Peter A. Coclanis, Professor of History and Director of the Global Research Institute, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
For some time now, pundits have been debating whether to take Donald Trump “seriously” or “literally,” as the clever binary coined by journalist Salena Zito in 2016 has it.
This choice comes to mind when I think about the 47th president’s frequent comments recently about incorporating Greenland and Canada into the United States. A few cases in point: Before delivering an inaugural address in which he vaguely but forcefully expressed a desire for the U.S. to expand its territory, Trump raised the issue on a confrontational phone call with the prime minister of Denmark, which handles Greenland’s international affairs. More recently, he spoke of Canada becoming a U.S. state to reporters on Air Force One.
It’s hard to imagine a plausible scenario in which either, let alone both, joins the United States. The governments of Canada and Greenland alike have made it clear that they’re not for sale.
But as an economic historian, I believe that thought experiments can be a useful way of understanding truths about the world. And one such truth is that Greenland and Canada play a key role in the global economy. If the U.S. were to absorb either or both, it would be a strategic, economic and political game changer.
So, for a moment, let’s take Trump both seriously and literally. Below, I’ve laid out some very rough measures of how a reconstituted megastate including the U.S., Canada or Greenland would look in comparison to other leading countries and blocs.
Bigger, but not more crowded
At first glance, the most obvious thing to note about the new country would be its physical size. Today the U.S. is the third-largest nation-state in terms of area – about 57.5% of the size of Russia, by far the world’s largest country.
By incorporating Canada, the second-largest country in the world in terms of area, the U.S., so reconstituted, would be 14% larger than Russia. If both Canada and Greenland became part of the reconstituted U.S., the country would be 22% larger than Russia.
How about China Today, China is slightly smaller than the U.S. in area, but China would be less than half the size of a combined U.S. and Canada, and only about 44% of the size of the U.S.-Canada-Greenland. And the European Union? It would be less than 20% of the size of a U.S.-Canada-Greenland combo.
Incorporating Canada and Greenland into the U.S would have less of an impact in demographic terms, adding just under 40 million people to the current U.S. total of 342 million.
Similarly, if the U.S. absorbed Canada and Greenland — two countries that are wealthy, but not nearly as wealthy as the U.S. — it wouldn’t have much of an impact on gross domestic product per capita. Why not? Because the U.S. would comprise about 90% of the total population of the new megastate. Given the figures for GDP per capita (PPP, international dollars) in Canada and Greenland and weighting for population, GDP per capita in the megastate would be about $79,000.
A strategic shift
The biggest effects of absorbing either country into the U.S. would come in the geopolitical, strategic and resource realms. Here, the changes would be seismic. First, by incorporating both countries into the U.S., the new entity would not only consolidate its already considerable power in the Western Hemisphere, but it would also establish a much more formidable position in the Arctic region. This is increasingly important as sea lanes are opening up with climate change.
By adding territory, the U.S. could potentially enhance its strategic and defense posture, forcing its principal adversaries, Russia and China, to pursue more cautious tacks. These geopolitical and strategic effects would be magnified by the bounty of natural resources in the new megastate.
Consider that the U.S. is already the largest oil-producing country in the world – producing over 13.3 million barrels a day in 2023 – and Canada is No. 4, with 5 million. Together, the two countries produced over 18 million barrels per day in 2023, while Russia produced about 10.3 million, Saudi Arabia about 9 million, and China 4.2 million. In other words, the U.S. and Canada together produce 8 million barrels of oil more than Russia does each day – a staggering differential.
The U.S. is also by far the largest producer of natural gas in the world, with Russia a distant second. Incorporating Canada, currently the fifth-largest producer, would add considerably to the U.S. lead.
Nor does the resource bounty begin and end with oil and natural gas. Greenland is rich in minerals of all types, particularly the rare earth elements in such demand for batteries, electronics and the like.
And perhaps most important of all is the impact of integration regarding freshwater resources. Integrating the U.S. and Canada would bring that new entity into a virtual tie with Brazil as the leading repository of freshwater resources in the world. Canada and the U.S. are currently Nos. 3 and 4, respectively, in the world in freshwater resources; together, their freshwater stock far surpasses Russia, which is currently No. 2.
And this doesn’t factor in Greenland, with its massive – if declining – freshwater ice shield. In any case, given the increasing demand for water around the world, control over freshwater resources will prove more and more important for the overall security posture of the U.S. going forward.
So what do we make of this little exercise? One thing seems clear: “GrAmeriCa” would be amazingly rich in resources, as the president likely knows well. But should we take Trump literally or seriously – or both – on this issue? It may be a case of “Too soon to tell,” to invoke Zhou Enlai’s famous line about one or another revolutionary upheaval in France. But the world will know soon enough.
Peter A. Coclanis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.