In a foreign and defence policy speech on June 9, 2025, Prime Minister Mark Carney declared that U.S. predominance in global security is a “thing of the past.”That is factually incorrect.The United States maintains 55,000 military personnel in Japan and 28,500 in South Korea. It shares nine bases in the Philippines with the Philippine military and has deployed military trainers to Taiwan, although the exact number is undisclosed..The U.S. Seventh Fleet is active in the Indo-Pacific region and possesses more firepower than many national militaries. The US Navy regularly transits the Taiwan Strait and conducts joint air and sea exercises throughout the area.This presence secures vital commercial shipping lanes running from Japan and South Korea through the East China Sea, Taiwan Strait and South China Sea, passing the Philippines. Roughly 20 per cent of global maritime trade moves through these waters. (By contrast, shipments to North America typically transit the northern Pacific Ocean.)Elsewhere, the U.S. maintains navy and Marine Corps assets near the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil chokepoint linking the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. Roughly 20 million barrels of oil pass through the strait daily, destined for Europe, Asia and North America. The U.S. Navy also patrols the Gulf of Aden and Indian Ocean to deter piracy and protect access to the Suez Canal..These are just a few examples of U.S. security operations that benefit not only America, but its allies.While the U.S. is not the only country securing global trade routes, it remains the dominant player.Contrary to Mr. Carney’s claim, the U.S. has not retreated from global security commitments. In fact, it has expanded its focus on Asia — building new bases, pre-positioning equipment, upgrading existing infrastructure and redeploying troops. This pivot actually began under President Obama..That brings us to another misleading statement from the prime minister. Mr. Carney claimed the U.S. is “monetizing its hegemony,” referring to tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. This, too, deserves scrutiny.On June 1, the House of Commons passed Bill C-202, which prohibits the federal government from including Canada’s supply-managed sectors in any future trade negotiations. One of the biggest winners from supply management is Quebec’s dairy industry. This decades-old system uses quotas and steep tariffs to protect producers. While it once served a policy purpose, today it shields special interests and helps the Liberals win votes in Quebec.Canada also imposes tariffs on a range of U.S. imports — washing machines, refrigerators, whiskey, and even peanut butter and coffee.In 2018, Ottawa retaliated against U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs by applying surtaxes on a wide variety of American goods.In this light, Mr. Carney’s assertion sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Canada could have ended the trade war on Day One by proposing zero tariffs on all goods — contingent on reciprocal treatment from the U.S.Was it Canada that wanted the trade war to continue?.If both of Mr. Carney’s statements are misleading, we must ask: why did he make them?His remarks appear designed to justify distancing Canada from its traditional relationship with the United States, while strengthening ties with the European Union.It’s no secret Mr. Carney sees himself more in line with the European elite than with average Canadians. While he did reside in New York while serving with the United Nations, his network was firmly rooted among globalist policy circles — not ordinary citizens.In fact, his suggestion that America is pulling back from global security appears rooted in frustration over defence spending gaps within NATO. For years, most member states — including Canada — have failed to meet the pledge of spending two per cent of GDP on defence. The Trump administration has grown impatient and now views many NATO allies as freeloaders.Canadians may debate Trump’s style, but his criticism is not without merit.Ultimately, Mr. Carney’s comments do not constitute serious foreign policy analysis. Rather, they appear to be political messaging — designed to persuade Canadians, not inform them.
