The statements by Donald Trump, the elected President of the United States, about acquiring Greenland and altering Canada's status have once again drawn attention to his controversial approach to foreign policy. Although many experts consider these statements impractical and exaggerated, they reflect Trump's distinct style in international interactions and his strategy of creating crises to advance his domestic and foreign policy goals.

Trump's controversial statements and reactions

In his recent remarks, Trump described Greenland as an essential component for America's national and economic security and spoke of the need to explore the possibility of acquiring the region. He also criticized Canada for its economic instability and proposed the idea of incorporating the country into the United States. These statements elicited strong reactions from Danish officials, as Greenland is under Danish sovereignty, and from Canadian officials. The Danish government stated that Greenland is "not for sale" and deemed the remarks unacceptable. Meanwhile, Canadian officials described Trump's idea as meddlesome and impractical.

While these statements are not new, they reflect Trump's overall view of America's role in the world, emphasizing decisive leadership, prioritizing economic interests, and employing controversy as a tool for exerting pressure.

Context and reasons behind these positions

Since entering the political arena, Trump has steered American foreign policy in a direction that often sparks controversy and strong reactions. But why are such statements made?

Trump's remarks about Greenland and Canada may be more of an attempt to strengthen his domestic base than a genuine strategy. By employing aggressive rhetoric and ambitious ideas, he seeks to portray himself as a strong and fearless leader.

One key difference between Trump and many of his predecessors is his focus on the concept of "economic security" rather than military or political security. He justifies acquiring Greenland due to the economic importance of the region, especially its rich natural resources.

Some analysts believe that Trump, in targeting countries like Canada, Greenland, and Germany, is seeking revenge on governments that opposed his policies during the presidential election.

Compared to Trump, Joe Biden adopts a more diplomatic and cooperative approach to foreign policy. However, both politicians share the same primary goal of expanding American influence. Biden seeks to advance American objectives through consensus-building on the international stage, while Trump attempts to impose his policies through controversial and sometimes threatening rhetoric.

This tactical duality in American foreign policy indicates that the primary objective is to maintain and expand US influence, but the methods to achieve this goal vary depending on the president's personality.

Consequences

Although Trump's statements rarely translate into executive policies in the short term, they have significant implications for international relations. These remarks escalate tensions with some of America's traditional allies, including Denmark and Canada, and contribute to increased distrust in the international system.

At the same time, the global reaction to these statements highlights the weakness of international organizations and their silence in the face of such rhetoric. Institutions like the United Nations, which are mandated to preserve international order, often fail to respond effectively to such behavior.

What Trump is advocating is a continuation of America's long-term policies aimed at maintaining global dominance. The difference lies in the tone and tactics, not the objectives. These policies, regardless of the president's name, demonstrate America's persistent efforts to exert influence over other countries and maintain its position as a global power.