FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Jan 11

Trump’s Foreign Policy Is Obvious Distraction From America’s Domestic Issues

by bcurry

For weeks now, the Trump administration has caught world media attention with its incursion into Venezuela and capture of Venezuela’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, and his wife.  However, attempting to avoid the appearance of seeking regime change, Trump has instead now focused on the oil reserves in that country.  What is not clear is whether the CEOs of major oil companies were consulted before hand, especially as they are apparently not ready to invest billions of dollars toward the restoration of Venezuela’s oil infrastructure.  Economically and from a business perspective, the addition of that country’s crude oil would not make much difference to gas and oil prices in the U.S., certainly in the short term.  In addition, continuing the naval blockade against oil tankers in the region has become a costly endeavour and has stretched the operational capabilities of U.S. forces.

More recently, Trump has turned his attention to directing his overall foreign policy strategy to Greenland, Cuba and even Iran.  For example, he has repeatedly said that the U.S. must take control of the strategically located and mineral-rich island, which is a semi-autonomous region of NATO ally Denmark.  From a military standpoint, the U.S. already has a defense agreement with Denmark
dating back to 1951.  Its installation at the remote Pituffik Space Base in the northwest of Greenland
currently supports missile warning, missile defense and space surveillance operations for the U.S. and NATO.  There is nothing to stop the Americans from increasing their military presence on the island under the current agreement.  Instead, it became evident, as in the case of Venezuela, that his administration is more interested in exploring business and mining deals by controlling Greenland’s governance.

Next, we have statements by Trump about the economic impact of the loss of Venezuelan crude oil to Cuba.  The control of Cuba and removal of its current regime is a big personal issue for Secretary of State Marco Rubio who has family ties to Cuba.  A day after the U.S. captured Maduro, Rubio issued a warning to Cuba, telling NBC News’ “Meet the Press” that he thinks the country is “in a lot of trouble.”  As in the case of Venezuela, Trump has suggested that the U.S. could run Cuba.

Finally, Trump’s attention has also turned to Iran and the current large-scale protests against the current regime under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, mostly as a result the deteriorating economic situation in Iran and the regime’s heavy handed approach to any opposition.  Iranian protests rage and civilian deaths mount. Trump has renewed his warning of possible U.S. intervention, without being very specific about what a U.S. intervention might involve.  Khamenei has accused the U.S. and Israel of having hands “stained with the blood of Iranians”, arguing that they are behind the protests.  Trump has simply asserted that any possible American strike wouldn’t “mean boots on the ground but that means hitting them very, very hard where it hurts.” 

As many historians and political scientists have asserted in the past, the focus on foreign policy initiatives, especially those involving military actions, are often a form of distraction from economic and political problems at home.  One only needs to remember the former unpopular U.K. Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and her administration’s military actions in 1982 against Argentina over the Falkland Islands.  Even some Republicans in Congress are beginning to question the foreign policy goals of the Trump administration.  Far-right activists such as Laura Loomer, Tucker Carlson and others opposed the operation in Venezuela, maintaining that Americans will ultimately pay the price.  They have also questioned how the administration’s vague plans are squared with a commitment to refrain from military intervention and regime change, something certainly not in line with Trump’s “America First” base.

Moreover, on America’s domestic front, things are not going well politically and economically.  Unemployment is up and inflation continues to rise, especially for food, housing and other staples.  The operation of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) in numerous cities has resulted in harm to American citizens and legal immigrants, including recent ICE-related deaths and injuries.  As a result, country-wide protests against ICE initiatives have emerged, leading to administration officials having to justify the use of force against protesters.

Recent polling has shown that Trump’s popularity has fallen to an all time low, including with respect to his once-popular immigration policies.  In addition, hundreds of cases involving the administration’s policies are before the courts.  Americans’ trust in the judicial system and governance has taken a massive beating.  For this reason, a strong argument can be made that the Trump administration has decided to assert U.S. foreign policy and power in order to distract from continuing domestic problems.


Donald Trump Economy Energy Foreign Policy Immigration Iran Latin America Military Prowess Oil and Gas Republican Party Trump US

Leave a comment »
Dec 29

Trump Administration’s Biggest Blunders of the Past Year

by bcurry

Remember what prevented George H.W. Bush from getting a second term was his failure to adequately address the economy at that time.  Thus the phrase: “It’s the economy stupid”.  What we now see under Trump’s second term is his downplaying of what is happening to the economy, including the continuing high inflation and increasing unemployment across the country.  One has to remember that the real impact on inflation of the tariffs will only be felt next year.  In addition, the discontinuance of subsidies for Obama care will also result in insurance premium increases for millions of Americans.  It’s becoming increasingly evident that a major split among Republicans is beginning to show as a result of the resulting anger among their constituents. 

