At the beginning of Donald Trump's second administration, one of his most important goals announced during his 2024 campaign was his plan to expand the influence of the United States by annexing strategic and or mineral rich countries such as Panama, Greenland and or Canada – notwithstanding that the latter two countries belong to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).  

Historically such rhetorical threats from our largest trading partner and benign ally, is not a “new thing”.

The underpinnings of our relations with the USA, is not a marriage but like some marriages, is for the most part, predicated on mutual security requirements and economic prosperity.  Deeply entrenched in the United States national security psyche lives an ideology that over the years has promoted the acquisition of and or the annexation of neighbouring countries and territories - as a strategy by which to control the political narrative of the Western Hemisphere thereby solidifying its position in the future “world order”.

Manifest Destiny:  The term manifest destiny was coined by newspaper editor John O’Sullivan in 1845 who used the term to justify the USA’s territorial expansion across North America asserting that it was a God given right to spread democracy and American ideals from the Atlantic to the Pacific.  

In 1783, following the Treaty of Paris, the United States was composed of 13 former colonies stretching from Canada (British colony) in the north to Florida (Spanish colony) in the south and to the Mississippi River in the west.   Over the next 115 years, the United States acquired twenty-nine (29) large and small territories.  Today, the USA is composed of fifty (50) states and 14 territories. The following is a short list of the more significant acquisitions / annexations.

• 1)      Louisiana Purchase 1803 – purchased from France for $15 million. According to President Jefferson the major reason for the purchase was “national security” – the US would gain control over the Mississippi River. (a common refrain even today).  
• 2)      Florida 1819 – acquired from Spain via the Adams – Onis Treaty.
• 3)      Texas Annexation 1845 – annexed as an independent republic.
• 4)      Oregon Territory 1846 – treaty with Great Britain securing the Pacific Northwest.
• 5)      Mexican Cessation 1848 – gained from Mexico (what is now California, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado and Wyoming). 
• 6)      Gadsden Purchase 1853 – purchased from Mexico (what is now southern Arizona and southern New Mexico).
• 7)      Alaska 1867 - purchased from Russia for 7.2 million dollars.
• 8)      Hawaii 1898 – annexed after overthrowing the Hawaiian dynasty.
• 9)      Pacific and Caribbean Territories 1856 – Guano Islands.
• 10)  Puerto Rico, Guam, Philippines 1898 - acquired from Spain after the Spanish American War.        

 War of 1812:  Canada’s first taste of imperial expansionism occurred in the early 1800’s - a biproduct of a greater conflict in Europe between Great Britain and Napoleonic France which would ultimately determine dominance over Europe.  Post 1783 (American Independence) Great Britain remained dominant over the world’s oceans and the British Royal Navy’s encroachment on American maritime rights had a serious impact on American trade and commerce.  With Great Britain tied up in a war with France, President Madison decided to seize the opportunity and declare war on Great Britain on June 18, 1812.  Hoping to get a quick win in their fight with Great Britain, America decided to invade Canada and use its conquest as a bargaining chip to win concessions from Great Britain especially as it relates to maritime issues.  At the time, the population of Canada was approximately 500,000 compared to 7.7 million people in America.  Former President Thomas Jefferson assumed the conquest of Canada would be “a mere matter of marching”.  Most Americans believed that they would be welcomed as liberators from British rule.

In 1812 American armies invaded Canada at three points and all three attempts ended in failure.  A similar prolonged invasion occurred in 1813 with America achieving some success in the West (Lake Erie). 

In 1814, the United States armies found themselves on the defensive following Napoleon’s defeat.  Great Britain quickly shifted attention to its protracted conflict with America.  The Royal Navy started transporting battle hardened troops to Canada while at the same time increasing its blockade of American ports.  Battles were won and lost on the great lakes and at key forts along a joint frontier. 

With the cost of the war wearing thin on Great Britain and the American economy teetering on ruin both sides eventually agreed to a cessation of the conflict.  On December 24, 1814 Great Britain entered into a treaty with America.  On February 17, 1815 both sides ratified the treaty (Treaty of Ghent) with the provision (quo ante bellum) that all conquered territory must be returned as it existed before the conflict.

A costly skirmish for both sides.  America suffered 15,000 casualties and Great Britain suffered 8,600 casualties (British Regulars and Canadian militia).  An unknown number of indigenous people also perished in the conflict as warriors or the result of starvation and disease.

Not prepared to repeat the War of 1812 with Great Britian, the United States started to search for a national strategy to deal with incursions from their imperial neighbours…     

The Monroe Doctrine:  President Monroe, a close ally of President Madison, was president for two terms from 1817 to 1825.  James Monroe and two other statesmen were Secretaries of State and War during the War of 1812.   James Monroe, more specifically, was Secretary of State and War between 1814 and 1815.

A veteran of the War of 1812, Monroe was no stranger to European hegemony in the Western Hemisphere.  The Monroe Doctrine was enacted on December 2, 1823 in an annual message to Congress warning European powers (especially Great Britain, France and Spain) against further colonization or interference in the Western Hemisphere. 

According to Monroe, “European powers are obligated to respect the Western Hemisphere as the United States’ sphere of interest.”  (The Westen Hemisphere comprises half the earths surface including a sizeable chunk of the North Pole and Antarctica).

The Monroe Doctrine originated as a “statement of intent” not a formal law supported by the US Congress.  Its implementation is arbitrary and has historically been the responsibility of the President visa vis the conduct of foreign affairs.  The Monroe Doctrine has no standing in international law.  (Smaller indefensible countries within the Western Hemisphere have little or no recourse if invaded by the USA).

For example, the Monroe Doctrine was first invoked in 1865 when the U.S, government exerted diplomatic and military pressure in support of the Mexican President Benito Juarez.  This support enabled Juarez to lead a successful revolt against the Emperor Maximilian, who had been placed on the throne by the French President Napoleon.  

Again in 1940 European creditors from a number of Latin American countries threatened armed intervention to collect debts. Citing the Monroe Doctrine, President Theodore Roosevelt promptly proclaimed the right of the United States to exercise international police powers to curb such chronic wrong doing.

The U.S. also has a long history of interventions in South America - called the Banana Wars 1898 – 1934. Santo Domingo 1904, Nicaragua 1912 and 1933, Dominion Republic 1916 and 1924, Haiti 1915 and 1934, Guatemala 1954, The Bay of Pigs (Cuba) 1961, Chile 1973, Grenada 1983, Panama 1989… and now Venezuela 2026.

Although the Monroe Doctrine was essentially established to keep European powers out of the Western Hemisphere, Roosevelt strengthened and expanded its meaning to justify the sending of American troops into any country or territory within the Western Hemisphere.  Invoking the Monroe Doctrine to enable the annexation of a friendly territory or nation for hegemonic purposes is totally contrary to the purpose for which the Monroe Doctrine was created in the first place and is a violation of the principles of “rules based” order.

Comment:    

The threat environment to which we have become accustomed has shifted significantly provoking serious change in the world order. 

Given the emerging threats to our sovereignty, how does our intelligence community navigate its way through these unprecedented times while protecting the nation from both former allies one day and adversaries the next.  (Should we be preparing for a NATO minus the USA).  We need to rethink some of our legacy relationships and retool our intelligence collection strategy to include emerging threats to our sovereignty.  Expediting the formation of a foreign intelligence capability, whether inside or outside the Service, should be a priority and would certainly send a message to trusted partners that we are indeed serious players within the global intelligence community.      

Norm Killian - Pillar Member