Whenever we talk about NATO, it is usually in the context of money-the famous treaty clause in All-one, known as art. 5.
The assurance is the basis of the Western military alliance, allowing leaders from Latvia to London to Ottawa, it is better to sleep at night, knowing that more than two dozens of other similarly thinking nations have their backs.
What often does not attract attention is the previous paragraph: art. 4.
In today's climate of art. 4 is extremely related to Canada and Denmark because they face a new, perhaps imperial US administration on annexation.
European defense experts sometimes call it the “neglected younger siblings” of the alliance. The decision obliges NATO members “consulting with each other whenever, in the opinion of any of them, territorial integrity, political independence or security of any party are at risk.”
Regardless of whether the fixation of the annexation of the US President Donald Trump, it meets that the bar still does not turn out, but the view that Canada will make “very good 51 state”, has many ordinary Canadians who feel restless and even threatened .
Similarly, Trump's projects in Greenland – to buy or prohibit by force – are just as annoying as surprising for allies.
How seriously should we make his attention depends on who you talk to in this country.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spent a week in Paris and Brussels, meeting the European leaders saying he thinks that Trump's annexation threats are true. Many in their office, including the defense minister Bill Blair this week, I disregarded the potential threat.
Without exception, this debate has surreal quality, as if – how – how Alice in Wonderland – We fell into the world through a glass that is unknown and turned upside down.
An alternative to NATO?
If it were any other time and any other country, the type of conversation that we heard from Trump, would leave allied and international indignation.
Canadians fought and died in Europe in two world wars, Korea and Afghanistan.
Our nation was one of the most generous countries in terms of humanitarian aid, development financing and even morale support.
However, leaders of the Allies were not direct public condemnation and seems – in the face of Trump – we find ourselves.
January 20, 2025 | Why President Donald Trump says that having Greenland is a “absolute necessity” for the USA, Andrew Chang explains what is behind the growth of the Governor of Bank Canada Marek Carney among liberal supporters.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte was recently asked before his closed discussion from Trudeau about the potential of the trade war between allies and warrior rhetoric from the White House.
“There are always problems between allies,” replied Rutte and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. “Sometimes larger, sometimes smaller, but I am absolutely convinced that we will not disturb our collective determination to maintain strong deterrence.”
To start a formal dialogue among allies, Canada and maybe dishes would have to cite art. 4th, which was done only seven times since the foundation of NATO, recently by allies of Eastern Europe after a full invasion of Ukraine of Russia.
There are no tips or Copenhagen consider this connection.
Sveinn Helgason, a former NATO official from Iceland, said that Trump's rhetoric – especially the concept of Greenland, which can be accepted by force – cannot and should not be rejected.
“This is not a way to treat your allies,” said Helgason CBC House on Saturday. “It is not helpful at all and in my opinion it should be resolved, if not in public, then internally.”
Both Canada and Denmark fought in Afghanistan under the NATO flag after the terrorist attacks of September 11 to the United States and “many soldiers lost proportionally” and deserve respect, said Helgason.
Another former NATO official, Fabrice Pothier, who was the director of politics and planning with Western Military Alliance by 2016, said it was clear that the strategy of allies consists in “not escalation” of the dispute at that time.
“It is better not to end in a verbal fight with Donald Trump, as well as what he is looking for,” said Pothier House.
He said that Western leaders must ask themselves what future is for NATO, if Trump is doing good annexation threats, he said.
Pothier said that they must also creatively think about alternative power structures.
“The European Union is not strong enough and is not equipped enough, including institutionally, to be an alternative to NATO,” he said.
Pothier said that every new alliance should include members from outside the EU, such as Great Britain and Norway, and maybe Canada. He said that these countries could now move on with such a compact to ensure the safety of “in the event of NATO failure due to the United States.”
Canada and the EU are currently negotiating the defense and security pact, but the liberal government said very little about its scope and intentions.
Silence from the community of nations
In addition to maintaining peace and approach to allies from NATO, there was a deafening silence by the community of nations, in particular Great Britain, a country where we share deep historical, social and institutional ties.
King Karol III is the head of the Canada state and he did not even speak publicly in defense of the rule.
“The monarch would say nothing until the Canadian government told him to say something,” said Andrew Percy, a former British MP and a former commercial envoy in the UK in Canada.
“If the government wanted him to say something, he would do it.”
He said that the same argument could be extended to other Allied nations, many of whom are looking for their own commercial relations with the United States – or simply trying to stop his head and stay away from Trump.
None of them wants to be next.
“There are things that we could do together, but other governments intend to go through Canada,” said Percy, who added that nobody wants to ignite the situation.
“So I don't think that this is not necessarily reacting to other countries or do not react. Yes: How does Canada want to answer other countries right now? “
Vincent Rigby, who was an advisor to the national and intelligence of the prime minister, said another factor on the basis that no one – Canadian officials or allies – are not sure how serious Trump could be, whether his administration thought about costs and costs and costs and costs and costs The consequences of the annexation of this country or Greenland.
Do not make a mistake, said Rigby, swallowing Canada would not be an easy task.
“The Canadian attachment would be an effectively armed invasion of the country,” he said.
“Now you said he didn't want to do it, but maybe he is trying to force an annex with economic force. I do not think that this is necessarily short-term-lub average (date)-in sight. Whatever he has to do to force the problem, and if he lands on his lap, I think he would be very, very happy if we came to him tomorrow and said that it was all yours. “
Rigby said that exerting economic pressure to break the Canada Federation is possible in the long term.
Devieving an international scene to hurry to defend Canada, it can also have a basic emotional element – something present when Rigby has gone through various scenarios about how the US can absorb Canada: shock and terror.
“It's hard for me to believe that we had this conversation,” he said House. “It seems simply so surreal that someone would talk about the forced annexation of this country – even over time through economic strength. It just seems more than surreal. “