He's also set to be the first American president to seriously question Canada's sovereignty. Some Americans have always regarded Canada with an kind of uneasiness and suspicion, because we contradict their favourite narratives. If, as some American conservatives actually believe, Americans represent the pinnacle of humanity, if everyone aspires to American citizenship, then why do forty million Canadians fail, indeed refuse, to petition for admission to the union? Plenty of American pundits have expressed hostility to the idea of Canada. Most American presidents and lawmakers, on the other hand, have had a real degree of affection and respect for Canada. Even where US presidents have disliked our politics or politicians, the decencies of international relations have kept these sentiments out of official United States policy. Until now: Donald Trump has made it quite clear that, at least when it comes to rhetoric, he has no intention of abiding by the old restraints.
Next week, we can expect to find out how much of rhetoric Mr. Trump has the intention, or the ability, to turn into policy. Right now, it makes sense to ask what it would mean if he did carry out his threats, and if we did fold in response.
Discussion of Trump's intended aggression in Canada suffers from a serious error: we minimize the threat to democracy, to the rights of all Canadian citizens, that Mr. Trump's aggressive policy represents. From long habit, far too many of us naively speak of the prospect of "joining" the United States. Let us be clear: Donald Trump and his supporters are not issuing us a friendly invitation. They are not telling us they will welcome us if we choose to join them. They are demanding we give up our sovereignty, which means giving up our right to elect politicians to make decisions on our behalf. If we give up our rights as Canadians, it is hardly likely Donald Trump and his supporters will feel bound to give us all the rights of Americans.
If European siege warfare of the seventeenth and eighteenth century did not give us the concept of terms of surrender, they certainly ritualized the concept. Although it lasted a relatively short time, the European idea of limited warfare distorted our sense of what surrender means. Today, surrender means unconditional surrender, and that will be true whether we fall to a military invasion or economic coercion. If we decide we can take no more economic pain, throw up our hands in surrender and let Donald Trump's government have its way with us, negotiation will ensue. In those negotiations, having decided we will do anything to stop the pain, we will have little ability to reject any decisions Trump and his advisors impose on us. He clearly has no regard whatever for Canada's political culture or accomplishments, if he even knows about them. He speaks of Canada as a land mass, clearly having no respect for, or interest in, the people of Canada.
Any American president prepared to use aggressive economic policies to force Canadians to give up our country would do everything they could to ensure we got as little status within the United States as possible. Even worse, any deal negotiated with the American executive branch would have to pass the US federal legislature, and plenty of politicians and interest groups in the United States would have every incentive, and desire, to ensure Canadians came out of the proposed merger with as little influence as possible. Whatever rights we might retain in a negotiation to surrender our country to the Americans, both the House of Representatives and the Senate could strip away, and as we have seen, small groups of extreme ideologues can have outsize influence on American legislation.
Unfortunately, the Americans have the constitutional and legal means to minimize the effect absorbing Canada, the resources and the land mass, would have on their politics. The United States constitution allows for many ways for the US to acquire territory without adding states, or senators, or votes in presidential election. Citizens of the United States in a territory can elect members to the House of Representatives but not the Senate, and voters in US territories have no voice in presidential elections. Negotiators or legislators determined to ensure Canadians used to an effective social safety net could not vote for similar policies in the United States could demand that (formerly) Canadian citizens come under American authority not as citizens but nationals of the United States. As nationals, former Canadians would be expected to owe allegiance to the United States, but would not have the rights of a citizen, particularly the right to vote.
We cannot comfort ourselves with the comforting but ultimately foolish notion at absorbing Canada would tilt American politics sharply to the left. Donald Trump and his advisors appear to think they know better. We should know better as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment