Trump’s Imperial Encore and the Clash with Canada

Plus Notes on the Potential Canada-US Doomsday Scenario

We are back in the 19^th-century. Donald Trump, and some of his ardent cronies and associated junior grifters (Steve Bannon, Charlie Kirk, Jack Posobiec, Alex Jones, and so on), have dusted off imperialist desires of more than a century ago. And in a way it’s appropriate: a senescent power meeting its younger self on the way back down.

What this renewed imperialism means for the US, and for ordinary Americans, is the worst possible news: a landing that will be so brutally hard, that the only result can be breaking and burning. As I keep saying, what the US needed the most right now—urgently—was the kind of leadership that understood and knew how to manage inevitable decline. The example to follow (not to the letter, which would be impossible) is that of the UK: gradual, peaceful, and diplomatic. The UK today remains a significant power, not least financially and technologically, but it no longer pretends to rule the world or any significant part of it. The US can be a significant power for many decades to come, but that is only if its decline is not ferociously mismanaged to the extent that even what little power it might have had, is burnt to ash.

Old America views Young America on the way back down. Hegemony is always followed by decline.

The US Empire is at an End

Americans have lost any ability they might have had to envision themselves in the future. Their political economy has devolved to something resembling hand-to-mouth survival: calculations focused on the present moment, lurching from one snapshot (1^st quarter, 2^nd quarter results, etc.) to another. They claim to be “forward looking,” however they are anything but. Had they tried to maintain or cultivate some long-range vision, they would have seen themselves arriving at a fork in the road within the last 20 years. One road, like that taken by the UK, is humbling, sometimes depressing, under an overcast sky. The other road is much worse: shrouded in dense smoke, the path broken and lined by ruins, with fires burning everywhere. It’s this latter road that Americans are now walking, zombie-like.

No empire is forever: just ask any of the ex-empires that proclaimed the sun would never set on them. In fact, historically, in the world of modern nation-states since the end of the 15^th-century, imperial powers lasted as such for 250 years on average. US empire arguably began as early as its first wars on the Barbary Coast in 1801, or arguably earlier with the conclusion of the Treaty of Paris in 1783 that ceded British territories as far west as the Mississippi River—thus 224 to 242 years ago. Stick a fork in it, she’s done.

No empire is forever, and no empire climbed back to world dominance after falling. Donald Trump may be foolish enough to think that he can bluster and bully the US back to dominance, dazzled by his own media celebrity status. But this kind of thinking would be the product of psychosis, of delusions, of megalomania. If Americans were interested in their own survival, they would find whatever means to stop Trump right now from taking them on a wild roller coaster ride that will be costly and futile, and set them even further back.

Just as no empire lasts forever—we know that to be true, because it has never happened—no empire gets a “re-do”. Empires do not get encores. In all cases, once the decline has begun in earnest, it becomes irreversible.

We know that the US empire has been in a stage of terminal decline since the disastrous failure of the Vietnam War; the Watergate scandal; the separation of the value of the US dollar from the gold standard; and the OPEC oil crisis—and that was just in the 1970s. The shortening of intervals between recessions; the dot.com bust; 9/11; the near-collapse of the banking system; the catastrophic failures of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; two waves of the culture wars; and, the fracturing of elites with the rise of Trump. In broad strokes, the classic signs of imperial decline are: 1) the failure to effectively reform, politically and economically; 2) pitched battles between partisan factions, and the rise of reactionary movements; 3) elite dissensus; 4) weak leadership, and actually weak leaders (Biden and Trump being almost caricatures of debility); 5) lower quality of life and higher prices; 6) corruption and scandals; and, 7) a string of military defeats. We must also add, 8) high national debt, with no signs of indebtedness slowing, and much of the debt being owed to competing foreign powers that are on the rise—the US purchases more on credit than from the value of real exports. Of course, 9) the emergence of large economic and military powers that act as competitors and acquire a large number of clients, such that many states can now survive US sanctions easily and many have moved out of the US orbit.

There is no amount of tough talking and no number of tariffs that will give the US the imperial makeover that Trump seeks.

Trump’s First Mistake: Threaten All, at the Same Time

As someone not well versed in the art of shaking people down and threatening their grandmothers, I would not know a rookie mistake when I see one—but I believe Trump has just made his first, very big mistake. In recent weeks, Trump has threatened a trade war not only against Canada and Mexico, but also China, then all BRICS nations (encompassing most of humanity), while threatening the territorial integrity of Panama and Mexico, as well as Greenland. He has also threatened high tariffs against the entire EU. The EU has already responded that it stands with Denmark in defending its sovereignty over Greenland. This is more than just isolationism on Trump’s part: he is setting a trap for himself by isolating his country from all others (except those that can do nothing for him, such as El Salvador and Argentina). In addition, despite all his hype about winning a “landslide” and having an “unprecedented mandate,” neither point is true: he got less than half of the popular vote, and he thus governs in a country where half the people do not want him as president. Those people might reasonably consider an unspoken alliance with Trump’s foreign targets.

