Annexing Canada into the US: An international law expert’s insight into Trumpism

While the US’ President-elect has always been mercurial, it would be churlish to attribute this development entirely to his unpredictable nature. Especially when, there are perfectly rational reasons for such seemingly erratic utterances. The content as well as the timing of the statements are both personal as well strategic.

The relationship between Trump and Trudeau, for instance, has always been awkward and strained, a fact which was not helped by former Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau’s tendency to deride his political opponents as Trumpian — implying thereby that he or she was deserving of ridicule. Trump in return thought nothing of taunting Trudeau by repeatedly referring to him as “governor”.

However, the US is not going to “annex” Canada anytime soon — as many now suggest. Quite apart from the mutual taunts, it cannot be forgotten that while NAFTA was re-negotiated during Trump’s first term and is scheduled for a possible relook this time around. There is something to be said for the strategy of publicly hinting about seemingly outlandish demands, calculated to send the unfortunate country into a frenzy and then settling for something a little more reasonable.

When Trump says it would be wonderful if Canada were to become a “part of our nation” it is noteworthy that he follows it up by stating that; “it’s a deal which must happen”. The President-elect looks at Canada as a possible economic union very much like the EU. Canada is not just an anglophile nation. Though most Canadians would howl in outrage at the suggestion, there are several obvious similarities in the culture and outlook and an economic union would make sense to any neutral observer.

Canadians are an innovative society, but Canadian inventions have been better commercialised in the US. An economic union would give the US at least a first right of access to Albertan crude and Canadian businesses tariff-free access to American markets.

The extraordinary interest in Greenland cannot however be explained without first realising its strategic importance. A vast expanse of snow-covered landmass with a very tiny population is now an autonomous part of Denmark. However, it is part of the North American continental shelf and nearer to the US than Europe or its former colonial master, Denmark. This means that it is an ideal location for early warning radar systems to protect against hostile incoming missiles or drones. The US already has a military base in Greenland.

Perhaps even more important is Greenland’s vast reserves of rare earths which is the crucial input for electronic products of this age. Greenland is therefore not the latest Trumpian fascination for a retreat to go dog sledging. In fact Trump pursued the territory in 2019 as well. Nor was it the first time that an American President proposed pretty much the same deal.

While the local population of the world’s largest island, (as well as the Canadians) would bristle at the thought of being “acquired”, a prudent “special association” cannot be ruled out as a likely outcome. Meanwhile, Trump will pay the price of his street-smart negotiating which he seems to enjoy very much, by being branded as the Ugly American.

—The author, Percival Billimoria, is a Senior Advocate practicing at the Supreme Court of India, and an expert in international law. The views are personal.