Northern Economist 2.0

Wednesday, 11 March 2026

Takeaways from the US-Iran Conflict

  

It has now been nearly two weeks since the Americans began bombing Iran to bring about its desired regime change. As this mid-East conflict continues and expands, the economic, trade and travel disruption continues and if prolonged threatens to slow economic growth substantially and restoke inflation.  While all of this is serious in its own right, there are several takeaways that spring to mind because of what has transpired.

1.        Despite the post-pandemic talk of building national resilience and hardening supply chains, the global economy is obviously still quite interdependent, and the crucial lubricant is oil.  Indeed, despite the development of green energy alternatives, it would appear it that the world still runs on oil. As late as 2023, fossil fuels still comprised over 80 percent of the world’s energy mix and 20 percent of global oil consumption and the LNG trade goes through the now precarious Strait of Hormuz.  The countries most dependent on this flow include Japan, India, South Korea and China.  China is the most dependent on Middle East oil and  imports about 40 percent of its oil through the strait.  This leads one to speculate that the American intervention in Iran is seeking to hit two birds with one stone so to speak – taking out Iran while also sticking it to China.  On the other hand, this assumes the United States went into this with a strategy.  See next point.

2.        The current American leadership can generate policy ideas but seldom seem to be capable of thinking things through before action. It appears it did not anticipate that after decapitating the Iranian leadership, they would continue fighting.  Iran is not Venezuela and it is apparent that the thinking was to launch a quick strike to decapitate the regime through shock and awe and that it would naturally be followed by a rising up of the people and a new regime allowing President Trump to declare victory and depart.  It has turned out to be more complicated than that.  Indeed, no lessons were learned from the Ukraine which when initially invaded by Russia was expected to collapse quickly under the Russian onslaught, but it turns out they did not.   In addition, the attack on Iran represents yet another direct attempt to take out a foreign leader by the United States and is setting precedents that no doubt might disturb other world leaders – foes and allies alike.  One wonders if other countries may be inspired to deal with certain issues in this revamped American style. This would represent an important deterioration in international rules of etiquette with the next step up being knocking off international leaders at state dinners a la Medici or Borgia or perhaps even like the Black Dinner of 1440.  While the principles of the post 1648 Westphalian System regarding exclusive territorial sovereignty have been in retreat for some time, going back to a more medieval approach does not seem like progress to me.  In any event, while the United States in its history has tried to bring about regime changes around the world, the Americans need to reflect on where exactly they are going with this specific approach to international relations because the long run cycle of history suggests that what goes around eventually comes around.

3.       Despite all the talk of the rise of China and the declines of the West and the United States, the United States, with its string of global bases and aircraft carrier groups, is still able to project its power around the world in a way that China and Russia are not capable of.  While China has now acquired its third aircraft carrier and reports are that the number of ships the Chinese Navy has exceeds that of the U.S. Navy, the tonnage of the U.S. Navy is still substantially larger than China’s and it has more long-range vessels.  Most of China’s ships are still short-range patrol and coastal vessels which may be useful if they wish to invade Taiwan but not so much so when it comes to dispatching task forces to the other side of the globe. The U.S. Navy has more destroyers and frigates and 11 aircraft carriers. Their action in the Persian Gulf is only using a fraction of the fleet. America still rules the waves.

4.     Despite its written and living Constitution and several centuries of history, the Americans do not have a system of checks and balances after all. While there has been a long-term increase in the power of the American Presidency since World War II, under Donald Trump, the Imperial Presidency has reached new unabashed heights.  In the case of trade, Trump’s tariffs were struck down by the Supreme Court, but the President has already said that he will find a new way to carry out his plan and bypass Congress. And, in the recent action against Iran which amounts to a declaration of war against Iran, well according to the Constitution of the United States and the observations of the U.S. Supreme Court, only Congress has the power to declare war.  If this was the Star Wars universe, one might say  that Chancellor Palpatine has essentially declared himself emperor and ended the Republic. This however is reality and therefore much more serious if indeed the case.

