Does Canadian ruling class back Trump’s imperialism?

The CEO of Scotiabank has endorsed the “Donroe Doctrine”. Canadian capitalists have long supported US imperialism in the hemisphere but backing the murderous kidnapping of Venezuela’s president while Trump threatens to make Canada the 51st state seems almost well… treasonous.

In a Globe and Mail Report on Business article headlined “Rising U.S. influence in Latin America could benefit Scotiabank’s growth plans, CEO says”, Scott Thomson celebrates Maduro’s kidnapping and the so-called “Donroe Doctrine”. At a bankers conference, Thomson reportedly endorsed the “Trump corollary” of a 200-year-old statement of Washington’s intent to dominate the hemisphere. After quoting Thomson saying the kidnapping of Maduro was a “good thing” for Scotiabank, the paper reported, “Mr. Thomson said the ‘Trump Doctrine’ — a recent adaptation of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine that opposed foreign interference in the Western Hemisphere — would be a positive development for growth.” Some have dubbed it the “Donroe Doctrine” to the Donald’s apparent pleasure.

Canadian capitalists have long enabled/benefited from the application of the Monroe Doctrine. A few months after the 1899 US occupation of Cuba, for instance, the Royal Bank of Canada opened its first branch in Havana. According to one bank history: “[Royal Bank] General Manager, Mr. E.L. Pease, took a quick trip to Cuba at the end of the Spanish-American War and got in on the ground floor of banking there; his American friends, who put capital into the bank, helped him to expand there. (The bank was appointed agent for the payment of claims of the Army of Liberation.)”

Before his trip to Havana, Pease asked leading US capitalist Henry White, head of New York’s Chase National bank, to “smooth the way through the American authorities.” And once in that beautiful city Pease befriended US Consul Joseph Springer, who indicated that the US planned to reform Cuba’s financial sector. By the mid-1920s, the Royal Bank had 65 branches in the country and “acted as Cuba’s de facto central banker.” (It was relatively easy for the Royal Bank to get priority of place because, until 1914, national US banks were forbidden from establishing foreign branches.)

The Canadian bankers saw themselves as American and after the US occupation formally ended they felt covered by the protective umbrella of the Platt amendment. (Inserted into the Cuban constitution by Washington, the Platt amendment gave the US the right to intervene on the island whenever necessary).

Not too dissimilar to Cuba, RBC followed US troops into Haiti. Four years into the 1915-34 occupation, Royal Bank became the second bank in Haiti. Canada’s biggest bank hired Louis Borno, who had been finance minister in the US-installed government, as a legal advisor. RBC director Oswald J. Brandt, a white British passport holder, reportedly helped Borno become president in 1922, loaning him $25,000 for his election.

Canadian companies have explicitly called for US military interventions in the hemisphere. At the height of the 1910-20 Mexican Revolution Canadian capitalists called for US troops to intervene to defend their property. After failing to convince British authorities to help, the Canadian-owned Monterey Tramways, Light and Power Company, Bank of Montréal and Bank of Commerce (now CIBC) jointly asked Washington to help preserve Canadian interests in Mexico.(The first recorded instance of Canadian gunboat diplomacy was during the Mexican Revolution. In 1915 HMCS Rainbow was dispatched to protect British interests and the expatriate community in the Pacific port city of Mazatlán.)

Canadian banks, mining companies, engineering firms and others have hundreds of billions of dollars invested south of the Rio Grande. Canadian corporations are major investors throughout what many in Washington consider the USA’s ‘backyard’ from Mexico to Chile and, as James Petras and Morris Morley have explained, “The U.S. imperial state provides an umbrella under which to operate. In so far as Canadian capital depends on the same kind of social and political conditions to reproduce itself, it benefits from this U.S. umbrella.”

Do Trump’s threats to annex Canada change capitalists’ calculation? Apparently not. Thomson is celebrating the US crassly violating international law and expanding its dominance of the hemisphere. In response to Thomson’s statement, Mathew Sloly posted, “Canada’s capitalist class would be happy for our country to become the USA’s 51st state.”

A sizable segment of Canadian capitalists would be fine with a US takeover. But the terms presumably matter. It’s hard to imagine they would want US troops to kill a hundred in a late night kidnapping of Mark Carney pursued while blockading and stealing Canadian resources. Thomson clearly doesn’t see that as a possibility and he’s likely correct. But even that remote possibility has rattled many in the capitalist press usually supportive of US imperialism.

For those who abhor US/Canadian imperialism irrespective of its direct impact on “us”, this offers greater space to circulate our message. It’s important to exploit these ruling class fissures while challenging Canada’s role in Venezuela and broader contribution to US imperialism in the hemisphere.

Support Yves’ work. Donate Now.