A Better Way To Bring Canada & The US Together – CleanTechnica

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

---

No matter where you go for news and commentary, it’s hard to have missed some crazy commentary from President Elect Trump in recent days. Not only is he saying that he wants to buy Greenland (perhaps because it looks bigger than it is on Mercator maps), but he wants to control Canada, Mexico, the Panama Canal Zone, and who knows what else. Whether he’s serious, losing what few marbles he ever had, trying to improve his negotiating position (something akin to a “lowball” offer), or is simply trying to distract people, it’s still an important clean technology topic.

I say it’s important to CleanTechnica readers because the ownership of places like Canada and Greenland affect both attempts to stop climate change and who gets to win as things heat up.

On the “before” side, we’re talking about minerals that are essential to the production of batteries, power electronics, electric motors, and even fossil fuels in the Arctic. European and American politicians have rebuffed attempts by the Chinese government to control Greenland’s resources, and Canada has also been in the crosshairs. Whoever can control the Arctic gets these valuable resources, whether they buy the land directly, take it by force, or exert influence that falls short of total control.

On the “after” side of climate change, the Arctic is an important place to control as more of the ice melts. Shipping lanes are a big part of this, especially in the passages between Canada’s arctic islands and between Canada and Greenland. With control of shipping also comes access to fossil fuel resources as the ice subsides over them. Plus, warming land results in the best farmland shifting northward.

I don’t think I need to explain why taking territory from neighbors (by force or by extreme pressure) is a bad idea, but let’s briefly review the most glaring issue: soft power. It’s not only immoral to steal land (even if prior generations did it), but it diminishes American influence overseas. The “big stick” would certainly look bigger if the United States took over a neighbor, but the peaceful side of diplomacy would be a lot less credible after such a move, leading to declines in American power and an increasing need to resort to force when protecting interests globally. China and Russia would most certainly take advantage of lost American soft power, too.

On the other hand, doing nothing is an equally bad option. Letting China and Russia control the Arctic simply isn’t an option. Alaska gives the United States a legitimate claim and a location from which to help protect interests, but a continued presence in Greenland (the US already has a base) and a good relationship with Canada that allows for presence between Alaska and Greenland is also essential.

A Better Option

Fortunately, there are options between doing nothing about the Arctic and invading neighbors. Putting pressure on Greenland and Denmark for better arctic policy that protects the free world is a mild option. Striking deals (something Trump claims to be excellent at) to get small arctic concessions (military base leases, etc.) is another mild option with greater potential. But getting all free world arctic powers to work in concert (perhaps even under Trump’s leadership) is probably more to Trump’s liking.

To get there, Trump needs to offer something instead of only talking about what he wants to take. For Canada and Denmark, Trump really doesn’t have anything to offer that’s as valuable as sovereignty and control over strategic arctic lands, so he’s going to need to ask for something smaller that he can reasonably bargain for. Plus, he needs to keep in mind that making provinces states means adding senators and electoral college votes that wouldn’t all fall in his favor (a cost to annexation that can be avoided by … not annexing Canada).

If I was president elect trying to increase my personal power and prestige, I’d be drafting a treaty that falls short of creating a unified North America but still increases cooperation as much as possible. I’d also avoid creating a “North American Union,” as that is something Republicans used to be afraid of (and still probably should).

The treaty should start with economics. NAFTA, which became USMCA in Trump’s first term, can be extended to allow more people to participate in free business across participating countries. Instead of only allowing big corporations to engage in big trade, everyone should be able to cross the border, do business, and get jobs on either side. Given that small business is often considered the “backbone of the American economy,” getting rid of the barriers to business makes a lot of sense.

But simply being able to travel and work freely isn’t enough to make many people comfortable with moving. Cultural differences, especially with red states, can make the best people hesitant to be where they’re the most economically efficient. Creating some limited extraterritoriality for Americans visiting Canada and Canadians visiting the United States would lower the friction to the point of being a well-oiled machine. Controversial policies that affect the rights of LGBT people, racial minorities, gun owners, religious people, and people engaging in controversial speech should all be pre-empted for residents visiting from other states and provinces to protect business and tourism from the excesses of extreme right and left policies at the regional and local level.

With all of the friction out of the way, the combined economies of the United States, Canada, and Greenland would come into play. This would lead to the countries collectively gaining a lot of power and influence in the world. Then, opportunities to encourage more economic cross-pollination should be pursued, such as making it easier for people to “snowbird” (travel south in the winter and north in the summer to avoid crap weather) on public lands.

Military power in the Arctic is a big part of what Trump is concerned with, so military cooperation needs to be a big part of such a treaty. Combining the militaries is unlikely, but opening up more NORAD-like joint operations would be a great start. Joint Arctic bases (including in Alaska), increased sea and air patrols, and any other opportunity for advanced cooperation should be pursued.

There are plenty of other ways to increase cooperation. Infrastructure coordination, joint planning, cultural exchanges, educational cooperation, and many other things can be used to bring the US and Canada (plus anyone else) together without resorting to annexation. All of the advantages of a de jure joining of countries can be had without incurring the costs of going beyond de facto unity.

Featured image by NASA (Public Domain).