FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Aug 27

U.S. and Canada: Will the Elephant Crush the Sleeping Mouse Next to It?

by bcurry

Years ago when I was in college studying economics and political science, I read a book which compared the relationship of the U.S. and Canada to that of an elephant and a mouse quietly sleeping next to each other.  Fortunately, history has shown that for hundreds of years and the longest border between two nations in the world, these two countries have peacefully and beneficially thrived together.  They have been allies in two world wars, Korea, and more recently in Afghanistan.  Economically, both countries for several decades have supported each other by integrating much of the North American market, including those sectors such as energy and manufacturing.  Despite what the Trump administration expounds, Canadian and American consumers alike have benefited from free trade and tourism between both countries.  They also share a common labour force, with Canadians working in the U.S. and Americans working in Canada.  Indeed, several of my university profs were American and greatly welcomed for their expertise and studies in various fields.  Importantly, since World War II and the advent of the Cold War involving the then Soviet Union, both countries have devoted military resources to the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) founded in 1955.

Now, we are in a trade war with ultimatums by the Trump administration continuously been thrown at Canadian negotiators.  The problem is that a number of U.S. issues raised are direct attacks on the sovereignty of Canada as a nation.  It now unfortunately appears that the position of both governments has become a test of will, with neither side willing to budge at this time.  Certain issues raised touch directly on elements of Canadian culture, and in particular the country’s second official language, French.  Moreover, there is little need to discuss the nature of tariff reciprocity as it is aptly covered by both U.S. and Canadian media.  Indeed, unlike the negotiations in the past dealing with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the more recent Canada, Mexico and U.S. Agreement (CUSMA), there is much more American coverage of the current trade negotiations then ever before.  If anything, Trump’s heated assertions and accusations have raised the temperature quite a bit.

What now is interesting is that there are some who believe that Prime Minister Mark Carney may be testing whether defiance is a viable strategy against Trump.  This is why a number of other countries are closely paying attention to this trade dispute.  Indeed, as the New York Times recently noted: World leaders and domestic institutions are, in some cases at least, showing less willingness to submit to Mr. Trump’s will. European leaders have refused to join his war with Iran. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel flatly rejected his Gaza plan. Gulf Arab states forced him to abandon plans to charge a shipping toll in the Strait of Hormuz.  The Times goes on to suggest that while the president remains the most dominant figure in the world, other leaders and institutions are pushing back more vigorously than at the beginning of his second term.  Most notably, Spain, Italy, the U.K.
and Denmark have pushed back against a number of U.S. foreign policy initiatives.

Although the U.S. is obviously the elephant in the room, it might not want to escalate the trade war in light of becoming another inflation-related ingredient for both Americans and Canadians.  It would appear that the president no longer has a problem with the reduction in affordability for Americans and the harm to American businesses that export to Canada.  After all, Canada is still America’s biggest trade partner bar any others.  Insulting Canadians and questioning Canada’s sovereignty is a non-starter!  As shown in the past, Canada has been known to be the mouse that roared, especially when its back is to the wall.  Canadians and Americans have always gotten along despite the rare disagreement, such as over the wars in Vietnam and Iraq.  Travel between the two countries has always been important, given that we have so much in common and a great deal of respect for each other.  Why an American president would want to deal so much hurt on his best neighbour is hard to explain?  Time will tell whether the elephant will still want to choose to crush the mouse.

Canada US Foreign Policy Foreign Policy US Politics Donald Trump Economy Economy Trading Relationships Trade with U.S. US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
Aug 19

How the U.S. Cannot Afford to Not Have Free Trade With Canada

by bcurry

While all the attention being paid in the media to the current trade negotiations between Canada and the U.S., and the ongoing Trump ultimatums proclaiming possible new tariffs on Canadian exports to the States, the real issue is that the U.S. needs access to Canadian goods and services.  It’s not simply because there has been major integration in each country’s markets in numerous sectors, but also is due to the vast amounts of Canadian resources currently and in the future available to the U.S.  These include those in the energy sector such as oil and gas and electricity, in the mining sector with respect to rare minerals, uranium and key minerals such as copper and iron ore, and in the vast availability of potash deposits.

