特朗普的关税威胁与联盟的裂痕
美国总统唐纳德·特朗普近期宣布，将对八个在格陵兰问题上不配合美国控制的盟友征收10%的关税，并威胁若在六月前无行动则将税率提高至25%。此举立即引发了国际社会的担忧。加拿大总理马克·卡尼对此表示关切，重申了对各国主权和领土完整的支持，并强调格陵兰的未来应由其自身及丹麦决定。然而，特朗普的态度显然与此背道而驰。在这样的背景下，加拿大应扮演何种角色？如何在盟友之间出现如此剧烈分歧时，保护历史悠久的联盟关系？节目邀请了前加拿大驻北约大使凯莉·巴克、环球邮报专栏作家安德鲁·科因以及多伦多大学政治学副教授塞瓦·古尼茨基，共同探讨这些紧迫的国际议题。专家们普遍认为，特朗普的这种行为模式并非突发，而是一种持续的升级螺旋，其行为日趋恶化，预示着情况只会变得更糟。
Original English
President Donald Trump recently announced he'll introduce a 10% tariff on eight allies who were opposed to US control of Greenland. He threatened that the tariff would rise to 25% if there's no action by June. In response, Prime Minister Mark Carney said the following. We're concerned about this escalation. We will always support sovereignty and territorial integrity of countries wherever their geographic location is. Decisions about the future of Greenland are for Greenland and Denmark to decide. Trump is clearly not on the same page. So what role can and should Canada play here? How can we protect our historical alliances when our allies are so dramatically at odds? I got insight from Kerry Buck, former Canadian ambassador to NATO, Globe and Mail columnist Andrew Coyne, and Seva Gunitsky, an associate professor of political science at the University of Toronto. I appreciate all three of you for joining to unpack all of these headlines. I want to start with a sort of quick reaction. If I was to ask you a month ago, how would you react if someone told you that a bunch of NATO countries were going to send troops to Greenland to deter Trump's threats to invade it, or that he would threaten them with tariffs, Andrew, what would you say? >> A month ago, I'm not sure I would have been that surprised. He's been on an escalatory spiral for some time. His behaviour has been getting worse and worse and worse. And the best rule of thumb is whatever you think is as bad as it can get now, it's going to get worse tomorrow. So a year ago, if you'd asked me, I would have said, oh, come on, not even Trump's that crazy. But we've been watching over the last year how much worse it's it's becoming. >> Seva, was this on your bingo card? >> Well, I agree with Andrew that this is something he's been escalating toward. So a month ago, I wouldn't have been as surprised. Maybe even a year ago, I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm sort of pleasantly surprised, that is, that the Europeans are taking this seriously and they're sending troops. These are symbolic numbers. But at the same time, it's sending a message that we will stand up to this. We're not going to be bullied. We have the political strength, and strength is the only language Trump understands. So hopefully that sends the message that he needs to hear. >> Gary. >> I'm shocked, but not surprised. Trump has indeed gone on about Greenland, but Greenland has also been a part of the security kind of architecture of the US since the Cold War. But I'm shocked because this is the first time the US has openly threatened a military action against an ally since well before the war, so an odd direction that doesn't serve US interests at all. Yes, the Europeans have responded in a way, but this is a previously planned exercise and the main message is to Russia. But ancillary messages to the US as well that NATO's got this.加拿大的战略选择：联盟、原则与行动
面对特朗普政府的单边主义和贸易威胁，加拿大陷入了一个复杂的外交困境。一方面，总理卡尼表达了对格陵兰主权的声援，但并未像部分欧洲国家那样派遣军队。专家们探讨了加拿大是否应派遣部队的问题，并指出欧洲国家派遣部队的举动，尽管数量象征性，却传递了一个明确的信号：面对霸凌，我们将坚决抵抗。力量，被认为是特朗普唯一能理解的语言。加拿大作为历史悠久的盟友，其首要任务被认为是捍卫国家主权平等原则，而非仅仅是国家边界的不可侵犯性或原住民的自决权。这意味着要传递一个信息：国际法至关重要，美国可以通过北约和现有防务条约等机制实现其目标，而非诉诸于入侵格陵兰的威胁，这种威胁不仅削弱了北约，也损害了美国的自身利益。
在是否应派遣部队的问题上，专家们认为，欧洲国家采取行动是必要的，因为这跨越了多重界限，不仅关乎与美国的互动，也需顾及对俄罗斯的警惕。如果欧洲国家派遣部队，那么加拿大也应考虑跟进，因为当前比以往任何时候都更需要盟友的支持。加拿大需要扮演一个负责任的盟友角色，挺身而出。派遣的部队数量可能不多，仅为“绊脚石”性质的象征性力量，但其目的是向特朗普表明，任何此类行动都将面临军事后果和贸易政策等方面的严峻挑战。卡尼总理面临着一个艰难的平衡任务：在逐步与美国保持距离的同时，仍需维持与特朗普政府的表面友好关系，这被比喻为在野外遇到熊时，需要缓慢后退并保持眼神接触，以免被视为软弱。
Original English
