Canada Followup What if Trump really means it?

What if Trump isn't bluffing?  

Maybe Trump really wants to annex Canada as the 51st state?

Maybe this isn't a period of trade negotiations. Maybe we will come to understand this as the pre-annexation period.

Today's Washington Post:

The day before yesterday I published a guest post by Canadian political scientist Sandford Borins. He said that Canada needed to resist Trump's efforts. He wrote as if this were a negotiation toward a better trade deal.

No deal at all is better than a bad deal. Don’t accept the pressure of artificial deadlines. Canada already has a trade deal with the U.S. – CUSMA [known in the U.S. as the USMCA.] The current sectoral tariffs are a violation of CUSMA, and Canada should not accept them or any additional sectoral tariffs. 

Meanwhile, Canada is negotiating, as its citizens expect it to do. Canadian polls are consistent in saying that 75 to 80 percent of Canadians want to preserve Canadian sovereignty and independence from the U.S.  

Tariffs on goodsw from Canada are generally counterproductive to U.S. interests. Yes, Canada has tariffs on milk imports from the U.S. to protect its own dairy industry, but this is small potatoes, and a reasonable position on Canada's part to protect domestic source for infant food. The other major imports from Canada: steel, aluminum, softwood, and oil are all inputs into U.S. manufacturing and homebuilding. Do we really want to raise prices in those areas? The auto manufacturing sector has been integrated for decades, with parts going back and forth across the border. Tariffs put friction into that process and raise prices on American cars and make them less competitive. Is that a good thing?

I may have made a category error. I may have thought that what we are seeing with Canada is hardball trade negotiations. That may be the wrong category. This may be the "pre-war era," or the "pre-annexation-crisis" era. The American public may think this is an era of peaceful relations with Canada -- business as usual, with a bit of Trump drama. Trump may not see it that way. He may be setting up a crisis event.  As Borins wrote:

When Trump sees prosperity in any country other than the U.S., his prima facie conclusion is that country is ripping off the US. 

From Trump's view, the U.S. is being screwed and we are already at war with Canada. He is playing defense. 

How would annexation take place?  We won’t invade with tanks. Maybe one or two assassinations of Canadian leaders from unknown sources, coming on top of an ornery Canadian public facing economic distress, will create a power vacuum wherein a helping hand from the U.S. becomes acceptable. Or, maybe the tried-and-true border incident, the bombing of a border bridge, can be cooked up, requiring the U.S. to send in the Marines to protect ourselves from terrorists. To be really clever, Trump might arrange the assassination of a couple of pesky Democrats, plant evidence pointing to Canada, and send in marines to protect us from the ongoing Canadian terror. Two birds with one stone.

The real end-game here is American greatness. Absorbing Canada would double the size of the country. Throughout history countries have gone to war because leaders seek resources and glory. Canada is nearly vacant land, ripe for development, so why not? Make America great again. It takes a great leader to achieve that greatness. Trump wants his rightful place on Mount Rushmore. 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email gfo to: https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe.  Don't pay. The blog is free and always will be.]