Perhaps this is a waste of time, but as a Canadian, I felt the need to answer this one in some way. I found there were many misconceptions and a lack of Canadian perspective.
I'll start first with two points I feel you are simply objectively mistaken but first I want to give a bit of a disclaimer:
I don't take offense at America offering. We are both great countries and I can see how the USA would both love to have us and believe we'd be happy to join. However, at some point no must be taken as an answer.
I. If the USA doesn't act Canada will join the EU.
It's actually the opposite: nobody in Canada was seriously thinking about it until the tariff threat and the musings of trying to starve us economically into accepting negotiation. Despite concerns about recent developments in America and strong negative feelings toward your elected leader, we remained committed to working with Washington as our main partner for the foreseeable future.
There was a sense that diversifying our economy would be good but the amount of lost profits we were willing to bite to do that was fairly small as it was widely believed that Brian Mulroney was right during the 1988 Canadian Federal Election, run on NAFTA, when he stated that the USA would never take advantage of the trust we put when we agreed on such a close integration of our economies as it wasn't a banana republic and that those said otherwise were just indulging in Americanophobia.
The one reason membership in the EU is even discussed is because Trump betrayed that trust, forcing us to look for an alternative for some of our trade and preferably one where one person couldn't do the same thing he is trying to do to us. Just walking back the annexation/absorption comments, committing to working any issue between the country through normal diplomacy and passing a bill saying that any tariff on Canada or removal from NAFTA would need congressional approval would probably be enough to get EU membership out of the picture for the time being.
II. Being absorbed by the USA is just like joining the EU.
That's patently untrue. The EU is a pan-national organization where each state keeps its sovereignty and where even the biggest their strongest country only makes up a portion of their population. Even if it becomes a federation the last part of the last sentence would remain true and its likely to be one with a lot of autonomy for its member countries, with a separate cultural and sporting persona as well as some serious ability to conduct individual diplomacy still retained.
The USA, on the other, is a federation where Canadians would be a fairly small minority, whose current political and economic social are even farther than Canada's from the EU and whose system doesn't leave space for any kind of special autonomy and guarantees Canada would retain even in a federated Europe.
This should, with respect, be rather obvious to anyone taking the time to try to look at this from a Canadian pov. To not see it one need to be one of either two things: a) an imperialist at heart who thinks it's ok for the USA to absorb a loyal neighbor, their needs being damned, which I don't accuse you of being, or b) someone showing a rather stunning lack of empathy while asking a country to turn themselves into a small minority, abandon a history over a century and a half old and be plunged into an alien economic and political system, while also presenting yourself as the ''sensible'' one for advocating for it when you aren't the one who would pay the cost for that change. It is failing to see how much would be lost to the World with Canada ceasing to be its own thing. The latter is very much the vibe I got from your article.
In addition to all of that, the ''Nixon going to China'' reference might be accurate in terms of internal politics to the USA, as someone would need to make the GOP swallow the political balance being massively altered against them (even Alberta would have voted for Harris with higher numbers then anyone in the USA save DC according to hypothetical poll) but it couldn't be more wrong in term of convincing Canadians. Trump is just about the most unpopular POTUS in Canadian history. He is despised both personally as well as politically by the overwhelming majority of Canadians (some mention Poilievre as close to him in outlook but since he became leader he did his level best to say at every turn he isn't the Canadian Trump and his policies are very different from Trump's in many regards) and the amount of trust we'd have for any promise he might try to make to convince us would be abysmally low. We respect that he is your democratically elected leader and we are perfectly ok to work with him as such but that's about it. He is singularly badly equipped to sell something that even POTUS who were very popular in Canada would have immense trouble selling to Canadians.
The silliest aspect of it all is that there is one very solution to all of this: Washington working with Copenhagen/Nuuk and Ottawa on a country-to-country basis to deal with whatever challenges which will come down the line (1), just like the USA has done with them for decades. I can already hear the MAGA objections to this, complaining about trade balance and defense costs but that is actually my point: no, the way this would not be the perfect deal for the USA, but some aspects of this continued are likely to be pretty imperfect from Canadian and Greenlander perspectives as well, as any good and mutually beneficial relationship between countries usually involve how things work not being perfect for either side.
