greenland is not for sale, president trump says i'm helena humphrey, glad you could join me. this week, donald trump's latest proposal — that the us take control of gaza move its people elsewhere, and turn it into the "riviera of the middle east" — has sparked global criticism. but this isn't the first time the president has floated bold territorial ambitions since returning to the white house. from demanding that denmark sell greenland to the united states, to threatening to reclaim the panama canal, to even suggesting that canada should become america's 51st state — president trump's vision seems to stretch beyond his "america first" agenda, with critics

tonight, in this special programme, we'll break it all down. we begin with the middle east. when he suggested that the us could "take over" gaza and resettle its palestinian population in the process. the us will take over the gaza strip and we do a job with strip and we will do a job with it as well. we will own it. at this press conference, president trump suggested that the displacement of palestinians would be permanent. this drew condemnation from the un, human rights groups and world leaders. in the days after, the president's officials said any displacement would be temporary. donald trump then repeated elements of his proposal to the us by israel under his plan and that palestinians would "already have been resettled in far safer and more "beautiful communities in the region". arab countries likejordan

and egypt resoundingly rejected that idea — repeating their commitment to a two—state solution. that's the creation of a palestinian state alongside israel — a goal of us foreign policy in the region for decades. he was most recently the us special envoy for middle east humanitarian issues under president biden. he's also served as a us ambassador to turkey and lebanon. welcome, always good to have you with us on bbc. president trump has now doubled down on the idea of the us taking control of gaza. happen? no, ido no, i do not. the president is quite right to draw attention to the hell that is the

situation, the humanitarian situation, the physical situation in gaza, it is absolute misery. but the majority of the palestinians resident in gaza will not leave voluntarily. whatever desperate character their existence there may have right now, they are not going to give up they ndt gning it.) give up they as net geing it.) give up they as their net geing te give up they as their home, nor i regard as their home, nor i would assess is israel or any other force going to, at gunpoint, deport them. the question would come to wear. evenif question would come to wear. even if the palestinians wish even if the pelestinierne wish leave, even if the pelestinierhe wish leave, which even if the pelestinierhs wish leave, which we assess they to leave, which we assess they do not, where are they go? jordan and egypt have drawn a bright red historically drawn a bright red line on the absorption on their territory already the presence of any period of time on the territory of additional palestinians, it is a political destabilising step injordan as well as a security challenge. in egypt is a major security challenge. let me remind that challenge.let me remind that bought challengeetet me remind that bought a challengeetet me remind thet bought a years long egyet eedght e gee-rs 'eng �* and egyet eedght e gee-rs 'eng

�*and lethal war in the bitter and lethal war in the sinai, to overcome first al-qaeda and then in isis movement whose origins are in gaza, the same movement that hamas. e-ypt will not do if this is a far—fetched well. if this is a far-fetched scenario. — well. if this is a far-fetched scenario, to _ well. if this is a far-fetched scenario, to say _ well. if this is a far-fetched scenario, to say the - well. if this is a far-fetched scenario, to say the least, l scenario, to say the least, as you suggest, why is the mak|ng 7? making the suggestion the 77 if ' inward" t the world stage? t the world stage? i t on the world stage? i have to assume it _ on the world stage? i have to assume it is _ on the world stage? i have to assume it is to _ on the world stage? i have to assume it is to precipitate - on the world stage? i have to assume it is to precipitate a l assume it is'te'eresipitste s assume it is'te'eresipitste s a response assume it is'te'eresipitate a a response from the response, a response from the gulf states saudi gulf states primarily saudi arabia, the uae, to get from them something on what would you do? if this is not an option, if the departure of is not possible palestinians is not possible because they do not wish to leave or you are not willing to leave'eryeu'aresnet willing te them, which they are accept them, which they are not, what then is your proposal? what assistance are you ready to that you ready to provide? that leads us to what has over the last year and a half been the position of those states which is the are prepared to engage

in stabilisation measures, boots on the ground, as well as reconstruction at a considerable cost to them but only within the framework of an . by israel of what: . by israel of what;we acceptance by israel of what we me say in reductionist terms a credible pathway to a negotiated permanent state i don't see them resolution. i don't see them coming in. is resolution. i don't see them coming in-— coming in. is there not also the risk _ coming in. is there not also the risk typically _ coming in. is there not also the risk typically when - coming in. is there not also the risk typically when it. the risk typically when it comes to these arab states of actually inflaming tension when actually inflaming tensionewhen to the prospect of a it comes to the prospect of a lasting peace and sees negotiations as well the release of further hostages not to mention the prospect of normalisation between israel saudi arabia? and saudi arabia? so only with resect and saudi arabia? so only with respect to _ and saudi arabia? so only with respect to normalisation - respect to normalisation israel and saudi between israel and saudi arabia, saudi arabia has insisted on summer formulation which on part of which embraces on the part of the government on israel that to a negotiated j i do hot i do not see j i do hot see that resolution. i do not see that as having been dropped, but obviously is something which will be discussed, a focus of