Instead, the Trump administration seems to be concentrating on foreign policy initiatives.  Here again, there are obvious problems with a number of issues.  Trump cozied up to Putin from the outset, even meeting with the Russian dictator in Alaska which resulted in no change in the aggression against Ukraine.  Now, Trump is attempting to play the peacemaker by holding numerous meetings with Putin and Ukraine’s Zelensky.  Unfortunately, Putin is playing Trump like a fiddle and will not stop until his occupation of Ukraine is complete and is recognized by the U.S. as being legitimate, something Ukrainians may not be able to abide.

When it comes to Gaza and the Israeli administration under Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump continues to obscure the real issues in Palestine because of his close relationship with Netanyahu.  Once again, the Trump administration is attempting to broker a more permanent ceasefire agreement, while failing to provide any strategic plan for Palestinian self-rule in Gaza.  With the horrendous economic situation, lack of food and few medical services in Gaza, the U.S. appears to simply ignore what the war has done to the Palestinian people, its infrastructure and its governance.  The administration has failed to see Netanyahu’s drive to formally and militarily occupy Gaza and the West Bank, much to the opposition of America’s allies and Arab states.  Netanyahu rejects the concept of a two-state solution regarding Palestine and to date Trump has not taken a clear position on the matter.

On the other major foreign policy initiative, the Trump administration has launched an all out war on Venezuela and notably the country’s president, Nicolás Maduro.  Not only have they attacked boats in international waters off the coast of Venezuela, but Trump declared the air space around the country as being closed and has implemented a naval blockade against tankers containing Venezuelan oil.  In addition, Trump recently disclosed that a facility had apparently been destroyed within the country, without providing more details.  Moreover, his administration has not ruled out the use of the American military’s involvement in land incursions.  Given the adversarial approach by Trump towards Maduro, one cannot rule out the real objective as being regime change.

At home, Trump has backed policies that allow the Big Tech industry to grow unfettered, especially when it comes to artificial intelligence (A.I.).  The mutually beneficial alliance is even causing concern among some conservatives.  The biggest tech companies have gotten almost everything they wanted from Trump, whose administration has cleared the way for the fast-tracked building of data centers that power A.I. development.  As far as issues such as A.I. safety for children and A.I.’s effect on jobs, the Trump administration has opposed any regulation governing the industry’s actions and has actually taken federal measures to block state laws on A.I.  The implications of fast-growing technologies like A.I. have already raised new issues that are likely to play into next year’s midterm elections, much to the chagrin of many Republicans.

These are but a few of what I would consider as being major blunders under the Trump administration.  As a result, 2026 will be a tough year both domestically and abroad.  In addition, there are still a number of important cases before the Supreme Court, including the use of tariffs by his administration and whether the president has the authority to impose such trade measures.  We can only wait and see.

Artificial Intelligence Donald Trump Economy Foreign Policy Israel Latin America Republican Party Trump Ukraine US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Dec 1

Trump’s Attempt to Interfere by Force in Venezuela Politics is Once Again a U.S. Blunder in Latin America

by bcurry

Using the Trump administration’s excuse of targeting suspected drug shipments off Venezuela’s coast by military means is not defensible and possibly dangerous for U.S. foreign policy.  After all, Venezuela is a sovereign state, and any future incursion into its coastal waters or its territory would be considered by international law to be an act of war.  Past history has shown that American interference in Central and South American countries has not fared well. 

Long before the U.S. military’s involvement in the region became so contentious, the U.S. under President James Monroe asserted that it could use its military to intervene in Latin America, often referred to as the “Monroe Doctrine”.  At that time there were concerns over European meddling in the western hemisphere.  Today, the issue is primarily with the growth of China’s influence in the region.  In the 1840s, President James K. Polk invoked the doctrine to justify the Mexican-American War, which produced the U.S. conquest of Mexican lands now comprising states such as California, Arizona, Colorado and New Mexico.  That humiliating outcome and other U.S. military interventions in Mexico in the 1910s, profoundly shaped Mexico’s political identity, fostering a strong sense of nationalism in opposition to the U.S. which often continues to be seen today.