America, in perhaps the greatest diplomatic achievement in human history, has managed to muster a phalanx of willing junior allies made of the world's most successful countries by embracing exactly that: deals that might not be perfect of an American but that take the needs of all parties into account and bring about mutually beneficial relationships. Unfortunately, the incoming administration seems intent on giving up that approach and going for a maximalist, zero-sum game approach to diplomacy where only the outcome that is perfect from an American point of view seems worth pursuing. People should not be surprised if this leads some countries to instead make choices that go against American interests as a result, which for Canada would mean to, at the very least, pursuing closer ties with the EU to balance those with DC and, for the time being at least, maybe pursuing more trade with China that we'd like ourselves.
I take no joy in this. I would much rather the past and more collaborative way of managing the Western alliance I grew up with remained the way to go and it truly saddens me we seem to move away from that. But if you are less willing to accommodate other countries' positions, needs and interest its probably unavoidable that they will also be less aligned with the USA's positions, needs and interest.
Hopefully this is just another crappy moment to go through, just like his first term, and we can once more go back
(1) While the artic becoming a bigger deal geopolitically is real its also further down the line then some people seem to believe. Russia's artic capable ground forces have bleed in Ukraine big time and economically and demographically its in truly horrendous shape with no easy solution in mid to long run. As for China sheer geography does severely limit how much they can do in the area for quite some time, as they'd need a while to build the network of foreign bases and the like needed for them to truly assert themselves in the Polar circle.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of the piece, which is not about a Canadian perspective but a world-structural perspective.
Climate change is going to force magnificent change and adaptation upon Canada, overwhelming its response resources like it will most countries.
In that inevitable reality, Canada will be far better off to join some larger union that socializes the risk than to go it alone and fail.
Obvious choices include US and EU.
Trump's current actions are a harbinger of that looming reality, so they must be taken seriously.
I personally believe and argue that the better choice for Canada is the US, but the actual outcome of this pathway isn't the point of the article: understanding that it is inevitable is the point of the article.
Fair enough, I respectfully disagree as I believe you underestimate both what country-to-country collaboration can do and how Canada is in a unique position to actually receive some serious benefits from global warming for a geographic reason, but I can understand where you are coming from, even tough I am quite convinced Canada has a long history ahead of it as an independent nation and it will more than fine. (I also disagree with the idea that the USA-EU break up is inevitable as I believe its both self-inflicted from the USA and reversible right now but that's a whole other discussion)
I also want to apologize for the unflattering personal characterization in my first comment.
However, and with all due respect, I felt you misunderstood where I was going with my first comment as well. What I was trying to convey is that by seeing the situation from a purely, or at least mostly, American lens, there were important facts you missed that affected your analysis even IF we accept your central thesis as a fact for the sake of the discussions. Two of them are especially consequential:
I. In your article, you say: ''But let’s also get more real in our thinking and the terms we offer. Justin Trudeau is right when he says Canada will never become America’s 51st state, but what if it became America’s 51st-through-59th-states? Would that be enough political power and standing for Canadians to choose over admission into the EU? Say, 18 Senate seats and more congressional districts than California’s 52 seats?''
The answer here by most Canadians would be a resounding no as representation in the USA is just part of the problem. The other issue is that people aren't interested in living in American states like any others and are made a small minority facing a large majority in their new country with everything that comes with that. They want to live in a Canadian politie with all that it entails.
This means that even if you are correct and that Canadians are bound to decide that now is the time to belong to a larger union at some point down the line the EU would be bound to be chosen, as Canada would still remain its own country inside the EU to a large degree. Even if Europe had somehow become a federation by that point it would still be more attractive as it would presumably have a lot of autonomy for its members and allow them to retain key cultural touchstones like sports teams, Olympic delegations, and the like.
For the USA to have a shot at being more attractive you'd need to have a second part to the offer with A LOT of carveouts, disposition for more wide-reaching interstate compacts, a status that would somehow combine Puerto Rico's autonomy and allowance to have the aforementioned separate cultural touchstones, with normal states' representation and perhaps even some constitutional amendment setting up dispositions for Canadian autonomy and veto on some policies.
II. Despite everything I mentioned above odds are that IF you are right about the future Canada was seemingly a sure bet to choose the USA over the EU ten years ago. If we would truly need a bigger union and the USA could have used having us in as much as you say then the odds are some kind of autonomy and constitutional guarantees with economic sweeteners attached would have been figured out over the jigsaw puzzle of joining a by then, going by your analysis, federal Europe, especially since geographically it does make more sense.
