The writer is an economist, anchor, geo-political analyst
and the President of All Pakistan Private Schools’ Federation
president@Pakistanprivateschools.com
In a political landscape already rife with unpredictability, Donald Trump’s recent threats towards Canada, Panama, Mexico, Gaza, Greenland, Ukraine, and other nations have escalated concerns about the direction of U.S. foreign policy. These statements, cloaked in the rhetoric of national interest and security, seem to reflect a nostalgic yearning for a bygone era of American imperialism, but they come with significant contemporary risks. Trump’s approach to foreign policy has been marked by a transactional and confrontational style, which has alienated allies and emboldened adversaries. His threats to various countries have undermined global stability and raised concerns about the future of international relations. The US president’s statements have been marked by a combative tone, targeting nations. One of Trump’s most surprising threats was Trump’s expansionist declaration that the US should own Greenland has raised eyebrows. Trump’s interest in Greenland, viewing it as a strategic asset, has been met with derision and concern. His earlier offer to buy Greenland from Denmark was seen as an affront to Danish sovereignty. His current threats to potentially use military force are even more alarming, suggesting a disregard for the autonomous status Greenland holds and Denmark’s role as its protector. Trump’s suggestion that Canada could be annexed as the 51st state of the U.S. is not just a breach of international norms but a profound insult to Canadian sovereignty. The notion of annexation, even if not seriously intended, sends a worrying message about respect for national boundaries and the sanctity of international law. Such rhetoric could erode the trust between two nations that share the longest international border in the world, a relationship built on mutual respect and cooperation. The threats to “reclaim” control of the Panama Canal evoke memories of U.S. imperialism in Latin America. Trump’s threatened Panama, where he suggested retaking control of the Panama Canal. This move was seen as an attempt to assert US dominance over the critical waterway. The canal, handed back to Panama in 1999, symbolizes Panamanian sovereignty. Trump’s comments about potentially seizing it again not only stir historical grievances but also signal to other nations that international agreements might be subject to unilateral revocation by U.S. whim, undermining global trust in U.S. commitments. Similarly, Trump’s threats to Mexico have been particularly contentious, with the former president repeatedly calling for a border wall and making disparaging remarks about Mexican immigrants. His administration’s “zero-tolerance” policy at the US-Mexico border led to widespread criticism and human rights concerns. It remains to be seen how Trump’s recent threats will play out, but one thing is clear: his approach to foreign policy has been a divisive and destabilising force on the world stage. Trump’s approach to Mexico has often been one of economic coercion, with threats of tariffs and border closures. His rhetoric now includes military threats, which further strain an already complex relationship. The U.S.-Mexico relationship involves not just trade but also critical issues like migration, drug trafficking, and security. Trump’s aggressive posture can push Mexico towards other global players, like China, thus shifting regional alliances. While Trump’s threats towards Ukraine are less direct, his approach often lacks support for Ukrainian sovereignty. His comments or lack thereof can destabilizing Eastern Europe and undermining NATO’s cohesion. His transactional view of international relations might treat Ukraine not as an ally to be supported but as a bargaining chip.
