Commentary
The Donald Trump administration appears serious about bolstering the defence of North America—ranging from Panama to the Arctic Ocean. In addition to his repeated comments about absorbing Canada into the United States, Trump has made clear he will not allow China to control the strategic Panama Canal nor tolerate the communist dictatorship’s aggressive economic intervention in Mexico as a backdoor to the United States.
Nearly a month before his inauguration, Trump revived an idea for the United States to buy Greenland. And he quite reasonably demands that Canada contribute more seriously to NATO and North America’s defence. For all his bellicosity, Trump’s instincts concerning our continent’s security are sound and rooted in what appears to be a genuine desire to avoid war.
In the north, Russia has come to dominate the High Arctic with a chain of bases supporting an immense fleet of icebreakers, ice-capable cargo vessels, and warships including a huge nuclear-powered battlecruiser. In contrast to Canada’s two aging “heavy” diesel-powered icebreakers, the Russian Federation has more than 30 icebreakers, many of them nuclear-powered.
Concurrently, we see China exerting influence in the Arctic, despite having no Arctic shoreline. China’s interest in the Arctic is strategic, focusing on global transit routes and vital resources, and its projection of influence into the Arctic is enabled by Russia’s powerful Northern Fleet.
Inattentive North Americans were shocked to learn recently that China has also quietly gained profound influence over the vital Panama Canal. This came about through Panama’s participation in China’s imperialistic Belt and Road Initiative and by allowing a regime-linked Hong Kong-based company to operate the strategic seaports at each end of the canal.
Related Stories
The Trump administration considers this an intolerable set of security threats, and Trump accused Panama of violating terms of the 1979 treaty that had ceded the canal’s control to Panama. Panama’s President, José Raúl Mulino, buckled almost immediately, promising to exit China’s Belt and Road Initiative and to audit the port operations. More such concessions are certainly possible.
With Greenland, Trump is seeking to secure North America’s northern flank while improving access to important mineral resources. Greenland dominates the eastern exit from the Northwest Passage through Canada’s High Arctic as well as forming one end of the strategic Greenland-Iceland-United Kingdom Gap controlling access to the North Atlantic.
Critics are wrong to dismiss as loopy Trump’s idea, expressed just before Christmas, to buy Greenland; the United States officially made just such an offer following World War II, and Trump revived the idea during his first term. At the very least we can anticipate an increased U.S. military and commercial presence in Greenland with the intention of keeping China and Russia at arm’s length. The United States already operates a Space Force Base at Pituffik (formerly Thule) in northwestern Greenland, latitude 77° north, and this formerly sprawling base might well be expanded once again.
Canada throughout its history has effectively outsourced much of its national defence to others—first Great Britain, later the United States. Despite our nation’s strong performance during times of actual warfare, the tendency to get others to help defend our homeland is an old, ingrained habit predating Confederation itself.
The multi-decade-long disintegration of Canada’s proud military has been disturbing and even heartbreaking for many Canadians. But this neglect has reflected deliberate public policy under successive governments, and Canadians let it happen by electing governments indifferent if not hostile to Canada’s defence.
Now, the Trump administration is demanding unmistakably that Canada contribute for real, focused on three main things:
- Secure its land border with the United States and its international ports of entry against terrorism and illegal drugs.
- Expeditiously raise its defence spending to 2 percent of GDP as Canada has promised but failed to do for years.
- Create a strategy and capacity to help defend the continent’s northern flank, something Canada should have undertaken years ago.
How might this be achieved?
Under the predatory gaze of Russia’s mighty Northern Fleet and air force, bolstered by its new Chinese allies, Canada’s Arctic sits largely naked. If Canada does not step up and defend its immensely rich Arctic Archipelago, it stands to lose it.
Canada’s military rebuilding process must urgently address the northern geopolitical issue. Announcing the procurement of equipment (or displaying its delivery in photo ops) is always exciting and newsworthy. And it’s important—but not enough. Building support bases, by contrast, is hard, expensive work, but that is where we must begin.
In addition to more, bigger, and better operating locations in the Far North and High Arctic—only one such base has even been started and is years behind schedule—Canada will need a large, fully capable, comprehensive support base for northern operations located on a deep-water harbour connected to continental roads and railways. The northernmost such potential location is the Port of Sydney, Nova Scotia. The new Canadian northern support base would become the home port of Canadian and U.S. Coast Guard vessels, as well as ships of other Arctic-facing NATO nations, including Denmark and Norway.
Whatever one might think of Donald Trump the man, people need to set aside their emotions to at least recognize that Trump the president is dead serious in his foreign policy goals, especially as it concerns the security of the regions ringing his country. Canadians, and Canada’s federal government, need to accept that Trump clearly expects action.
Capt. Barry Sheehy (ret.) is a military historian based in Calgary, an accomplished public speaker, and author of six published books and more than 100 papers and articles. His most recent book is “Montreal, City of Secrets: Confederate Operations in Montreal During the American Civil War.”
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.