But then the rising star of America turned out to be a man almost tailor-made to offend Canadian sensibilities on a personal level and in a political one he is elevating a political movement that represents most of what Canadians like the least about American politics on steroids. A movement that is bound to be kryptonite to any Canadian making the case for union with the USA if it is still around in significant strength.
During his first mandate, he has actively (and without much to show for it I might add) antagonized Canada and many of our fellow allies as well as pushed back against shared values we see as key to the America-Canada alliance. He has created a situation where Canada and the EU got used to figuring things out directly with each other, absent Washington in those discussions. His actions have also created increasing tensions between Blue and Red states, which are not exactly to anyone who you'd try to sell membership in the USA...
Then damages just kept going after that, with January 6, 2021, and the Supreme Court ruling on immunity only increasing concerns among traditional American allies on the state of the USA's internal politics. Last but not least he just got elected again and has seemingly gone back to all I mentioned above re his first term except cranked to 11, especially regarding antagonizing Canada with the tariff threats and musing about waging economic warfare against us until we accept annexation. And if all of this wasn't enough if he does go ahead with his tariff threat against both Canada and the EU he would basically put both Ottawa and Bruxelles in a situation where they would have to forcibly decouple from the American economy to at least some extent and trade with each other instead....
I would argue that if we take your analysis about the need to belong to a large union at face value the logical conclusion shouldn't be the one you reached, with Trump being praised for being farsighted about future developments but instead criticized as the one reason Canada might indeed go from a culturally, politically and economically North American nation to a European one. If Canada does defect to the EU, as you put it, you will only have yourself to blame.
You had plenty of chance to stop him from being more of an issue for good but you didn't, you still could force him to calm down right now if the courts and the Republicans in Congress showed their muscle but as of yet you haven't. And the longer he is allowed to run rampant the more damage he does to America's relationship with its traditional allies, Canada included, and with much of the rest of the world for that matter.
The one thing I agree with you about is your concept of superpower brand wars but you fail to see that the very leader you praise and the people around him are seemingly intent on damaging America's as much as they can.
This piece is as monumentally stupid and misinformed as your support for the Iraq War. How did that work out?
You are talking about annexing an ally that is a sovereign state and a democracy, because you want to emulate some of the most repressive regimes on the planet.
This is an absolutely morally bankrupt piece. Why would Canada want to be ruled by a country that no longer has the slightest respect for the rule of law or democracy?
I have relatives in Canada, through which much of my family traversed before ultimately settling in the US. It is not an alien land to me, but a previous homeland.
Similarly, after 4 decades of doing this, I know which type of person I am.
Something I've noticed by actually interacting with real folks on X and in real life. People live in a complacent normalcy bias of the world they think they know that died between what Covid and Ukraine proved - that force does solve problems, sometimes, and hard power matters. Debt only has so much pull, and resource control, especially with the AI wars on the horizon, depend upon finite resource troves. Trump is right, so are you, and reality will change before the talking points classes adapt.
Not for you, but people need to be shaken from their complacency. We're back to a world that follows pre-WWI rules. The first adopters will have a huge advantage.
One can argue this is terrible, but you can't use sanctions as a cudgel and see the "victim" emerge stronger without there being terrible consequence.
I should have also mentioned Yemen. What that did to trade is a big part of this also.
Ignoring the hugely imperfect messenger that is PE47, the issue is that this integration seems to fly in the face of current "Close the borders!", anti-immigrant environment. The grand strategy you lay out in 'America's New Map' requires a more welcoming, freer, cross border flow, albeit, one that must be controlled.
I think back to the line made famous near the conclusion of my favorite movie, 'No Country for Old Men'. "You cain't stop what's comin'." But you can manage it to our hemispheric benefit.
I hope you will find a seat at the table for more of your grand strategy broad-framing at this and upcoming administrations.
Perhaps this is a waste of time, but as a Canadian, I felt the need to answer this one in some way. I found there were many misconceptions and a lack of Canadian perspective.