5.      Finally, we come to realize that Canada’s failure to put more pipeline infrastructure in place or improve its national defences is even more glaring considering what has happened to world energy markets.  Ramping up oil production and export pipelines now as a better late than never strategy may not be enough given the length of time it takes to put the infrastructure in place.  We have probably made the same mistake with respect to our ramping up of defence spending as the arrival of new ships, submarines and jet fighters is still years away even if decisions are made today.  Indeed, we have still yet to decide who will build our new submarines or our new jets.  Pandemic notwithstanding, we spent the last decade ramping up the federal footprint largely in areas of income and social transfers. We have been caught with our pants down in so many ways and despite Prime Minister Carney’s flurry of travel activity to move us foreword on trade and defence, we are still moving slowly when it comes to getting things done.  God help us all.

 


 

Monday, 14 January 2019

Dealing With China: Maybe We Need a New Approach?

In its dispute with Canada over the Meng Wanzhou affair, China has definitely upped the ante.  Along with the detention of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, the announcement that Canadian Robert Schellenberg has now been given a death sentence for drug smuggling sends a message that China is definitely a bully and will continue to target Canadians until it gets what it wants - Canada's release of Meng Wanzhou to China.  China has obviously a lack of expertise with respect to Canada in its foreign service and diplomatic corps given its misreading of Canadian law as well as Canadian practices, conventions and sensibilities.  No doubt, it thinks its latest actions will spark an offer to trade Meng Wanzhou for the three Canadians in some sort of bizarre international hostage swap straight out of the plot of a low budget drug cartel movie.

As a small country, Canada does not have the clout to force China to do anything.  Obviously, the message that China is sending to the rest of the world - that it will resort to the "kidnapping" of other country's citizens while guests in their country as a bargaining tool - will do little to advance its soft power in the rest of the world.  China's government may think it is now a major power on the world stage and that it should be treated with more respect but respect must be earned and with power also comes the responsibility to set an example if you are truly trying to gain influence.  China has sadly shown itself as a mean-spirited bully and has resorted to a grand theatrical strategy because it feels it can scare small countries like Canada to do their bidding.

What is Canada to do?  I am not an expert in international affairs but I think our relatively quiet and reasonable behavior to date is simply being viewed by China as a sign of weakness.  The Canadian response to China's bullying needs to be a response that in no uncertain terms communicates that their behaviour to date is unacceptable.  Canada needs to be as creative as possible in sending its message to China.  I would urge the Canadian government to consider any or all of the following set of actions and naturally to word them as firmly but as politely as possible.

1. Issue an immediate travel advisory to all Canadians considering travel to China that they may be at risk of arbitrary arrest and detention.  As well, an advisory to all Canadians conducting business in China that their safety should be a concern and that the Government of Canada cannot guarantee their safety while operating in China.
2. The Chinese Ambassador to Canada should be immediately summoned to Rideau Hall and given a dressing down by the Governor General that the behaviour by the Chinese government of Canadian Citizens in China is not only disrespectful but appalling in the community of nations and diminishes China's standing in the world.  The displeasure of the Canadian people must be stressed in no uncertain terms.
3. Canada's ambassador to China should be temporarily recalled to Ottawa for immediate "consultations and instructions"
4. Given Canada's concerns about the deteriorating relations between Canada and China and our ever present concern for safety of all our visitors, an immediate RCMP presence is to be instituted around the Chinese embassy in Ottawa and all other Chinese consulates in other Canadian cities.  As well, given that the issue that has sparked all of this is the arrest of Meng Wanzhou on an extradition request by the United States, we should also post enhanced security around the United States Embassy as well as the residences of Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver.
5. A Royal Commission should be struck to evaluate the future of Canada-China trade and economic relations in light of the recent deterioration in relations with public hearings to commence immediately.  Serious consideration to be given to the question that the prospect of further increasing trade with China is not in Canada's best interests.
6. With respect to Huawei and the adoption of its 5G Network in China, the Canadian government should finally announce that it plans to ban Huawei from Canadian 5G networks in accord with our American, Australian and New Zealand allies.

 Ottawa may view these actions as not "constructive" because they might further inflame China.  I would venture that China is already inflamed and thinks we are going to be intimidated into doing their bidding.  I'm not sure being calm, reasonable and quiet is getting us anywhere.  Why not try something different.