John Kliewer's Web Site

Tag: Canada

  • Canada Election

    Incumbent Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney was elected to a full term April 28, which makes a 4th consecutive term for Canada’s Liberal Party. Carney defeats Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative Party candidate, who has promoted a brand of populism that has been compared to Trumpism. (That’s what I read. I haven’t kept up with Canadian politics.) This is a remarkable turnaround for the Liberals. Recall that longtime former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced his resignation in January (effected March 14) due to deep unpopularity and fellow Liberal politicians turning on him.

    “The American betrayal”

    The top issue in Canada’s election, at least for prime minister, was the new reality of an adversarial United States as a consequence of Donald Trump’s reelection as president and the trade war and expansionist threat Trump has instigated. At least, that’s my impression from the scant attention I’ve paid to the election (which is still better than probably 95% of Americans). I’m amazed the deteriorating Canada-US relationship isn’t a top issue in the US because it is for me. I was watching the Today show on NBC this morning. They gave more coverage to a forecasted thunderstorm outbreak and a polar bear chasing a man in Svalbard than the Canadian election. It feels like we’re living in an alternate reality, where we have a president threatening to annex Canada, and most Americans seem pretty unperturbed about it. I still don’t have any idea how we (the US) got to such a low low, and still sinking.

    Carney has said Canada’s traditional relationship with the US is “over”. I hate that, and it’s the last thing I want. Trump was reelected by those who support him and outnumber me, and this is what they want: a relationship in which the US subjugates and bullies Canada, and perhaps even worse. Carney is merely acknowledging a new reality that Canadians, and many like-minded Americans, never asked for. I hope Canadians know that a sizable segment of the US is aghast and opposed to this, though shamefully few Americans are speaking out. Canada has American friends, but that doesn’t mean Canada shouldn’t stand up to the US and fight back. To the extent that deteriorating relations have a tangible negative impact (economic, national security cooperation, etc.) on me, that’s on the Trumpists, not the Canadians. Carney said solemnly in his victory speech “We are over the shock of the American betrayal”. I’ll eventually get over the shock but never the betrayal.

    Antagonizing friendly countries

    There’s a plurality of Americans (so it seems) that supports a foreign policy which preys upon our friends and allies. It’s morally reprehensible. Betrayal is a Trumpist value, not an American ideal. Friends might seem like easy prey because they don’t have the defensive posture that our enemies do.

    To the Trumpists

    You might think you’re really sticking it to them now, but our friends will not remain our friends, especially if this continues. You’re burning bridges, trading long-term, mutually and immensely beneficial foreign relationships for short-term superficial gain, if even that. Our longtime friends won’t forgive the US for this – you (Trumpists) deserve it, but I don’t. But then, I care, and you don’t.

    Trumpist iconoclasm

    Iconoclasm is one of the driving forces behind Trumpism. It’s fun to demolish things. It brings instant gratification, whereas building things takes time, patience, and the discipline to follow through. As long as this gratuitous destruction doesn’t materially affect the Trumpists, they think it’s funny and watch others getting swacked with glee. That’s why they think it’s cool to have a president that pushes other countries around. Even when it does affect them (like federal employees caught in mass firings), they generally don’t regret supporting Trump. I think there’s a spiteful satisfaction that, yeah Trump got me, but Trump will get “others” (immigrants, Canadians) even worse. That’s never what I thought the US was or would ever become. In the US-Canada relationship that was, I see the greatest bilateral relationship, on cultural, economic, security, and geopolitical levels, that we could ever aspire to be so lucky to have. The Trumpers see the same thing and think: wouldn’t it be fun to demolish that and watch the Canadians and anti-Trumpists squeal? This is how people I used to respect and thought I knew really think. Trump has empowered tens of millions of Americans to wear their true colors on their sleeve.

    We’re racking up a debt of goodwill that we’ll be paying off for decades to come. Countries have chosen to align with us, especially post-World-War-2, rather than other world powers because we’ve historically welcomed ties on generous terms with countries friendly to the US, though generally tilted in our favor. It will take decades to rebuild what Trumpists chose to forfeit for their own amusement.

