NATO members retain their sovereign ability to decide what they agree or do not agree to. Decisions are not reached by edicts. For example, Trump’s declaration that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO. It isn’t up to Mr. Trump, it’s up to a consensus of the members, and does not require unanimity.
In other words, America cannot bully other member states to agree to not admitting Ukraine into NATO. If Germany, the UK, France, Canada and Poland wanted Ukraine to become a member state, then that would likely occur. If America chose to not allow Ukraine to become a member, then America could choose to then withdraw from NATO.
It may well be time for Europe, who let’s face it, are the ones facing the risk of Russian aggression, to state the Ukraine will become a member of NATO. If America then disagrees it can at that juncture withdraw from NATO. At the present time, with Trump in power in the U.S., it is probably in NATO’s best interest to stand against the U.S., as America is no longer working in the interests of Europe, the purpose for which NATO was originally created.
Russia is a clear and present danger in Europe. Since WWII, no other nation in Europe has acted militarily to attack a sovereign nation by itself, other than Russia. It is time to clearly articulate to both Russia and the United States that neither country has overarching hegemony in Europe.
Canadians completely support NATO, and will increase our military spending to meet both the threats and requirements posed by those rogue states that feel compelled to act against the interests of individual member states of NATO.
It’s time to all Trump’s bluff. If Trump removes himself from NATO, and NATO members have to increase their spending and force structure commensurately, then so be it. There is no place for a dictator among NATO who feels that autonomously he speaks for the organization.
And If, America decides to withdraw, then the EU and Canada should formalize trade relations built upon a new reality, that America then be precluded from trade with member states and in turn, all members will trade unilaterally with other members or those countries willing to meet the economic constraints imposed by the EU’s working group itself.
A new Constitution that requires all nations to be signatories and to live by the requirements of the Constitution should be enacted as quickly as possible in order to reach determinations about the need for the foregoing of protectionism, isolationism, or unilateral actions.
Trade outside the EU would then be regulated not by consensus but by majority votes of the members themselves. Proportional representation would be the method most fair in order to ensure that members who bear the responsibility for the majority of the costs of the EU, would in turn have more say in the outcomes of decisions proportionally.
Should Canada seek and be granted membership, it should then curtail its agreements with the United States and be solely responsible for its military protection and its sovereign territory. In essence, Canada would then act similarly to Norway, not being aligned with the United States.
As a Canadian I completely expect Canada to stay independent of the United States in the area of military agreements.
Canada neither needs nor wants the United States to act on its behalf. Canada needs to remain essentially independent of the United States, as U.S. actions always seem to be in the hegemonic interests of the U.S. alone.
Leave a Reply