Happy Inauguration Day... for the Rest of Us

During the American Revolution, the breakaway colonies were hard up against it with what was arguably the most powerful military in the world. In fact, early on the Continental Army of George Washington suffered a great number of losses – both strategic and tactical.

What turned the tide was France – French money and direct French military support. And while the war would continue for some time longer, it was acknowledged by all that the eventual British surrender at Yorktown in 1781 was due in no small measure to the support of this ally.

Early on, both nations had signed a treaty (Franco-American Treaty of 1778) that gave France the right to equip privateers in American ports for action against British shipping.

And yet, twelve years after the end of the war with Britain – and with the treaty still in effect – the United States came close to another war – with France – because it sought better relations with the British. It understood its relative position in a world dominated by more powerful nations, and it had to walk a fine line to preserve its ability to exercise its independence.

Anyone interested in this situation can do their own reading on France’s Ambassador to the US, Edmond Genet (Citizen Genet) and what became known as the “XYZ Affair”. Of course, as a Canadian whose ancestors would have been adversely affected by the Americans allowing the French the ability to arm and attack places like Halifax from US ports, it’s not that troubling to me that Washington said no to the French.

But Washington did not make his decision with the health and well-being of Loyalist families in Canada or British troops in mind. And it is also true that one of the reasons that France underwent a revolution was due to the financial crisis brought about from all the money sent to bankroll Washington and the Continental Army. The French position is understandable – they went broke helping the Americans against the British, and the Americans signed a treaty that allowed France to use their ports, and now the Americans were giving them the short shrift.

Without getting into the minutiae of this episode, it was clear that the foreign policy orientation of the fledgling republic was going to be focused more on self-interest than anything else. Indeed, Washington’s Farewell Address of 1796 specifically warned against “foreign entanglements.”

As Donald Trump resumes the Presidency of the United States, and the talk of annexation, economic warfare, pushing for the end of some conflicts and the starting of new ones, we are left shell shocked for the most part. And yet, should we?

The United States has existed for nearly 250 years. The last eighty of those years have been spent as the world’s policeman and the guarantor of the liberal democratic order, which means that there are precious few alive today who remember a US that was driven more by self-interest than in maintaining international order.

Only those well into their nineties might remember a world where the US did not get formally involved in the “fight against fascism” until they were directly attacked in December of 1941, and that their “help” up until that point consisted of Lend-Lease, where a desperate Britain mortgaged heavily and signed over control of overseas military bases to the US in exchange for WWI vintage warships that, in some cases, still had to be returned after the war.

So, before anyone gets the impression that I am a hardcore anti-American fanatic that despises the “land of the free and the home of the brave,” I need to go on record as saying not.

For one, for all its flaws, the United States has been a net positive in the world. It has been an engine of innovation and growth, of science and progress. It has tipped the scales in some situations where the forces of darkness and totalitarianism could have prevailed. It has produced so much popular culture that it would be hard to imagine our lives without it all.

Canada will never likely be the world’s most powerful country, and in the absence of both the French and British Empires that were our previous guarantors, we are certainly better off with American hegemony than the alternatives.

But even with all of this, we make the mistake of assuming the permanence of this situation. Empires rise and fall. Hegemons rise and fall as well. Some fall back due to external challenges, like a rising power that sets to out-compete them. Others fall back due to internal challenges, like the cost of maintaining colonies or alliances, and the domestic pressure from people who argue that attention and resources are better spent at home.

While the United States is not likely to suffer a decline due to the former, it is the latter situation that is the most likely. Just like Washington’s warning against “foreign entanglements,” like those political leaders that argued first against America’s entry into the First World War, then opposed joining the League of Nations, and just like widespread sentiment toward isolationism that influenced the terms of Lend-Lease and only relented after the carnage of Pearl Harbor, the American default is to avoid foreign commitments unless they have control over the relationship – or a veto over it – and only if there is some tangible benefit.

That is to say, the US is a highly self-interested nation that looks out for itself, and whose commitments reflect cold calculations on what is best for them. The passing of the Bretton Woods era for this one does not mark the emergence of a new American foreign policy mindset. It marks the dusting off one that hasn’t been used since Clark Gable and Bette Davis were drawing audiences to the theatres.

Back in those days, Canada did have somewhat of a counterweight – it was called being part of the British Empire – and while it wasn’t perfect and it could not fully insulate us, it was a pretty good hedge.

The Empire is gone for Canada, and there is no hedge against the unpredictable nature of the current US administration. But the same can be said about Australia, and New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.

So, if you are a decision-maker in Ottawa, Canberra, Wellington or London, your options are as follows:

• Allow Beijing more influence in your affairs

• Entertain the notion that the EU – currently fixated on internal governance and the potential for Russian aggression - will protect your sovereignty, even though giving up your sovereignty to Brussels is a precondition

• Wake up every morning with your fingers crossed that President Trump hasn’t posted on Truth Social at 3am how he plans to take a wrecking ball to your economy or buy you like a downtown condo

• Band together and form a smart alliance among the CANZUK countries, thereby combining 140 million people, US$9 trillion of GDP, the world’s third largest military agglomeration (including nuclear weapons), and a permanent seat on the UN Security Council into a shared risk pool that would cause even the most virulent uber-MAGA annexation fan boy to stop and pause for a moment.

To be clear, there is no “none of the above” option – as desperately as much of the professional class in academia and the halls of power have been searching for one. “None of the above” is essentially any of the four scenarios, but on a slow burn.

So, as the saying goes – “choose your adventure.”