‘Brothers Dwelling Together in Unity’: The Peace Arch at the Canada-U.S. border between British Columbia and Washington State/Wikimedia

By Peter Jones

February 22, 2025

Much has been written about the grave threat that President Donald Trump poses to the international system, and to the so-called “rules-based order” in particular. What exactly is meant by this and why is Trump’s conduct regarded as so particularly damaging?

One way to answer these questions is through reference to a landmark idea which diplomats and international studies experts have used to try to make sense of how and why certain regions of the world have been able to escape centuries-long legacies of violence while others have not; the concept of Regional Security Communities.

The idea of Regional Security Communities was first introduced by Karl Deutsch and colleagues in 1957. Working in the years after World War II, those who developed this concept over several decades sought to discover ideas that could help Europe avoid another descent into slaughter. Their work had particular reference to the rivalry between France and Germany, which had so often been a catalyst for wider European conflicts over several centuries.

Deutsch, and those who followed him in developing the concept over the decades, have defined a Regional Security Community as a region that has achieved such levels of co-operation, or even integration, that its states and peoples simply do not consider as realistic the thought of fighting each other to resolve disputes.

In time, their sense that conflict with each other is impossible becomes so deeply ingrained that they actually stop preparing to fight each other (although they may continue to prepare to fight others). To quote Deutsch, such regions are places where the nations within them have achieved “dependable expectations of peaceful change.”

For Canada, though threats of military action have not been made by Trump, the threat of ongoing economic coercion to deprive us of our sovereignty amounts to another form of attack. Six decades of North American economic integration are under assault, and with them our “dependable expectations” of stability and order in our economic and political dealings with our powerful neighbour.

To quote Deutsch, such regions are places where the nations within them have achieved ‘dependable expectations of peaceful change’.

The North American Regional Community, which has primarily been about economics and politics rather than physical security between its members per se, is now being undermined in an unprecedent way by Trump’s behaviour.

This is not merely dry “academic” stuff; Deutsch’s work, and that of those who followed him, had a significant influence on the evolution of the European Union. Though those working on the development of the RSC concept were primarily interested in Europe as an example of an RSC, their work has had wider relevance to all regions of the world in terms of understanding how the states of a region can develop into a security community.

The member states of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) have, for example, been engaged in an effort to build an RSC in terms of their relations with each other. They have not yet achieved the same levels of integration as the EU, but the ASEAN countries have clearly been trying to move in the direction of a security community (or “political community” as they sometimes call it).

Deutsch and colleagues asked what made such communities possible. They looked at transactions between these states, both their intensity and types, as an indicator. Their conclusion was that states in these security communities have formed the deeply-held habit of recognizing that their transactions are no longer zero-sum; they take a longer-term view of costs and benefits, and their calculations are holistic.

Most importantly, the health and wellbeing of the security community itself becomes, over time, a far greater consideration for the actors than individual calculations of loss or gain in any one transaction. At some point, there develops the habit on the part of the states and peoples of a Regional Security Community not simply to move beyond zero-sum thinking as regards each other, but, critically, to depend on the fact that their partners have also done so.

Subsequent studies of how RSCs are developed, note that three characteristics define a community:

1. Members have shared identities, values and meanings around key ideas as to what the community is.
2. Members have intense, many-sided and direct relations at both official and personal levels.
3. Members exhibit reciprocity that expresses long-term interest, and even altruism, in their decision-making, rather than a search for one-time, transactional gains.

Another widely recognized aspect of developing an RSC is the emergence of a great power that deeply believes in the project and provides the critical support that allows it to flourish. This includes providing a security umbrella underneath which states can take the risks necessary to alter their fundamental policies.

The United States has been this power since 1945. While the efforts of European and Asian leaders and officials to build the EU and ASEAN have been critical, they would not have had the opportunity to do so had the U.S. not provided a security umbrella for their efforts and other encouragements for these projects.

This role cost the U.S., but America also gained significant benefits. While the cost to the U.S. of providing Europe’s security umbrella should not be discounted, it was much less than the cost of another war would have been. Beyond that, the emergence of a peaceful, stable and prosperous Europe created a powerful economic partner and market for the U.S. and more generally helped transform the global economy into one run along precepts favoured by the U.S.

The emergence of a group of powerful and prosperous states that shared fundamental American values and interests also provided a significant boost to U.S. diplomacy around the world. Though ASEAN has been less integrated, America has also realized benefits in Asia through its support for ASEAN in terms of the “spread” of U.S. influence throughout Asia and of economic, diplomatic and security habits among critical states in that region that are supportive of U.S. global objectives.

With the end of the Cold War, there had been hope that the RSC based in the European Union might be extended to the wider European space. While opinions differ over who or what is responsible for the fact that this did not happen (reckless NATO expansion or Russian reversion to its own great power fantasies) the early years after the Cold War featured hopes that the practices that underlie the EU’s RSC might extend further across Europe. These have since been dashed. In Asia, the expansionist tendencies of a steadily rising China have undermined decades of ASEAN attempts to develop good relations with that country as a foundation of regional diplomacy.

Examining current events in the context of RSCs and the critical role of the U.S. in supporting them reveals how damaging Trump’s conduct is. His utter rejection of the idea that states in such communities must take a longer-term, non-zero-sum, altruistic approach to relations (rather than a ruthlessly self-interested, transactional, deal-by-deal approach) and his determination to abandon the role of a great power in supporting these communities, turns its back on what had been mainstays of U.S. foreign policy for seven decades.

For Canada, we must redouble efforts to align ourselves with the RSCs that do exist through trade, diplomatic and security cooperation.

The mere fact that the leader of the U.S. can talk of taking Greenland from Denmark, take the Canal from Panama, demand that Ukraine surrender control over its precious minerals as the price of “protection,” and forcibly evict two million Gazans to take over and develop their land, shakes to the very foundations the notions which underscore the idea of RSCs.

Even though these things may well never happen, such talk also emboldens others, such as China and Russia, to undermine, or even attack such communities. Simply put, if the great power that has sustained progress toward the creation of RSCs in the world has turned its back on them, can anyone, anywhere, still aspire to live in a region where there are “dependable expectations of peaceful change”?

The way forward for those who still believe in RSCs, Canada included, is to redouble efforts to support and protect them, not degenerate into squabbling amongst themselves which will tear the project apart. While fully replacing the U.S. may not be possible, the gains made in some regions can be protected if those who believe in this work support it and each other.

For Canada, we must redouble efforts to align ourselves with the RSCs that do exist through trade, diplomatic and security cooperation. Even if the US walks away from NATO, we must redouble our efforts to support it and to make a significant long-term contribution toward its defence if we are to achieve other benefits which will allow for the lessening of trade dependence on the U.S.

It is time to reconsider the establishment of a Canadian military base in Europe as part of a significant increase in defence spending. No other single act will more powerfully reinforce our commitment, or more powerfully bolster our desire to diversify our trade to the extent possible. The same is true of Asia, though the process begins with institutional and defence links that are weaker.

Thus, even if the United States withdraws its support from this type of world, others must step up theirs in terms of making sure that the economic and political habits that underpin these communities are reinforced by their behaviour toward each other, and their collective commitment to defend themselves from those who would attack them.

None of this will be easy. Trump’s search for unilateral gain in each transaction and the power of the U.S. economy enable him to break down the bonds between community members with transactional inducements. Discipline and effort will be required to retain the habits that have got the members of such communities to where they are.

The path of status-quo destruction Donald Trump has followed since even before his inauguration a month ago proves just how much power can be unleashed from the Oval Office, and what that power can do when it is deployed against the interests that have defined America since 1945.

Peter Jones is a Professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa.