– Timofey Bordachyov –
Trump’s ideas on territorial acquisitions clearly convey a thought: state sovereignty means more than just a formal status, as everyone has become accustomed to thinking.
The most striking thing Donald Trump has done in global politics since being re-elected as U.S. President has been his provocative statements about wanting to annex Canada, buy Greenland or demand control over the famous Panama Canal. These remarks have already sparked responses from governments, numerous jokes online and even thoughtful commentary.
Most observers interpret such “moves” as attempts to emotionally destabilize counterparts before entering serious negotiations — a theory supported by his complaints against the European Union, which, according to Trump, has not been purchasing enough American energy resources. Of course, there is also an element of public entertainment in all of this. We all need news that makes us smile, rather than recoil in fear of a new escalation between superpowers. For that, Trump certainly deserves some credit.
However, it’s worth considering that Trump’s ideas about territorial acquisitions may simply reflect his ability to clearly articulate a complex idea: state sovereignty means more than just a formal status, as many have grown accustomed to thinking. The right to independence requires more than the norms and conventions of international politics and perception. This is especially true in an era where nearly everything, apart from a state’s own military strength, can be dismissed as a long-standing stereotype.
At present, it seems almost impossible to imagine Canada, Greenland or Mexico as parts of the United States. But we cannot rule out that, in the near future, we may be forced to seriously ask: why do states that cannot secure their own sovereignty continue to retain it? There are growing reasons to question this. And it’s not just Americans who can play this game.
In times when all rules and norms are being thrown to the wind, attention inevitably turns to what constitutes the only solid foundation of states — territory. There is nothing more concrete in relations between countries than control over it. Especially since the inviolability of borders is, in fact, a very recent invention in global politics. From history textbooks, we know that for centuries states waged wars specifically for territory. This makes sense — land, along with the people living on it, is the most important resource. It is essential for war, economic development, addressing demographic issues and much more. All armed conflicts up until the mid-20th century resulted in changes to state borders — this is a fact.
Moreover, it was only in the 20th century that the idea emerged in global discourse that every nation has the right to statehood. The authors of this theoretical concept were the Russian Bolsheviks and U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, who served from 1913 to 1923. Their motivations were clear: both sought to combat the great European empires and aimed to dismantle them, including, in the Bolsheviks’ case, the Russian Empire itself.
For the Americans, the idea of an unconditional right of nations to statehood was a tool to expand their own power. The emergence of numerous small and weak states on the ruins of European empires provided the United States with a powerful lever in its foreign policy — the ability to buy off their elites without taking on responsibility for the fate of their peoples.
To maintain their influence, the U.S. and Europe began promoting the idea that the primary concern in global politics is the rules of the game, not territory. All the while knowing full well that they would be the ones determining those rules.
After the Second World War, the European colonial powers — Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Spain — were relegated to the dustbin of history. Their former colonies gained independence but, for the most part, were unable to sustain it on their own and relied on support from the great powers — the USSR or the United States. Only the largest nations, such as China and India, were able to chart their futures independently. Even so, they received massive assistance from the USSR and later the West in the form of direct investments. In the vast majority of other cases, the fate of formally independent states was not determined by the states themselves.
Only now is the process of global majority formation making half the world more or less sovereign in its decision-making. This is, in part, why the United States has increasingly undermined the UN and other international organizations — it is losing control over the votes of their members. While that control is still significant, as evidenced by certain voting results in the UN General Assembly, it is gradually waning. The main reason for this is the weakening ability of the West to “manually manage” weaker states without taking responsibility for their fate.
As long as the resources of the United States and Europe were vast, the existence of numerous countries in global politics, whose material survival depended entirely on external aid, was extremely advantageous for them. This aid came in various forms: free trade agreements, shared economic zones, or support programs from the IMF or World Bank.
Over time, the neoliberal global economy extended this principle to ostensibly prosperous countries. One example is Canada, whose budget depends entirely on special economic relations with the United States. This raises a reasonable question about the purpose of all the “extras” in the form of national government institutions if a country cannot develop using its own resources.
Recognized sovereignty under such conditions is nothing more than a tool in the hands of elites, used as leverage in negotiations with those on whom they are still completely dependent. There has never been any real doubt that Canada is entirely subordinate to the United States, yet its independence has long been considered necessary within the framework of the rituals established in the past century. Naturally, this independence also serves as a mechanism for local ruling circles to extract rent. Today, Trump’s musings may highlight the inherent absurdity of this arrangement: the benefits for the United States of Canada’s independence are diminishing in the modern world, while the costs of maintaining it continue to grow.
We must all acknowledge that the world is not moving toward a system in which international organizations, fair for all, define the rules of the game. As a result, the voice of formally sovereign countries may, year by year, carry less weight than the material value of their territory and population. We remain far from an era where global rules and norms will be created based on the voluntary consensus of the states that inhabit the world. It may even become necessary to establish entirely new international organizations — after all, even the UN was designed by Western countries as a tool to secure their predatory interests in a relatively peaceful manner.
Building a new, more just world order will require many decades and enormous effort. Such a system can only be created by states that are both genuinely independent and responsible for their actions. As a result, the demand for governments to demonstrate tangible evidence of their right to manage their countries and their populations will inevitably grow.
The question of real sovereignty will become one of the most important issues in the international politics of the future. Sovereignty, as a mere attribute used to sell loyalty to the highest bidder, will soon become entirely irrelevant. It is both amusing and paradoxical that the future president of the United States is already raising this issue most vividly in relation to one of his country’s closest allies.
The formal right to independence has its material dimension.
Timofey Bordachyov is the Program Director of the Valdai Club.
(Translated by NEPH from the Russian original at vz.ru)