Catholic comments on the passing parade.
Posts
All Comments
The refusal by Britain to allow the US to use their air
bases in the UK for the current attack on Iran, the similar refusal by the Gulf
States, and the controversy over turning Diego Garcia over to Mauritius,
makes a strong case for Trump that the US needs to own Greenland. As this shows
us, in a crunch, simply having bases there is not enough.
 |
| Pax Romana |
He thinks Trump should get it.
Isn’t he concerned about American hegemony?
“The world needs a boss. Then fewer countries would start wars.”
And he’s right. He is being logical. This is the same reason we have governments.
It is moreover the lesson of history: Pax Romana, Pax Britannica. When Rome ruled the Mediterranean, there was general peace, prosperity, and development. When the United Kingdom dominated the globe in the nineteenth century, we had a long period of relative peace. As Yeats described it in "Nineteen Hundred and Nineteen":
All teeth were drawn, all ancient tricks unlearned,
And a great army but a showy thing…
One dominant power preserves the peace. Government is always better than anarchy.
This being so, America’s continued and growing dominance is in the best interests of everyone. Especially since America is a democracy, and guarantees democracy to territories it controls. This means suppression and exploitation is not on the menu. Its dominance is not just in the best interests of America’s usual allies in Canada, Europe, Australia, Israel, the Pacific Rim. It is also in the best interests of the people of Iran, or Russia, or China.
hy then do the governments of Iran, China, or Russia stand opposed to the USA? Why are hackles raised in Europe or in Canada? Why are leaders like Mark Carney actually turning to China for closer ties?
It must be just the ugly sin of envy. If they cannot themselves be the leader, they want to burn it all down. It is weasels fighting in a hole. It is crabs preventing one another from escaping the boiling pot.
In fact, the ideal would be if America conquered and annexed everyone. Then everyone would have a vote on US policy, creating a democratic world government.
The craziest thing is that Greenland, and Canada, have been offered advance membership, and somehow seem put out by it.
And I think he has a case. Greenland is strategic. And everyone thinks it is right for the US and US taxpayers to carry the freight of defending it, while not benefitting from the territory.
It does seem this is not fair.
Of course, the same could be said for Canada ...
No representation without taxation?
By joining the USA, Canadians, for example, individual would have many more career opportunities. They could expect a higher standard of living. They would have more choices where to live. Apart from Quebec, they risk losing nothing of their culture—by any normal world standard, it is the same culture. They would sacrifice nothing of their freedoms or right to self-govern. America has the same democratic traditions. Indeed, they would probably have better protection for their rights, a more independent judiciary and a longer and stronger human rights tradition. Canada, after all, only got responsible government in the 1840s, and a formal Bill of Rights only in 1960. The courts’ interpretations of the current Charter of Rights and Freedoms has grown problematic. They—we-- would also have greater security against foreign threats from genuinely oppressive governments.
And yet Mark Carney is hurrying off to China, America’s chief adversary, to cut deals that seem not in Canada’s interest, in hopes of countering American influence. Or perhaps just to spite the USA.
This behaviour seems mad and self-destructive.
I think it shows the strength of the nationalist instinct, and how it works against our interests. People are herd animals, if they follow their instincts. But the gospel truth is that all men are brothers. Even Samaritans. Even Americans.
Appealing to this idolatry of nationalism has let many a corrupt and oppressive government seize and stay in power.
You might, of course, accuse Trump in turn of being a nationalist, in wanting to annex Canada or Greenland. But that is a separate argument, and an argument for others to consider.
Some are suggesting Trump’s recent moves, on Venezuela and Greenland, are an indication he is preparing for a major war.
Granted, they would be strategic in case of a world war. Trump is generally shortening supply lines and consolidating US resources and industries. But this is merely judicious. It is always wise to have a strong defense. And here are calculations that China will make a lunge for Taiwan in 2027.
