U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest tariffs on imports from Canada have been interpreted by a senior political figure as a form of “hostage-taking for leverage,” which could arguably be detrimental to the relations between the U.S. and its friendly neighbor. Not to mention its potential negative impact on the U.S. economy itself. However, it is not easy to see why the U.S. would need additional leverage on Canada when, as Trump keeps alleging, the U.S. “pays hundreds of billions of dollars” to “subsidize” it. After all, being a debtor in the empire’s ledger, much like being in debt to a mafia boss, means that whenever it tells you to do something, you will simply have to do it. This is certainly how the empire sees it anyway, as evidenced when, after a reporter asked him how he would be able to ethnically cleanse the people of Gaza and drive them out to Egypt despite Egypt’s rejection of this plan, Trump confidently claimed that Egypt would “do it" because the U.S. has done “a lot for them.”
What is it that the empire tells Canada to do, which it thinks Canada will have to do? In other words, what exactly is the additional leverage needed for? To strengthen Trump’s hand in negotiating the annexation of Canada as the 51st state of the U.S.? Trump’s interest in acquiring Greenland from Denmark or “taking back” the control of the Panama Canal is certainly serious (as confirmed by the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in a recent interview), but it is hard to believe that Trump would go so far as to lay his eyes on Canada. Is the imposition of tariffs really a means of annexation? Or, perhaps more plausibly, is it the other way around, i.e., that the talk of annexation has always been a means to find some excuse to impose these tariffs?
Trump’s obsession with tariffs has been no secret. “‘Tariffs’ is the most beautiful word to me in the dictionary,” he once said. It was anticipated that, in his administration, tariffs would largely replace the usual sanctions which, though similarly designed to harm the economy of the targeted country, do not directly benefit the economy of the empire itself. Trump seems to think that this is utterly foolish, and that harming others makes sense only if it benefits the empire economically. In a speech on his inauguration day, he had told the crowd that “tariffs are going to make us rich as hell.”
Recognizing that the U.S. is no longer the empire that it used to be, in large part due to its miserable state in the economic war against China, Trump seems to have embraced a protectionist path, as he had stated numerous times that he would. Of course, this is a peculiar type of protectionism – quite unlike China’s, for example. What is protected is not the wealth of the nation and its citizens, but that of a certain class of people, a lot of whom present themselves as “entrepreneurs.” Led by the likes of Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, they are looking to replace the financiers of old – and despite their wealth, they seem to need protection more than anyone.
The recognition of a multi-polar world order has other consequences too. In the aforementioned interview, Rubio expressed his regret that, after the end of the Cold War, the U.S. had “assumed the responsibility of becoming the global government.” Now, however, it appears to be ready to relinquish that role, instead focusing on “furthering the national interests of the U.S.” just like “the Chinese will do what is in the best interests of China.” It is worth noting that, after describing the supposed predatory nature of China’s global endeavors, Rubio lamented that China was doing what he would do, suggesting, perhaps inadvertently, that the perception of China in the U.S. has really been a projection of what the U.S. itself would like to be. In fact, this is precisely why China is already the winner of this competition, for the U.S. is forced to follow in its footsteps.
