American aggressive posturing with allies and adversaries, alike, is disconcerting from a variety of perspectives: economics, political, and militarily. As anyone who has studied US foreign policy, especially, in recent memory, American aggression has been the dominant refrain, if not explicit bullying to achieve political outcomes to satisfy domestic economic and policy initiatives. Under the current administration, it appears this approach to policy has been intensified up even more than past diplomatic démarche. Or, maybe, it more transparent.
Heightened tensions from America rhetoric have found new directives; namely, the desire to annex and invade allies for their own geo-economic purposes. While some suggest this is only hyperbole, the messaging of the present administration is resonating with those in the crosshairs. Most disconcertingly, other allies are speculating on the when they will be identified as a potential conquest for the US administration.
While US interests have always been at the forefront of their geopolitical relationships, American discourse on achieving political and economic goals is changing. Historically, the US framework for political and economic means was through their involvement, if not creation, of international organizations rather than military domination. The military presence is never too far outside of the lens from those that are dealing with the American policy. Military might and “right” was always present in any negotiations. Whether it was to enforce the provisions of an agreement through a form of “gunboat” diplomacy or as a tool to provide security for trading partners with the United States, there was an unspoken understanding of the role and influence of the military presence.
During America’s rise to hegemonic global power, they employed political and economic means to encourage countries to comply or, at least, minimize the challenges to US dominance. While the military, as stated, was never outside of the scope of its negotiation leverage, the US did NOT invade another country for two reasons: the foreign government is aligned and complicit in US policy directives OR the foreign regime has significant military deterrence to force the Americans to evaluate the political implications—the domestic costs.
Currently, the US administration is removing these historical guiderails; that is, they don't necessarily apply to aligned or allied nations anymore. The hyperbole of threats to Canada, Greenland, and Panama illustrates the movement along the spectrum of influence to coercion to ensure American goals are achieved.
The near to medium term future is uncertain. The more threatening approach to foreign policy and American goals imbue the world with concern and trepidation. Whether these threats are acted upon or not, governments, especially, Canada need to construct a strategy to explore various approaches to address the uncertainty of American intentions. Hyperbole or not it is imperative for Canada to prepare for the unthinkable. It is imperative for the federal and provincial government to cooperate and coordinate a plan that Canada can control and manage the impacts of the actions of the Americans on Canadians.
These are uncertain times. Canadians and the various levels of government must approach the threat of American directives with a level of seriousness that we have not seen since the Cold War.