But if this were about Greenland’s strategic value in case of war, making it US territory now is unnecessary. Denmark is a NATO ally. It would be easy to cut a deal to establish US bases there without any change in sovereignty. Even without this, in the case of war, the US could quickly land and take it over, as the US and Britain did with Iceland when it was Danish territory during the Second World War.
Which leaves the real motive rather simpler: Trump is a showman, and he wants to be remembered as one of the greatest US presidents. He has an ego: he likes seeing his name on things. He wants to be on Mount Rushmore.
As a major territorial acquisition, Greenland would put him up there with Jefferson, Lincoln, and Polk. Venezuela is a major national security triumph, and the oil is strategic. But Trump’s eye may really be on Cuba, now likely to collapse without its Venezuelan support. Then he would have solved a national security problem twelve presidents in a row could not solve, including the much-lauded Kennedy and Reagan. . I can even see him moving to annex Cuba once the current government collapses. The annexation of Cuba has been proposed by other presidents going all he way back to Jefferson. As far back as 1854, the US government declared Cuba “essential to US security.” Imagine if Trump were the one to finally do it? And why not--America once annexed Puerto Rico in the same way.
Consider in this light the Kennedy Centre being unofficially renamed the Trump Kennedy Centre. Consider Trump’s new ballroom appended to the White House—larger than the White House itself. Trumping the famous “Lincoln bedroom” by quite a bit. He also plans a triumphal arch within view of the Lincoln Memorial and in the same Neoclassical style—in effect, a Trump Memorial to rival those of Lincoln, Jefferson, and Washington nearby. Not to mention Napoleon.
One might consider this all rather childish. Trump is an overgrown child. Okay, but so far, it all also looks beneficial to all. Greenlanders would probably be better off, more secure, wealthier, with greater freedoms, under the USA than under Denmark. Venezuelans are certainly better off without Maduro, and Cubans would be exponentially better off as part of the US. The new Trump ballroom will cost taxpayers nothing, and improve the White House. The Trump arch will cost taxpayers nothing, and instantly become a tourist attraction. Adding Trump’s name to the Kennedy Centre costs taxpayers nothing.
So I, for one, am good with it.
Trump really is “playing 4D chess.” He learned how to swing a deal as a real estate developer. Consider the Gaza deal. He framed it all as a threat against Hamas: “if the hostages are not freed by inauguration day, there will be hell to pay.” But behind the scenes, the pressure was really on Netanyahu to accept a partial deal. This way, Netanyahu has made concessions, but can frame it as a victory. It’s a win-win, at least for the short term.
He is doing the same with Greenland. Greenland is a financial liability to Denmark, held only for prestige, and Greenland for its part feels colonized. Trump sees the opportunity. Denmark saves face and looks righteous by giving Greenland independence. Greenland can afford this pretense of self-determination now, with US backing. Then it gets to cut a better deal with the US. The US gets to cut Denmark out of any deal, buying wholesale. It’s a win-win.
I think Trump should and will offer Greenland immediate full statehood, to preserve the sense of self-determination.
Now how about Canada?
Alberta’s situation is like that of Greenland. Alberta has been subsidizing the rest of Canada with their energy resources. At the same time, with their carbon tax and their environmental regulations, the Canadian central government has been hobbling the Alberta energy industry.
Perhaps Trump was clever enough to check and realize that energy was a provincial responsibility. Perhaps he was clever enough to see that Canada has recognized the right of provinces to separate. Perhaps he was clever enough to school himself on Western alienation.
With his tariff threats, Trump is shaking that fruit from the tree. He can appeal to Albertan alienation. They have the one card to play against the Trump tariffs.
He can offer Alberta a separate deal. He says he wants to annex Canada; but the value to the US is all in Alberta. Moreover, they are more politically aligned than the rest of Canada with the US; they would probably vote Republican. He can now offer them statehood. Alberta gets to escape their subsidies to the rest of Canada, escape the carbon taxes and the environmental regulations, lower their taxes, and start pumping oil like gangbusters.