    Where does a real American go from here?

    I can only hope I and other like-minded Americans rise to the calling of the times and keep fighting the good fight. It will be a long-term endeavor. Even with our best efforts, it will take years to see major improvement in our country’s moral fiber. I’ll try and do my part to treat Canadians like the friends they always were. The Trumpists have already banked a durable victory: they’ve shattered the trust that Canada and Europe had in the US. At best it will take decades to rebuild, presuming that Trumpism will be relegated to the ash heap of discredited and ruinous ideologies where it belongs, and after enough forever Trumpers die off.

    NORAD

    It may seem out of place, but I have to add this because I can’t stop thinking about it. I keep wondering about the future of NORAD, the joint Canada/US command that monitors our joint airspace and coordinates the air policing that keeps our countries safe from airborne threats (enemy bombers, hijacked kamikaze airliners, etc.). How can NORAD survive such a hellish betrayal by one partner against the other? Both countries will be less safe for it.

  • New American Imperialism

    President Donald Trump is attempting to usher in a new era of American imperialism. Is anyone raising the alarm?

    One of the most alarming aspects of Trump’s agenda has to be his rhetoric saying the US should take land from other countries. The response in America is surprisingly muted. I can think of 3 reasons:

    1. A belief that this is so preposterous, from a president who’s prolific in preposterous output, that it’s not to be taken seriously. You can’t treat it as all bluster when it comes from the president of the United States.
    2. Many Americans are simply apathetic. This topic is worth its own blog post and has to be one of the principal reasons the moral fiber of America has deteriorated so.
    3. Americans that reject imperialism, namely the anti-Trumpists, feel powerless. We presently are a minority in the halls of power, but we’re only truly powerless if we choose to be. I choose not to be, and that’s why I speak out against Trumpism. Writing in a blog isn’t enough. I see it as a starting point in a long game.

    By my count, Trump has made the US takeover of the following countries and territories part of his agenda:

    1. Canada
    2. Greenland
    3. Panama (Panama Canal Zone in particular, not the whole country, though I won’t put it past Trump)
    4. Gaza Strip

    I focus on Canada and Greenland in this post. Panama and Gaza are important too, and I shall revisit those in future posts.

    Attention: Canadians and Greenlanders

    I hope you and other non-Americans are reading this. The Trump presidency is a waking nightmare. I never expected our country to get in a crisis this bad, and of our own making no less. I’m as horrified about it as you are. Before the rise of Trumpism, I never contemplated a president threatening to annex foreign countries, let alone friends. I always thought we were the good guys, even if we made some colossal mistakes that eroded that standing (like invading Iraq on the false pretext of weapons of mass destruction).

    I watch our president, how he speaks, what he says, and still can’t believe people think this is normal or that he is at all fit to be president. I think if most Americans from 2005 could time travel to 2025, they would say we elected a madman. Even to me, it feels far more like normal than it should. I’ve gotten so accustomed to it that most of the alarm and panic I felt in Trump’s first few weeks back in office have mostly subsided. I have a moral imperative as an American not to get complacent. As an American citizen, I have as much of a right as anyone else to make my mark to make the US that kind of country I want it to be.

    You probably aren’t aware of how divided America is over Trump. I have friends and family on both sides: those that are equally horrified, and those who support Trump unconditionally. There have always been issues that have divided Americans. Historically we’ve been divided along lines like urban vs. rural, coastal vs. interior states, rich vs. poor, race, etc. The Trump divide is very individualized, and not along the traditional lines. Most Americans don’t talk (at least not openly) about Trump or his agenda, including those with strong opinions on Trump. I’m trying to do my part to break out of that pattern.