>> Gary, you mentioned the Europeans. Let's talk Canadians. Of course, Prime Minister Carney expressed solidarity with Greenland, yet hasn't sent troops to Greenland as of yet. What do you make of that? >> Well, I think Canada's first job is to defend the principle of sovereign equality of states, not inviolability of state borders and self-determination of indigenous peoples. What all that adds up to is send the message that international law matters, and that the US can get what it wants through existing mechanisms like NATO and their defence treaty. They don't need to muse about invading Greenland. It undercuts NATO, it undercuts US interests. >> Should Canada be sending in troops? >> First question is, should anybody? And clearly, yes, the Europeans need to. This is crossing all kinds of lines, not just vis a vis the United States, but also they've got to be keeping one eye on Russia as well. So, as we said, force is the only language Trump understands. They tried appeasement and flattery and bribery and none of those have worked. So if the Europeans are going to be sending troops there, I think the question is, should Canada? I think it has to be, yes, we need allies at this point in time, more than we ever have. We've not always been a good ally. We really need to step up and be a responsible ally now. So if they're sending troops, we have to as well. >> Can we clarify how many troops are we talking about at this moment? We're talking a handful. >> Yeah, exactly. They are I think it was said there's some it's a symbolic force. It's what they call a tripwire. But we'll see. It may grow into a larger force. The point is they want to make it clear to Trump, this is not going to be, you know, rolling in and taking out Nicolas Maduro. If you're doing this, you're facing military consequences potentially. But certainly you're facing all kinds of other consequences in terms of trade policy, in terms of closing US bases, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. >> Well, Carney is kind of an impossible situation here. He has to slowly distance himself from the US, but still kind of maintain a pleasant facade towards Trump. That's right. It's kind of like, you know, you meet a wild bear in the woods, you back away slowly, but maintain eye contact or he'll take that as weakness. So as far as sending troops, I don't know. I don't know if it might be seen as a provocation or if it would be helpful. Clearly there has to be something more than saying nothing. So I think the thing to do for Canada is to keep strengthening military presence in the Arctic, sort of slowly and patiently, and increase surveillance capabilities so that if us complains, they can say, look, we are taking this seriously. And I think that's the safe but boring way to go forward.美国干预主义的模式与加拿大北极的脆弱性
讨论转向了美国更广泛的干预主义模式，以委内瑞拉总统马杜罗被捕事件为例。专家指出，特朗普政府偏爱“闪电战”式的行动，即快速抓捕目标人物后撤离，避免长期占领和美军伤亡，以符合其追求的单一新闻周期效应和避免政治资本消耗的偏好。这种模式可能被复制到其他国家，如古巴（通过领导人“斩首”）或哥伦比亚（以打击毒品贩运为借口）。然而，真正的军事占领需要政治毅力，而特朗普政府可能缺乏这种长远的关注力。
这种策略也给美国军事部门带来了难题。根据《华盛顿条约》和北约条约，美国国内法与国际条约并行。若美国军事行动违背这些条约，例如对格陵兰采取行动，将迫使美军面临遵守非法命令的道德和法律困境。有观点认为，低级别军官已在加勒比等地遵从非法命令，而若涉及入侵格陵兰，参谋长联席会议成员可能面临辞职的困境。专家们警告，不应试图将特朗普的行为常态化，他的决策模式非同寻常，其军事行动往往具有戏剧性，旨在制造视觉效果。
在此背景下，加拿大北极地区的安全性也成为关注焦点。尽管目前不存在直接的军事威胁，但随着海冰融化，北极的战略环境正在改变。加拿大在西北航道等区域面临主权争议，特朗普政府可能觊觎这些地区。加拿大传统上在北极地区的投入不足，因此需要加强军事和民事安全部署，以宣示主权，并向潜在对手发出信号。同时，这也能作为一种防御机制，抵御来自美国的“不受欢迎的帮助”。
Original English
>> Okay, I'll get you to add on that. If it's not troops, what should Canada be doing? >> Well, I think the thing right now is to de-escalate, de-escalate with Trump, but also to double down in the Arctic, as Eva said, and to double down on reinforcing the principles behind NATO. So to de-escalate, I think sending Canada sending troops this week would be a mistake. We're vulnerable this week, after Carney's trip to China and waiting to see how Trump reacts. So far, the reaction has been fairly positive, but we're more vulnerable right now. I think slow and steady is the order of the day. So diplomacy centred around NATO, centred around Arctic, and when we do more in the Arctic, anchor it in NATO because, as Andrew said, we need allies to do anything. And it's an important political signal right now too. >> Andrew, I'll get you to take the word diplomacy is thrown around, but we're dealing with Trump here. So if it's not troops, what is it? >> Well, it's got to be if you're talking about Canada's interests, it's got to be diplomacy. Plus we just being nice to Trump is not going to do it. Just, you know, talk softly etc. We have to show that we