The Iconoclast

Acquire Greenland?

Take back the Panama Canal?

Make Canada the 51st state?

Rename the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America?

Donald Trump has talked about doing all of these things recently.

Is Trump crazy? Doesn't he understand anything? Is he serious?

It is easy for the media and political pundits to try to portray Trump as a mad man.

After all, these are all suggestions that defy the status quo and conventional thought.

However, that is what an iconoclast does.

And Trump is most definitely an iconoclast.

I`con`o`clast/ n / 

A person who does something that others say can't be done.

A person who strongly opposes generally accepted beliefs and traditions:

A read a book about 15 years ago about iconoclasts written by Gregory Berns who is a Professor of Neuroeconomics at Emory University.

Source: https://www.amazon.com/Iconoclast-Neuroscientist-Reveals-Think-Differently/dp/1422133303

His basic thesis is that we need a lot more people to exhibit iconclastic thinking.

No society or organization can advance without iconoclasts.

However, iconoclast are extremely rare. It takes an individual with advanced intelligence and the ability to perceive things that others do not but also someone who has the strength of personality to withstand the ridicule and possible scorn that comes with challenging the status-quo and conventional wisdom.

Iconoclasts don't do it the way it has always been done. They break rules along the way. It can be uncomfortable for those set in their ways. Iconoclasts are often attacked, ridiculed or subject to scorn. However, iconoclasts often get results that few expect.

From the book summary.

No organization can survive without iconoclasts -- innovators who single-handedly upturn conventional wisdom and manage to achieve what so many others deem impossible.

Though indispensable, true iconoclasts are few and far between. In Iconoclast, neuroscientist Gregory Berns explains why. He explores the constraints the human brain places on innovative thinking, including fear of failure, the urge to conform, and the tendency to interpret sensory information in familiar ways.

Yes, that is Donald Trump.

It might also describe Elon Musk. Or Steve Jobs.

Let's take a deeper dive at what is behind Trump's thinking.

Is there any logic to renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America?

Source: https://images.mapsofworld.com/answers/2017/12/map-of-gulf-of-mexico.gif

Looking at the map, the United States and Mexico both have about equal amounts of shoreline on the Gulf.

Why is it called the Gulf of Mexico to begin with?

It is also the biggest gulf in the Americas---North or South.

That gulf is also sitting almost exactly in the middle between North and South America.

Trump is not proposing it be named the Gulf of the USA.

Why would it not make sense to be called the Gulf of America if you looked at this logically rather than what some Spanish explorer thought four centuries ago who had a very limited view of the total geography of the Western Hemisphere?

Is Trump off-base?

I don't think so when you view this from a wider perspective.

What about Greenland?

Greenland is officially an autonomous territory of Denmark and its 57,000 residents are considered full citizens of that country.

However, international law allows the citizens of Greenland to declare independence from Denmark at any time and most observers believe Denmark would have a difficult time not acceding to the wishes of Greenland's citizens.

There are a number of advantages that Trump sees in making Greenland a U.S. territory.

This graphic shows the relative size of Greenland compared to the continental United States.

It is almost 25% larger in area than Alaska but has less than 10% of the population.

Of course, 80% of the land mass is covered in ice year round.

Source: https://guidetogreenland.com/travel-information/lasse-kyed/the-true-size-of-greenland-should-it-be-a-continent/

Greenland is in an important strategic location. The United States already has an air force base in Greenland and it is a key component of the nation's missile early warning system.

Greenland is also ideally located should the northwest shipping passage ever become a reality if the climate warms enough to allow for ice free passage through a northern route to the Far East.

Most importantly, it is believed that Greenland is home to abundant natural resources including oil and many rare earth minerals that might be especially critical for the technology applications of the future.

Many of these rare earth minerals are now found primarily in China.

Denmark has not shown the interest nor does it seem to have the financial strength to commercially develop the potential that Greenland's natural resources holds.

The United States taking control of Greenland would make a great deal of sense--for the United States and also for the citizens of Greenland.

Many seem to believe that Trump would have to convince Denmark to sell Greenland.

I don't think that is the way this might unfold.

It seems it would only take the citizens of Greenland to vote for independence from Denmark and then agree to become a territory of the United States.

Important in all of this would be some form of guarantee that the citizens of Greenland continue to receive similar (or greater) subsidies that they currently receive from Denmark for their healthcare and welfare systems.

This would not seem to be a significant problem when you consider that the United States could promise $1 million to each of the 57,000 citizens of Greenland and it would only amount to $57 billion.

For context, the United States has already committed $183 billion to fund Ukraine since Russia invaded it almost three years ago.

I could also see the United State promising Greenland's citizens a share of any revenues derived from mineral resources extracted in the country similar to the money Alaska residents receive each year for oil extracted in the state.

A recent poll from the University of Copenhagen indicates that a substantial majority of those in Greenland already favor independence from Denmark.