The first notable modern times example was the failed Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, an abortive and disastrous invasion of Fidel Castro’s Cuba by some 1,500 Cuban exiles opposed to Castro’s regime. The invasion was financed and directed by the U.S. government under President Kennedy’s administration and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), resulting in the deaths and imprisonment of the invaders.  Cuba’s relations with the U.S. went down hill from thereon, leading to greater reliance on aid, including military aid, from the Soviet Union.

The next worst example was in early September 1973, when the Chilean military, aided by the U.S. and the CIA, staged a coup against and killed President Salvador Allende, who was at the head of the first democratically elected Marxist government in Latin America.  Under General Pinochet, who replaced Allende, a series of human rights abuses in Chile occurred as part of his brutal and long-lasting campaign of political suppression through torture, murder, and exile.  Despite Chileans’ subsequent opposition, Pinochet ruled the country with American support until 1990.  In exile, Pinochet died in 2011.  A Chilean court opened a criminal investigation into the circumstances of Allende’s death, long suspected to have been orchestrated by the CIA. 

Most recently, Trump threatened to take over the Panama Canal and to bomb Mexican drug labs.  His administration has thrown itself into Brazilian domestic politics on behalf of former President Jair Bolsonaro.  Earlier in the year, a Trump executive order placed heavy tariffs on Brazilian exports in a move against Brazilian authorities involved in the prosecution and conviction of Bolsonaro for plotting a coup to remain in power after losing the 2022 election. This was despite the fact that the conviction was subsequently upheld by that country’s Supreme Court.  Earlier this year, the administration also offered a $20 billion loan to prop up the political fortunes of President Javier Milei of Argentina and to purchase Argentina’s beef to offset rising beef costs in the U.S.   In 2023, as a member of the Libertarian Party, Milei ran for president as part of La Libertad Avanza, an extreme right-wing political coalition. 

President Trump announced on November 28th that he would grant a full and complete pardon to a former president of Honduras, Juan Orlando Hernández.  Associated with drug cartels, Hernández was at the center of a sweeping drug case.  Last year, he was found guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt by an American jury of conspiring to import cocaine into the U.S.  Certainly, this represents a very strange move given the administration’s formal declaration of war against the drug cartels.

In the past, Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that efforts by U.S. drug enforcement officials to cut off narcotics trafficking by intercepting boats, trucks and horses laden with drugs and arresting the smugglers were not bold enough.  He has since helped steer the Trump administration toward a much more aggressive and often deadly tactic: the use of military force to destroy suspected drug boats and kill all the people on board, without any legal process.  Rubio has also long sought the ouster of leftist strongmen in the region, particularly the leaders of Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua, whose governments he has called “illegitimate”.  Last August, Rubio ordered the State Department to increase a reward to $50 million for any information leading to the arrest and conviction on U.S. drug charges of Venezuela’s current president, Nicolás Maduro.  During the first Trump administration, Rubio apparently played a leading role in pushing the president to try to oust Maduro from power.  Thus, the saga continues.

In a part of the world where the U.S. has a long history of military intervention and support for dictatorships in Latin America, in more recent years there has been a visceral rejection of the idea of American-imposed regime change.  The real possibility of American military incursion in Venezuela
would once again raise the specter of past U.S. foreign policy blunders in Latin America.  Also, it is noteworthy that no senior aide close to Trump reportedly has a long history of working on Latin America
policy. 

Donald Trump Foreign Policy Latin America Trump US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Nov 11

When Will We Stop Young Men From Going To War?

by bcurry

Years ago, I read somewhere that old men begin wars and send young men to fight them.  This was certainly true of the multitude of wars fought during the Twentieth Century.  Today, it would appear that nothing has really changed.  Look around the world, and you cannot help to witness the continuing atrocities caused by wars and the loss of not only young soldiers, but also, and most importantly, the loss of civilian lives.  There is no need to once again recount the statistical losses of war, for what matters most is the real human suffering that one sees among the individuals and families affected by war.

I had family members who fought in both World Wars, and gratefully had survived to return.  Born shortly after WWII, I lived through the Cold War period and the West’s battles with the then Soviet Union.  I lived through the break up of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the subsequent struggles of East European countries for independence.  I lived through the Vietnam conflict, which one must remember like the earlier Korean conflict, was never officially declared a war by Congress. Then came the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 toppling the long time dictator Saddam Hussein and leading to the subsequent decade occupation of Iraq.  Fortunately, the then Prime Minister Jean Chrétien refused to send Canadian troops to fight in Iraq.  However, Canada did join the NATO mission in Afghanistan where in over ten years of fighting, Canadian combatants loss their lives and several were seriously injured.  With the war in Afghanistan going poorly and in light of the gains being made by the Taliban, the U.S. couldn’t wait to get out of that country, much in the same way the Vietnam conflict ended.  And for what?

