Francisco Lobo writes:

President-elect Donald Trump’s recent statements about his administration’s foreign policy toward Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal has given rise to international consternation. In particular, his statements about annexing Canada, Greenland, and the Panama Canal – the first in his words by the “use of economic force,” the remaining two with the possibility of military force explicitly on the table– have been sufficiently worrisome to inspire foreign leaders to respond.

What’s been missing from the commentary and analysis is a regional treaty, which serves the national security interests of the United States. Indeed, it would be wise for the incoming administration’s national security team to reassure the world of the United States’ continued commitment to the treaty, as it is a bulwark against military aggression in the region. The statements alone by an incoming president weaken the underpinnings of this international legal agreement.

Amidst justified concerns about brazen “imperialist designs,” the incoming new administration would be well-advised to consider its obligations under treaty law to defend the territories concerned. I am not referring here to the 1949 North Atlantic Treaty – although Canada and Denmark (under whose jurisdiction Greenland falls) are NATO members, article 5 therein also binding the United States to assist such allies should an armed attack against them take place. The legal obligations the second Trump administration may have vis-à-vis Canada, Greenland, and indeed Panama, refer to an older treaty that is a forerunner to NATO: the 1947 Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance, also known as the “Rio Treaty,” of which the United States is a founding member. [Continue reading…]