TEHRAN - Jeffrey Sachs, a world-renowned economics professor, says the United States has behaved like a bully after the Second World War and now under Donald Trump it is bullying both “allies” and “adversaries”.

“I believe that we are in an endgame regarding such US bullying – albeit a very, very dangerous endgame,” Sachs tells the Tehran Times when asked to give his opinion that Trump has floated acquiring Greenland, reclaiming the Panama Canal, and claiming if Canada became the 51st state, taxes would be cut.

Sachs, a Columbia University professor who has served as Special Advisor to UN Secretaries-General Kofi Annan (2001-7), Ban Ki-moon (2008-16), and António Guterres (2017-18), also says “the US hand in extreme violence is often very visible, as in Ukraine and in Gaza.” 

The following is the text of the interview:

Trump has threatened to reclaim the Panama Canal. The Panamanian president has declared his country would not hand over a single square meter of the canal. However, Trump has replied on Truth Social: "We'll see about that!" and showed an image of an American flag being planted in the middle of the Panama Canal. What does such a language and behavior suggest? Wouldn’t such approaches intimidate countries or present the U.S. as a bully? 

Yes, this language is designed to bully.  Trump’s method is to make an outrageous demand or statement and expect that the other side will meet Trump “half way.”  I doubt that the US will seize the Panama Canal.  There is no point in that.  US interests in the Canal are in no way threatened, not in the least.  If the US does so, it would create a massive geopolitical crisis for the US of exceptional severity with no benefit.  Yet, perhaps Trump believes that Panama will cut the canal fees for US ships, or will contract with US companies instead of with Hong Kong companies, or will support the US in some other way.  Or perhaps Trump was just having “fun” with threats to see the reactions of a little country, a kind of cat and mouse game.   

Trump also referred to Canadian PM Trudeau as governor of America’s 51st state. Though such remarks cannot be serious, they cannot also be ignored. What is your opinion?

No, such statements should not be ignored.  Trump’s statement about Canada, nasty and absurd as it was, seems to have played some role in accelerating the collapse of the Canadian Trudeau government, because Canada’s finance minister resigned, reportedly saying that Canada was not yet ready to meet the US threat under Trump.  

“I have no doubt that the US will actually expand its military presence in Greenland.”In his first term, Trump floated the idea to buy Greenland but his offer was rejected and he canceled his visit to Denmark. Again, the incoming president doubled down in 48 hours on taking over Greenland, saying “the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity” for national security and global freedom.  He insisted on acquiring the Arctic territory although Greenland's PM said, "Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long struggle for freedom." Aren’t his comments suggest that he has a covetous eye on Greenland?

I have no doubt that the US will actually expand its military presence in Greenland, as part of the US military strategy to counteract the rising importance of the northern (arctic) sea route and other arctic resources for China and Russia.  Trump’s bluster vis-à-vis Greenland will therefore work to an extent, forcing Denmark into a subservient position.   

After Trump’s comments, Denmark announced a huge boost in defense spending for Greenland. What does this defense spending suggest?

Denmark, in my guess, is trying to curry favor with the US by increasing military purchases from the US, so there are probably some arms deals wrapped up in this.  This was perhaps part of Trump’s motivation.  I’m surmising, but it seems plausible. Denmark’s increased military outlays of course have nothing to do with protecting Greenland from the US, which it could not do.   

In general, don’t you think such statements about the Panama Canal, Greenland, or even Canada show that the U.S. under Trump is openly challenging the global order and that he is openly coercing countries even if they are American allies? 

The “global order” from the point of view of the US is US hegemony.  There is nothing new about this with Trump.  Trump just plays these cards with “allies” as well as with “adversaries.” It’s US hegemony all the same.  

US hegemony through threats and through force of course goes back to the end of World War II, for example, including the US overthrow of Mossadegh (1953) and Arbenz (1954) and the US assassination of Lumumba (1961).  The US manages its imperial system through CIA-led subversion (such as Iran, Guatemala, Congo, Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine), Israeli wars backed by the US (most recently in Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria), NATO-led wars (Serbia, Libya and many others), assassinations, coercive economic sanctions, and other forceful means. 

“The ‘global order’ from the point of view of the US is US hegemony.” 

Trump is no different from Biden in this.  Biden after all went all in on the Ukraine War, and also on Israel’s genocide in Gaza.  Biden played a personal role in overthrowing Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014 (as we know from the intercepted Nuland-Pyatt phone call), which triggered the war.  The US under Trump will actually now gear up to fight China, crazy as that might sound, and could well support an Israeli attack on Iran.  On the other hand, Trump is actually likely to end the Ukraine War, something that Biden was too violent and unwise to do.  

For years American officials have been floating the idea that the U.S. is the leader of the “free world”, however, such remarks show that the U.S. is emerging as a “bully of the world”. Please give your own opinion.

The US always uses an iron fist when it wants – in Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Afghanistan, Iran (both in 1953 and in arming Iraq to invade Iran in 1990 and other times), Gaza, Lebanon, Serbia, Libya, Iraq, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, and countless other places.  

There used to be a US joke.  “Why is the US the only country that has never had a coup?”  “Answer: The US is the only country without a US embassy.”  Sadly, however, the assassination of President John F. Kennedy looks very likely to have been an internal coup, though the evidence was of course suppressed and never properly investigated.  (An excellent book on the topic is David Talbot, The Devil’s Chessboard, 2014).  

The Columbia University professor calls Trump’s statement about Canada ‘nasty and absurd’

The US is therefore not becoming a bully; it has long operated like a bully.  Of course, it prefers verbal threats, bribes, and other means in place of military actions and violent coups. Yet the US hand in extreme violence is often very visible, as in Ukraine and in Gaza.  Under Trump, the threats will also involve US “friends” such as Canada and Europe.  

I believe that we are in an endgame regarding such US bullying – albeit a very, very dangerous endgame.  The US cannot realistically bully the entire world, nor can it defeat Russia or China in war.  So, the bullying is bluster, yet very dangerous bluster since it can spin out of control.  If the US provokes China over Taiwan, for example, the result could be a devasting war.  There are many other such global tripwires.  I’m not sure that US “strategists” acknowledge such tripwires.  They are playing with fire.  Trump’s attacks on US “friends” will accelerate the endgame.  But please, recognize how dangerous all of this is.  It is not a game.  

Let us hope that there is no further expansion of the war in the Middle East under Trump.  This, sadly, cannot be ruled out, given the unlimited backing that the US gives to Israel, and given Netanyahu’s clear hope to enlarge the war.