the previous administration, a focus this administration. i focus of this administration. i am less concerned about reaction than i am the regional reaction than i am the second point you mentioned, the president himself has called as president ism-e" has 'e"e“4es 7 ~ , ”so" s" ,, critical goal release a critical geal fer the ,,1,..,.._..,,.,.,.,,, a critical gealfer the release , ~ ,,, ~ ~ for all of accountability for all the gaza, that t be where the focus lies should be where the focus lies now. should tre'where�*th'e'fecus lies now. sustaining the right now. sustaining the ceasefire with phase one to phase two and achieving the complete resolution accountability for all hostages. is accountability for all hostages.— accountability for all hostaues. , ., , hostages. is that in 'eopardy then because h hostages. is that in 'eopardy then because of _ hostages. is that in jeopardy then because of the - hostages. is that in jeopardy i then because of the comments hostages. is that in jeopardy - then because of the comments by president 5 president in j president in regards j president in regards to j tite efee'eieht “1 fefiéreie tzet tt t tt’t t reported the ssseieishtintsssteiet�*s "’ "" reorted , ., , this reported plan? �*e�* e on this reported plan? “ e on this this reported plan? sessi- _ on this w- this reported plan’gé _ on this issue righti negotiating on this issue right now, the united states as senior levels is also engaged with the qatari is and it hamas, no, ido hamas, no, i do not see with hamas, so no, i do not see a reason at this moment to predict failure but it has to be the focus.—

be the focus. iii 7 mind, do ou be the focus. fi;i 7 mind, do ou think don't mind, do you think these are responsible comments to be making on the global stage the leader of the us? do making on the global stage the leader of the us? _ leader of the us? i do not believe that _ leader of the us? i do not believe that the _ leader of the us? i do not believe that the actual - leader of the us? i do not | believe that the actual exit leader of the us? i do not. believe that the actual exit of the palestinian population of t t istgoing t ' ig'gsingt;,"""“ t is going to happen as gaza is going to happen as involuntary or a measure. david satterfield, us special envoy for middle east turning now to greenland. and its parliament has passed a bill which bans foreign contributions to political parties as a preventative measure against president trump's agenda to take control of greenland. donald trump first raised interest in the danish territory during his first presidential term. his son, donald trumer, visited greenland a month ago — just hours before the president said that us ownership is "an absolute necessity" for international security. he also said that the 57,000 people who live there "want to be with us". denmark's prime minister,

however, says "greenland "belongs to the greenlanders." superpowers — the united states and russia. a strategic advantage for its vast land and natural resources. and vice chair of the center for energy and environment at the america first policy institute. very good to with us on the programme. donald trump has said that he believes the us will gain control of greenland. what do you make of that — do you think it's the right move? what i think is that although

greenland is part of the of or denmark. denmark is kingdom of denmark, denmark is at every opportunity to secure i press t i press them to give greenland, i press them to give more to their defence, and they had every opportunity to develop greenland but greenland is not there was is not developed, there was no between the two major route between the two major towns in greenland, zero development. denmark's has neglected greenland, they do not have the capacity to defend greenland and anyway, they eve i1 even defend denmark cannot even defend denmark itself and in fact their gdp per and their population per capita and their population is much like the state of colorado in the us, and if you ask colorado can you defend greenland and development, colorado would not be able to. that is how i and and i think many in the us, i don't speak for the trump administration for the trump administration for the trump administration for the aspi, this is my personal opinion, that denmark is not capable of defending if you want to talk greenland. if you want to talk defence greenland. if you want to talk - defence in _ greenland. if you want to talk - defence in all— greenland. if you want to talk - defence in all of- greenland. if you want to talk - defence in all of these l about defence in all of these and international stability, there is a �* european

there is a factor european countries that had to hold informal talks and options if the us president moves to seize greenland, the greenland, including the prospect of having to send prospecteof haulngteesend me the us is a nato are these comments member, are these comments creating instability within the defensive alliance which own defensive alliance to which the us is also a member and having to face russia?- the us is also a member and having to face russia? that is a lot you _ having to face russia? that is a lot you asking _ having to face russia? that is a lot you asking me _ having to face russia? that is a lot you asking me to - having to face russia? that is a lot you asking me to unpack but i will say these are — greenland is not part �*the greenland is not part of the eu, and greenland has no defence. there is like 30 guys from denmark up in greenland, that it from denmark up in greenland, thatitis, from denmark up in greenland, that it is, a couple of dogsled and an old navy qatar there. from denmark. as matter of from denmark. as a matter of fact, it will take much more resources than they -tt they are putting t they are putting $2 t they are putting $2 billion t say they are putting $2 billion us greenland defence us towards greenland defence but it is over multiple years, it is absolutely preposterous that denmark could defend greenland, and as a matter of