It will be interesting to see where this goes.

However, Donald Trump appears to have set something in motion that might turn out to be as historic as the Louisiana Purchase or the acquisition of Alaska.

Does any of this suggest that Trump is crazy? 

Should the United States take back the Panama Canal?

 

The United States funded and built the Panama Canal.

Under the terms of the 1903 treaty with the nation of Panama when canal was built,  the United States was granted the right to use, occupy and control the Panama Canal Zone in perpetuity.

Jimmy Carter decided to give the canal to Panama and in 1978 a treaty was approved by the U.S. Senate with Panama's dictator at the time to completely turn the canal over to Panama by the end of 1999. 

An important part of that treaty was a provision that stipulated  that Panama had to insure that the canal remain neutral and the U.S. retained the permanent right to defend the canal from any threat that might interfere with its continued neutral service to ships of all nations. 

Panama subsequently entered into agreements with Chinese firms to manage the ports on either side of the canal. Recent years have also seen Panama significantly raise transit fees for ships using the canal.

Chinese control over ports on both sides of the canal could facilitate a rapid militarization of the canal if the Chinese chose to do so.  In addition, Panama's willingness to relinquish economic control of strategic assets and critical infrastructure adjoining the canal raises question about Panama's commitment and resolve to the neutrality principle in the treaty.

That treaty also gives the United States the right to intervene if the neutrality principle is not being adhered to.

Consider what a professor of International Relations at the University of Panama recently said in an interview.

“China has turned Panama into a geographic and commercial concentration center or strategic hub for its political, commercial, and military advance in the region,” according to Euclides Tapia, professor at the School of International Relations of the University of Panama.

Tapia continued with this observation.

“China’s primary objective is to control the canal, they are not here for the beauty or wealth of this country, they are here because Panama has become the hub of the region, and they want to control it.”

Is Trump crazy to be concerned about the Chinese influence in and around the Panama Canal?

What about annexing Canada?

The United States and Canada share a 5,525 mile border across 13 U.S. states 8 Canadian provinces.

In fact, it is the longest shared border between two countries in the world.

Beyond that, there are deep cultural and economic connections between the two countries.

$700 billion of trade was conducted between the two countries last year with Canada enjoying a $50 billion trade surplus from the activity.

That surplus has grown substantially from when Trump was last in office. During his previous four years in office, Canada averaged only about $19 billion per year.

To put the US-Canada trade numbers in perspective, the United States did $532 billion of trade with China with a $270 million trade balance deficit.

These numbers prove there is a lot of trade between the U.S. and Canada and it is a much more balanced relationship than what exists with China or Mexico.

It needs to be kept in mind that although Canada encompasses a larger geographic area than the United States, its population is only 40 million compared to 335 million in the U.S.

Further, 90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the U.S. border.

Looked at from the perspective of a businessman like Trump. if the U.S. .and Canada were corporations, they would be ideal candidates for a consolidation or merger.

Canada is resource rich but does not have the population, manufacturing and technology infrastructure to take full advantage. Nor do they have the financial resources to maximize its assets.

All of this also means that Canada simply cannot defend itself but for the fact that the United States is next door. Part of its national strategy for years has been to under spend on defense knowing that the United States will insure that Canada is protected.

Canada is only spending a meager 1.4% of its GDP on defense which is woefully short of the 2% commitment it is supposed to make as a member of NATO.

It should also be noted that the Canadian dollar has recently hit a 10-year low in value relative to the U.S. dollar.

It takes $1.44 $CAN to equal $US at recent exchange rates.

11 years ago the Canadian dollar was trading at parity with the U.S. dollar.

Source: https://www.investing.com/currencies/cad-usd-chart

Stated another way, a little over a decade ago a Canadian dollar would buy a full U.S. dollar.

It now would only bring 69 cents.

The Justin Trudeau administration in Canada has been disastrous to the financial well-being of average Canadians.

In this era where economies of scale are more important than ever, and the cost of government services (especially defense) is growing more expensive every year, there is an argument that combining the United States and Canada would make sound economic sense.

A formal merger or annexation is probably not achievable but an economic union with open trade, a common currency and the ability for Americans and Canadians to travel and work freely by and between the two countries might not be out of the question.

However, this would necessarily require a common policy on immigration that limits and controls this problem.

No economic union or other consolidation would work unless there is full agreement on this issue.

The media and others may want you to believe that Trump is a madman highlighting the possibilities described above.

However, I think I have shown from the facts above there is sound logic and arguments for everything Trump has talked about.

It is confusing to many because Trump is literally thinking two or three steps beyond where most everybody else is who are captured by conventional thinking and the status quo.

This is the advantage of having an iconoclast testing accepting beliefs and traditions and asking why can't we do more?

Put me down as being very happy to have this iconoclast working on behalf of the United States of America.