not have unlimited influence.

COMPLEXITY COULD HELP

If a court is a station of power in a democracy like the U.S., capable of denying a White House wish, a thousand other stations also possess influence. A handful of senators can block a president. So can a handful of Congresspersons. Reporters can expose and editors can rebuke. If consciences are alive, the complexity of how the U.S. runs its affairs constitutes a potentially strong brake on a president’s power. But the rider – “if consciences are alive” – is important.

Thus we should ask whether Marco Rubio, named by Trump to head the State Department, will permit someone like Elon Musk, currently a most influential Trump ally and the world’s richest individual, to continue to ask the people of Germany to vote for the far-right party, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). Europe and Asia should not interfere in the politics of the Western Hemisphere, but the U.S. can openly intervene in elections anywhere?

Will impulsive statements made by Trump’s allies, or by Trump himself, have zero effect on the conduct of nuclear powers like Russia and North Korea? Bombast and bluster may have a role in negotiating deals, but the world must hope that the coming White House and its supporting institutions will have use also for restraint and wisdom.