February 4th, 2025
BURLINGTON, ON
In the wake of U.S. President Donald Trump imposing a 10 percent levy against China and pressing a 30-day pause on proposed tariffs to Canada and Mexico, Martin Danahay reflects on the dangerous historical outcomes of past trade wars.
The Professor of English Language and Literature at Brock University specifically notes that the First Opium War, fought between China and the British Empire from 1839-1842, began as a trade imbalance.
“When China blocked the British opium trade, British traders successfully lobbied their government to attack China, ultimately forcing the removal of the trade blockade through military action,” he says.
Danahay notes that while the current situation between the U.S. and Mexico/Canada is a reversal of that situation — imposing levies on imported goods to force action on the flow of illegal fentanyl into the U.S. from its two neighbouring countries — the use of tariffs and “belligerent” rhetoric can easily transition into military conflict.
Another notable example, Danahay says, are the British trade restrictions imposed on American ships during the Napoleonic Wars in the early 1800s.

During the Napoleon War, American seamen were conscripted to serve aboard Napoleons’ ships – much of this led to the War of 1812
“Along with forced conscription of American sailors into the British Navy, the trade restrictions led to the War of 1812 between Britain and the United States,” he says.
Trump’s use of trade war tactics forcing concessions from Mexico and Canada is especially concerning, Danahay says, since U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has publicly shared that military force is still an option against Mexico.
While he says it is unlikely the U.S. will invade Mexico (or Canada), it is certainly possible that an invasion of a smaller country could result from a propensity to use trade wars and violent rhetoric as the basis for foreign relations.
Danahay says that Panama, in particular, seems vulnerable as various U.S. officials (including President Trump) have claimed that China is operating the Panama Canal, a key route in global trade.
“President Trump has also imposed tariffs on China ostensibly because of the production of the precursor chemicals for fentanyl, which is shipped to Mexico, processed and then smuggled into the U.S., where there is a widespread crisis of addiction to the synthetic opioid,” he says. “President Trump has openly expressed a desire to take over the Panama Canal and Greenland, showing an imperialist mindset that is reminiscent of the British Empire.
While many are of the opinion that Trump is unlikely to use military force, history shows that a combination of a trade war and military rhetoric can easily become the basis for war.”

Putin uses force to gain numerous valuable resources in Ukraine .Trump is a bit of a fan of Putin .Anything is possible in this world of BRIC vs the The G-7 and the rest of the world.
The following abstractions from a much longer article, are a sample, following the theme of the Brock Expert story. The link is here. Please excuse my wholesale quotation, but this is a find to be shared with the Gazette readers.
Robert Huish
Associate Professor in International Development Studies, Dalhousie University
https://theconversation.com/how-the-u-s-could-in-fact-make-canada-an-american-territory-246877
“Not impossible, not unthinkable”
“Every Canadian needs to pay attention to this bit of American history. In one treaty, the U.S. annexed the present-day states of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas and Wyoming. It subsequently illegally invaded Indigenous territory in the west.”
“Read more: White U.S. citizens once flooded into Indian Territory, prompting calls for mass deportations”
“Canada could be next — perhaps not immediately as the 51st state, but quite possibly as a U.S. territory that would deny Canadians any voting rights for Congress or the presidency, allow only some autonomy and make questions of citizenship ambiguous. The constitutional architecture exists in the U.S. to make it happen.”
“Impossible? Unthinkable? Many pundits dismiss Trump’s bellicose rhetoric as hot-headed bargaining. It’s just tough talk, they say. Some have argued his bluster is simply part of his favoured “art of the deal” negotiating tactics.”
“That’s the wrong reading. How Trump could make good on the threat can be found in the U.S. Constitution. There is both potential and precedent for the U.S. to acquire territory through cession or subjugation.”
“A dark-haired man looks down skeptically at the outreached hand of an older blond man sitting next to him in an ornate office.” (Trudeau and Trump picture)