President-elect Donald Trump declared this week that U.S. control of Greenland and the Panama Canal are crucial to American interests and reaffirmed his interest in making Canada the 51st state. In his Mar-a-Lago press conference, Trump declined to rule out using military force to secure Greenland and the canal but assured everyone that he would only use “economic force” on Canada.  Threatening to violate the sovereignty of two independent nations by force is certainly an interesting way to lead up to your inauguration. Even worse than all of this talk of military-aided expansion, Trump has also claimed that he will rename the Gulf of Mexico, the “Gulf of America” saying that it has “a beautiful ring to it.” It doesn’t even have a “nice” ring to it. It’s difficult to imagine how much “economic force” would be required to compel Canada to become part of the United States. It’s probably safe to say that we do not live in a world where we will ever see the headline, “Canada Folds! Becomes 51st State after Trump Tariffs Cripple Economy.” Only in the mind of a child. In response, both Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen and Greenland’s prime minister Múte Egede affirmed that Greenland is not for sale. Frederiksen stated that, “Seen through the eyes of the Danish government, Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders”. This suggests that the Danes do not see themselves as having the right or being in a position to sell Greenland to anyone. Perhaps this is the path that Donald Trump can take in acquiring the territory. Egede himself has been pushing for independence from Denmark and most Greenlanders support the move. Greenland may indeed opt for independence from Denmark, leaving it free to join the US by choice.  There is plenty of room for skepticism about Denmark’s supposedly hands-off approach to Greenland. For decades now, Greenland has been central to Danish claims to large swaths of the Arctic and its resources. The Arctic is slated to become economically and geopolitically valuable in the near future once ice melts and Arctic passages become navigable.  Suffice it to say that it’s difficult to determine whether Danish claims about their relationship to Greenland reflect a genuine policy of allowing Greenland to do as they wish or merely reassuring Greenland of their perceived self-determination for the sake of maintaining the unity of the Kingdom. The safe bet is the latter given how rare it is that nations are willing to give up valuable assets so easily.  Donald Trump claims that ownership of Greenland is necessary for national security reasons. If the motivation is national security, then Trump’s antagonistic strategy is completely unnecessary. Denmark is a member of NATO and already allows the US to operate a military base in Greenland.  Danish politicians have enthusiastically welcomed American help in fighting against Russian influence in the Arctic with prime minister Frederisken stating on Tuesday, “So I, as a very close ally to the United States, think there is a reason to be pleased with the growing interest from the USA.”  Related Articles Opinion Columnists | Larry Elder: Democrats hold their noses and certify ‘insurrectionist’ Trump Opinion Columnists | Will fiscal responsibility now become the cornerstone of economic policy? Opinion Columnists | Is this tangled web of overlapping regional entities really doing the people’s business?  Opinion Columnists | California’s VMT restrictions have no effect on climate change, but make housing more expensive Opinion Columnists | Carter’s legacy lives on in ways people might not expect In other words, our national security interests can be satisfied by simply cooperating with one of our good allies, not by playing silly games threatening military coercion. If, on the other hand, Greenland were to gain independence, they would lose the financial support of Denmark, making the US an attractive partner. In this scenario again, ownership of Greenland would not be necessary for our national security.  Their politicians have consistently opposed the notion of joining the US but have also expressed substantial interest in increasing cooperation with the US. The right path could not be clearer in either circumstance: cooperation not violent expansion. But as we all know, Trump is not often guilty of taking the quiet, level-headed, non-combative approach. If the motivation is instead caused by greedily eyeing the natural resources of Greenland, well that’s a different matter. It should go without saying that we would truly earn the label of being an Evil Empire if we were to violate the sovereignty of Greenland for the sake of owning some natural resources as opposed to just paying for them, which they would surely be happy to sell. Of all of these grand Trump plans, the likeliest to be brought into existence is “Gulf of America” – he certainly has that power. My vote in the next election will depend entirely on which candidate promises to change it back. Rafael Perez is a columnist for the Southern California News Group. He is a doctoral candidate in philosophy at the University of Rochester. You can reach him at [email protected].