One only has to look at electricity produced as a result of the massive James Bay and Churchill Falls projects completed decades ago.  For the past two decades, Hydro‑Québec has been selling clean, reliable and competitively priced electricity into wholesale markets in northeastern North America.  For example, Hydro-Québec has been selling electricity into New England since the 1980s. This U.S. region accounts for about half the company’s exports.  In addition, Québec has a long history of supplying clean, renewable energy to the State of New York, beginning as far back as 1914.  In the case of New York State, Hydro-Québec can contribute in the future to the long-term clean energy vision for New York which includes:

  • 70% of the state’s electricity use to be met by renewables by 2030,
  • 100% of New York City operations to be powered from renewable sources,
  • retired nuclear plants replaced by other non-emitting generating facilities, and
  • construction of a 1,000-MW interconnection between Québec and New York City and efforts to expand existing interconnections importing clean energy.

Just this week, an agreement was signed by Québec, Newfoundland and Labrador and the Federal Government to increase up to 14,000 megawatts of new and existing hydroelectric developments in Labrador and along the Churchill River.  This mega project will represent the largest clean energy undertaking to date in North America.  Once finalized later this year, the proposal would realize a long-sought goal in Newfoundland and Labrador to transmit power from Labrador — up to 985 megawatts — through Québec to markets in the U.S.

The U.S. also imports oil from the vast reserves in Alberta’s Tar Sands, representing about 30% of total American oil imports.  Interestingly, the Trump administration has apparently linked the current possible looming trade agreement to the Keystone XL, a major pipeline project that would have transported oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast. There is speculation that a new project, closely mirroring Keystone XL, could return this year as a U.S. company filed an application in Montana to build a pipeline bringing in Canadian oil.  Again, Canada had previously supported the proposed pipeline, only to have had the Biden administration scrap the project in 2021 due to environmental concerns.  Obviously and notably, Trump wants to resurrect the project in light of the current problems with the supply of oil in the Middle East due to the war with Iran, resulting in higher gas prices for Americans.

When it comes to rare minerals, Canada’s rare earth companies span every stage of development — from Vital Metals’ operational Nechalacho mine in the Northwest Territories to early-stage ionic clay and projects across British Columbia, Québec, Saskatchewan, and Labrador. Canada ranks among the most important non-Chinese jurisdictions for “rare earth element” supply development, with federal and provincial governments actively co-funding projects through the Critical Minerals Strategy.  Canada holds some of the largest known resources of rare earths globally, estimated in 2024 at over 15.2 million tonnes of rare earth oxide.  Such resources would provide a stable and secure supply of critical minerals for not only U.S. industries, but also for NATO countries for use in crucial defence-related initiatives.

Given everything, it’s easy to see why Canadians were upset when Trump declared that the U.S.does not need anything from Canada.  I’d like to strongly suggest that his assertion is totally wrong given all of the evidence.  Without encumbering and unnecessary tariffs, Canada as a major trading partner ensures that the U.S. is that much stronger both economically and geopolitically.



Canada Donald Trump Economy Energy Foreign Policy Foreign Policy NAFTA Oil and Gas Oil and Gas Protectionist Trade Policies Trade with U.S. US US.-Canada Relations

Leave a comment »
Jul 5

250 Years of Numerous U.S. Flawed Foreign Policy Excursions

by bcurry

Manifest Destiny was a 19th-century American ideology which held that the U.S. was divinely ordained to expand across the North American continent.  Coined in 1845, the concept justified territorial expansion, the spread of American democracy, and the displacement of Indigenous peoples and foreign powers.  The current president has even alluded to its re-emergence as a U.S.
foreign policy in the southern hemisphere.

One past result was the Spanish–American War of 1898, fought between Spain and the U.S., which  began with the sinking of the USS Maine in Havana Harbour in Cuba. The war resulted in the U.S. acquiring sovereignty over Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines and establishing a protectorate over Cuba.  It represented U.S. intervention in the Cuban War of Independence and the Philippine Revolution, the latter later leading to the Philippine–American War in 1899. The Spanish–American War brought an end to almost four centuries of Spanish presence in the Americas, Asia, and the Pacific. The U.S. meanwhile not only became a major world power, but also gained several island possessions spanning the globe, which provoked rancorous debate over the wisdom of expansionism.