Now, we have the Ukrainian-Russian war being initiated by 73 year old Vladimir Putin, a former KGB foreign intelligence officer for 16 years and de facto dictator of Russia since 2000.  To date, while supplying Ukraine with weapons and financial support, no NATO country has boots on the ground in Ukraine.  However, there is little doubt that NATO’s European countries are deeply concerned about Russia’s incursion into Ukraine and potential future threat.  The result is that they have begun to build up their military forces and to expend a larger proportion of their budgets on defence.  Canada, as a NATO member, has also agreed to significantly increase its military spending to meet its continuing commitments to the alliance.

In the Middle East, Israel’s conflicts with Hamas in Gaza, its attacks on Iranian nuclear weapons facilities, and its most recent attack on Hamas negotiators in Qatar, represents a long period of wars and deaths and destruction on both sides.  Indeed, there have been multiple wars with Israel, including those in 2008-09, 2012, 2014, 2021 and an ongoing one since 2023, which began with the infamous October 7 attacks.  According to the Costs of War Project at Brown University, the U.S. spent almost $18 billion on military aid to Israel from October 2023 to October 2024.  While the U.S. continues to provide this massive support, do date President Trump has not indicated that American troops could become directly involved in Gaza.  Time will tell!

People in the Trump administration like to describe the president as a president for peace — this despite the recent change whereby his Secretary of Defense is now the Secretary of War.  In addition, the Trump administration is building up its military presence in the Caribbean, especially off the coast of Venezuela.  Drone attacks have been carried out on boats in international waters, with the administration declaring that these are drug smugglers originating out of Venezuela and supported by the country’s president Nicolás Maduro.  However, some current and former U.S. officials contend that the unspoken goal is the goal is to force Maduro from power.  In other words, regime change.  As of November 6th, the U.S. Senate has twice failed to pass resolutions that would limit Trump’s authority to continue military action against Venezuela or airstrikes against alleged drug vessels.  After long-running wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the combination of the words America and regime change raises alarm bells, both inside and outside the U.S.  Let’s hope that this aging American president isn’t once again ready to sacrifice American young lives in another worthless war.

Afghanistan Canada Defence Defence Donald Trump Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Iran Iraq Today Russia Trump Ukraine US

Leave a comment »
Sep 25

Can Canada Return to a Former Foreign Policy Partly Based on Non-Alignment?

by bcurry

In the early 1970s while in college, I wrote a paper which concluded that Canada’s foreign policy in the post-colonial era was largely influenced by the non-alignment movement that had emerged globally at the time.  This position was particularly true given that the majority of Canada’s foreign aid was directed at newly established states such as Bangladesh and Cambodia, and several developing countries such as India and Mexico.

The Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) emerged as one of the most significant diplomatic initiatives of the 20th century, offering newly independent nations a third path during the height of the so-called Cold War.  Founded on principles of independence, peace, and solidarity, NAM represented an alternative to the rigid bipolar world order dominated by the U.S. and Soviet Union. This movement, which began with just 25 countries in 1961, grew to encompass over 120 nations, fundamentally reshaping global diplomatic dynamics and giving voice to the developing world’s aspirations for sovereignty and self-determination.  Canada however was not a formal member of the movement.  The movement’s advocacy for the new international economic order in the 1970s, though ultimately unsuccessful, raised important questions about global economic inequality and the need for fairer trade arrangements.  In particular, the member countries used their collective strength to democratize United Nations (UN) procedures and decision-making, something that Canada strongly endorsed.

However, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1989 and the end of the Cold War, the global scene rapidly changed.  The NAM countries initially supported the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, which in turn Canada greatly supported.  However, member states such as India and Pakistan, went on to develop nuclear capabilities, greatly angering Canada who had earlier provided nuclear technology for peaceful purposes to each country.  In addition, Canada’s ties to American foreign policy had increased during the Cold War and after.  As a result, Canada has unfortunately failed to secure a seat on the UN’s Security Council by not receiving sufficient votes from NAM countries.  It is worth noting that over the years Canada played a major role in UN peacekeeping initiatives along with other nations directed at resolving several conflicts among NAM countries themselves.