have allies. We have to show that we have options. That's part of the point of the China trip. We've got to show that we're not to be messed with, that we will be the porcupine, that if you try to play with us, you're going to get stung. These all have to be part of the puzzle. You can wrap it in a cool, calm demeanour. You can wrap it in unprovocative language, but the message behind the scenes has got to be sent is we're not going to be pushed around as we have options. We have abilities to make that point. >> All right. Setting Greenland aside, the recent arrest of President Maduro in Venezuela, to what extent could it embolden the Trump administration, Trump himself, to intervene in other countries? We've heard a number of countries been listed Colombia, Mexico, Cuba and of course, Canada. What does this what is this message send here? >> Well, the the Maduro operation was designed to be quick and easy, sort of literally fly in, grab the guy and his wife and fly out. No occupation, no. No American casualties, no American boots on the ground. That seems to be the template that Trump prefers. Keep it to a single news cycle. Don't get bogged down in in something that where he has to spend political capital. So yes, we could see something similar with maybe Cuba, some kind of leadership decapitation or Colombia under the pretext of fighting drug trafficking or something like that. But a real occupation requires political stamina. And frankly, I don't think the administration has the attention span for something like that. Trump once again wins. That fit in in a single news cycle. >> Kerry. >> Well, Trump's definitely got the wind in his sails. He sees using the military as a tool to achieve some immediate transactional benefits. He sees that as a good thing. The problem is that there's no one in his administration that thinks through the second and third order effects. So even in Venezuela, what was a short, sharp operation, you know, think through what's going to happen over the medium term in Venezuela. And is that going to be in the interest of the US? It's not clear that it is. So it's a conundrum because there's no one left in the administration who will tell Trump when he's going in the wrong direction. Second problem created for the American military. You know, the Washington Treaty, the NATO treaty is the law of the land in the US. So if they were to move militarily on Greenland, they're violating American law as well as the Washington Treaty. How does that place American military? Are they going to obey those illegal orders? That's a really hard place to put people in. >> It's been troubling because so far, lower ranking officers have been obeying illegal orders. This stuff in the Caribbean, for example. But invading Greenland. Others have made the point. All of the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff would have to resign morally and legally in the face of that kind of command. Whether they will or not remains to be seen if it comes to that. But, you know, there's a tendency we always have to guard against the tendency to ascribe normalcy to Trump, to ascribe normal motives, normal assessments. He's out of his mind, and he's surrounded by people who are not clinically out of their mind, but are fanatics and cannot be assessed. So yes, he's he goes in for military operations that are theatrical, that look good on TV and, and usually I would say if you're talking about any other leader. Oh come on, that's not how the world works with this. You have to really look at it through that lens. >> So in light of all of this, how vulnerable to annexation is Canada's Arctic region? >> Well, Canada right now, I think is still in a different category than even Greenland. And in fact, there was some white House staffers said just yesterday that when it comes to conversations inside the Oval Office, there's no talk of purchasing anything. There's no talk of invading anything Canadian-related. But that doesn't mean things can't change. Obviously, it doesn't mean Canada can relax the there's still continuing economic diplomatic pressure. There's still the possibility of that. So the threat is not so much tanks rolling over the borders. But you know