There is a race within the incoming US administration, between incoming president Trump (who just recently was “unconditionally discharged” from the consequences – prison or fine – of being found guilty in the “hush money case” in New York) and his de-factoco-president Elon Musk: who’s going to say the most outrageous thing that will destabilise well-established diplomatic relationships?
We have discussed several times in our past columns about the interferences by Elon Musk into international politics, the latest of which is his interview with the leader of the AfD Alice Weidel, who managed to say that “Hitler was communist”, with Musk nodding “yes.” Musk was recently joined by his more silent – and possibly more influential – buddy in the “tech takeover” of the US presidency, Peter Thiel, who recently wrote an op-ed for the Financial Times, titled “A time for truth and reconciliation.”
Clearly upset by being surpassed by his shadow president, Trump has responded to Musk’s provocations with a series of similarly outrageous statements regarding Canada, Mexico, Panama and Greenland.
In discussions about Canada, Trump proposed the idea of Canada becoming the 51st U.S. state, referring to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as “Governor Trudeau” and suggesting that such a merger would benefit both nations economically and in terms of security. He also threatened to impose a 25% tariff on Canadian goods if issues like fentanyl smuggling and illegal immigration were not addressed.
As for Mexico, Trump proposed renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the “Gulf of America” and criticized Mexico for issues related to illegal immigration and drug trafficking. He threatened substantial tariffs on Mexican goods if these concerns were not addressed, indicating a more confrontational approach towards the neighbouring country.
Regarding Panama, Trump suggested the possibility of reclaiming control over the Panama Canal, criticizing the canal’s current fees as exorbitant and detrimental to U.S. economic interests. In his statement, he declined to rule out military or economic actions to achieve this objective, stating, “No, I can’t assure you on either of those two. But I can say this, we need them for economic security.”
Concerning Greenland, Trump reiterated his interest in acquiring the territory from Denmark, citing strategic importance for national security. He did not dismiss the use of military force to achieve this, stating, “No, I can’t assure you” on the fact that the US will not use the force to gain control of Greenland. This stance has been met with firm rejections from Danish officials, emphasizing Greenland’s autonomy and their refusal to engage in such discussions.
These statements obviously generated strong reactions from the international community, with leaders expressing concern over the potential implications for diplomatic relations and global stability. Once put together with the “America First” approach and the isolationist tendencies of the incoming administration, the risk is that of leaving the US isolated in its attempt to contain China, and therefore more vulnerable to shocks.
One can only hope that, after the inauguration, Trump – and Musk – will moderate his tones and adopt a more institutional stance. But the example of his first presidential term leaves little space for this delusion.