In the Middle East, Trump’s threats to the Palestine of Gaza to relocate have exacerbated an already volatile situation viewing it as a blatant land grab and sparked international outcry and protests. Perhaps the most contentious of Trump’s recent statements is his proposal to “take over” Gaza, suggesting a transformation into a “Riviera of the Middle East” after displacing its Palestinian population. Trump’s comments about Gaza appear to break with decades of US foreign policy, which has long emphasized a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. There has long been a fear in the region that Israel wants to push Palestinians out of Gaza into neighboring countries — a premise Israel rejects but one supported by far-right factions of its governing coalition. This idea is not only logistically and morally questionable but also geopolitically explosive. It could undo decades of peace efforts in the region, alienate Arab allies, and fuel anti-American sentiment, thereby increasing, rather than decreasing, regional instability. Under international law, the forcible transfer of populations is strictly forbidden. This proposal is viewed by Palestinians, Arab nations and The UN as an explicit move towards their expulsion and the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their homeland. Trump’s plan to “take over” Gaza and forcibly relocate its Palestinian population, highlighting that such actions would breach international law. The timing of this announcement disrupted the ongoing ceasefire negotiations aimed at releasing hostages and prisoners, ending hostilities, and the reconstruction of Gaza, all while adhering to international humanitarian and human rights laws. Trump suggested that Palestinians would be eager to leave Gaza, envisioning a long-term U.S. management of the region, promising economic development and job creation. However, this vision starkly contrasts with international legal standards, which protect the right to self-determination and prohibit such actions without consent. The suffering in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Israel demands a resolution based on dignity and equality, which this plan seems to undermine. Trump also ended his predecessor’s hold on sending 2,000-pound bombs to Israel. A 2,000-pound bomb has a destruction radius of 35 metres, according to the Project on Defense Alternatives (PDA). Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of US aid since its founding. The US has historically supplied substantial foreign aid to Israel; a total of $297bn between 1946 and 2023, $216bn of which was in military aid and $81bn in economic aid, according to data from the US Agency for International Aid (USAID). The demographic of Gaza is predominantly Palestinian, many of whom are descendants of those displaced during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, known to Palestinians as the “Nakba” or catastrophe. The narrative of Gaza is one of conflict, displacement, and resilience. There are some 5.9 million Palestinian refugees worldwide, most of them descendants of people who fled with the creation of Israel in 1948. They are descendants of some of the approximately 750,000 Palestinians who fled or were forced from their homes in the conflicts surrounding the formation of Israel in 1948. More than 57,200 Palestinians, the majority civilians, have been killed in Israel’s offensive. Israeli airstrikes have damaged or destroyed around 80% of buildings, including schools and hospitals, and around 92% of homes, according to the UN. Approximately 90% of Gaza residents have been displaced, and many have been forced to move repeatedly, some more than 10 times, according to the UN. The United Nations has previously estimated that 60% of structures across Gaza have been damaged or destroyed, and it could take decades to rebuild. Most of Gaza’s two million residents have been displaced in the war, which has flattened much of Gaza’s infrastructure. Thousands of Palestinians have fled to Egypt since the war with Israel began, but they are not recognised there as refugees. As of January 2025, there were 877,000 refugees and asylum-seekers registered in Egypt, according to the UNHCR, the United Nations refugee agency. In Jordan, more than 2.39 million Palestine refugees are registered with UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees. Accepting a Palestinian population transfer would be more costly for the two countries Egypt and Jordan than losing the American aid both countries rely on. Such actions threaten stability, risk extending the conflict further in the region, and undermine opportunities for peace and coexistence. The international community to support reaching a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A ceasefire is being observed in Gaza after a deal between Israel and Hamas to halt the war. The sheer scale of moving around 1.5 million people would be catastrophic, leading to humanitarian, legal, and moral crises. Trump’s vision and proposal to move Palestinians out of Gaza to ‘clean out the whole thing’ not only defies the long-established two-state solution but also aligns with the most radical elements within Israel’s political spectrum, who advocate for territorial expansion at the expense of Palestinian rights. Palestinian leaders and international human rights organizations have labeled this plan as ethnic cleansing of Palestinian, drawing parallels with historical attempts to erase Palestinian presence from their homeland.
The overarching theme in Trump’s rhetoric is a revival of 19th-century imperialism, where might makes right. This approach not only alienates allies but also gives nations like Russia and China justification to pursue their territorial ambitions under the defending against similar U.S. actions. It threatens the post-World War II international order!