By attacking and alienating all allies, and further stoking the antagonism of adversaries, Trump is helping to do one thing very fast: encouraging the creation of a multi-national coalition against him, one whose members support each other (behind the scenes most likely), as each one goes up to bat against Trump. This is why almost all analyses of “what will happen to Mexico” or “what impact will this have on Canada” are flawed: they fail to take into account the global geopolitical framework, and instead focus on the US and Canada, or the US and Mexico, as dyads—as billiard balls, that are not part of a larger whole.

“We also have to understand that Mr. Trump isn’t just threatening us; he’s also targeting a growing list of other countries, as well as the European Union itself, and he is just getting started. Canada should quickly convene a meeting of the leaders of Denmark, Panama, Mexico, as well as with European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, to formulate a plan for fighting back these threats. Every time that Mr. Trump opens his mouth, he creates new allies for all of us. So let’s get organized! To fight back against a big, powerful bully, you need strength in numbers. The whole point is not to wait in dread for Donald Trump’s next blow. It’s to build a country and an international community that can withstand those blows”. ~ Jean Chrétien, former Prime Minister of Canada

Trump on Canada: Does He Know what He Wants and How to Get it?

Donald Trump’s statements were dismissed by many if not most as “just words”. He is “joking” we were told; but Trump kept repeating the “joke” without ever saying it was a “joke” (nor was it a funny one). Then we heard that this was just a “negotiating tactic” and Trump was seeking “leverage”. It was just “trash talk”. It was simply “performative imperialism”—as if actual imperialism was not always accompanied by monumental performances. Current US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, dismissed Trump’s plans altogether, as such a bad idea that it was a waste of time to even talk about them. Then, it all just became real.

Trump said he wanted Canada to strengthen the border, but then he wants to erase the border. Trump wants Canada to do more work on border security and drug interdiction, to avoid tariffs from being imposed—but then says tariffs will happen anyway. Trump says the US does not want or need anything from Canada, but then says he wants Canada to be the 51^st state. And if the US does not need or want anything from Canada, then why tariffs? Just place a ban on all imports from Canada, or at least raise the tariffs to 10,000%.

It is no wonder then that so many are confused as to whether Trump was joking, trolling, or being serious and literal. Trump himself did not seem to know. The key part of being a transactionalist—as anthropologists would already know, given that transactionalism is an established theoretical approach in the discipline—is that the dynamism of circumstances matter. As one utterance changes the circumstances and behaviour patterns around it, it reshapes the announcement, which then continues to morph until the actor decides he has arrived at the perfect match between intentions and the parameters of possible action.

Thus, yes, words really do matter. Especially in international relations, words really do matter—sometimes, they are all that matters. Speech is action. Ask any diplomat or ask any investor.

But note how, when it comes to words, we never hear Chinese government officials speak in terms such as Trump’s to any country (outside of Taiwan). That is ascendant China I am talking about; influential China; the China that is building major inroads into areas that used to be aligned with the US. China is winning with diplomacy and business, and by having something real, and really attractive to offer.

Trump huffs and puffs, and sometimes he sounds like he has suffered fatal blunt-force trauma to the cranium:

“We’re going to be announcing at a future date, pretty soon, we’re going to change — because we do most of the work there, and it’s ours — we’re going be changing — sort of the opposite of Biden, where he’s closing everything up, essentially getting rid of $50 to $60 trillion worth of assets — we’ll be changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, which has a beautiful ring. That covers a lot of territory. The Gulf of America: What a beautiful name. And it’s appropriate. It’s appropriate”. ~ Donald Trump

How is Canada to Respond?

First: Perceive the Problem

Canadians need to understand what they are dealing with, and that there is no going back. Regarding the first part, there is already a lot that warrants optimism: almost all Canadian political leaders have responded strongly, and with an apparently strong sense of what they are up against. On the second part, that is less true. So far it seems that only a few Canadian economists understand the need to pry Canada free from an unstable and abusive relationship.

Trump’s brand of imperialism has been salvaged from the scrap yard of American history. His approach is plain racketeering: engaging in extortion, where other nations must pay financial tribute to protect themselves from further blackmail. Put simply, it’s international gangsterism.

