Threats of Trade Wars Against
Canada and Mexico

On November 25, President-elect Donald Trump pledged big tariffs on Canada and Mexico. "On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25 per cent Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States," Trump said on social media.

While drugs and the border have nothing to do with tariffs, Trump is using them as weapons to secure his aim of having Canada and Mexico "clamp down" on drugs, particularly fentanyl, and migrants crossing the border.

Trump is also threatening tariffs against China. The U.S. accounted for more than 83 per cent of exports from Mexico in 2023 and 75 per cent of Canadian exports. Mexico is the U.S.' top trade partner, followed by Canada and China.

The threats against Canada and Mexico violate the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade (CUSMA), negotiated in 2018 under Trump. It already favours the U.S. and is extensively used against workers of all three countries. Making the threat now is, besides other things, a means to gauge reaction while positioning the U.S. to impose early renegotiation of the CUSMA, set for review in 2026, to make it appear he is fulfilling electoral promises to workers in the U.S.

As one typically arrogant trade expert put it, "I guess the idea is if you keep hitting them in the face, eventually they'll surrender."

Trump spoke with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shortly after making the threat. Both said it was a "good talk." In usual conciliatory fashion Trudeau said, "We talked about some of the challenges that we can work on together." He called an emergency meeting with provincial premiers (the Council of the Federation) for November 27, calling for a "TEAM Canada" response.

Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, in remarks on November 27, addressed various trade matters in a manner that reflected the high degree of Canada's integration into the U.S. economy as a supplier to the U.S. war machine. "The fact is, we need them and they also need us. We sell them oil. We sell them electricity. We sell them critical minerals and metals." Freeland emphasized the importance of a "Team Canada" approach and acknowledged that Canada responded to previous Trump tariffs with "targeted" tariffs of its own.

Public Safety Minister Dominic LeBlanc, appearing on CBC TV's Power & Politics, spoke about security on the Canada-U.S. border. Canada has submitted to all manner of arrangements to cater to U.S. interests and monopolies in the last 20 years. LeBlanc referred to this aspect of Canada's integration into the U.S. economy and war machine as Canada having a "good story" to tell when it comes to border security.

As for other cartel party representatives, Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre, in response to reporters' questions, said his party would consider taking retaliatory actions against the United States. NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, during question period in the House of Commons, called on the Liberal government to start a trade war with the U.S. "The only thing a bully responds to is strength," he said and called on the government to establish a "war room."

Reflecting the contention between federal and provincial leaders, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith said in a social media post, "We are calling on the federal government to work with the incoming administration to resolve these issues immediately, thereby avoiding any unnecessary tariffs on Canadian exports to the U.S."

Responding to Trump demands that Canada "clamp down" on drugs and migrants, Ontario Premier Doug Ford never pointed out how either issue poses itself but called Trump's threats "unfair." He focused on Mexico, saying it was "insulting" to compare Canada to Mexico when it came to immigration and drugs. He also said if Trump makes good on his promise, "We have to retaliate."

For his part, Quebec Premier François Legault called for calm, yet referred to the threatened tariffs as a "bomb" landing on Quebec's doorstep, and said that Quebec and Canada have to take the threats seriously. To have industries based on exports to the U.S. "picked off" by such tariffs would result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, he said, and that "Quebeckers will pay dearly." Regarding border security, he said that Trump's fears about the border are legitimate, and called on the federal government to tighten border controls "to eliminate that argument of Mr. Trump." Regarding the meeting of the Council of the Federation on November 27, he said his main demand is for Quebec to have its own representative at the table when negotiations with the U.S. get underway.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum rejected Trump's proposed tariffs and threatened counter tariffs. She also said, "If a percentage of what the United States spends on war were dedicated to peace and development, that would address the underlying causes of migration." She reportedly has plans to reach out to Trudeau to discuss the importance of the trade deal among the three countries.

Trump can also be expected to structure the tariffs to give U.S. monopolies the advantage. Nonetheless, the fact is that should Trump impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico, these tariffs would also impact U.S. auto monopolies which have production facilities in both Canada and Mexico. Allies like Germany, Japan, and Korea whose auto and electronics monopolies also use Mexican workers as cheap labour and Mexico as a production gateway to the U.S. market would also be impacted. BMW, Volkswagen, Honda, Mazda, Nissan, Toyota and Kia would all be negatively affected. For electronics, China's Lenovo computers, Foxconn (the world's biggest electronics contract manufacturer headquartered in Taiwan, with its main operations in China), and Korea's electronics and appliance manufacturers LG and Samsung will also be affected.

So-called unfair trade, drug cartels and immigration are all being used to promote the need for more direct military intervention against Mexico and potentially a greater role for U.S. military and policing forces in Canada as well. Both may be done "jointly" or unilaterally by the U.S. They are used as a means to promote racism and chauvinism, the Make America Great Again (MAGA) campaign content, especially against Mexico. Canada is to follow suit, as already indicated by Marc Miller, Canada's Minister of Immigration who said that Mexico is the problem when it comes to immigration.