Okay, this one isn’t quite win-win. The rest of Canada is left in the lurch, cut off from Alberta’s subsidies and facing stiff tariffs from the USA.
Unless they quickly end equalization payments, kill the carbon tax, end supply management, cut environmental regulations, and start severely restricting immigration.
All of which would be more or less what the Canadian public is demanding.
So, again, win-win. Unless we are governed by idiots.
Uh-oh.
Here’s how Trump can annex both Greenland and Canada.
Greenland: first encourage them to vote for independence from Denmark. Denmark can’t object: it’s the right to self-determination of peoples, established by the League of Nations and Wilson’s Fourteen Points. And Denmark has already admitted Greenland has this right.
Then, no longer needing to pay off Denmark, the US offers every Greenlander one million dollars to cede sovereignty to the USA. There are only about 50,000 Greenlanders. This would only cost the US $50,000,000,000—fifty billion. Good price considering Greenland’s strategic importance and mineral deposits. Not only would every Greenlander be a millionaire; the US would then also begin developing Greenland’s resources, providing jobs for Greenlanders, and continuing royalties. Like Alaskans, who all currently get an annual payout, a reverse income tax, from resource royalites. On top of this, of course, every Greenlander gains the right to live and work in the USA. The much coveted “green card.”
Why wouldn’t they go for it? It is not as though they are giving up their sovereignty; they are not independent now. And they would never be viable as an independent state.
Canada: there are too many Canadians for a similarly simple deal. But here’s how it could happen. The long Quebec sovereignty debate has established the principle that any Canadian province has the right to separate. Alberta gets a raw deal now within Confederation, forced to pay equalization to most other provinces. They will be especially hard hit by Trump’s stiff tariffs. They are probably most dependent on cross-border trade with the US, for their oil and gas and agricultural products. At the same time, they are most valuable to the US, for that oil and gas. Not to mention the Alcan highway heading north from Edmonton to Alaska.
Canadian nomination meetings and party leadership contests are ridiculously vulnerable to foreign interference, as the Chinese have demonstrated. It would not take that much money for the US to maneuver supporters of Alberta independence and annexation into power provincially, working like China through local shell organizations. Externally, offer Alberta stand-alone statehood, a pipeline south, and a complete lifting of tariffs. Probably attractive enough to convince a majority of Albertans, if the politicians are also pushing the idea.
So Alberta votes for independence and annexation to the US, as Texas once did from Mexico.
Canada is now, for all practical purposes, cut in two, east to west; and it loses a huge part of its tax and resource base.
At this point, the attraction of remaining independent diminishes rapidly for other provinces. They should start falling like dominoes. British Columbia will be stranded, in relation to the rest of Canada. They needed a rail link to convince them to join Confederation in the first place. Now that link is gone.
Saskatchewan tends to move in tandem with Alberta. Saskatchewan will lose its route to market. Saskatchewan will want to join as well, if Alberta has joined.
If Alberta, BC, and Saskatchewan have all left Confederation, there go most of Canada’s natural resources. The attractiveness of remaining in Canada falls further for other provinces, now much impoverished.
Manitoba will probably fall next, wanting to stay with its Prairie neighbours rather than become a remote outpost of Ontario.
If the momentum is now not yet enough to pull all the other provinces in, the game can repeat. If either New Brunswick or Quebec pull out of that rump Canada, it is once again cut in two.
Target New Brunswick: small enough to subvert without too much financial outlay. If New Brunswick goes, PEI, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland, stranded, will likely follow.
And as far as Quebec is concerned, there is no great loyalty to Ontario. Why not try for a better deal with Washington?
Leaving Ontario, and a landlocked Ontario. Not viable. Game, set, and match.
As for the Panama Canal, here’s a gambit: the US could put pressure on Panama by threatening to build a new, and wider, canal in cooperation with and through Costa Rica or Nicaragua; losing Panama virtually all its revenue from the present canal. Then it proposes, to forestall this, a deal with Panama in which Panama still gets a healthy remittance from the current canal under US management.
