Trump’s return: How it could shape U.S. geopolitics

With Donald Trump back in the Oval Office, the United States seems poised for a new yet familiar chapter in its political narrative. Echoing the tone of his campaign, President Trump’s rhetoric and policies suggest a continuation of his prior administration’s hallmark themes rather than a dramatic shift.

To better understand the potential trajectory of U.S. policy under Trump’s leadership, News.Az spoke with Alan Cafruny , Professor of International Relations at Hamilton College. In this exclusive interview, Professor Cafruny explores the implications of Trump’s renewed tenure, touching on key geopolitical and strategic developments.

Hamilton College

When asked about the arguments the U.S. could present in negotiations to regain control over the Panama Canal, Professor Cafruny outlined several strategic justifications.

First, the Canal’s significance for global shipping—especially for U.S. trade, which accounts for 40% of its container traffic—underscores its importance. By reasserting control, the U.S. could reduce passage costs for its vessels and streamline shipping efficiency.

Second, U.S. influence over the Canal would provide a strategic counterbalance to China’s expanding presence in the region. Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative and investments in Panama’s infrastructure have heightened U.S. concerns over China’s growing foothold in Latin America. Control of the Canal would allow Washington to curb Chinese influence while safeguarding its economic and geopolitical interests.

Lastly, the U.S. could frame its involvement as a stabilizing force for global trade. Given the Canal’s critical role in international commerce, Washington might argue that its oversight would enhance operational stability, benefiting global markets as well as the U.S. economy.

A potential U.S. bid to regain control of the Panama Canal would likely provoke significant backlash from the international community. The 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties, which transferred the Canal to Panama, remain a symbol of Panama’s sovereignty. Any effort to reverse this decision would likely be perceived as a violation of international norms and an affront to Panamanian self-determination.

In Latin America, such a move could rekindle anti-U.S. sentiment, viewed as a return to imperialist policies. Regional powers would likely rally around Panama, presenting a unified front against perceived American overreach.

Moreover, global players such as China and Russia would almost certainly oppose the move. China, with its substantial investments in Panama, would see U.S. control as a direct threat to its strategic interests, while Russia might leverage the situation to challenge American dominance in the region.

If negotiations with the U.S. fail, Panama would have several avenues to resist pressure. Turning to international institutions such as the United Nations to reaffirm its sovereignty could be a first step, drawing on support from allies across Latin America and beyond.

Strengthening economic and political ties with global powers like China might also provide Panama with a counterbalance to U.S. influence. Closer alignment with Beijing could enhance Panama’s position in negotiations, especially given China’s vested interest in the region.

Alternatively, Panama could pursue a compromise with the U.S., offering limited privileges or influence while retaining formal sovereignty over the Canal. This approach could mitigate tensions while preserving Panama’s autonomy.

Reflecting on Trump’s earlier ambition to acquire Greenland, Cafruny discussed the potential consequences had Denmark taken the proposal seriously.

The transfer of Greenland, home to 56,000 Inuit inhabitants, would have faced fierce resistance from its population, who value their autonomy under Danish governance. For Denmark, ceding Greenland would have marked a loss of territorial integrity and diminished influence within NATO, while also risking strained relations with European allies concerned about Arctic security.

Geopolitically, U.S. control of Greenland would have escalated tensions in the Arctic, particularly with Russia. As a strategic point for missile defense and surveillance, Greenland’s significance would have further complicated U.S.-Russia relations, potentially spurring militarization in the region.

The environmental stakes are equally high. With climate change accelerating Arctic resource extraction, U.S. ownership of Greenland could intensify competition over valuable minerals and other resources, setting a precedent for territorial disputes across the Arctic.

While Denmark and Greenland have expressed willingness to engage in dialogue, any serious attempt to transfer the territory would have far-reaching consequences, reshaping Arctic geopolitics and triggering significant political and environmental challenges.

News.Az