Trump, Tsar of North America

Donald Trump had added a fourth grievance to others (completely unfounded) on Sunday evening which he has been talking about since the end of November, against Canada: the impossibility for American banks to do business in our Dominion.
I had seen a pretext to derail any agreement with the Trudeau PM, with whom he had to talk to the phone at 3 p.m. yesterday.
Temporary grace
But, surprised, at the end of this phone call, the Emperor Donald granted a temporary grace of “at least 30 days” in Canada, as he had done, in the morning, for Mexico.
Under the threat of prices, the Trudeau government had to agree to add five elements (and $ 200 million) to its $ 1.3 billion border plan.
Some of these new measures line up with the famous president’s decrees. In particular the addition of Mexican cartels to the list of terrorist entities and the appointment of a “tsar” responsible for the fight against fentanyl.
Tsar
This is an intriguing use of this word, tsarmeaning “autocrat” in the Russian language, to designate the all-powerful manager of an area (like “border tsar»).
Maybe it is Trump to perceive for North America?
Reign over the United States less and less republic, more and more empire. Oukases (Tsar proclamations which had law). But also on Greenland and the Panama Canal. And, of course, on Canada.
Trump has not yet obtained any concession from the “Trudeau Governor” with regard to banks. It will come back to it. After all, with its pricing threat, this Tsar holds us through family jewelry.
As he will surely come back with his dream of making Dominion the “51e État».
Already a kind of vassal from the United States, Canada remains an anomaly for Trump, who promised to wage an economic war until he consents to annexation … or demand. Some already offer watered -down versions: a researcher from the Fraser Institute, “Kees” Van Kooten, pleaded on Friday for an “economic union”.
Grant
At the end of the 1950s, the United States made huge pressure for Canada to welcome missiles on its territory, with a view to Norad. The conservative government of John Diefenbaker broke out in 1963 following these pressures.
Subsequently, the defeat of the “old lion” (in the hands of the Liberals of Pearson) was considered to be the end of a certain conservative nationalism of Canada by the Canadian-English philosopher George Grant, in a test, Lament for a Nationpublished in 1965 (translated in 1988, in full debate on free trade, by Is this the end of Canada?at Hurtubise). A classic.
Grant wrote in a premonitory way: “Canada has ceased to be a nation, but its political existence will take time to disappear. Our social and economic merger in the Empire will continue quickly, but it is likely that the political union will be delayed. Some important displacements may in the exercise of power accelerate the process. ”
We may be there. But what place would/will take Quebec in this upheaval?