Trump inaugural portraitPHOTO COURTESY OF WIKIPEDIA

Miami – President Donald Trump’s rhetoric of possibly using military force to seize Greenland has raised some eyebrows and concerns. Such bold action, if taken, could be internationally unlawful, according to global science experts on foreign policies.

During a press conference two weeks before his inauguration, Trump said taking over Greenland, a Denmark territory, and the Panama Canal are important to the national and economic security of the United States.

Trump hasn’t ruled out increasing U.S. military presence in the Arctic near Greenland, which is causing concerns with NATO allies including Denmark, and may spark a pushback that could escalate.

Denmark diplomats said Greenland is not for sale and Russia, who stepped up its military force in the Arctic, indicated it’s keeping an eye on the United States following Trump’s comments to annex NATO territory.

China said it has vested interests in the Arctic and will be taking an active role to protect territory which is the gateway to its technological partnerships and provides mineral resources.

But what’s behind Trump’s rhetoric to seize Greenland and the Panama Canal?

Several political science professors and foreign policy experts weighed in, on whether Greenland and the Panama Canal are strategically important to the security and economy of the United States.

Dan Hamilton, a foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington D.C., said Trump is using it as a negotiating tactic rather than a genuine threat.

"A lot of this is bombast and bluster," Hamilton says. "It’s also a tried-and-true tactic of Donald Trump, to sort of disorient your negotiating partner, put them on the back foot because you want to get a better deal for the real goals that you have."

Hamilton said in the case of Greenland and Panama, those real goals include keeping China and other potential adversaries at bay, a sort of throwback to the Monroe Doctrine, a policy first espoused by President James Monroe more than two centuries ago as a warning to European powers not to interfere in the affairs of the Western Hemisphere, which the U.S. viewed as its sole purview.

Brent Sadler, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, says Greenland could become increasingly important if shipping becomes viable through that route as Arctic weather gets warmer and ice caps shrink.

"Geography really matters, and Greenland’s geography is extremely strategic," Sadler, a retired U.S. Navy captain, told reporters. "We don’t want a Chinese economic or military presence right there at a very critical pathway for an attack against the United States."

Marc Jacobsen, an associate professor at the Royal Danish Defense College, said the United States for years has been raising security issues in Greenland.

The U.S. invaded Greenland during World War II when it was controlled by Germany, and established military bases in the region and has been operating there ever since.

Jacobsen said Greenland is a security issue with Russia’s military expansion near the region.

"If Russia were to send missiles towards the US, the shortest route for nuclear weapons would be via the North Pole and Greenland," said Johnson. "That’s why the Pituffik Space Base is immensely important in defending the US."

Trump’s bold policy claim to seize Greenland sparked diplomatic tension within NATO, as Denmark initially indicated it will not allow a hostile takeover of its territory.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said: “Greenland belongs to Greenland, and it wasn’t for sale."

However, Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen said Denmark was open to discussions with the US, adding that Washington had "legitimate" interests in the region.

"We see a Russia that is arming itself. We see a China that is also starting to take an interest," Rasmussen said. As for Canada, officials said it will be "a snowball chance in hell" the country will be part of the United States.

Julie Garey, an associate teaching professor of political science at Northeastern University, said a Greenland and Canada takeover is illegal under international law.

“It’s really unprecedented in the 21st century for a power like the United States to be saying it’s going to be doing these things and then pursue them in any meaningful way," Garey told reporters.

If Trump and the U.S. act on his rhetoric, it could cause tension and sour long standing relations with international allies.

“What is perhaps more likely is that some of this rhetoric does have an effect on the search for the new Canadian prime minister and Canadian domestic politics and how they start thinking about how their priorities should shift facing this potentially hostile relationship with one of their closest partners and allies,” Garey says.

She notes that the first Trump presidency set a precedent for disrupting previously tried and true alliances and relationships between the U.S. and other nations.

Whatever Trump’s intentions, Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at Brookings Institute, believes it’s important not to underestimate him.

O’Hanlon calls Trump’s rhetoric concerning the use of military force "crazy talk," but cautions.

"I think you have to err on the side of taking any president or president-elect at his or her word and believing that this could often be the forewarning of something that really may happen," he said.