The U.S. is already openly making plans for military intervention in Mexico. By threatening trade wars, Trump feeds those plans while also strengthening U.S. integration of Canada and Mexico into a single U.S.-controlled war economy.

Workers of all three countries have long traditions of support for rights and struggles together to defend each other and will no doubt organize to block these dangerous U.S. threats and plans.

Oppose U.S. Plans for Use of Military Force
Against Mexico

Opposition to Trump's policies on immigration, New York City, November 9, 2024

President-elect Donald Trump, Congressman Mike Waltz, slated to become Trump's national security advisor, and Representative Dan Crenshaw of Texas who currently chairs the House of Representatives' Task Force to Combat Mexican Drug Cartels, have all been promoting use of military force against Mexico. They have been joined by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who calls for drone strikes against Mexican cartels, and Senator Tom Cotton, who wants Special Forces used. All of this is done in the name of combating the Mexican (not U.S.) drug cartels and imposing massive deportations of people, many who have lived in the U.S. for decades.

Threats to use military force are accompanied by threats from Trump to also instigate trade wars to serve the same purpose of fully integrating the U.S. and Mexico into a single war economy serving the U.S. war government.

Already the U.S. military's Southern Command (Southcom) is engaging in joint operations that include Mexico. Fuerzas Comando 2024, for example, sponsored by Southcom, brought military, law enforcement and civilian personnel together to promote interoperability of the various forces and military-to-military relationships.

Trump has repeatedly spoken of his plans to use the military at the border and across it as well. On his social media, he recirculated a recent post by Tom Fitton, the president of conservative organization Judicial Watch, saying Trump's incoming administration will declare an immigration national emergency and use military assets to support his mass deportation pledge. Trump called the claim "TRUE!!!" He has also said he will designate Mexican cartels as "foreign terrorist organizations" and order the Pentagon "to make appropriate use of Special Forces" to attack cartel leadership and infrastructure. He has called for deploying the U.S. Navy to enforce a blockade against the Mexican cartels who are said to be importing ingredients needed to make fentanyl from China.

In Congress, Crenshaw is working to secure support for a bill that provides Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Mexico and expands presidential police powers. He and Waltz submitted a bill in January 2023 and Crenshaw plans to submit a similar one in the new 2025 Congress.

"The reality is that the cartels are running rampant at our border, threatening American lives, and pushing violence into our communities. This bill gives the president the green light to go after these criminal organizations with the full force of the American military machine. It's time to draw a hard line," Crenshaw said in September 2023 and has repeated since.

The bill calls "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for trafficking fentanyl or a fentanyl-related substance into the United States or carrying out other related activities that cause regional destabilization in the Western Hemisphere." It is so broad as to be used by the president for military intervention not only against Mexico but throughout the "Western Hemisphere." A Naval blockade could also be used to provoke China, using U.S. claims that China is transporting "fentanyl-related" substances into Mexico.

Now, as part of getting such a bill passed, Crenshaw is also proposing that the House establish a select committee on combating Mexican drug cartels. Such a committee could more readily get the bill to the floor for a vote.

"The cartels are the greatest near-term threat. Full stop. President Trump agrees," Crenshaw stated on social media on November 11. He may also change some of the language to focus on two cartels and on the military first providing intelligence, surveillance, and cyber capabilities. It is well known, however, that any such authorization for use of force will be used to justify the use of the military by the president however he sees fit. This was certainly true of the AUMF passed by Congress in 2001 to target those responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attack against the U.S. It was used for war against Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and the worldwide "war on terror."

For Mexico, U.S. military intervention may take the form of "joint operations," as occurred in Colombia when the U.S. waged war and armed Colombian paramilitary forces against organized resistance, also in the name of the "war on drugs." Crenshaw has said he expects the military intervention against Mexico to fall somewhere between the war against Iraq and that in Colombia.

Given the failure of the war on drugs, now the language is for a war on drug cartels -- those said to be foreign -- while the existence of the U.S. cartels is not even recognized. As Crenshaw said, his AUMF is "to put us at war with the cartels." The U.S. drug cartels and massive provision of arms and funds, including from the CIA and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) are not included. The effort is also aimed at directing the great anger people in the U.S. have concerning deaths from drug overdoses, and their demand for the needed health care and support, into support for war against Mexico.

In making these plans for military intervention against Mexico, the U.S. hopes to unite its military and policing forces in what they expect would be an "easy" win. As is always the case, they leave out the role of the peoples in Mexico, the U.S., Canada and throughout "the Western Hemisphere" standing against war and for the rights of all. The peoples are organizing for fraternal relations of friendship and mutual benefit and respect and will not be silent on these issues vital to their interests and drive for peace, democracy, and freedom.

(To access articles individually click on the black headline.)

PDF

PREVIOUS ISSUES | HOME

Website: www.cpcml.ca • Email: editor@cpcml.ca