that does not mean that there's no threat. And it's something that Canada should must continue to take seriously. Absolutely, Gary. >> Yeah. There's no immediate military threat in our Arctic from anyone, primarily because the operating environment makes it too hard. But that's not a static thing. And with melting of sea ice, that will change over time. There are a number of points of vulnerability for Canada, the Northwest Passage and contested views of who owns that. I could see Trump wanting to own that, and we also haven't done enough traditionally the last few decades in the Arctic. So as I said earlier, we really need to double down and increase our military and civilian security apparatus in the Arctic. So we project Canadian sovereignty and send a message to adversaries that we've got this. But also it's like defence against help, unwanted help from the US. And that's really important.战略对冲：多元化关系与管理美加关系
在处理与美国日益紧张的关系时，加拿大面临着在扮演良好北约盟友与避免进一步损害美加关系之间走钢丝的挑战。专家们认为，试图完全避免“损害”关系可能不切实际，因为当美国总统公开谈论吞并加拿大时，已非正常时期。相反，通过成为其他国家负责任的盟友，加拿大反而能向美国传递正确的信号。这并非要求采取攻击性或好战的态度，而是要坚定地维护自身利益，清晰地表明加拿大不会轻易屈服。这种坚定性，以及展示自身拥有选项和能力，是特朗普唯一可能理解的语言。
为了应对美国外交政策的不可预测性，加拿大采取了“对冲”策略，即寻求与中国、欧盟甚至印度等国建立更紧密的关系。这并非反美主义，而是基本的风险管理。卡尼总理出身金融界，深谙“分散投资组合”的道理，当“加拿大-美国关系”这一最大“股票”面临风险时，必须进行多元化。这种策略旨在减少对美国的依赖，这已不再仅仅是经济问题，更是国家安全问题。然而，挑战在于如何避免过度依赖中国，因为中国同样可能利用这种依赖性。因此，目标是实现一种“均衡”（equipoise），在平衡各方力量的同时，引入其他参与者。
这种多元化策略的实施需要谨慎。如果加拿大过于疏远美国，特朗普可能将其视为侮辱而施加更大压力，形成一个不可持续的恶性循环。因此，卡尼政府必须在“有选项”和“不被视为对特朗普的冒犯”之间小心翼翼地拿捏分寸。加拿大作为华盛顿盟友中率先以结构化方式与中国接触的国家，向美国传递了一个重要信号。尽管与中国在务实领域合作有其合理性，但挑战在于能否将合作限制在特定框架内，以及中国是否会遵守这些“护栏”。加拿大需要认识到，与中国建立更深层关系的同时，也意味着更大的投资和潜在的被动，在面对中国不符合加拿大利益的行动时，将难以有效反击。
Original English
>> All right. We talked about this a little bit sort of that tightrope that Canada has to sort of walk between being a good NATO ally, an honourable player on the world stage, but not damaging sort of the already touchy relationship with the US. How do we do that? >> I'm not sure that we can avoid, quote unquote, damaging the relationship. The relationship has been damaged when you've got the president of the United States talking about annexing Canada, you're not in normal times. Right? So I think the two are actually linked is by being a responsible ally to other countries, we are sending the right signal to the United States. We don't have to be aggressive about it. We don't have to be belligerent about it, but we can be firm about it. And and that is as I say, it said already that that is really the only language that he understands. But patiently promoting our interests, making it clear that that, that we're not simply going to roll over the minute you send that signal thinking you're going to get short term relief, you're just buying yourself more long term pain. >> Okay. Seva. >> Yeah, I mean, I agree Canada has to hedge given the situation and try to see closer relationships with other countries, whether it's China or the EU or maybe India down the road. You know, Carney comes from the finance world. So he knows if you're if your biggest stock is tanking, the stock being the Canadian American relationship, you have to diversify your portfolio. You don't need to be in finance to know that. So Canada and other countries too will will continue to try to become less dependent on the US, given the continuing unpredictability of Trump's foreign policy. That's not going away in the short term. So in that sense, Canada's strategy, I think, is the right one. >> All right. We'll get to China. Just I want to get Kerry's take on balancing that tightrope. >> Diversify our trade and economic relationships. But at the same time don't do it as one-off set of transactions, because then you fall into a trump trap behaving like Trump. Well, you need alliances. You need allies who will come if you get into trouble, for instance, in the Arctic or on trading relationships and tariffs. And in order to do that, you have to reinforce some of those tables where we already have allies like NATO and parts of the UN, I'd say, and build new alliances with countries that are natural allies. But we've let life flow like Mexico and South Korea, and they're doing some of that. So build that up. So you've got friends when something bad hits the fan and at