By Noah Rothman
Wednesday, January 08,
2025
Many serious people across the American political spectrum either affirmatively support or do not
oppose the peaceful acquisition of Greenland. No serious political observer
endorses the incandescently stupid notion that the United States
should incorporate Greenland by force — to say nothing of the other obnoxiously
frivolous threats Donald Trump issued from the podium on Tuesday against
American allies like Canada and Denmark.
We should be clear:
Trump’s refusal to rule out the use of the U.S. military to create the Greater
American Co-Prosperity Sphere is not a clever negotiating tactic. The prospect
is not credible, and those who retail notions like that detract from their own
credibility. That may be little sacrifice for influencers on social media,
where credibility is already in short supply. But provocation for provocation’s
sake is entertainment, and we too often confuse the business of American public
life with amusing spectacle.
But there is something to
be said about a particular disposition that regards territorial expansionism as
a necessary tool of statecraft. It is the sort of outlook that was common to
policymakers in the pre-War world — an environment typified by inviolable
spheres of influence in which international free trade agreements were far
rarer. If you are inclined to see resource acquisition as a zero-sum
competition for finite commodities — indeed, if you view trade as a form of war
by other means, as Moscow did in the years preceding its adventurism in
Ukraine — you’re more likely to see expansionist wars of conquest as vital
national projects.
The research on the
subject is hardly ambiguous. Nations “with high levels of trade with their
allies are less likely to be involved in wars with any other countries
(including allies and non-allies), and that an increase in trade between two
countries correlates with a lower chance that they will go to war with each
other,” the abstract of a 2015 study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences read.
While that’s not
always the case, the exceptions prove the rule. “Free trade, and not just
trade, promotes peace by removing an important foundation of domestic
privilege—protective barriers to international commerce—that enhances the
domestic power of societal groups likely to support war,” University of Texas,
Austin, professor Patrick
McDonald determined in 2004 debunking the socialist myth that World War I
was a byproduct of “commercial liberalism.”
Put simply: “Open trade makes war a less appealing option
for governments by raising its costs.” We can debate whether the U.S. would
derive more strategic benefits from the formal acquisition of Greenland than it
draws from the military basing rights Washington already enjoys in that
territory. Certainly, the notion that the development of Greenland’s rare-earth
minerals — a daunting logistical
feat — cannot be acquired through mutually beneficial commercial means is a
baseless assertion (particularly since it will be commercial interests that
will develop the technology necessary to do so). There is no question that the
resources sacrificed in a hostile engagement with the interests who would
oppose American expansionism exceed the possible rewards. That inescapable
conclusion should compel those who value their authority to admit what they
know to be true: This is a silly thing to talk about.
Trump is not “thinking big.” Rather, the president-elect and those who
have entertained his thought bubble as though it was a serious proposition have
demonstrated their adherence to a dangerous fallacy. It’s no coincidence that
the renewed popularity of protectionist thinking has made the prospect of war
more thinkable.
No comments:
Post a Comment