As for Cuba prior to the Cuban Revolution under Fidel Castro in 1959, the Batista regime was a U.S.-backed dictatorship in Cuba led by Fulgencio Batista.  Batista seized power via a military coup in 1952.  His government was characterized by extreme corruption, human rights violations, and a close alliance with the American Mafia, which controlled lucrative Havana casinos and hotels.  Shortly after Fidel Castro overthrew the much hated Batista regime, the U.S. portrayed Castro as a Soviet-backed Communist, something which was not true at the time.  However, following the failed CIA-supported “Bay of Pigs” invasion of Cuba in 1961 and American sanctions levied on Cuba’s largest export “sugar” to the U.S., the Cubans had no choice but to seek economic and military assistance from the Soviet Union.

Then came the Vietnam War beginning in 1955 which lasted until 1973 when U.S. forces were hastily withdrawn following the downfall of the South Vietnamese dictatorship.  The conflict was the second of the Indochina wars and perceived by the U.S. as a proxy war of the Cold War period between the Soviet Union and U.S.  However, the Vietnam War was actually one of the postcolonial wars of national liberation, and an internal civil war between North and South Vietnam.  According to the National Archives, a total of 58,220 U.S. military personnel were killed or went missing in action during War. This total includes 47,434 who died from hostile action and 10,786 who died from non-hostile (e.g. drugs, suicides) causes.  Within the U.S., the war eventually gave rise to the so-called “Vietnam syndrome”— an aversion to American overseas military involvement, which, with Nixon’s Watergate scandal, contributed to the crisis of confidence that affected the U.S. throughout the 1970s.

Next came the U.S occupation of Iraq which lasted from 2003 to 2011, beginning with the invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein and ending with the formal withdrawal of U.S. combat troops. The Coalition, led by the U.S., was the result of false American accusations that Hussein was directly involved in September 11th (9/11).  The occupation was marked by a rapid but contentious regime change in Iraq.  This resulted in the Coalition’s controversial governance, a devastating insurgency, and eventual phased troop draw-downs.  However, today Iraq is still facing economic and political instability, on-going insurgency and government corruption forcing the U.S. to maintain troops within the country.  The situation also resulted in the eventual emergence of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a trans-national militant Islamist and terrorist group.

The war in Afghanistan was an armed conflict lasting from 2001 to 2021, the longest war in American history.  It began with an invasion by a U.S.–led coalition in response to 9/11 attacks carried out by the Taliban-allied and Afghanistan-based al-Qaeda. The Taliban were subsequently expelled from major population centers by American-led forces, thus toppling the Taliban-ruled Islamic Emirate.  In 2004, the U.S.-backed Islamic Republic was established.  However, by then, the Taliban had reorganized and begun an insurgency against the Afghan government and coalition forces. The conflict finally ended in 2021 when a Taliban offensive re-established the Islamic Emirate, resulting in the hasty evacuation of U.S. personnel and allied Afghans and leaving the Taliban once again in complete control of the country.

Today, one has an over four month war with Iran by the U.S. and Israel.  NATO allies were not consulted prior to the attacks, resulting in most countries not supporting the military action beyond destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities. From the outset, the reasons given for the U.S. attacks on Iran were several, but very unclear as to the primary reason.  At various times, President Trump talked about possible regime change in Iran.  Other times, it was suggested that the main goal was to reduce Iran’s military capabilities in order to dissuade its regime from sponsoring terrorist activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, especially as they pertained to Israel.  Most recently, the reason give is the total elimination of Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon, something that the U.S. had declared destroyed after earlier targeted bombings of key enrichment sites.  However, in retaliation, no one appears to have seriously and in creditably envisioned Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz by military force.  Iran’s control over the Strait is primarily a “de facto” dominance achieved through geographic advantage and heavy militarization.  Under international law, Iran does not have the legal right to completely close or unilaterally block the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping.  However, Iran is using its closure as a means to put pressure on the U.S. to end the war on its own terms.  The Strait’s closure and Iran’s attacks on oil and gas facilities in neighbouring Middle East states has led to a dramatic increase in the price of oil across the globe, including in the U.S.  At this time, there appears to be no sign of a meaningful long-term peace agreement between Iran and the U.S.  Moreover, one has a current American president who had clearly and vigorously campaigned on keeping the U.S. out of foreign wars.