I'll start first with two points I feel you are simply objectively mistaken but first I want to give a bit of a disclaimer:
I don't take offense at America offering. We are both great countries and I can see how the USA would both love to have us and believe we'd be happy to join. However, at some point no must be taken as an answer.
I. If the USA doesn't act Canada will join the EU.
It's actually the opposite: nobody in Canada was seriously thinking about it until the tariff threat and the musings of trying to starve us economically into accepting negotiation. Despite concerns about recent developments in America and strong negative feelings toward your elected leader, we remained committed to working with Washington as our main partner for the foreseeable future.
There was a sense that diversifying our economy would be good but the amount of lost profits we were willing to bite to do that was fairly small as it was widely believed that Brian Mulroney was right during the 1988 Canadian Federal Election, run on NAFTA, when he stated that the USA would never take advantage of the trust we put when we agreed on such a close integration of our economies as it wasn't a banana republic and that those said otherwise were just indulging in Americanophobia.
The one reason membership in the EU is even discussed is because Trump betrayed that trust, forcing us to look for an alternative for some of our trade and preferably one where one person couldn't do the same thing he is trying to do to us. Just walking back the annexation/absorption comments, committing to working any issue between the country through normal diplomacy and passing a bill saying that any tariff on Canada or removal from NAFTA would need congressional approval would probably be enough to get EU membership out of the picture for the time being.
II. Being absorbed by the USA is just like joining the EU.
That's patently untrue. The EU is a pan-national organization where each state keeps its sovereignty and where even the biggest their strongest country only makes up a portion of their population. Even if it becomes a federation the last part of the last sentence would remain true and its likely to be one with a lot of autonomy for its member countries, with a separate cultural and sporting persona as well as some serious ability to conduct individual diplomacy still retained.
The USA, on the other, is a federation where Canadians would be a fairly small minority, whose current political and economic social are even farther than Canada's from the EU and whose system doesn't leave space for any kind of special autonomy and guarantees Canada would retain even in a federated Europe.
This should, with respect, be rather obvious to anyone taking the time to try to look at this from a Canadian pov. To not see it one need to be one of either two things: a) an imperialist at heart who thinks it's ok for the USA to absorb a loyal neighbor, their needs being damned, which I don't accuse you of being, or b) someone showing a rather stunning lack of empathy while asking a country to turn themselves into a small minority, abandon a history over a century and a half old and be plunged into an alien economic and political system, while also presenting yourself as the ''sensible'' one for advocating for it when you aren't the one who would pay the cost for that change. It is failing to see how much would be lost to the World with Canada ceasing to be its own thing. The latter is very much the vibe I got from your article.
In addition to all of that, the ''Nixon going to China'' reference might be accurate in terms of internal politics to the USA, as someone would need to make the GOP swallow the political balance being massively altered against them (even Alberta would have voted for Harris with higher numbers then anyone in the USA save DC according to hypothetical poll) but it couldn't be more wrong in term of convincing Canadians. Trump is just about the most unpopular POTUS in Canadian history. He is despised both personally as well as politically by the overwhelming majority of Canadians (some mention Poilievre as close to him in outlook but since he became leader he did his level best to say at every turn he isn't the Canadian Trump and his policies are very different from Trump's in many regards) and the amount of trust we'd have for any promise he might try to make to convince us would be abysmally low. We respect that he is your democratically elected leader and we are perfectly ok to work with him as such but that's about it. He is singularly badly equipped to sell something that even POTUS who were very popular in Canada would have immense trouble selling to Canadians.
The silliest aspect of it all is that there is one very solution to all of this: Washington working with Copenhagen/Nuuk and Ottawa on a country-to-country basis to deal with whatever challenges which will come down the line (1), just like the USA has done with them for decades. I can already hear the MAGA objections to this, complaining about trade balance and defense costs but that is actually my point: no, the way this would not be the perfect deal for the USA, but some aspects of this continued are likely to be pretty imperfect from Canadian and Greenlander perspectives as well, as any good and mutually beneficial relationship between countries usually involve how things work not being perfect for either side.