Add to that a growing American desire to engage in recolonization, marked by all the contempt and superficially cozy racism of imperialists with injured egos. Their weakness is manifested by the gusto they show when bullying the weak.

Sometimes an opponent kicks hardest when breathing his last gasps of breath. Canada needs to understand that, and stop hitching its wagon to those caught in a death spiral.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, former Prime Minister of Canada: Trump does not sound like a friend, a partner or an ally—and he has almost everything in reverse.]

Second: Act in a Unified Manner

While there appears to be a vacuum at the top of the political structure in Canada, with Trudeau’s announced resignation as party leader, there is the highest degree of agreement across all parties that we have seen since the Great Covid Scare (3/11). The overwhelming majority of Canadians is also opposed to Trump, and reacted negatively to all of the talk of becoming the 51^st state, a prospect that is widely repudiated.

However, because of the apparent vacuum at the top, the Canadian response appears to be a patchwork of federal and provincial responses. These range from the most defiant and pugnacious toward Trump (the case of Premier Doug Ford of Ontario), to what seems like an outright selling out (Premier Danielle Smith of Alberta). Indeed, Danielle Smith seems to be angrier with Canada retaliating against the tariffs, than she is about Trump imposing them. Smith’s pilgrimage to Mar-a-Lago, in the company of opportunistic court jesters such as Kevin O’Leary and Jordan Peterson, produced no results. She returned to Canada saying what was already understood: that tariffs were coming. Her solution? Get Canadians to buy more American goods to equalize trade—an outstandingly preposterous conclusion to draw for a country 1/10^th the size of the US. Smith envisioned no real response to the US imposing tariffs against Canada, and she was determined to continue energy exports at all costs. Smith even threatened a “national unity crisis” (without elaborating what that would mean in actuality), should the federal government exercise its right to block oil and gas exports to the US. Smith has made it abundantly clear, repeatedly, that her first allegiance is to Trump before Canada.

[Doug Ford, Conservative, Premier of Ontario: “I’m a strong believer in retaliatory tariffs. You can’t let someone hit you with a sledgehammer over the head, without hitting back twice as hard”.]

[Doug Ford: “You just don’t rollover”.]

[Pierre Poilievre, federal Conservative Leader: Canada needs to stop ripping itself off by selling oil at a discount to the US.]

[Jagmeet Singh, NDP Leader: Cut all exports of critical minerals to the US.]

[Danielle Smith has dreamt of a special Alberta-US deal for years now, and gave voice to those visions.]

Third, Consider All Options

Here too there are positive signs from Canadian leaders, which must be surprising to many. Publicly, Canada’s foreign affairs minister refuses to rule out a total ban on oil, gas, and electricity exports to the US. The need to rapidly and fully diversify trade relationships, and end dependency on the US, is of paramount importance.

[Mélanie Joly, Foreign Affairs Minister of Canada: all options are on the table.]

The most obvious response would be for Canada to team up with Mexico and the EU to counter the US. The Canadian response could (and should) go much further, however, such as pursuing possible membership in BRICS. It should be exporting more to China, India, and Russia—which also means dropping all foreign sanctions against nations, when such sanctions do nothing to advance or protect Canadian interests.

Ultimately, Canada should consider terminating its partnership with the US in NORAD, and not renewing the USMCA. The latter, after all, is a trade agreement negotiated by Trump, hailed by Trump as a major victory during his first term, and now totally violated by Trump. In extreme circumstances, Canada should refuse to accredit Trump’s choice of ambassador, if not expel all US diplomatic staff while recalling Canadian diplomats from the US; ceasing trade with the US; and potentially closing all borders to American travellers. The latter group of options would probably only become thinkable during outright war. Canadian leaders, however, should begin preparing for such options.

The Doomsday Scenario

Trump has announced the (largely redundant) creation of an “External Revenue Service” to be established on the day of his inauguration, which means that tariffs are a certainty. Trump is planning to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. During the weekend and on the day of Trump’s inauguration, Trudeau is hosting an emergency cabinet meeting. Extending and complementing the emergency logic, the media amplified these messages from leading economists and industry representatives:

“This is where a strong, unified, all-levels-of-government approach is going to be required,” Stanford said, suggesting there could be the need for pandemic-style supports, except this time it’s “an economic pandemic, not a health pandemic, but the impacts will be felt throughout the Canadian economy.”

“We’re going to have to support export industries to get through this shock, to reorient their production, to find other markets – whether in other countries or service Canadian consumers instead of servicing exports – and give companies and workers good income support in order to get through this.”