Afghanistan Afghanistan Donald Trump Foreign Policy Iran Iraq Today Latin America Military Prowess Oil and Gas Republican Party The Middle East Trump US

Leave a comment »
Apr 13

Is the U.S. Breaking International Criminal Laws and Laws of the Sea?

by bcurry

Let’s first start with the U.S. and Israeli military strikes on Iran.  Under Article 94 of the United Nations (UN) Charter, the Security Council has the authority to enforce International Court of Justice (ICJ or World Court) decisions. The ICJ can take a range of measures to ensure compliance, including economic sanctions, travel restrictions, and the use of military force.  The territorial jurisdiction of the ICJ is fairly broad, as it can deal with matters relating to any of the UN member states, which essentially means almost all the countries in the world. The ICJ, however, can only entertain cases where states appear before it.  It should be noted that the ICJ has no enforcement powers.  However, if states don’t comply, the Security Council, the organ of the UN primarily responsible for maintaining peace and security, may take action.  This means that the ICJ is more or less toothless as it requires unanimous agreement by Security Council members to take action, something inevitably impossible in this case given the U.S. is a Council member. 

Then one has the International Criminal Court (ICC) which is a criminal tribunal that can prosecute individuals.  The U.S. does not recognize the authority of the ICC.  It has never ratified the Rome Statute, the 1998 treaty that created the court, and U.S. federal law actively prohibits most forms of cooperation with it.  As of 2026, the relationship apparently grew even more adversarial, with the current U.S. administration re-imposing economic sanctions on ICC personnel and declaring the court’s actions an “extraordinary threat” to national security.  American officials have consistently argued that the U.S. military justice system is capable of investigating and prosecuting misconduct by its own personnel, thus making ICC involvement unnecessary.  In short, the U.S. ignores ICC deliberations except when the U.S. selectively cooperates with the Court in investigations targeting foreign leaders the U.S. also opposes.

Next, one has to deal with recent U.S.military strikes against vessels off the coasts of Latin America, most notably that of Venezuela.  One could consider the American actions as being questionable given International Law of the Sea.  According to the 1982 convention on International Law of the Sea (in effect since 1994), each country’s sovereign territorial waters extend to a maximum of 12 nautical miles (22 km) beyond its coast, but foreign vessels are granted the right of what is referred to as innocent passage through this zone.  The Law of the Sea also applies to territorial waters, including the Strait of Hormuz, used for international navigation.  The navigational rights of foreign shipping are strengthened by the replacement of the regime of innocent passage by one of transit passage, which places fewer restrictions on foreign ships.  Moreover, Iran by threatening the safe passage of ships through the Strait is in violation of international law.  However, the recent declaration of a naval blockade of the Strait by the Trump administration could also be determined to be illegal.  The matter could be referred to the UN International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea for compulsory settlement, by arbitration, or by the ICJ.  However, once again, resort to these compulsory procedures has been quite limited in the past.

All said and done, none of these bodies would appear to be in a position to rule on the current conflict between the U.S.and Iran.  Through its overt aggression, the U.S.has thrown international law out the window.  However, should the U.S. decide to attack civilian infrastructure in Iran (e.g. energy, bridges, water desalination, etc.), as threatened by Trump, those American military leaders who proceed to carry out such attacks could be held responsible by the ICC as being complicit in such attacks. Consequently, they could be deemed to be “war criminals” under international law.  From a purely political viewpoint, the damage to the America’s image internationally would be devastating.

