**Davos, Switzerland** – The World Economic Forum in Davos, typically a stage for collaborative global problem-solving, has this week been dominated by the disruptive presence of US President Donald Trump, whose pronouncements have sent ripples of apprehension through international trade and geopolitical alliances. President Trump’s attendance has been punctuated by a series of bold and contentious declarations, most notably a veiled threat of substantial tariffs on goods from several key European nations, a move explicitly linked to his persistent interest in acquiring Greenland. This aggressive stance, coupled with other diplomatic manoeuvres, is not only reconfiguring transatlantic relations but also raising profound questions about the future of a rules-based international order.
The specter of a 10% tariff, with the potential to escalate to 25%, looms over Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland, and the United Kingdom. This retaliatory measure, reportedly slated for implementation on February 1st, is directly tied to President Trump's assertion that the United States should be permitted to purchase Greenland. The European Union, in response, is reportedly convening discussions to consider imposing counter-tariffs on a substantial volume of US exports, valued at up to €93 billion, signalling a significant escalation in trade tensions. Nigel Green, CEO of deVere Group, underscored the gravity of the situation, stating, "Greenland is not a side issue here. It sits directly on the fault line between geopolitics, security and economic leverage, and that makes it impossible for world leaders to ignore." The potential impact on market sentiment and commodity prices, including WTI crude oil, is a growing concern for economists and investors worldwide.
Further demonstrating a recalcitrant approach to established international norms, President Trump has also publicly rescinded an invitation extended to Canada to participate in his newly conceived "Board of Peace" initiative. Initially presented as a temporary body tasked with overseeing the governance and reconstruction of Gaza, this initiative, chaired by Trump himself, requires a $1 billion financial commitment from prospective permanent members. The withdrawal of Canada's invitation, communicated via a social media post, signifies a departure from traditional diplomatic engagement. Mark Carney, a Canadian official, alluded to the underlying financial considerations by noting, "Canada wants money to have maximum impact." This move, alongside other foreign policy pronouncements, suggests a "rupture" in the prior global framework that was largely shaped and overseen by the United States, according to Carney.
Closer to home, the US Congress has been grappling with the extent of presidential authority in foreign military engagements. On Thursday, the US House of Representatives narrowly rejected a resolution that would have explicitly prohibited President Trump from deploying American military forces into Venezuela. The vote, which fell short of the required majority, highlighted the deep divisions within Congress and the precarious position of House Speaker Mike Johnson, whose majority was tested by the outcome. This legislative debate emerged in the wake of earlier reports this month of US troops capturing Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro in a nighttime raid, an action that occurred without explicit congressional authorization. While the Trump administration has maintained that no US troops are currently on the ground in Venezuela and has pledged to seek congressional approval for significant military operations, the House's inability to pass the resolution underscores a burgeoning pushback against perceived unilateral presidential aggression. The capture of Maduro, occurring just last week, was the catalyst for the Senate to consider a similar resolution, further amplifying concerns about the balance of war powers. The fact that two Republican lawmakers ultimately sided with all Democrats on the Venezuela resolution indicates a significant, albeit insufficient, bipartisan discomfort with the administration's approach.