In the aftermath of World War II, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was formed as a military alliance between 32 member states, including Canada, the U.S. and 30 European states.  Canada’s contribution to NATO forces has increased over time, making it almost impossible to have a non-aligned defence or security policy.  Canada’s defence spending is expected to increase even more in the coming years.

Moreover, the NAM movement’s effectiveness in the post-Cold War era soon became limited. The rise of a unipolar world dominated by the U.S. created new challenges, while economic globalization exposed the limitations of traditional non-alignment approaches.  Many NAM countries found themselves forced to choose between economic integration and political independence.  In addition, China and India emerged as the second and third respective economic powers, challenging the U.S.   While Canada still supports the dominance of global trading mechanisms, the recent American move to greater bilateral trading arrangements and the use of tariffs has forced Canada to seek out and strengthen trading relationships in Europe, Asia and elsewhere.  U.S. isolationist policies have forced Canada to further diversity its domestic economy and its offshore trading partners. 

In today’s world, Canada is more or less portrayed as a middle power seeking to maximize its autonomy while engaging with competing global powers.  This approach is no longer in line with that of the pre-Cold War era and any move to non-alignment as a foreign policy.  However, this does not mean that Canada cannot take an independent stance when it comes to formulating and implementing its foreign policy.  There is certainly a need to be not too closely aligned with the current American administration’s isolationist approach to foreign matters.

Canada China's Influence Foreign Policy Foreign Policy India NATO Protectionism Trade with EU Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships US

Leave a comment »
Jul 17

U.S. Current Involvement In The Middle East Is Just Making Things Worst In The Region

by bcurry

As if the continuing supply of American weaponry to Israel isn’t destabilizing enough with respect to Gaza, Lebanon, Yemen and Iran, now the Trump administration has bombed Iranian nuclear facilities and Israel has undertaken further military actions in Syria.  Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling coalition now has received carte blanche from the U.S. to do whatever they believe is in their strategic interests, even if this means further threatening the political and economic stability in the region.  Iran is economically in a mess, and American military actions have simply caused greater consternation and outrage.  Indeed, according to the United Nations’ refugee agency, one of the immediate consequences is the fact that Iran has speeded up its deportation back to Afghanistan of Afghan refugees who number more than 1.4 million in the country.  It’s been reported that the mass expulsions threaten to push Afghanistan further toward the brink of economic collapse with the sudden cut off of vital remittance money to Afghan families from relatives in Iran.  In addition, the sudden influx of returnees piles on Afghanistan’s already grim unemployment, housing and health-care crises.  More than half of Afghanistan’s estimated population of 41 million already relies on humanitarian assistance.

In the case of Syria, Israel recently launched deadly airstrikes on Syria’s capital, damaging a compound housing the defence ministry and hitting an area near the presidential palace, according to the Israeli military and Syrian authorities. The bombardment in central Damascus followed days of bloody clashes involving Syrian government forces in the southern region of Sweida, the heartland of the country’s Druse minority and a strategically important province near Israel and Jordan.  Israeli officials have argued previously that they want to prevent any hostile forces in Syria from entrenching near their borders.  Syria of course has a new interim government following the overthrow of former dictator Bashar al-Assad in December 2024.  Syria’s new president Ahmed al-Shara has tried to stabilize the country since the change of regime and has also attempted to forge closer relations with the U.S.  However, Israeli military actions in Syria could damage these potential improved relations.  The Trump administration so far has been silent on the Israeli initiatives, except to state that they are “very concerned” over the Israeli strikes.

For an administration that claims it is against wars and the killing of civilians in particular, Trump appears to have taken a wait-and-watch position when it comes to Israel’s military actions in the region.  This position has given clear support to Netanyahu’s aggressive military initiatives, whether right or wrong.  This could lead to more awkward and contentious relations between the two administrations.  Even Israel’s apparent attempts to improve relations with other Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia could be in jeopardy with the continuation of Israel’s attacks on its neighbouring states.  It’s becoming harder and harder to justify Israel’s military actions back home in the U.S. and in turn America’s continuing major involvement and military support.  The prospects of a more permanent cease fire with the Palestinians and Iranians is increasingly becoming that much more difficult under the circumstances.

In addition, Ehud Olmert, a former Israeli prime minister, said in an interview with the New York Times: “In Israel, Netanyahu is ready to sacrifice everything for his survival and we are closer to a civil war than people realize. In Gaza, we have returned to fighting — and for what?  And overseas, I never remember such hatred, such opposition, to the state of Israel.”  Opposition to the actions of the Netanyahu administration is growing among Western countries, including Great Britain, the European Union and Canada.  All in all, there is little doubt that the Middle East region is today more unstable than ever, and the Trump administration through it actions or lack thereof has greatly contributed the region’s instability.

Afghanistan Donald Trump Foreign Policy Iran Israel Israel Military Prowess The Middle East US

Leave a comment »
Jun 6

What Is Going On With the Circus in Washington?

by bcurry

Never before in all the years that I have been following American political news have I ever seen such a circus as the current one in Washington.  We now have the current break-up of the romance between Donald Trump and Elon Musk.  With the use of social media, the barbs are flying everywhere.  Remember that on X, Musk has almost 225 million followers.  Trump on the other hand was reported in August 2022 to have only 3.9 million Truth Social followers.  The number of Trump followers has certainly increased since becoming president, but no where near Musk’s numbers.

Then there are the members of Trump’s cabinet who continue to not impress us with their mistakes and lack of applicable backgrounds and experience.  One has the Secretary of Defence, Pete Hegseth, who recently discussed top secret military missions against the Houthi rebels in Yemen on the non-secure platform “signal”, and included his wife and personal lawyer in one post.  Then you have the Secretary of Health, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has initiated a quick study about the causes of “autism” by a number of non-experts with dubious backgrounds.  Kennedy has endorsed a number of health claims that are not backed by scientific evidence, including many on vaccines, which have concerned many medical experts.  Next is Attorney General Pam Bondi who did not know the meaning of “habeas corpus” as defined in the constitution.  Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, likes to dress up and have photo ops at the southern border.  Education Secretary, Linda McMahon, who was a World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) co-founder, did not know the difference between AI (artificial intelligence) and the steak sauce A1.  We also hear very little from Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, who appears often to take a back seat to Vice-President J.D. Vance.  Vance actually visited Greenland, only to the displeasure of the Prime Minister of Denmark and the vast majority of Greenlanders.  Today, it was announced that Trump Administration has taped a 22-year-old Thomas Fugate, who is one year out of college, to head up the Terrorism Prevention Role at Homeland Security.  He just happened to work on Trump’s campaign and has no experience in this important national security field.

Trump is reportedly fuming about his new nickname “TACO”, standing for “Trump Always Chickens Out”.  The acronym was brought to Trump’s attention at the White House press conference on May 28th by CNBC correspondent Megan Cassella.  The acronym refers to the President’s ongoing tendency to suddenly introduce high tariff rates on countries, only to reduce them shortly after or to defer them to some future date.  The continuous introduction of new fluctuating rates has created a great deal of economic uncertainty and has caused chaos in the markets and affected most business sectors.  It makes no sense at all!

With the Trump-Musk feud, late-night hosts are having a field day.  The heads of foreign countries are wondering what the hell is going on in Washington, including the Prime Minister of Canada.  Hopefully, trade negotiations and foreign policy matters can continue to be carried out rationally behind closed doors in order to avoid all the senseless and needless noise.  If the Trump administration’s gaffs weren’t so serious, they unfortunately would actually be hilarious.

Donald Trump Economy Elon Musk Foreign Policy Protectionist Trade Policies Social Media Trading Relationships US

Leave a comment »
May 22

The Hypocrisy of Trump’s Foreign Policy Stance

by bcurry

This week, President Trump sat in a press conference and berated President Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, a democratic state, with false claims about a genocide being committed against white Afrikaner farmers.  On the other hand, just a week ago President Trump had traveled to three Middle East countries ruled by repressive and non-democratic regimes and told them he would not lecture them about how they treat their own people.  The above meeting was subsequent to the administration’s fast tracking of the refugee status of dozens of white Afrikaans to the U.S. from South Africa, claiming that they were being persecuted by the government of that country and their lives and livelihood had been threatened.  No proof of the accusations was provided.

In contrast, one of Trump’s first actions on taking office in January 2025 was to issue an executive order suspending the Afghan resettlement program and leaving those eligible in legal limbo.  Approximately 180,000 Afghans had been admitted to the United States after August 2021.  Some were given special immigration visas (SIVs) that provided a path to permanent residency, while others were given humanitarian parole and granted temporary protected status (TPS) that allowed them to stay and to work in the U.S.  On April 11th, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced its decision to end TPS for more than 9,000 Afghans because Afghanistan “no longer continues to meet the statutory requirement for TPS.” Those targeted were given the option to self-deport before May 20, 2025.  Some of these Afghans had served with the American forces as interpreters and in other capacities, and any return to Afghanistan would most likely prove to be fatal to them and their families.