America, in perhaps the greatest diplomatic achievement in human history, has managed to muster a phalanx of willing junior allies made of the world's most successful countries by embracing exactly that: deals that might not be perfect of an American but that take the needs of all parties into account and bring about mutually beneficial relationships. Unfortunately, the incoming administration seems intent on giving up that approach and going for a maximalist, zero-sum game approach to diplomacy where only the outcome that is perfect from an American point of view seems worth pursuing. People should not be surprised if this leads some countries to instead make choices that go against American interests as a result, which for Canada would mean to, at the very least, pursuing closer ties with the EU to balance those with DC and, for the time being at least, maybe pursuing more trade with China that we'd like ourselves.
I take no joy in this. I would much rather the past and more collaborative way of managing the Western alliance I grew up with remained the way to go and it truly saddens me we seem to move away from that. But if you are less willing to accommodate other countries' positions, needs and interest its probably unavoidable that they will also be less aligned with the USA's positions, needs and interest.
Hopefully this is just another crappy moment to go through, just like his first term, and we can once more go back
(1) While the artic becoming a bigger deal geopolitically is real its also further down the line then some people seem to believe. Russia's artic capable ground forces have bleed in Ukraine big time and economically and demographically its in truly horrendous shape with no easy solution in mid to long run. As for China sheer geography does severely limit how much they can do in the area for quite some time, as they'd need a while to build the network of foreign bases and the like needed for them to truly assert themselves in the Polar circle.
I think you misunderstand the purpose of the piece, which is not about a Canadian perspective but a world-structural perspective.
Climate change is going to force magnificent change and adaptation upon Canada, overwhelming its response resources like it will most countries.
In that inevitable reality, Canada will be far better off to join some larger union that socializes the risk than to go it alone and fail.
Obvious choices include US and EU.
Trump's current actions are a harbinger of that looming reality, so they must be taken seriously.
I personally believe and argue that the better choice for Canada is the US, but the actual outcome of this pathway isn't the point of the article: understanding that it is inevitable is the point of the article.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
Fair enough, I respectfully disagree as I believe you underestimate both what country-to-country collaboration can do and how Canada is in a unique position to actually receive some serious benefits from global warming for a geographic reason, but I can understand where you are coming from, even tough I am quite convinced Canada has a long history ahead of it as an independent nation and it will more than fine. (I also disagree with the idea that the USA-EU break up is inevitable as I believe its both self-inflicted from the USA and reversible right now but that's a whole other discussion)
I also want to apologize for the unflattering personal characterization in my first comment.
However, and with all due respect, I felt you misunderstood where I was going with my first comment as well. What I was trying to convey is that by seeing the situation from a purely, or at least mostly, American lens, there were important facts you missed that affected your analysis even IF we accept your central thesis as a fact for the sake of the discussions. Two of them are especially consequential:
I. In your article, you say: ''But let’s also get more real in our thinking and the terms we offer. Justin Trudeau is right when he says Canada will never become America’s 51st state, but what if it became America’s 51st-through-59th-states? Would that be enough political power and standing for Canadians to choose over admission into the EU? Say, 18 Senate seats and more congressional districts than California’s 52 seats?''
The answer here by most Canadians would be a resounding no as representation in the USA is just part of the problem. The other issue is that people aren't interested in living in American states like any others and are made a small minority facing a large majority in their new country with everything that comes with that. They want to live in a Canadian politie with all that it entails.
This means that even if you are correct and that Canadians are bound to decide that now is the time to belong to a larger union at some point down the line the EU would be bound to be chosen, as Canada would still remain its own country inside the EU to a large degree. Even if Europe had somehow become a federation by that point it would still be more attractive as it would presumably have a lot of autonomy for its members and allow them to retain key cultural touchstones like sports teams, Olympic delegations, and the like.
For the USA to have a shot at being more attractive you'd need to have a second part to the offer with A LOT of carveouts, disposition for more wide-reaching interstate compacts, a status that would somehow combine Puerto Rico's autonomy and allowance to have the aforementioned separate cultural touchstones, with normal states' representation and perhaps even some constitutional amendment setting up dispositions for Canadian autonomy and veto on some policies.
II. Despite everything I mentioned above odds are that IF you are right about the future Canada was seemingly a sure bet to choose the USA over the EU ten years ago. If we would truly need a bigger union and the USA could have used having us in as much as you say then the odds are some kind of autonomy and constitutional guarantees with economic sweeteners attached would have been figured out over the jigsaw puzzle of joining a by then, going by your analysis, federal Europe, especially since geographically it does make more sense.
