Chinese Media Watch: Trump’s territorial ambitions as seen from Beijing

Chinese media have seized on Trump’s remarks about gaining control of Canada, Greenland, and Panama, spinning the controversial comments to bolster China’s image on the global stage.

Key takeaways:

Nearly a week before his inauguration, the then president-elect Donald Trump said he would not rule out the use of military force to seize control of the Panama Canal and Greenland. In the wake of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to resign, Trump also floated the possibility of employing “economic force” to annex Canada, describing the shared border as an “artificial line.”

Trump’s statements about US territorial expansion are not without precedent. Already during his first term in 2019, Trump suggested the US should buy Greenland, a semi-autonomous territory of Denmark. Greenland is home to a large US space facility and is rich in rare earth mineral reserves, which are key to gaining an advantage in the high-tech sector. Another factor is the island’s strategic geographical importance, which Trump considers crucial for military operations aimed at tracking Chinese and Russian naval movements.

In the case of the Panama Canal– a vital maritime corridor connecting the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans– Trump’s security concerns refer to significant China’s presence in Latin America, especially when it comes to large-scale loans to governments and infrastructure investments. The latter has been a concern from the perspective of economic security, given its potential for the military use of strategic infrastructure such as ports. Particularly in Panama, Chinese firms such as Landbridge Group and CK Hutchison Holdings, based in Hong Kong, now operate ports at both entrances of the canal. 

Bargaining tactic

China saw Trump’s remarks as a perfect opportunity to reinforce its long-term anti-US rhetoric and boost its own image. This is particularly helpful in China’s outreach to audiences in Europe and elsewhere, who have their own concerns about the new US administration. Reacting to Trump’s comments about China’s influence over the Panama Canal, China’s Foreign Ministry underscored the Canal’s neutrality: “China consistently respects Panama’s sovereignty over the Panama Canal while acknowledging its role as a permanently neutral international passageway.”

Chinese media widely reported about the international rejection and criticism of Trump’s remarks, particularly in Europe and Latin America. The Global Times article “More Foreign Leaders React to Trump’s Land Control Comments” quotes not only the Canadian, Panamanian and Danish leaders but also other European representatives, including German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who criticized Trump’s approach as “damaging the rules-based global order.” The Xinhua Agency cites French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot stating that the EU will not tolerate threats to its sovereign territories. 

Chinese experts were often quoted for interpretation of Trump’s statements, such as Wang Youming, Director of the Institute of Developing Countries at the China Institute of International Studies in Beijing, saying for the Global Times that Trump’s statements are “just a bargaining tactic.” According to Wang, Trump’s apparent interest in territorial expansion, including gaining control of the Panama Canal, may serve a more immediate and pragmatic purpose: negotiating a more favorable economic terms for American interests, particularly for US shipping companies. By framing Trump’s statements as part of a negotiation strategy, Wang dismisses the likelihood of actual US aggression in Panama and positions Trump as a leader whose primary focus is economic leverage. This interpretation aligns with Trump’s penchant for transactional diplomacy, where he often employs bold statements to gain negotiating power. Wang’s perspective underscores a belief in pragmatism over ideology in Trump’s actions. This reading could also be tied to a larger understanding of Trump in China which hopes to be able to deal with Trump through transactional logic.

Similarly, Guancha quoted Zhang Tengjun, Deputy Director of the Institute of American Studies at the China Institute of International Studies, who believes Trump is “sending a signal to other countries, letting the world feel the shock wave of Trump 2.0.” According to Zhang, Trump aims to make other countries feel the disruptive potential of his administration, using grandiose statements to establish leverage and unsettle competitors. Similarly to Wang, Zhang argues that this perceived chaos helps Trump set the stage for negotiation, creating a psychological advantage. This reflects a view of Trump as an unpredictable politician who thrives on maximizing uncertainty to consolidate his power, keeping adversaries and allies alike guessing.

Zhang also ties Trump’s rhetoric to the broader context of anti-China sentiment in US politics. He suggests that Trump uses China as a convenient scapegoat to galvanize domestic and international support. By framing China as a major strategic competitor, Trump’s remarks are said to resonate with existing US narratives of rivalry with China. Zhang’s commentary reflects a Chinese interpretation that Trump’s focus on Panama or other territorial issues is less about geopolitics per se and more about consolidating US economic and political dominance, with China serving as a rhetorical foil.

