Whenever we talk about NATO, it is generally in the context of money – or the famous Treaty Clause in one for all known as article 5.
The provision is the basis of the Western Military Alliance, allowing London Londonia leaders in Ottawa to sleep better at night knowing more than two dozen nations with similar views have their backs.
What often does not draw attention is the previous paragraph: Article 4.
In today’s climate, article 4 is extraordinarily relevant to Canada and Denmark when they are faced with the new American administration of imperial spirit, perhaps devoted to annexation.
European defense experts sometimes call him the “neglected young brother” of the Alliance. The provision commits NATO members to “consult together each time, in the opinion of one of them, territorial integrity, political independence or the security of one of the parties is threatened” .
That the annexation fixing of the American president Donald Trump meets this bar remains to be seen, but the idea that Canada would make “a very beautiful 51st state” has many ordinary Canadians who feel uncomfortable, or even threatened .
Likewise, Trump’s conceptions on Greenland – to be bought or taken by force – are as annoying as they are surprising for the Allies.
The way we have to take its comments seriously depends on who you are talking about in this country.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spent the week in Paris and Brussels to meet European leaders only a few days after being taken in hot micro saying he believes that Trump’s annexation threats are real. Many in his office, including the Minister of Defense Bill Blair this week, have minimized the potential threat.
Without exception, there is a surreal quality in this debate, as if – like Alice in Wonderland – We fell through the glass in a world that is not familiar and turned around.
An alternative to NATO?
If it was another moment and any other country, the kind of discourse we heard from Trump would have made screams of allied and international indignation.
Canadians fought and died in Europe in two world wars, Korea and Afghanistan.
Our nation has been one of the most generous countries in terms of humanitarian aid, development financing and even moral support.
However, there was no direct public conviction of Allied leaders and it seems – against Trump – we meet alone.
January 20, 2025 | Why President Donald Trump says that the possession of Greenland is “an absolute necessity” for the United States, Andrew Chang explains what is behind the former rise of the Governor of Bank Mark Carney among liberal supporters.
NATO secretary general, Mark Rutte, was interviewed recently, before his closed -door discussion with Trudeau, on the potential of a trade war between the allies and bellicose rhetoric from the White House.
“There are always problems between the allies,” said Rutte alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. “Sometimes larger, sometimes smaller, but I am absolutely convinced that we will not bother our collective determination to keep our deterrence strong.”
To start an official dialogue between the allies, Canada and perhaps Denmark would have to invoke article 4 – something that has only been done seven times since the NATO Foundation, more recently by allies of ‘Eastern Europe following the large -scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
There is no indication that Ottawa or Copenhagen envisage such a call.
Sveinn Helgason, a former strategic communications officer at NATO’s seat, said that Trump’s rhetoric – in particular the concept of Greenland could be taken by force – cannot and should not be rejected.
“This is not the way to treat your allies,” said Helgason CBC The house SATURDAY. “This is not at all useful, and in my opinion, must be addressed, if not publicly, then internally.”
Canada and Denmark both fought in Afghanistan under the NATO flag following September 11 terrorist attacks against the United States and “have proportionally lost many soldiers” and deserve respect, said Helgason.
Another former NATO official, Fabrice Pothier, who was director of policy and planning with the Western Military Alliance until 2016, said that it is clear that the allies’ strategy was to “not degenerate “The dispute at present.
“It is better not to end up in a verbal struggle with Donald Trump, which he also seeks,” said Pothier The house.
What Western leaders must ask themselves at the moment is what kind of future for NATO, if Trump is good at his threats of annexation, he said.
Pothier said they also had to think creatively of alternative power structures.
“The European Union is not strong enough and is not sufficiently equipped, including institutionally, to be an alternative to NATO,” he said.
- Do you have any questions about Trump calling Canada to become the 51st state? Send an email to Ask@cbc.ca
Pothier said any new alliance should include non-EU members such as the United Kingdom and Norway, and perhaps Canada. He said these countries could move forward with such a compact now, to ensure security “in case NATO fails because of the United States”.
Canada and the EU are currently negotiating a defense and security pact, but the Liberal government has not mentioned very little about its scope and intention.
Commonwealth silence
Beyond the approach to keep calm and continue the allies of NATO, there was a deafening silence of the Commonwealth, in particular the United Kingdom, a country with which we share historical, social and institutional links deep.
King Charles III is the head of state of Canada and even he did not speak publicly to defend the Dominion.
“The monarch would say nothing less than the Canadian government tells him to say things,” said Andrew Percy, a former British conservative deputy and the former trade in the United Kingdom in Canada.
“If the government wanted him to say something, then he would do it.”
The same argument, he said, could very well be extended to other allied nations, many of whom watch over their own trade relations with the United States-or simply try to keep their heads down and stay outside Trump’s reticle.
None of them wants to be the next one.
“There are things we could do together, but other governments will take their lead from Canada,” said Percy, who added that no one wanted to ignite the situation.
“So, I do not think that it is necessarily as other countries react or do not respond. It is: how does Canada want other countries to react at the moment?”
Vincent Rigby, who was the Prime Minister’s national and intelligence advisor, said another factor in the soaked response is that nobody – Canadian officials, nor the allies – are sure how Trump could be serious, nor if his administration has not thought about the costs and ramifications of the annex to this country or Greenland.
Make no mistake, said Rigby, swallowing Canada would not be an easy task.
“Annexed Canada would indeed be an armed invasion of the country,” he said.
“Now you said he didn’t want to do this, but he may try to force the annexation by economic force. I don’t think it’s necessarily the short term – or the support [term] – Objective in sight. He will do everything he has to do to force the problem and if it lands on his lap, I think he would be very, very happy if we came to him tomorrow and said it was all yours. “”
Rigby said the application of economic pressure to fracture the Canadian Federation is a long -term possibility.
The reluctance on the international scene to rush to the defense of Canada can also have an emotional component that underlies-something present as Rigby has traveled the various scenarios on the way the United States could absorb Canada : shock and dismay.
“It is difficult for me to believe that we had this conversation,” he said The house. “It seems so surreal that someone would speak of by force this country – even over time thanks to the economic force. It seems more than surreal.”