fact china has tried to move into greenland and pull them into their initiatives that is debt trap of diplomacy, and a debt trap of diplomacy, and their russian submarines all �*the place and that is open over the place and that is open source, the has become source, the region has become more lively. when i much more lively. when i got to denmark in 2017i tried to raise issue and get assets the issue and get assets for the issue and get assets for the region and there was really no appetite but as a matter of ne appetites-at as a matte at seeing that giant he appetites-at as a matte at seeing that giant uk fact seeing that giant uk gap... and that is around greenland, that is also on secure. ., , ., , greenland, that is also on secure. ., , ., secure. the other questions of defence which _ secure. the other questions of defence which you _ secure. the other questions of defence which you raise - secure. the other questions of defence which you raise but i defence which you raise but the question of what in greenland as opposed people in greenland as opposed to donald trump or the united states want. and a poll indicates 85% of the greenleigh population do not want the island to become part of the how can you speak to what us. how can you speak to what people want in greenland? titer;r people want in greenland? they have told me — people want in greenland? they have told me what _ people want in greenland? they have told me what they - people want in greenland? tie have told me what they want, they want is success in

what they want is success in their mining, they want successful tourism, they want their children to speak english as a second language, not chinese. this is what greenland wants, they will opportunity and good paying jobs. they do not have what they are looking two day. but in a kind of for two day. but in a kind of association with the us, whatever the deal ends up being trump and between president trump and greenland, greenland will be secure. greenland, premier several weeks ago from stated a several weeks ago from the podium, they are going independent.— the podium, they are going independent. they have also said they _ independent. they have also said they do _ independent. they have also said they do not _ independent. they have also said they do not want - independent. they have also said they do not want to - independent. they have also said they do not want to be i said they do not want to be taken over by the states taken over by the united states and if you talk about security and if you talk about security and the fact that donald trump has said he will not rule out has said he willenot rule out force, how do those two using force, how do those two things alone? that is very opposite of their security. matter of president t-t looks at the t ""”1...;t; a... world t tttttttlootksttatttthte world as it trump looks at the world as it is, not as we wish it were, and the united states is to be secure as nation. greenland secure as a nation. greenland is part of north america, just

off the northeast it off the us northeast coast, it is not secure, just like panama. it is not secure, 'ust like panamah panama. it is in the neighbourhood - panama. it is in the neighbourhood are| panama. it is in the i neighbourhood are not panama. it is in the - neighbourhood are not part panama. it is in the _ neighbourhood are not part of north america. it is neighbourhood are not part of north america.— north america. it is actually art of north america. it is actually part of north _ north america. it is actually part of north america, - part of north america, geographically. yes. greenland is part of america and is is part of north america and is a matter of fact it is part of the north america, it is the region, america, region, north america, and president trump is very astute about security for our nation, about security for our nation, about economic prosperity, he puntin-i tttttttttttt puttin- the us first, not is putting the us first, not america last, it is america in eme“? [set 't's emefwe'h t tt administration, and i think his administration, and i think the they greenland the opportunity they greenland will find is very exciting. i willfind isyery exciting. ! it is to be written how think it is to be written how these ends up playing out but i excited t t excited to t t excited to watch t excited to watch 3 excited to wattchat play out, am excited to watch a play out, this is an exciting time for the people of greenland who that greenland dream and want that greenland dream and the people of the us as trump has taken the president trump has taken the helm. carla sands, former united states ambassador to denmark in the first trump administration and vice

chair of the center for energy and environment to panama next. and president trump has repeatedly voiced his desire to retake control of the panama canal, which is key to global trade. in his inaugural speech, the us president alleged that that the president of panama, jose raul mulino strongly rejects. american government vessels were no longer required to pay a fee to transit through the panama canal. this sparked a strong rebuttal from panama's president — who accused the us of spreading "lies and falsehoods". today, president trump was due to speak with mr mulino but this was delayed — reportedly due to changes in the president's schedule. joining me live isjohn feeley,

former us ambassador to panama. great to have you with us. many were shocked when the topic of the panama canal coming back into office, and suggesting military force even to take it. mrtrump is mr trump is looking to achieve is actually a 2—step goal, one, he is always numberone, he is always the panama canal, you disliked the panama canal, you go back and look in history in the 1980s go back and look in history in the 19805 '905 go back and look in history in the 1980s '90s and he the 1980s and '90s and he railed against it, he does not believe to give something nothingt t t nothingtand t t nothingtand doets t nothingtand does not t for nothing and does not believe that a strategic with the friendly alliance with the friendly country is worth anything. 0n g..’*..’.”.”...; t t t t g..’*..’.';.a,”h’.’”' t t argon; a. ti; t t other hand, he is very the other hand, he is very concerned as was i when i was ambassador to with the ambassador to panama, with the chinese commercial expansion, and reasons are manifest.

and the reasons are manifest. the dual use activity, the for espionage, for theft of intellectual so he than there is the was sober than there is the other thing about the us navy other thing abeutthe us navy to pay. i think those ttt his goals, and i his goals, and i think that are his goals, and i think that he has enough noise and he has made enough noise and panamanian is our paying attention and the two sides are talking and today there no talking and'today there was no call but i erasidsntiatrsief em" " " that signifies this is comin- off coming off the rails by all coming off the rails by any stretch �*the imagination. you stretch of the imagination. you are implying — stretch of the imagination. you are implying that _ stretch of the imagination. you are implying that this is a t tttactic t tactic to extract t tt tthtrntktt t tt ttthtintktit concessions, do you think it could go further in thf the us tof the us taking back terms of the us taking back control and terms