The overarching theme in Trump’s rhetoric is a revival of 19th-century imperialism, where might makes right. This approach not only alienates allies but also gives nations like Russia and China justification to pursue their territorial ambitions under the defending against similar U.S. actions. It threatens the post-World War II international order, which, though imperfect, relies on principles like sovereignty and non-interference. The forced displacement of an entire population contravenes international law, which supports the right of return for refugees. In the noble pursuit of peace and justice, it is incumbent to adhere strictly to the venerable principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Firstly, military operations must scrupulously distinguish between combatants and the innocent populace, ensuring the principle of distinction is upheld to minimize civilian suffering. In adherence to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, all individuals detained in this strife must be treated with the utmost humanity, free from any torture or degrading treatment. To safeguard the dignity and rights of the people of Gaza under the aegis of international and humanitarian law, it falls upon Israel, as the occupying power, to fulfill its obligations under Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention by ensuring the provision of food, water, electricity, and medical supplies. The blockade must be eased or lifted to allow these vital necessities to flow freely into Gaza. Additionally, the international community must honor commitments such as the Ottawa Treaty, banning the use of anti-personnel mines, and the Convention on Cluster Munitions, which outlaws weapons that indiscriminately harm, thus preserving the integrity of human life and the environment. Let there be no actions that might be considered collective punishment, such as the withholding of essential services, which is expressly forbidden by Article 33 of the same Convention. Military operations must strictly distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, ensuring proportionality in the pursuit of military objectives as dictated by International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Moreover, the actions of war must never precipitate excessive harm to non-combatants, in strict observance of the principle of proportionality, where the military advantage must clearly outweigh the sorrow inflicted upon the civilian community. It is also imperative that safe and unhindered pathways for humanitarian aid be established, fulfilling the obligations set forth by the Geneva Conventions, which mandate relief operations to reach those in desperate need. The sanctity of humanitarian workers must be respected, acknowledging their neutrality and impartiality as decreed by IHL, providing them with security to execute their benevolent duties. Prisoners of war and other detainees are entitled to the protections delineated in the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, which include rights to communicate with their families, access to legal counsel, and the assurance of a just trial. Hospitals, clinics, and ambulances, which bear the emblem of humanity, must be shielded under the protections of the Geneva Conventions. Cultural treasures and civil infrastructure, such as schools and water facilities, should be preserved from military utilization or attack, in accordance with the 1954 Hague Convention. Those detained must be treated with humaneness, granted access to legal counsel, family communication, and safeguarded from torture or any form of cruel treatment, as affirmed by the Geneva Conventions and Human Rights Law. The international community, through bodies like the United Nations, non-governmental organizations, and international courts, should vigilantly monitor the situation, document infringements, and advocate strenuously for adherence to international law, thus fostering a path towards peace and justice for Gaza. In the pursuit of justice and peace, let us heed the clarion call of the United Nations, where numerous resolutions, from Resolution 242 to the more recent ones, have underscored the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people. The vision of a two-state solution, endorsed by the international community, offers a beacon of hope for a land where both Palestinians and Israelis can live side by side in peace and security, each with their own sovereign state. This noble aim is reinforced by the principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), particularly the Geneva Conventions, which demand that Israel, as the occupying power, provide for the basic human needs of the inhabitants of Gaza, ensuring the supply of food, water, and medical aid as per Article 55. Let no blockade hinder the humanitarian lifeline, for collective punishment is anathema to Article 33. Let us champion the oversight of the UN, the scrutiny of international courts, and the advocacy of non-governmental organizations to ensure accountability. Trump’s plan is indeed “Gaza Gamble,” showcasing a reckless disregard for international laws, defying global consensus, challenging the very foundations of the international order. With Gaza on the brink, that Trump’s strategy not only undermines global laws and justice but also poses a significant challenge to the rules-based order that governs international relations, a threat to peace and international laws. This not only jeopardizes America’s standing as a leader of the free world but also risks igniting conflicts where diplomacy should prevail. The international community, including U.S. citizens, must critically assess these statements, demand accountability, and reaffirm commitments to international laws and diplomacy. The world cannot afford a return to an era where borders are moved by force or threats thereof, especially when the world faces global challenges that require cooperation rather than confrontation.