As the new year begins, two pivotal events—the decision by the U.S. to capture Venezuelan President Maduro and the Trump administration's continued threats to annex Greenland—have forced the world, particularly America's allies, to respond swiftly.
Among these responses, Canada's moves have been most striking. Prime Minister Mark Carney first explicitly opposed U.S. attempts to seize Greenland under thepretexts of national security, then delivered his globally watched "middle power" manifesto at the Davos forum, emphasizing that Canada is not subordinate to any great power. Finally, Carney visited China, marking a thaw in the two countries ' relations since they soured over the Meng Wanzhou (孟晚舟) incident in 2019.
Trump naturally expressed deep displeasure, reviving his absurd claims about Canada being America's 51st state and threatening 100% tariffs if Beijing and Ottawa reach a trade agreement. Many Chinese supporters ofTrump echo his rhetoric, accusing Canada's "leftist" government of selling out the country and wanting to turn Canada into a Chinese province. Such arguments completely ignore basic geopolitical realities.
Though based in the U.S., I must speak fairly about Canada. As America's closest ally, Canada would never take such steps unless Trump had left it with no alternative. Canada has been America's friendly neighbor for generations. The two countries' 9,000-kilometer border is the world's longest, and more remarkably, also the longest undefended border. No fences, no garrisons, no military installations. Apart from customs officials at major crossing points managing immigration, most of the border simply features signs indicating "this side is America, that side is Canada." Human civilization provides few examples of such a level of strategic trust.
Movement between the two countries is extensive. Though Canada is geographically vast, most Canadians live in a narrow belt near the U.S. border. Many citizens of one country own property and work in the other, and many hold dual citizenship.
The two countries are economically intertwined. Since NAFTA was established in the 1990s, cross-border supply chains deeply integrated all of North America into a tight-knit economic system. Roughly three-quarters of Canadian exports head towards the United States, well ahead of second-place China.
The two nations have long been culturally intertwined. Both have historical ties to Britain, use English as their de facto national language, employ common law systems, and are important members of the free world. Both have transitioned from an overwhelmingly white-majority ethnic composition to a larger percentage of immigrant populations. Theirshared values on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law long served as the foundation of their alliance.
The countries fought side by side in both world wars. After the wars, both becamecore national security allies and key members of both NATO and theAnglosphere intelligence-sharing "Five Eyes" alliance. After 9/11, Canada unhesitatingly joined the United States in Afghanistan, sacrificing 158 soldiers and shedding blood together in defense of freedom.
Even on "countering China," Canada has mostly aligned with the United States based on adherence to international rules and treaty obligations, even when issues don't directly concern it. For instance, Canada has sent warships for freedom of navigation operations in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea, despite these regions having marginal relevance to Canada, risking the displeasure of Beijing.
The most notable recent event was the "Meng Wanzhou incident." When Trump sought to target Huawei during his first term, Canada detained the transiting "Huawei princess" Meng at the airport at the U.S. request under bilateral judicial assistance agreements. China retaliated by arresting several Canadians in China and imposing sanctions, launching diplomatic and propaganda attacks against Canada. Despite six to seven years of Chinese retaliation, Canada never capitulated, paying enormous economic costs. This "ice age" only thawed recently with Carney's visit to Beijing.
Now, Carney, like former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, belongs to the Liberal Party. Why seek reconciliation with China? The reason is simple. For Canada, the United States now poses a greater threat than China. This is a tragic but honest assessment.
Claims that Canada's "leftist" government doesn't understand the Chinese threat are laughable. No one knows China's behavior toward Canada better than Trudeau and his party colleague Carney.
Closer bilateral ties with Beijing couldpotentially intensify Chinese infiltration, erode Canadian values, destroy Canadian manufacturing through Chinese exports, and create vulnerabilities to Chinese economic coercion. These are predictable threats that Canadian political circles have long been aware of.
Canada is seeking better relations with Beijing, not out of admiration for authoritarianism, but out of a real fear for its existence. Survival is always the first priority of a sovereign state. Values, however noble, always come second.
No matter what threats China poses, it is separated fromCanada by thousands of miles. There will never be a serious risk of China annexing Canada. But when Trump talks about swallowing Canada and making it America's 51st state, no one can guarantee whether this is merely a joke, a deliberate provocation, a negotiation tactic, or a genuine intention.
Trump's established behavioral pattern involves making shocking statements. If you ignore them, he escalates step by step. If you push back firmly, he often retreats, then mocks opponents for lacking humor and claims victory. Trump supporters then praise his ability to advance agendas at zero cost through mere rhetoric. While such "maximum pressure" might be understandable against enemies, using it against the traditional closest allies of theU.S. is strategic suicide.
