The recent retreat by former US President Donald Trump from his threat to forcibly occupy Greenland represents a classic pattern in his diplomatic playbook. This approach involves making bold, disruptive statements that create international dismay, followed by offering a deal that appears reasonable only when contrasted with the preceding chaos.
The Transactional Nature of Trump's Foreign Policy
Trump's concession to a framework agreement rather than pursuing military annexation reveals his fundamentally transactional approach to international relations. His strategy often involves playing the role of the unpredictable leader to lower the perceived cost of his eventual cooperation. This creates a volatile environment where traditional diplomatic norms are constantly challenged.
Canada's Warning About Global Order Fractures
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a significant speech during the Davos meetings that highlighted deeper concerns beyond the immediate Greenland situation. Carney warned of a fundamental rupture in the global order, arguing that middle powers must collaborate to build alternative systems. His memorable phrase that "if we're not at the table, we're on the menu" underscores the precarious position of nations like Australia in this shifting landscape.
Australia's Diplomatic Dilemma
For Australia, the temptation to simply join Trump's newly proposed "Board of Peace" as a means of staying relevant is understandable. Rejecting such an invitation risks provoking personal enmity from a leader known for conflating political disagreements with personal affronts. However, security experts caution that participation in such alternative structures to established international organizations like the United Nations would expose Canberra to significant risks with minimal strategic benefits.
The Challenge of Declining Without Offending
The diplomatic challenge for Australia lies in finding ways to decline participation in Trump's initiatives without triggering retaliatory responses. This requires nuanced diplomacy that acknowledges the valid grievances driving some of Trump's positions while maintaining Australia's commitment to multilateral institutions and established international norms.
Understanding the Grievances Behind the Unpredictability
It is crucial to recognize that Trump's erratic approach is fueled by legitimate concerns shared by some allies. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and others have noted that European nations often engage in extensive diplomatic discussions but demonstrate limited willingness to take concrete action. A former Trump adviser highlighted that Britain has significantly reduced its military capabilities over decades, while Canada continues to spend only 1.5 percent of its GDP on defence despite its international rhetoric.
The Fragility of Current Alliances
The potential collapse of NATO represents a genuine concern in this environment. If Trump were to respond to European threats about removing US bases by simply agreeing and citing cost savings, the entire alliance structure could unravel. This scenario highlights the vulnerability of current international arrangements to transactional thinking.
Europe's Defensive Posture and Australia's Strategic Imperative
European nations appear focused on preserving the status quo while hoping to endure the remaining years of Trump's political influence. This defensive approach represents more of a hopeful prayer than a coherent strategy for navigating global instability.
Australia cannot afford to simply drift if fundamental ruptures occur in the international system. The nation has too much at stake economically, strategically, and diplomatically to remain passive observers.
The Greenland Lesson and Australia's Defence Priorities
The Greenland episode demonstrates that Trump respects strength and concrete transactions more than diplomatic sentiment or traditional alliances. This reality creates an urgent imperative for Australia to significantly bolster its defence capabilities. Increased defence spending serves dual purposes: satisfying Washington's expectations of allied contributions while ensuring Australia has meaningful capacity to protect its interests if global tensions escalate.
Strengthening Australia's military capabilities represents a practical response to an increasingly unpredictable international environment. Rather than being mere spectators to potential global conflicts, Australia must develop the capacity to actively protect its sovereignty and interests regardless of how international relationships evolve in coming years.