Everywhere now, the state of emergency seems to be looming for the first time since 3/11.

If Trump imposes across-the-board 25% tariffs on all goods exported from Canada to the US, it seems that Trudeau has a special surprise in store for Trump: that would be shutting down all energy exports to the US. In addition to causing prices and inflation to soar in the US, it would cause various industries to grind to a halt. Some towns and cities close to the Canadian border would go dark, at the height of winter. The backlash would be so immense for Trump—since he started the conflict—that there might be a move by Congress to impeach Trump for good. This would be the David-beats-Goliath scenario, and we can be certain that the Democrats are working with the Liberals on this, as they have actual organizational, practical, and philosophical ties not just with select individuals (such as Trudeau himself), but also between the parties, and they share the same sponsors.

Trump’s team seems to be aware of the possible David-beats-Goliath scenario, thus Trump’s team has a counter-strike in place—one which involves Premier Danielle Smith of Alberta, and explains why she was in Mar-a-Lago. Smith has already said that any effort to block Canadian energy exports, particularly Alberta’s, will cause a “national unity crisis”. That suggests a possible secessionist move. What if Smith were to try to act on it, calculating that the federal government is weak and disorganized? What if she declared independence, backed by US troops dispatched to Alberta, and then sought annexation to the US? It would seem unthinkable to most Canadians—but almost everything just in the past four years was previously unthinkable.

Trudeau’s team in turn would be well aware of the possibility of Alberta’s secession, and prepare for it in advance. There is also the chance that a Convoy 2.0 in Ottawa would be backed and exploited by US covert operatives. What Trudeau would do, before cutting off all exports, is to impose a state of emergency. In that case, anything Smith does to undermine Canada’s position could be easily construed as a threat to national security, and treason, and this would see her, and her government, arrested and detained, without due process.

[Danielle Smith, Premier of Alberta: promising a “national unity crisis”.]

Convoy 2.0 would be smashed too, if it took shape. Personally, I see the truckers more interested in gaining lucrative contracts to haul oil from western to eastern Canada, to supplement whatever is sent via rail, than protesting. This would be the case if Canada halted all oil and gas shipments to the US, where the pipelines partly run through the US—Smith herself tried to use this fact to scare Canadians against taking any retaliatory action. As truckers would have nothing to haul to the US, these contracts would be a major incentive to avoid protest—along with the new invocation of the Emergencies Act. The US will thus not find it as easy to pull off a Trumpian Colour Revolution in Canada.

Where the Emergencies Act is concerned, Trudeau would be on more solid ground invoking it this time, as Trump’s threatened trade war truly is a threat to Canada’s economic security and sovereignty. Plus, it comes with zero political consequences for Trudeau, as he will never again contest an election. The Emergencies Act defines an “emergency” as follows:

“A national emergency is an urgent, temporary and critical situation that seriously endangers the health and safety of Canadians or that seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada. It must be a situation that cannot be effectively dealt with by the provinces and territories, or by any other law of Canada”.

An “international emergency” is among the types of emergency listed.

Moreover, Trudeau—having prorogued parliament—and with most of his cabinet occupied with the leadership race, would enjoy something like absolute power. Parliament, not sitting, would be unable to conduct the necessary oversight. Trudeau is thus far from a lame duck in this case. Also, his successor can continue the state of emergency, and not be forced to call an election until September of 2026, which is the latest possible date mandated by the Constitution. His successor does not even need to be a sitting member of parliament, and can rule from outside of the House of Commons—with even less accountability. Canada would thus be under a de facto dictatorship.

This doomsday scenario, if it materialized (and we are closer to it happening than ever before), would involve a permanent rupture between the US and Canada. The US would lose its largest foreign market, and its lead supplier of imported crude oil, electricity, critical minerals, and a range of products that are critical to US agro-industry. The loss of Canadian oil imports would devastate the US economy as one economist explained:

“If they stopped buying Canadian oil and gas, they would have an energy crisis that would make the 1970s OPEC shocks look like child’s play. They buy far, far more from us than they do from Saudi Arabia, Iran and everyone else in the Persian Gulf. There’s no economic logic why they would jeopardize that”.

There is no logic, apart from a delusional MAGA logic that has been hijacked and redirected into a new form of globalism, or, to put it differently, an attempt at performing an imperial encore. There are no encores for dying empires.

[Jean Chrétien, former Prime Minister of Canada: When we cut off the electricity, Trump will need candles to walk up the stairs to his office. A trade war will hurt the US much more than Canada.]

---