    Trump’s expansionist designs

    You can’t dismiss Trump’s rhetoric for several reasons:

    • Trump is President of the United States. You have to be able to take the president at his word. You can’t just dismiss it because you don’t believe him. America elects their president to speak to the world on their behalf. The Trumpists did just that in electing Trump. To the Trumpists: you forced us to take what he says seriously, no matter how outlandish, because you elected him president.
    • He talks about it repeatedly. This isn’t a one-off. (And even a bad one-off is bad enough.)
    • The countries he’s threatening, aside from Canada, are essentially defenseless. Furthermore, they’re friendly countries. More to the point, they are not countries aligned with our most powerful enemies, namely China and Russia, that could expect those countries to come to their aid. Trump is threatening Canada, Greenland, and Panama. Why not Cuba, a weak longtime enemy right off our coast? (To be clear, we shouldn’t be invading Cuba.) It might be that the other 3 have something he actually wants. He might expect the people in these countries to be more passive in their resistance than Cuba.
    • Trump has a pattern of endorsing this kind of behavior from Putin. Like “encourage them [Russia] to do whatever the hell they want” to “delinquent” NATO countries. Or, calling Putin’s 2022 reinvasion of Ukraine “brilliant”. He’s very public about his adulation of Putin. We need to consider that this genuinely reflects his values.

    The US cannot conquer any part in the world just because it has a vital security interest there. It’s not just morally objectionable. Imperialism (or maybe I’m thinking of colonialism) is an inefficient way for a world power to impose its will on foreign lands. It works a lot better to partner with local governments. People are more inclined to submit to rule by their own than rule by foreigners. Against expectations, the UK became wealthier after divesting the British Empire post World War 2. I’d suppose it has something to do with that.

    I can’t even believe I have to make an argument for not taking over countries that goes beyond the fact that it’s just plain wrong. Before the rise of Trump, that would have been enough for the great majority of Americans. Trump sees the world as a playing field to be divided up among the great powers.

    Is expansionism ever justified?

    This is an ugly question, but national security imperatives sometimes call for unpleasant and messy tradeoffs.

    First, it would take a lot to convince me that the US needs to expand its territorial claims now or in the foreseeable future. I could even rule that out. I do rule out annexing friendly countries. Having reached a preeminent position in the world, especially post World War 2 (which included acquisition of overseas territory), the US doesn’t have to take land from other countries for national security reasons.

    I’m open to the idea that there are legitimate security reasons for having oversees possessions. Whatever the reasons, they must be compelling, with the US having exhausted the voluntary/cooperative options in obtaining access to those territories. We are not at that point anywhere, least of all in friendly countries. With the possible exception of those who would start an unprovoked war against the US, having security justifications doesn’t excuse away dispossessing the rightful inhabitants of those lands.

    There is precedence for the US and allies taking over foreign lands. The US still holds oversees territories like Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam. It bothers me that there are lands that are part of the US that don’t have the representation in the US that we have in the States. They’re like second class citizens, and that shouldn’t be, not in the US. Frankly, I don’t know much about it. Maybe there is a semiautonomous status quo that the affected populations are satisfied with (like the relationship Greenland has with Denmark). I always took it as a given, certainly in the US, that consent of the governed with the right to political participation at all levels of government is the cornerstone of the compact between a legitimate government and its people. Or, as Abraham Lincoln put it in the Gettysburg Address: “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”.

    Trump has tried to sell his annexation aspirations to the US public in part by touting the benefits to those who would be annexed. If Trump really had good intentions for the people he wants to annex, he would be tending to the unresolved issues of the people the US has already annexed.

    British Invasion of Iceland

    This is a fascinating case study of taking over foreign lands for exigent national security purposes.

    The UK invaded Iceland in 1940, during World War 2. Iceland is strategically located along the maritime and air routes between North America and Europe, particular the UK. This made Iceland strategic for both the UK and Germany in controlling the North Atlantic sea lanes. Iceland’s preference was to stay out of the war and not have to pick sides. There had been growing concern in Iceland that the UK or Germany would take over the island. The Brits did it first, carrying out a bungling but bloodless invasion with no forcible resistance. As I understand, there was some relief among Icelanders when it was the Brits and not the Germans. I think the British attitude was something like: we feel terrible about it, but we have to take over your island for our security. The Brits did not harass the Icelanders, interfere with their government, or rule the people. The Brits really wanted Iceland to station military personnel and assets to combat the Germans. While the Brits didn’t give Icelanders a choice about occupying their country, the Brits and later the Americans did want them on their side and tried to do right by them. Today Iceland is a free and sovereign NATO partner.

