A New Monroe Doctrine, or a Federalized ‘Five Eyes’? 

If one has to move beyond the relentless stupidity of social media in the past few weeks, it is easy to perceive that the singular line of thought that has most animated the right is one of annexation and conquest. One might cautiously divide the American political landscape into three competing archetypes: the revolutionary and often ideological puritans, the equilibrium-seeking landed gentries, and the fearless frontiersmen. The coordination between the three raised the greatest power in history; conflicts among them have led to catastrophes, and, in one particular instance, a civil war. 

Every man, whether new or old, native-born or immigrant, somehow finds themselves in one of these archetypes, and his conduct reflects their intellectual proximity. Possibly America’s greatest era followed the Civil War, where a combination of ultra-republican nationalism, small-i imperialism, the prudence of the native-born oligarchy, and a restrained policy of balance of power abroad—including the last instance an official American “proclamation of neutrality” was issued—led to massive expansion of American power and prestige, not to mention American frontiers. Donald Trump is the closest to a Gilded Age patrician in our modern age. His calls to “retake” Panama, buy Greenland, and “unite” Canada would be understood viscerally by anyone in the late 19th and early 20th century. Not surprising, that it has received support and rationalization from even some unusual corners of the cognoscenti. 

So what are the stakes? Trump’s Greenland-lust in particular has been called a return to a “new Monroe Doctrine” by various commentators. It is in line with “the scramble for the Arctic, one of the new ‘Great Games’ of the 21st century,” and “suggests the recalibrating of US priorities toward a more manageable ‘continental’ strategy—a new Monroe Doctrine—aimed at reasserting full hegemony over what it deems to be its natural sphere of influence, the Americas and the northern Atlantic.” A move away from the last quarter-century of crusading for democratic peace, the new “focus will be on shoring up the most important American interests at home and close to home, avoiding needless conflicts and adventurism in far-off places with marginal ties to American interests, and most importantly of all, restoring America’s confidence as a great country with a bright future.” 

The geopolitical reasoning is undeniable if one looks at a North Atlantic map. Greenland is a massive landmass three times the size of Texas, a population that would be a sparse crowd in a mid-tier football stadium, an enormous untapped energy reserve, a cache of rare earth minerals needed to fuel the new industrial revolution, a whole new frontier to settle, and an unsinkable naval base to balance rival great power designs on the Arctic shipping route. It is also within the Western hemisphere; the capital of Greenland is closer to Washington, DC than to Copenhagen. 

“The northernmost US base — only about 1,500km from the North Pole — is the most potent symbol of how vital Greenland is to American security,” Financial Times notes. “But its geostrategic importance is only likely to increase as climate change reshapes the Arctic, opening new trading routes close to North America and putting Greenland at the heart of the growing polar tussle between the US, China, and Russia.”

Desire to own and explore Greenland isn’t something new, either. It was a New Hampshire man, Charles Francis Hall, who documented much of what was known of the landmass’s Inuit population during a Greenland expedition in the 1870s; he was followed by another American, Robert Perry. Secretary of State William Seward and U.S. Ambassador to Denmark Maurice Egan wanted to buy Greenland from the Kingdom of Denmark in 1867 and again in 1910. The final attempt was immediately after the Second World War in 1946, when Denmark rebuffed Secretary of State James Byrnes but offered basing rights in return. 

Buying territory from Denmark also has a precedent. In 1915, Denmark was coerced to give away the Danish West Indies, now known as the Virgin Islands, for a sum of around $25 million. Seward’s justification to acquire Greenland wasn’t just materialistic, but philosophical. His commissioned 1868 report states,

In considering the future of Greenland, we cannot confine ourselves entirely to materialistic considerations. Nations have other resources besides those which figures can express to us by statistical tables. If a country has in it the means of developing man in any way, physically or mentally, it may be said to be rich to that extent… they possess, as it were, the key to many problems of science, and the answer to many questions which are at present discussed by geographers. Certainly, new truths are as precious acquisitions as new mines or new fishing grounds.

Our new Gilded Age oligarchs have another idea, and that’s not just the occupation and absorption of Canada. Recently, the notion of a consolidated Anglosphere gained traction among certain circles, especially with the institution of AUKUS, the naval pact between the U.S., the UK, and Australia. When Dan Hannan, arch-Brexiteer and a peer in the House of Lords, tweeted that “we bring together the five great Anglosphere democracies in a diplomatic, military and economic union, including unhindered free trade, free movement of labour and an institutionalized military alliance,” Elon Musk replied that that was a good idea. 

The idea is appealing—naturally short of a political union, which is practically impossible given different and incompatible governance structures and history. The Five Eyes, as the Anglophone powers are known in their intelligence-alliance capacity, possess about 20 percent of the globe by landmass, around 35 percent of global GDP, and 25 percent of total national wealth. They also possess the top universities and technological research, and are at least still somewhat loosely tied by a memory of Anglo-Protestant culture, ethics, frugality, language, and a sense of public propriety, self-sufficiency, and fair play. 

The potential drawbacks, even in a federalized trade system, are nevertheless huge. Most of the Anglosphere outside the U.S. has socialized healthcare, a huge economic drag. Britain and Canada have huge Islamist and Sikh extremism issues, so free movement is out of question between the five. And, unless every country within the Anglosphere decides on spending three percent on defense, America should be unwilling to defend them in extremis. 

The U.S. needs more frontiers to expand and settle, as well as more landmass for both rare earth mineral mining, energy, and military basing. This will enable further technological advancement by homegrown tech giants and, as a result, further global tech dominance; this, in turn, will enable more and more jobs, houses, and families. This growth will also need compatible talent, and, instead of a new mass of H1-Bs, it can reprise the 19th century by simply drawing top-tier talents from within the Anglosphere and Western Europe, who are already culturally and linguistically compatible and will not need further, possibly forcible, integration attempts. 

The Greenland situation in particular can be solved by allowing Denmark to have special bilateral trade and employment privileges. What Scandinavian in his right mind would deny his kids jobs in America at American-led companies, a few hours’ flight from home? 

A more moderate synthesis of the two instincts would go back to the drawing board of questioning what are the core American interests. The discipline of international relations doesn’t allow natural experiments, but some trends are visible, allowing some assumptions. The world is multipolar with rival predatory great powers, and the U.S. is both unable and unwilling to defend against the return of territorial conquest by either rivals such as Russia and Azerbaijan, or “allies” such as Turkey and Israel. The world is already in a new era of colonialism. 

American security interests are also in expansion and hegemonic supremacy, at least in the Western Hemisphere. Even the founder of this magazine once argued for absorbing most of Canada. Donald Trump should unleash his inner 19th-century patrician and lean into this desire for grandeur. Let the age of neutered, impotent managerialism be well and truly over. 

The post A New Monroe Doctrine, or a Federalized ‘Five Eyes’?  appeared first on The American Conservative.