For Canada, what could be a greaterthreat than national absorption? An American annexation of Canada may seem absurd, but it's not entirely fantastical.
Before 2019, no one imagined that the U.S. would seriously propose purchasing Greenland from Denmark in a blatant grab for territorial expansion. Most onlookers viewed the practice as a relic of colonial empires, which had ended around World War II.
America's last successful territorial purchase was the Virgin Islands from Denmark during World War I. When Truman proposed buying Greenland immediately after World War II, he didn't persist after Denmark's refusal. When the U.S. military again proposed acquiring Greenland during the Eisenhower administration in 1955, the State Department firmly rejected it, stating that the time was long past when such a plan would be feasible.
Who could have imagined that sixty to seventy years later, "buying Greenland" would resurface as an urgent military threat?
As I've previously analyzed, Trump's determination to annex Greenland stems from his "imperial aesthetics": bigger is beautiful, expansion is glory, might makes right. For historical legacy and a place on Mount Rushmore, what could be more direct than territorial expansion? Painting the entire North American map with American flag colors—"unifying North America"—hasn't this vision already appeared on Trump's social media? Trump essentially seeks to return America to the 19th-century era of "Manifest Destiny."
American territorial ambitions toward British North America (later Canada) do have historical precedent. The War of 1812 was partly about British North American territory and the United States had territorial disputes over multiple areas now belonging to Canada throughout the 19th century. After Secretary of State William Seward acquired Alaska, voices in Congress called for purchasing British North America to complete territorial integrity. Only after World War I, when Canada became an essentially independent state - and particularly after establishing the International Peace Garden on the North Dakota-Manitoba border in 1932 - did relations between the U.S. and Canada stabilize. Even then, when Newfoundland voted to join Canada in 1948, some proposed that Newfoundland join the United States instead.
The idea of a merger between the U.S. and Canada has never lacked supporters. In 2017, a dual citizen authored a book discussing just such an idea, prompting me to write an analysis of how it could benefit both sides, including Greenland.
However, a merger must be voluntary, equal, peaceful, based on shared interests and values, and naturally evolving—never one side absorbing the other. Currently, how many Canadians would want to join the United States? How many Americans would approve of coercing Canada? Trump's approach is turning a "magnificent North American dream" into a "North American nightmare."
Under Trump, annexing Canada is no longer unimaginable. Should Greenland actually be annexed, the map would show the U.S. wouldencircle Canada, making any follow-up invasion like shooting fish in a barrel.
Of course, the U.S. wouldn't need to attack from three sides to annex Canada—just marching north would suffice.
Canada recently conducted its first military exercise in over a century to prepare for a potential U.S. invasion. The assessment concluded that if U.S. forces advanced north from the border, they could breach defenses within two days and control Canada within seven. Capitulation would come even faster if airborne troops struck deep into Canadian territory. This stark hypothetical result obviously raises locals' anxiety about Canada's survival and compels Canadians to preemptively seek some external forces to balance.
Moreover, even without risking global condemnation through outright invasion, economic sanctions alone could cripple Canada. Trump has wielded tariff threats globally before, including against Canada, and his willingness to discard previous agreements based on mood swings creates extreme uncertainty among allies. While economic integration between the two countries means sanctions would be mutually damaging, America's economy is more than ten times larger—the United States can endure what Canada cannot.
Therefore, Carney's trip to Beijing represents an attempt at Canadian self-preservation and strategic autonomy.
The middle power strategy means Canada will seek to strengthen multilateral alliances with China and Europe to prevent unilateral absorption, over-dependence, or geopolitical bullying by the United States.
This thaw between Canada and China is entirely Trump's doing. Indeed, leaders from South Korea, France, Britain, Germany, and other major powers have recently visited or scheduled visits to Beijing. They all face versions of the "Canadian dilemma," differing only in degree.
Britain recently approved plans for China's controversial super-embassy in London. This embassy has been contentious from the start, with many pointing out that it could become a Chinese intelligence and surveillance center in Britain. London certainly understands the threat China poses, but in its view, an America that abandons allies, expands arbitrarily, and breaks rules represents a more urgent and direct threat to sovereign integrity. Simply put, Trump has forced all of this.
*The author is a U.S.-based political commentator. （Related： KMT–CCP Forum Resumes After Nine-Year Hiatus, Highlighting Economic Cooperation ｜ Latest ）
