Whenever we talk about NATO it’s usually in the context of money — or the famous all-for-one, one-for-all treaty clause known as Article 5.
The provision is the bedrock of the Western military alliance, allowing leaders from Latvia to London to Ottawa to sleep better at night knowing more than two dozen other like-minded nations have their backs.
What often doesn’t get much attention is the preceding paragraph: Article 4.
In today’s climate, Article 4 is extraordinarily pertinent to Canada and Denmark as they face the new, perhaps imperial-minded U.S. administration bent on annexation.
European defence experts sometimes call it the “neglected younger sibling” of the alliance. The provision commits NATO members to “consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is threatened.”
Whether U.S. President Donald Trump’s annexation fixation meets that bar still remains to be seen, but the notion that Canada would make “a very fine 51st state” has many ordinary Canadians feeling uneasy, even threatened.
Similarly, Trump’s designs on Greenland — to be either bought or taken by force — are as unnerving as they are startling for allies.
How seriously we should take his remarks depends upon who you talk to in this country.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spent the week in Paris and Brussels meeting with European leaders just days after being caught on a hot mic saying he believes Trump’s annexation threats are real. Many in his cabinet, including Defence Minister Bill Blair this week, have downplayed the potential threat.
Without exception, there is a surreal quality to this debate, as though — like Alice in Wonderland — we’ve fallen through the looking glass into a world that is unfamiliar and turned upside down.
An alternative to NATO?
If this were any other time, and any other country, the sort of talk we’ve been hearing from Trump would have drawn howls of allied and international outrage.
Canadians fought and died in Europe in two world wars, in Korea and in Afghanistan.
Our nation has been one of the most generous countries in terms of humanitarian aid, development funding and even morale support.
Yet, there has been no direct public condemnation by allied leaders and it seems — in the face of Trump — we find ourselves alone.
January 20, 2025 | Why President Donald Trump says owning Greenland is ‘an absolute necessity’ for the U.S. Then, Andrew Chang explains what’s behind former Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney’s rise among Liberal supporters.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte was asked recently, ahead of his closed-door discussion with Trudeau, about the potential of a trade war among allies and the bellicose rhetoric coming from the White House.
“There are always issues between allies,” Rutte responded alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. “Sometimes bigger, sometimes smaller, but I’m absolutely convinced that we will not get in the way of our collective determination to keep our deterrence strong.”
To begin a formal dialogue among allies, Canada and perhaps Denmark would have to invoke Article 4 — something that has only been done seven times since NATO’s founding, most recently by Eastern European allies following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
There’s no indication either Ottawa or Copenhagen are considering such a call.
Sveinn Helgason, a former top NATO official from Iceland, said Trump’s rhetoric — especially the notion Greenland could be taken by force — cannot and should not be dismissed.
“This is not the way to treat your allies,” Helgason told CBC’s The House on Saturday. “This is not helpful at all, and in my opinion, should be addressed, if not publicly, then internally.”
Canada and Denmark both fought in Afghanistan under the NATO flag following the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States and “proportionately lost a lot of soldiers” and deserve respect, said Helgason.
Another former top NATO official, Fabrice Pothier, who was director of policy and planning with the Western military alliance until 2016, said it’s clear the strategy of allies is to “not escalate” the dispute at this time.
“It’s better not to end up in some verbal fight with Donald Trump, which is also what he’s looking for,” Pothier told The House.
What Western leaders need to be asking themselves at this moment is what kind of future there is for NATO if Trump makes good on his annexation threats, he said.
Pothier said they also need to be thinking creatively about alternative power structures.
“The European Union is not strong enough and not equipped enough, including institutionally, to be an alternative to NATO,” he said.
Pothier said any new alliance should include non-EU members like the United Kingdom and Norway, and possibly Canada. He said those countries could move ahead with such a compact now, to provide security “in case NATO fails because of the United States.”
Canada and the EU are currently negotiating a defence and security pact, but the Liberal government has said very little about its scope and intention.
Silence from Commonwealth
Beyond the keep calm and carry on approach of NATO allies, there has been a deafening silence from the Commonwealth, in particular the United Kingdom, a country we share deep historical, social and institutional ties.
King Charles III is Canada’s head of state and even he has not publicly spoken in defence of the dominion.
“The monarch would not say anything unless the Canadian government told him to say things,” said Andrew Percy, a former British Conservative MP and the U.K.’s former trade envoy to Canada.
“If the government wanted him to say something, then he would.”
The same argument, he said, could very well be extended to other allied nations, many of whom are looking out for their own trade relationship with the United States — or just trying to keep their head down and stay out of Trump’s crosshairs.
None of them want to be next.
“There are things we could do together, but other governments are going to take their lead from Canada,” said Percy, who added no one wants to inflame the situation.
“So, I don’t think it’s necessarily how other countries are responding or not responding. It is: how does Canada want other countries to respond at this moment?”
Vincent Rigby, who was the prime minister’s national security and intelligence adviser, said another factor in the tempered response is that no one — Canadian officials, nor allies — are certain how serious Trump might be, or whether his administration has thought through the costs and ramifications of annexing either this country or Greenland.
Make no mistake, Rigby said, swallowing Canada would be no easy task.
“To annex Canada would effectively be an armed invasion of the country,” he said.
“Now you said he doesn’t want to do that, but he’s trying to perhaps force annexation through economic force. I don’t think that’s necessarily the short-term — or medium [term] — goal in sight. He’ll do whatever he has to do to force the issue and if it lands in his lap, I think he’d be very, very happy if we came to him tomorrow and said it’s all yours.”
Rigby said that applying economic pressure to fracture the Canadian federation is a possibility over the long term.
The reticence on the international scene to rush to Canada’s defence may also have an underpinning emotional component — something present as Rigby walked through the various scenarios on how the U.S. might absorb Canada: Shock and dismay.
“It’s hard for me to believe that we’ve been having this conversation,” he told The House. “It just seems so surreal that someone would be talking about forcibly annexing this country — even over time through economic force. It just seems more than surreal.”