The actions of the U.S. will no doubt continue to be closely scrutinized by world leaders during this conflict.  Certain countries, such as China and Russia in particular, will take full advantage of the situation in their foreign policy.  Any attacks on civilian infrastructure in Iran would most likely lead to a major humanitarian disaster.  How the American people further react to this war, time will only tell?

Donald Trump Foreign Policy Iran Israel Latin America The Middle East Trump US US Politics

Leave a comment »
Mar 6

Interaction Between the U.S. and Canada Summed Up in One Word: Confusion

by bcurry

When the Trump administration first introduced tariffs against specific industries in Canada (ex. aluminum, steel and lumber), it created a good deal of confusion and uncertainty because of the integrated market existing between the two countries.  The initial excuse was that Canada had failed to secure the border from the smuggling of fentanyl from Canada into the U.S., which only accounted for less than 1 percent of the total entering the States.  Secondly, Trump argues that Canada has long benefited from a trade surplus with the U.S., not accounting for the import to Canada of American services. Then, suddenly Trump was openly promoting the annexation of Canada, making it the 51st state: something neither the vast majority of Canadians or Americans have supported at any time in the past.

As a result of Trump’s tariff imposition, Canadians decided to elect Mark Carney, a Liberal, as the 24th prime minister of Canada in 2025.  Carney, a former head of Canada’s central bank, has had to take a careful and sensitive route in dealing with Trump on both economic and foreign policy issues.  Take for example, the current war initiated by the U.S.with Iran, which the Canadian government was not apprised of before American pre-emptive strikes.  Canadian support for the U.S. is a touchy and complicated matter, remembering that Canada is part of the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) which conducts aerospace warning, aerospace control and maritime warning in the defence of North America.  As is the U.S., Canada is also a member of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and supports its allies in the defence of their sovereignty.  On the one hand, while Carney believes it is appropriate to support the U.S.; on the other hand, there are questions surrounding the legality of the attacks on Iran under international law and NATO’s non-involvement at the outset.  Also, the Trump administration’s primary motive for the attacks on Iran has been anything but clear from the outset, setting off confusion among NATO and other allies.  While NATO will defend itself against the resulting Iranian attacks on their bases in the region, there has been no indication to date that either Israel or the U.S. have sought the support of NATO military forces.  Once again, confusion reigns among the parties.

If any word can also express the current trade and foreign policy environment created by the Trump administration, it is “uncertainty”.  For Carney and other world leaders, this uncertainty has forced them to look at alternative economic, defence and trade arrangements, given the lack of American support for maintaining the normal global processes.  As a result, Carney has to seek alternative trade relations with other countries and has recently entered into formatting new arrangements with middle-power countries such as India, Japan and Australia — not to forget previous trips to several E.U. counties.  Indeed, just this week, Prime Minister Mark Carney and Japan’s Sanae Takaichi inked a new “strategic partnership” that signaled the next step in a recent drive to deepen military and trade co-operation between the two countries.  Just prior to that, Carney and his Indian counterpart announced what they’re calling a “new partnership,” a series of multimillion-dollar deals and a commitment to sign a free trade agreement by year’s end.  On March 4th, Australia and Canada signed new agreements on critical minerals as Carney made a landmark address to the Australian parliament, a sign of the developing bond between the “middle powers”.  The two countries will also deepen cooperation in areas including defence and maritime security, trade and artificial intelligence.

All if this is happening because of the political and economic policies under the Trump administration, which are confusing given that over 70 percent of Canada’s trade has always been with the U.S.  This close relationship with the U.S. has even been highlighted by the current Canada-U.S.-Mexico free trade agreement which Trump had negotiated and endorsed during his first term in office.  Now, it appears that he wants to replace this agreement with separate agreements with Canada and Mexico, which apparently would include new tariffs on their imports to the U.S.on selected products and services.  This has created a good deal of “uncertainty” and “confusion” within North American markets.

Moreover, when it comes to the U.S. policies, once can only foresee more confusion and uncertainty in the near future.  As Trump would no doubt brag, the ball now lies in the American court.

Canada Defence Defence Economy Foreign Policy Iran Iran Israel Military Prowess NATO The Middle East Trade with U.S. Trump U.S. Canada Border US US.-Canada Relations

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