Greenland, Canada, Ukraine, Gaza: How to read Trump's geopolitics

Editor's note: Jessica Durdu, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a foreign affairs specialist and PhD candidate in international relations at China Foreign Affairs University. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Donald Trump's return to the White House has reignited geopolitical debates, not least because of his administration's renewed push for territorial acquisitions and an aggressive foreign policy.

From expressing his wish to acquire Greenland to suggesting Canada becomes the 51st American state, to proposing that the U.S. takes over Gaza, these articulations represent an alarming shift from established international norms, challenging the fundamental principles of sovereignty, self-determination, and international law. They also show a transactional approach to global governance that prioritizes economic and strategic gains over legal and ethical considerations.

Despite the backlash from Denmark, to which Greenland belongs, and the European Union, Trump's geopolitical agenda is clear: Expand U.S. presence in the Arctic and secure a stake in the region's natural resources. Then extend it to Canada.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau dismissed the idea outright, stating, "Canada will never be the 51st state. It's never going to happen." He is also supposed to have said in a closed-door meeting that the Trump administration is talking about absorbing Canada due to the critical mineral reserves Canada has.

Canadians also reacted with widespread outrage, with major media outlets condemning the notion as a misinterpretation of Canada's history and national values.

The transactional nature of U.S. foreign policy was further exposed when U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said if Ukraine made a mineral deal with the U.S., it would receive a "security shield" from Russia. This approach echoes historical patterns of neocolonialism, where economic and military dependencies were leveraged to extract national resources.

This too has drawn criticism from Ukraine's European allies, particularly France and Germany, who viewed such conditional support as undermining Ukraine's ability to negotiate from a position of strength.

But perhaps the most controversial suggestion is that the U.S. should "take over" Gaza, displacing its population and redeveloping it under American control. This idea not only disregards Palestinian sovereignty but also violates international humanitarian law.

Historical parallels can be drawn with colonial-era land appropriations and forced displacements, such as Britain's mandate policies in the Middle East or the forced relocations of indigenous populations in North America. The proposal reflects a deep misunderstanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The international community's overwhelming rejection of this idea reaffirms that sovereignty and territorial integrity cannot be unilaterally overridden by a powerful state's ambitions. According to UN Secretary-General António Guterres, Palestinians have endured "more than a half-century of occupation and denial of their legitimate right to self-determination." Protests erupted in multiple countries, from the Middle East to Europe, as people viewed the proposal as another attempt to prevent Palestinians from determining their own fate.

Underlying all these proposals is a dangerous precedent: Economic and military might emboldens a nation to redraw borders at will. This challenges the core principle of the Westphalian system, which has governed international relations since 1648 by establishing sovereignty as the fundamental unit of global order.

The contemporary international system is not structured to accommodate the whims of a single state's leader. It is built upon a multilateral framework in which legitimacy stems from legal agreements and mutual recognition. Trump's approach undermines this framework, treating international relations as a business transaction rather than a system of structured diplomatic engagements.

The global response to these proposals serves as a reminder that power does not equate to entitlement. The international community is not responsible for maintaining the United States' dominance, nor should it enable a world order in which financial strength dictates territorial rights. Nations are not commodities to be traded, and sovereignty is not for sale.

If the U.S. seeks to remain a credible leader on the world stage, it must align its policies with the principles that have long underpinned international stability: Respect for sovereignty, adherence to international law, and diplomatic engagement based on mutual benefit rather than coercion. In the 21st century, global leadership is measured not by how much land a country can acquire but by how effectively it upholds the norms that prevent conflicts and ensure lasting peace.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)