    Iceland in WW2 was a very different situation:

    • We’re not at war.
    • The US has long had strong security relationships with Canada and Greenland. Both are NATO allies (Greenland because Denmark is in NATO), whereas Iceland was neutral. If we need to ramp up our forward defense posture in those countries to counter a hostile power, we’re already well integrated and set to go.

    Canada

    We have close military ties with the Canadians. Already, Canada is reviewing its decision to buy the F-35. Frankly, I don’t see how they could proceed with such a buy with a country that has shattered a long-standing bond of trust. I also wonder if this means the breakup of NORAD, a joint command of the US and Canada that monitors and protects Canadian and US airspace. This would make both countries less safe. We’ve had a great relationship with Canada for ages and have been blessed to have the best neighbors and friends anyone could ask for. Throwing all that away is totally unforced, caused because America elected a destroyer of alliances.

    I hope that if Trump did order war on Canada,

    • Congress would refuse to declare war and would do everything in their power to restrain Trump, like remove him from office.
    • The military would refuse orders to attack Canada. That so many Americans would vote in a president one could realistically expect to force uniformed officers to have to make such a grave decision, is a disgrace. It still bewilders me that they voted to give someone like Trump the nuclear codes.

    Greenland

    US security interests

    Why does Trump “need” Greenland for national security purposes? Russia is the only plausible reason. That begs the question: why Greenland if he sees Russia as a credible US partner? I think Trump sees Greenland as a vulnerable and exposed target there for the taking.

    If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

    Greenland and Denmark have long made Greenland available for US (and NATO) defense needs since the Cold War (Defense of Greenland agreement of 1951) and perhaps before then. If we have a legitimate national security need to pursue in Greenland (a new base, more early-warning radars, satellite-tracking stations, etc.), Greenland is likely to greenlight it. This in spite of the fact that we haven’t always been faithful tenants (Project Iceworm). By antagonizing Denmark and Greenland, Trump has probably made legitimate requests that previously would have been freely granted subject to pushback and suspicion. Doesn’t that make us less secure? I could see him using that as a cynical rationale for taking over Greenland. There’s the legitimate concern of Chinese or Russian encroachment in weak and exposed countries. (Chinese presence in the vicinity of the Panama Canal is a legitimate if highly overblown concern.) The fact that Greenland is part of Denmark, long a close and faithful US and NATO ally, is very helpful on this count, and this status quo will keep that from happening.

    Luke Coffey’s article is worth a read. He says it perfectly: “…every American policy goal in Greenland can be pursued through our close and long-standing relationships with both the Greenlandic and Danish governments.”.

    Minerals

    I don’t know whether projections of Greenland’s mineral wealth are based more on

    • assessments of geologists, or
    • armchair speculation that because Greenland is a vast landmass which is mostly covered by an ice sheet that is receding due to global warming, there’s bound to be mineral resources waiting to be exploited.

    My uninformed guess is that Greenland holds considerable untapped recoverable mineral resources.

    There’s no disputing that minerals are vital to our economic and national security. (Perhaps we can soften our need for minerals by consuming less, but that’s another issue.) The way to secure access to vital minerals found only outside the US in recoverable quantities is to maintain positive, win-win relationships with countries possessing those resources. Whatever mineral resources are waiting to be exploited in Greenland, they’re already in friendly hands.

    Greenland’s present export economy is mainly in fishing. Maybe Trump is a seafood lover.

    Where do we go from here?

    What do we Americans need to be doing now to thwart Trump’s expansionist agenda?

    • Speak out.
    • Contact your members of Congress.
    • Elect Democrats in the next election cycle, not because they’re so great but because they’re the only alternative in the foreseeable future to the Republicans, who will do anything Trump commands them. Electing Democrats would be a welcome development, but the job doesn’t end there. We need to stay on them about checking Trump.
    • Civil disobedience. This would be a new tack for most of us. But, we’ll need to up the ante without resorting to violence.
    • I’m still figuring out the rest. Help me out.