US President Donald Trump’s increasingly bellicose stance on annexing Greenland and arresting Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has raised questions and theories about what the White House might have in mind for Canada.
The Trump administration’s move follows a pledge to “assert and enforce” US hegemony in the Western Hemisphere in a new form. National security strategy.
The White House said this week. Using military force to find Greenland Although partial, it remains an option.The sovereign state of Denmark, a NATO ally, so does Trump Floating intervention On the Colombian president and Mexican drug cartels.
Whether he was prepared to use military force against Canada — previously dismissed as wild speculation — is now a subject for debate.
Former UN Ambassador Bob Rae is among those raising concerns that this may happen. In an interview with several media outlets this week, Rae said Canadians would be wrong if they thought it was their country. It is not “on the menu” for US aggression.
The Trump administration “He doesn’t take Canadian sovereignty seriously,” he said. Globe and letter Tuesday.
As the ouster of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro reverberates across the Western Hemisphere, US President Donald Trump and his team are considering different options in an effort to find Greenland, the White House said.
Adam Gordon, a visiting fellow at the Cascade Institute at Royal Roads University, said there was more evidence. Pointing to the very real danger the Trump administration could pose with military coercion against Canada.
Gordon, who served as a senior adviser to Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand and former Melanie Joly, pointed to what he called “behavior and statements” by the Trump administration, including the US president’s call for Canada to become the 51st country.
“We have to be ready for this.”
“We can’t take the idea off the table that the use of force or the threat of use of force is at least plausible,” Gordon told CBC News in a statement Wednesday.
When the U.S. strategy was released in December, Gordon said it was unclear how seriously the administration would take the 30-page policy. Document.
“I think we have our answer now, where we’ve seen them go right in Venezuela,” he said.
Gordon said Trump’s rationale for ousting Maduro — that Venezuela is a source of drug trafficking for the U.S. — is the same justification that underpins certain tariffs on Canadian exports.
Following US actions in Venezuela over the weekend, Adam Gordon, visiting fellow at the Cascade Institute, said there is a possibility that President Donald Trump could use military coercion against Canada. Gordon, who has served as a senior legal and policy adviser to foreign ministers Melanie Joly and Anita Anand, said the country must be prepared and so far will weigh in on Ottawa’s response.
Other U.S. foreign policy observers warn that Trump’s position elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere should not make Canada vulnerable to U.S. military action.
At the same time, those observers acknowledge that Canada faces a real threat from a Trump White House.
Gerald Butts, who has served as an adviser to Carney and former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, predicts the administration will do everything it can to gain more leverage over Canada in trade talks. This may include trying to influence Canadian politics, but military action is not on the table.
“I don’t think we’re going to see any kind of kinetic intervention in Canadian life, but we’re going to see a lot of threats, and we’re going to see Americans doing things that promote Americanism in Canadian life,” Butts told the newspaper. CBC podcast front burner this week.
Butts is now vice chairman of the Eurasia Group, an international political risk organization, which publishes an annual list of what it looks like. Top 10 accidents Facing the planet.
At the top of the list: the US political revolution, Canada feels the impact more than any other country.
Front burner27:59The world’s biggest threats with Jerry Boots
Christopher Hernandez-Roy, deputy director of the Americas program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC, says the US push for control of Greenland has implications for Canada’s Arctic sovereignty.
Hernandez-Roy pointed out A key reason Trump wants to buy Greenland is to fend off America’s adversaries in the region, particularly Russia and China.The recent increase in Arctic military cooperation ina According to security analysts.
“It will increase the US audience,” Hernandez-Roy said in an interview.
“On behalf of Canada, maybe it’s just as challenging for the United States to be more protective of the Canadian Arctic,” he said.
Any increased US military presence in and around Greenland could attract more Russian and Chinese ships, Hernandez-Roy said.
After US President Donald Trump suggested he might next target Colombian President Gustavo Petro, some people in Colombia are worried about what could happen to their country.
In turn, that could push the U.S. to use the Northwest Passage more, further pressuring Canada’s sovereignty over Arctic waters.
It’s important for Canada to show it has the strength to control its own Arctic “so the Americans don’t feel like they need it,” Hernandez-Roy said.
Defense of Russian, Chinese aggression
“The president has been very clear and forthright with everyone and the world,” White House press secretary Carolyn Levitt told reporters in Washington on Wednesday.
Imran Bayoumi, associate director of the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security, part of the Atlantic Council think tank in DC, is skeptical that US military action against Canada would be possible.
However, Canada said it was challenging to navigate the growing conflict between Europe and the Trump administration over Greenland.
“The approach of the United States to Greenland is not constructive,” Bayoumi told CBC News.
To counter Russia and China, the administration is working with Canada, Greenland and Denmark to build an Arctic security and defense partnership approach, including expanding US presence and economic activity in the region, he said.
“The United States is absolutely right to address its security concerns, but threats of annexation are not the way to do that effectively.”