The encounter with President Ramaphosa in some ways echoed the previous February visit to the Oval Office by President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.  Trump and Vice President JD Vance berated Zelensky in front of TV cameras, cutting short a visit meant to coordinate a plan for peace.  At one point, Trump even suggested that the Ukraine was responsible for starting the war with Russia which is completely false.  Since then, Trump has subsequently met with Zelensky and had a telephone conversation with Vladimir Putin in seeking to begin discussions for a permanent cease fire and resolution of the dispute.  However, most experts believe that Putin is simply stringing Trump along and has no intention of committing to fair and equitable negotiations with Zelensky.  Having failed to get both parties to the table, Trump now appears to have decided to concentrate only on economic talks with Ukraine, including those over that country’s rare minerals, and to forgo his intermediary status in the talks.

On May 6th, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and President Trump met at the White House and held a brief news event that focused on tariffs, trade and Trump’s repeated assertion that Canada should be the 51st state — a notion that Carney again clearly rejected.  While this meeting was somewhat more cordial in tone, the primary discussion of the existing Canada-U.S.-Mexico (CUSMA) didn’t really get addressed.  Instead, Trump simply restated that there wasn’t anything Carney could say to convince him to lift the existing tariffs.  However, Carney has called the CUSMA as “the basis for a broader negotiation.”  Remember, that it was under the previous Trump administration that the current trade agreement was signed, which has now been violated with Trump’s recent tariffs on both Canadian and Mexican imports to the U.S.

What we have to date is a weird collage of approaches to foreign policies under the Trump administration.  Where Trump believes there are positive economic returns to the U.S., such as in the Middle East, he is quite willing to enter into bilateral trade arrangements, despite having to deal with non-democratic and repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.  His administration has even alluded to possibly reducing or eliminating existing economic sanctions on Russia imposed after Putin’s past invasion of Crimea and the current armed invasion of Eastern Ukraine.  All of this contributes to the evident hypocrisy of Trump’s foreign policy stance.

Afghanistan Canada Donald Trump Foreign Policy Immigration NAFTA The Middle East Trade with U.S. Ukraine Ukraine US

Leave a comment »
Apr 8

Today, Something Unprecedented Is Happening Among Canadians

by bcurry

In reaction to Donald Trump’s statements about Canada as a 51st state and the imposition of tariffs on Canadian products exported to the U.S., a number of things are happening in the country.  Canadian nationalism is rising to heights not seen since the Second World War, stressing the need for a concerted and unified national reaction to the Trump administration.  There is an evident “Buy Canadian” movement that has grown quickly among Canadian consumers.  In the midst of a federal election, all the parties are in one way or another vowing to stand up to American economic aggression and push for expanding Canadian trade to other countries.  Canadians are also cancelling vacations to the U.S. and looking to vacation either in Canada or other countries.  Cross-border travel to the U.S. by Canadians has tumbled by more than half.  Canadian politicians are carrying their message about the harm to American consumers through visits to the U.S. and via digital billboards, broadcasts, media sources and social media targeting Americans themselves.  In recent basketball and hockey games in Toronto, Ottawa, Calgary and Montreal, fans booed the American national anthem, something unheard of before.  So-called “polite” Canadians are openly expressing their national pride in increasingly angry ways and through outbursts of disappointment.

It is remarkable that the current interim Canadian Prime Minister, Marc Carney, has flatly stated that the trust between the two countries has been broken, and that the relationship will never be the same.  As a result, his parliamentary website states that he leads a government that will take action to unite Canadians, defend Canada’s sovereignty, and build the strongest economy in the G7.  Do not be fooled, the candidates for P.M. all recognize that the damage of tariffs to the Canadian economy will be significant, possibly causing a recession and high rates of inflation and unemployment in the not-so-near future.  Trump’s economic policy and political statements have created an environment of uncertainty and distrust.  Canada will and has already reacted with the imposition of its own tariffs on selective American goods while waiting to see what Trump’s next moves will be.