the same time, you know, geography matters and it's inescapable for us. And they're always going to be a big trading relationship. They're always going to be a big security partner. The US is. So there are parts of the US system that I hope are waking up to the outrageous position that Trump's taking on Greenland. >> Greenland has served a valuable purpose in that. It has, I think, welcomed people up. And it is, I think, for some people to work and move together. Where Trump succeeds is when he can keep people isolated and pick them off and play them off against each other. Whether you're talking domestic politics or internationally and both domestically and internationally, there is, I think, a growing cohesion. Still a long way to go, perhaps, but a growing cohesion of realising that we have to, you know, Ben, Ben Franklin said, hang together or we'll all hang separately. >> There we go. Let's talk a little bit about the diversification of our trade. Prime Minister Mark Carney, of course, was just in China to reset relationships there a step in the right direction, I assume. >> Depending on how big a step you, the value in it, the validity, it is reducing your dependence on the United States, which is a matter not so much now of the of economics, but of national security. We cannot be so dependent on them. They can use that against us, but we don't want to fall into the equal and opposite trap of becoming overly dependent on China, because China will certainly use against us. So we want to have some equipoise, balancing them off against each other, having other players as well. India was mentioned, Europe, of course. So as long as it's that as long as we don't, we're not rushing into the arms of China, but simply trying to prudently diversify our portfolio, then I think it's a step in the right direction. >> Seva. >> Yeah. So I don't know if it's right to call it the right step or the wrong step. It's sort of a necessary step at this point, given the situation that comes with its own costs, as already been mentioned. But Canada is overleveraged on relationship with the US. I think that's that's fair to say. And so reaching out to China is not anti-Americanism. That's just basic risk management at this point. I think now the problem for for Carney and for Canada is that you don't want to get into this spiral where you hedge away from America. And Trump sees that as an insult and puts more pressure, which forces Canada to hedge more. That's not a sustainable spiral, not not a sustainable cycle. So Carney has to keep threading that needle, basically of, you know, diversify enough to have options and to show that we have options, but not so much that it becomes a source of grievance for Trump, who is essentially driven by grievances, personal grievances for his foreign policy. >> So Canada was the first of Washington's allies to reach out in this kind of structured way, to put the relationship with China back on some kind of footing. So I think that's an important message to the US. I agree that the pragmatic areas that the PM and the government has picked out to cooperate with China make a lot of sense right now. The challenge will be keeping it in that box. And I'm not convinced that China has the same understanding of what the limits and the guardrails are for that relationship. And, you know, the China that interfered in domestic affairs prior to the deal is the same China that we'll do it afterwards. The good thing is that there'll be a lot more channels to talk to China about these worries. But the difficult thing to manage is that we've got more invested now and they're bigger than us. And so it'll be really hard pushing back when China wants to do something that's not in Canada's interests.外交政策评估：原则、判断与领导力
在节目的最后，专家们被要求对加拿大当前的外交政策进行评分。一位专家表示难以用数字衡量，但认为加拿大正采取务实的、非张扬的姿态，这符合当前形势。另一位专家则认为，加拿大在“穿针引线”方面做得很好，但指出在主权平等、民主等原则和价值观的宣示方面仍有提升空间，这部分可以评为六分，而其他方面则可达八分半。
专家们普遍认为，面对特朗普这样一位不按常理出牌的领导人，不存在现成的政策解决方案。这极大地考验了总理及其政府的判断力和领导力。在评估加拿大外交政策时，需要考虑到其应对的独特性和复杂性。正如本·富兰克林所言，“我们必须团结一致，否则我们将各自被吊死”。在国际政治日益碎片化和不确定性增加的当下，加拿大及其盟友需要认识到团结协作的重要性。卡尼总理近期访问中国，旨在重塑双边关系，这被视为减少对美国依赖的一步。然而，这种多元化必须谨慎进行，既要避免过度依赖中国，也要避免被特朗普视为挑衅而引发更强的反弹。最终，加拿大外交政策的成功将取决于其在维护国家利益、坚持原则以及在复杂国际环境中做出明智判断和有效领导的能力。