Global order ‘deeply disrupted’  

Trump’s remarks in Chinese media are also portrayed as indicative of the US’s alleged imperialistic ambitions and a disregard for international norms. Reports frequently underscore how these comments supposedly reveal the US’ tendency to use military and economic power to achieve geopolitical dominance. A Global Times article titled “Denmark Boosts Defence Spending for Greenland Hours after Trump Repeats Desire to Purchase Island” implies a link between Denmark’s reaction and US expansionism, linking it to a broader narrative of destabilizing American policies, which is contrasted with China’s self-portrayal as a proponent of peaceful development.

This is further reinforced by statements from Chinese experts, such as Diao Daming, a professor at the Renmin University of China in Beijing, quoted by the Global Times. “If the new US administration tries to annex these lands with military or economic approaches, this would set a dangerous precedent for the world’s sole superpower to disregard international laws and norms. […] This would be extremely unfair for countries like Denmark, Panama and Canada, and the global order and the international system would be deeply interrupted and fall into greater chaos.”

Implicitly or explicitly, the Chinese narrative contrasts the “destabilizing” actions of the US with China’s own proclaimed (but in practice often disregarded) policies of respect for sovereignty and peaceful development, as seen for instance in an opinion article on a self-publishing platform Baijiahao: “Trump’s ambitions for Greenland and the Panama Canal show the US’ radical attitude in its global strategic layout. The international community, especially China, has made it clear that it firmly opposes the US’ interference in the affairs of other countries through ‘power politics.’ China’s clear position and defense of its sovereignty provide strong support for the stability and fairness of the global order.”

If Americans can do this, why cannot we recover Taiwan?

Chinese media emphasizes sovereignty as a sacrosanct principle, framing Trump’s remarks as a blatant violation of it. Xinhua News article “Trump: ‘Not ruling out military force’” highlights Trump’s statements about military options, criticizing the US for ignoring international norms of respect for sovereignty. This reinforces China’s official stance on territorial integrity, indirectly drawing parallels to issues like Taiwan. 

At the same time, Trump’s remarks that he would not hesitate to occupy Greenland by force in the national interest have sparked heated discussions on Chinese social media. “Trump seems serious, so we should also see what we can get from it,” appeared in a blog discussion on Baidu. 

As Reuters reported, some commentators on Chinese social media view Trump’s statements  as an opportunity for China to assert its own territorial claims over Taiwan. These voices suggest that Trump’s actions signal a new era of assertive geopolitics, where China needs to get ahead.

There is, however, a significant difference between Greenland and Taiwan, which is also emphasized by Beijing. While Greenland is part of another country, China insists that Taiwan is part of its territory and has not given up the option of “achieving reunification” by force. One factor that hinders Beijing from doing so is the provisions in the Taiwan Relations Act regarding the US’s role in safeguarding Taiwan’s self-defence capabilities. However, if a war breaks out in the Taiwan Strait, it is unclear whether the US will come to Taiwan’s aid. 

During his first term as president, Trump provided strong support for Taiwan, including regular arms sales to the island. On the other hand, during his campaign last year, Trump said Taiwan should pay for the US’ protection and has criticized Taiwan for taking advantage of the US in the economy. But, perhaps paradoxically, unlike President Biden, Trump has a more conventional approach of remaining ambiguous regarding US intervention to thwart China’s invasion. When previously asked about whether the US would intervene militarily in the  defense of Taiwan, Trump replied: ”If I answer that question, it will put me in a very bad negotiating position.” 

Conclusion

Chinese media have largely interpreted Trump’s territorial ambitions through a lens that accuses the US of imperialism while bolstering China’s self-portrayal as a defender of international norms and sovereignty. Trump’s statements were framed as provocative and destabilizing, serving as evidence of the United States’ alleged disregard for global order and its propensity for “power politics.” By emphasizing international criticism and drawing parallels to Taiwan, Chinese outlets used Trump’s rhetoric to reinforce their narratives of US overreach and their own commitment to peaceful development. This perspective, however, is accompanied by interpretations from Chinese experts, who often downplay Trump’s remarks as a strategic game aimed at negotiation, rather than genuine policy intent. These analyses reflect both skepticism of US actions and recognition of Trump’s characteristic unpredictability in leveraging bold rhetoric for political and economic gains.

The post Chinese Media Watch: Trump’s territorial ambitions as seen from Beijing appeared first on CEIAS.