But then the rising star of America turned out to be a man almost tailor-made to offend Canadian sensibilities on a personal level and in a political one he is elevating a political movement that represents most of what Canadians like the least about American politics on steroids. A movement that is bound to be kryptonite to any Canadian making the case for union with the USA if it is still around in significant strength.
During his first mandate, he has actively (and without much to show for it I might add) antagonized Canada and many of our fellow allies as well as pushed back against shared values we see as key to the America-Canada alliance. He has created a situation where Canada and the EU got used to figuring things out directly with each other, absent Washington in those discussions. His actions have also created increasing tensions between Blue and Red states, which are not exactly to anyone who you'd try to sell membership in the USA...
Then damages just kept going after that, with January 6, 2021, and the Supreme Court ruling on immunity only increasing concerns among traditional American allies on the state of the USA's internal politics. Last but not least he just got elected again and has seemingly gone back to all I mentioned above re his first term except cranked to 11, especially regarding antagonizing Canada with the tariff threats and musing about waging economic warfare against us until we accept annexation. And if all of this wasn't enough if he does go ahead with his tariff threat against both Canada and the EU he would basically put both Ottawa and Bruxelles in a situation where they would have to forcibly decouple from the American economy to at least some extent and trade with each other instead....
I would argue that if we take your analysis about the need to belong to a large union at face value the logical conclusion shouldn't be the one you reached, with Trump being praised for being farsighted about future developments but instead criticized as the one reason Canada might indeed go from a culturally, politically and economically North American nation to a European one. If Canada does defect to the EU, as you put it, you will only have yourself to blame.
You had plenty of chance to stop him from being more of an issue for good but you didn't, you still could force him to calm down right now if the courts and the Republicans in Congress showed their muscle but as of yet you haven't. And the longer he is allowed to run rampant the more damage he does to America's relationship with its traditional allies, Canada included, and with much of the rest of the world for that matter.
The one thing I agree with you about is your concept of superpower brand wars but you fail to see that the very leader you praise and the people around him are seemingly intent on damaging America's as much as they can.
No problem with your logic.
My message is merely that structural global changes will change your minds in somebody's direction.
This piece is as monumentally stupid and misinformed as your support for the Iraq War. How did that work out?
You are talking about annexing an ally that is a sovereign state and a democracy, because you want to emulate some of the most repressive regimes on the planet.
This is an absolutely morally bankrupt piece. Why would Canada want to be ruled by a country that no longer has the slightest respect for the rule of law or democracy?
I missed the part where I said we should annex anybody, but nvm
Even better (you’re a world-order person 😊):https://www.ft.com/content/b8b59846-730a-4a29-a2e3-d0dda791c06b
You don’t get it. Please read this…https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/editorials/article-the-enduring-strength-of-our-values/
I have relatives in Canada, through which much of my family traversed before ultimately settling in the US. It is not an alien land to me, but a previous homeland.
Similarly, after 4 decades of doing this, I know which type of person I am.
Something I've noticed by actually interacting with real folks on X and in real life. People live in a complacent normalcy bias of the world they think they know that died between what Covid and Ukraine proved - that force does solve problems, sometimes, and hard power matters. Debt only has so much pull, and resource control, especially with the AI wars on the horizon, depend upon finite resource troves. Trump is right, so are you, and reality will change before the talking points classes adapt.
Bit harsh, but I get your point.
Not for you, but people need to be shaken from their complacency. We're back to a world that follows pre-WWI rules. The first adopters will have a huge advantage.
One can argue this is terrible, but you can't use sanctions as a cudgel and see the "victim" emerge stronger without there being terrible consequence.
I should have also mentioned Yemen. What that did to trade is a big part of this also.
Excellent piece and congrats!
Ignoring the hugely imperfect messenger that is PE47, the issue is that this integration seems to fly in the face of current "Close the borders!", anti-immigrant environment. The grand strategy you lay out in 'America's New Map' requires a more welcoming, freer, cross border flow, albeit, one that must be controlled.
I think back to the line made famous near the conclusion of my favorite movie, 'No Country for Old Men'. "You cain't stop what's comin'." But you can manage it to our hemispheric benefit.
I hope you will find a seat at the table for more of your grand strategy broad-framing at this and upcoming administrations.
Nobody likes to hear about inevitabilities, and yet they must be accepted.