Trump's Foreign Policy: Canadian Tariffs and the Idea of a 51st State

Economic threats and political sovereignty questions from Trump is rooted in threatening language and bullying tactics to achieve his economic and political goals.

Trump’s bombastic language and the rhetoric of historical US administrations stretch back to the 1820s. His position is reminiscent of the intent of the Monroe Doctrine: Historically, this was the US foreign policy position that opposed European Colonialism in the Western Hemisphere. It states that any intervention in the political affairs of the Americas by foreign powers is a potential hostile act towards the US. It has been interpreted by others to the extreme; that is, that independent nations in the Western Hemisphere with a domestic or foreign policy that does not support US interests is hostile to the United States. 

His grandiosity of language is disconcerting because of his demagoguery nature in his approach to policy, political opponents, and other countries. Trump appears to pursue a position where the US wants to impose a “pax America” policy in the Western Hemisphere. In Trump, this extreme position is taken even further: the annexation and acquisition of these independent nations. It is, however, unclear on the intent of Trump. His rhetoric is aggressive and hostile but his goals may not be clear, even though his threats provide a direction for intent. This is not always the case. Whatever his intent, Trump is going to use economic policies to subdue Canada and others by devastating these economies. If he can do this, he may pursue more political goals.

The challenge for any analysis is determining what these goals are for Trump. His “economic force” to capitulate Canada into the 51^st state is more political than economic. This is evident by his threats to Greenland, Panama Canal, and the renaming of the Gulf of Mexico.

Whether his words translate into action to the degree that his espouses, one thing is clear: he is sending a message that he will employ all the resources and the influence of the US government to achieve his own goals. Since we are unsure of those targets, it makes it challenging for anyone to navigate the intent and any potential negotiations.

Although it is unclear on his direction, Trump’s economic and political positions and rhetoric are dangerous to cooperative policy making with allies. Even though he is not directing his vitriolic rhetoric to the rest of the world, these nations are paying attention to the volatility of his remarks because they know it could easily be directed at them. As such, other countries will be addressing their approach to economic policies and, especially, their trading partners and patterns.

Other trading partners of the US would be mindful to consider Trump’s statements as realpolitik: dangerous and threatening to Canada, Mexico, and other counties that are within his sights The countries that are in his current crosshairs during the leadup to his inauguration are waiting with anticipation of the outcome during his first 90-days in office. His approach to international relations and foreign policy could dramatically change the dynamics of interstate negotiations and, potentially, the tacit approval of hegemonic countries (i.e. Russia & China) to determine the arrangements of the countries within their sphere of influence and geopolitics. Trump is asserting the US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere with the corollary that Russia and China should also have this level of tacit approval and support. With this level of tacit approval and Trump’s position on the Western Hemisphere, it is clear that he is contravening international law, treaties, and national sovereignty, especially, the interference of domestic politics of another country (i.e. suggesting that Canada become the 51^st state).

As for Canada, without any information on the process being developed by the current government or the potential incoming federal regime, US policy could have significant impacts. The provincial governments are, fortunately, pursuing their own approach to mitigating the impacts of the Trump administrative policies on their economies. Crucial in all of this is to ensure that the federal and provincial governments need to cooperate and coordinate their approach to the US foreign policy decisions that are directed at Canadian sovereignty, economically and politically. Unfortunately, there are provincial governments that appear to be pursing contradictory approaches that destabilize the unity of the messaging and intent of Canadian economic interests and political sovereignty. The provinces and federal government need to present a clear and united approach to the US policies. 

The next 6-months will set the tone and the parameters of the relationship with the US and the strategic approach that Canada pursues to mitigate the impacts. With so many unknowns and questions surrounding the approach that Canada will pursue, the question of confidence in the political “leadership” of any party needs to be a discussion point at the federal and provincial level to protect Canadian interests and sovereignty.