Whoever becomes the next P.M. on April 28th knows that he will have to present a strong defence of Canada’s economic and political concerns vis-à-vis the U.S. The election has turned into primarily a one issue campaign, that being about how Canada will deal with Trump.  This situation is unprecedented in itself, and is a major reason why many Canadians believe that Marc Carney, a former Governor of the Bank of Canada, head of the Bank of England and businessman, would be a good match to confront Trump.  Since becoming leader of the Liberal Party of Canada in March of this year, he has turned around support for his party following a previous major lead of the Conservative Party of Canada in polls.  His main opponent, Conservative Pierre Poilievre, is a full-time politician with little international or business experience.  As P.M., Carney has said he’ll keep Canada’s counter-tariffs in place until “the Americans show us respect and make credible, reliable commitments to free and fair trade.”  Being P.M. at this time also gives Carney a clear advantage as he can make prime-ministerial like statements which naturally are covered daily by the mainstream media.  This contributes directly in his positive polling results.

No matter who wins the election, average Canadians will look to a strong leadership when it comes to defending Canadian interests against Trump’s attacks.  Canadians do not blame Americans for the current situation, instead focusing on the economic and political attacks by the Trump administration.  However, there is little doubt that a future Canadian administration will have to focus on reducing Canada’s dependence on U.S. trade relations and defence policies.  Having lived together for decades within an integrated North American market and coordinated defence and security regime, this will not be an easy transition for both countries.  Let’s hope that the damage that’s been done can be mitigated down the road.  Like Americans, Canadians are a proud people and have a shared history of cooperation and trust, thus hopefully leaving the door open to re-establishing our mutual relationships.

Canada Federal Government Foreign Policy Foreign Policy National Security Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships U.S. Canada Border US

Leave a comment »
Mar 8

As a Canadian, How Are We Supposed to React to Donald Trump?

by bcurry

The border treaty Donald Trump recently referred to was established in 1908 and finalized the international boundary between Canada, then a British dominion, and the U.S.  Trump also mentioned revisiting the sharing of lakes and rivers between the two nations, which is regulated by a number of treaties.  For years, both Canada and the U.S. have shared responsibility and resources in managing border security and environmental concerns surrounding the Great Lakes in particular.  For example, the Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement signed by Canada and the U.S. in 1991 to address transboundary air pollution leading to acid rain.  Both countries agreed to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, the primary precursors to acid rain, and to work together on acid rain-related scientific and technical cooperation.  The Ozone Annex was added to the Agreement in 2000 to address transboundary air pollution leading to high ambient levels of ground-level ozone, a major component of smog.  One result was that, as of 2020, emissions of sulphur dioxide in Canada and the U.S. decreased by 78% and 92%, respectively, from 1990 emission levels.  This preserved our water quality and in turn the health of our fish stocks in shared waters and in general.

As far as border security is concerned, this is a red herring put out there by Donald Trump.  As it stands, for sometime now, only less than one percent of the fentanyl comes across the border from Canada, as per the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.  Under the other hand, the Royal Canadian Mounted Policy (RCMP) estimates that over 80% of all guns used in violent crimes in Canada originate in the U.S.

According to the New York Times (March 7, 2025), Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick stated that Trump wants to abandon our treaties and he wants to:

  • eject Canada out of an intelligence-sharing group known as the Five Eyes that also includes Britain, Australia and New Zealand,
  • tear up the Great Lakes agreements and conventions between the two nations that lay out how they share and manage Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie and Ontario, and
  • review and reconsider military cooperation between the two countries, particularly the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

We already know that Trump is interested in having access to Canada’s abundance of critical mineral rights as noted in my previous blog of February 17, 2005: Trump’s Trade Policy Appears to be Directed at Securing Critical Mineral Rights | FROLITICKS. 

With his recent flip flopping on the proposed 25 percent tariffs against all Canadian exports to the U.S., it’s hard to get a reading on where Trump’s next move will go.  All that his administration is doing is creating a hell of a lot of global and economic uncertainty.  His expectation that Canadians would be cow towing to his wishes is way off.  If anything, he has generated an immense amount of Canadian pride across this country.  Canadians see these attacks on our sovereignty as an insult, especially from a nation that was a trusted friend and ally.  All in all, it’s difficult to know exactly what Trump’s expectations are!  Just how are Canadians supposed to react differently?  Your guess is as good as mine!

Canada Donald Trump Foreign Policy Foreign Policy Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. Trading Relationships U.S. Canada Border US US.-Canada Relations War on Drugs

Leave a comment »
«Older Entries
Blog at WordPress.com.