It’s unthinkable, but Trump could resort to military force in his bid to annex Canada

Before Russia’s 2022 assault on Ukraine, the Russian president spent years laying groundwork — claiming historical rights, questioning borders, and using economic pressure to destabilize Kyiv.  Trump is taking a similar approach . . . 
 

By Fareed Khan

 
For a century and a half, Canada and the United States have shared a peaceful border, rooted in mutual respect, economic ties, and democratic values. The last hints of American aggression toward Canada faded after the Civil War, when fear of invasion helped unite British North American colonies into Canada in 1867.  Now, that dormant threat has reemerged under US President Donald Trump. His erratic behaviour, inflammatory rhetoric, and willingness to unravel longstanding treaties signals a danger that Canada cannot ignore.  As a result, Ottawa must prepare for the unthinkable – a military incursion from the south, driven by a deranged leader whose actions echo Russia’s prelude to invading Ukraine.

© Image Comics.  SOURCE: https://gizmodo.com/us-canada-invasion-comic-trump-tariffs-sales-image-2000561632

 

Trump seems to be following Vladimir Putin’s playbook.  Before Russia’s 2022 assault on Ukraine, the Russian president spent years laying groundwork — claiming historical rights, questioning borders, and using economic pressure to destabilize Kyiv.  Trump is taking a similar approach by challenging the 1908 Canada–US border treaty, calling it outdated and asserting American claims to Canadian land, water, and the Great Lakes.  On March 4, 2025, he launched a trade war by imposing a 25% tariff on Canadian goods despite a free trade agreement he signed with Canada in 2020.  Following a tense phone call with Trump the following day Prime Minister Justin Trudeau decided to warn Canadians that the tariffs were a prelude aimed to weaken Canada’s economy with the goal of annexation by the US.

If one looks closely Trump’s actions fit the pattern Putin used – economic leverage and territorial claims to justify aggression.  His concerns about illegal migrants and fentanyl originating from Canada have evolved into trade warfare and hints of military action. Should Trump escalate his approach, he might consider deploying US troops to “secure” what he perceives as American interests on Canadian soil.  This potential aggression necessitates that Canada begin preparations for a possible military incursion.

While the likelihood of a US military incursion into Canada is remote, it is not outside the realm of possibility. Speculation about a potential US invasion has emerged in both Canadian and US media.  History has shown that trade wars can escalate into military conflicts, with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 serving as a prime example.  This series of tariffs aimed to protect the US economy resulted in retaliatory tariffs that severely hampered global trade and played a significant role in the onset of the Great Depression.  Ultimately, this paved the way for protectionism, nationalism, and the conditions which led to the outbreak of World War II.

If the US occupied Canada it would be disastrous for both nations according to defence experts.  It could provoke a prolonged insurgency, as the sheer size and resilience of the Canadian population would make it difficult for US forces to maintain control.  If just 1% of Canada’s 41 million citizens took up arms – 410,000 people – that would dwarf the Taliban’s forces in Afghanistan.  Guerrilla tactics, engaging in hit-and-run operations rather than conventional warfare, against American targets would define the Canadian resistance

Canadians, despite our reputation for politeness, possess a resilient spirit, which is already surfacing amid a wave of patriotism.  Historical precedents, such as the American experiences in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, show that occupations often ignite defiance instead of submission.  An invasion of Canada could turn into a quagmire for the US, diverting resources while emboldening Russian and Chinese expansionist ambitions.

Furthermore, Canada cannot assume it would stand alone.  As a NATO member, the expectation would be for allies such as the UK, France, and Germany to respond.  However, NATO is already strained by tensions with Russia in Eastern Europe, and in recent meetings with the leaders of France and the UK, the new prime minister Mark Carney did not get any overt statements of support, suggesting that a North American crisis could weaken the alliance and potentially fracture it in the face of a US attack on Canada.  While Commonwealth countries such as the UK, Australia, and New Zealand might offer support, their capacity to assist Canada militarily would be limited.

The circumstances in which Canada finds itself demands self-reliance.  Ottawa should move immediately to fund modernization of the military, increase military recruitment and troop readiness, and stockpile supplies while strengthening infrastructure, energy independence, and civilian defence.  In addition, Canadian leaders must rally global condemnation of Trump’s annexation threats to isolate the US politically.  But preparation must go beyond words, because if tariffs are Trump’s opening salvo Canada should not wait to see what comes next.

Canada would suffer greatly but it would endure.  Trump seems blind to the prospect of mutual destruction.  But Trump’s actions suggest he is unbound by sanity or history.  Canada can’t dismiss him as eccentric, and based on his words and actions over the past few months, must now treat him and the US as an aggressor.  The US hasn’t been Canada’s enemy since the 19th century, but under Trump, that has changed in the span of a few months.

The Canadian government must act to strengthen the country’s defences, rally allies, and prepare Canadians for a fight we hope to avoid.  Failing to do so would further risk our sovereignty and Canada’s survival as an independent nation.

  

© 2025 The View From Here.  © 2025 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

There was once a proposal to merge Canada and the US. It was a horrible idea then and it's a worse idea now.

An Angus Reid Poll released on January 14th showed that 90% of Canadians are opposed to Canada becoming part of the US.

 

By Fareed Khan

 

It's time for Canada to merge with the United States and create one giant capitalist economy on the top half of North America in order to be competitive globally in a 21st Century that will likely to be dominated by China.

That was the argument put forth by National Post columnist Diane Francis in her 2013 book Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country.

But there were many problems with the idea of a Canada-US merger more than a decade ago, and there are even more problems today with the US about to be led by a violent sociopath like Donald Trump who has threatened to annex Canada by imposing tariffs on Canadian exports to the US.

As the editor for the Financial Post and then columnist for the National Post newspapers over the years Francis never made any secret of her desire for a less regulated Canadian economy that more closely matched what exists in the United States.  Having more freedom to conduct business would be better for the bottom line and better for Canada according to Francis, even if it would be worse for workers and the bottom 90% of Canadians who would ultimately pay the price for the so-called economic freedom that corporate CEOs and billionaire oligarchs would be given.

As an American-Canadian Francis wrote passionately at the time about the many historical and cultural ties that bind her country of birth and her adopted country. Merger of the Century tried to make the case for erasing the formal distinction between the two entirely.  The key justification she put forth for the merger was that this would be the best way for Canada to counter the economic threat of countries like China and Russia which use state-controlled sovereign wealth funds to buy control of resources and key industries of other nations.  "The best option for the US and Canada to survive the new economic reality would be to devise protective policies and to merge into one gigantic nation," Francis argued at the time.

 

A similar argument is being made by Canadian businessman and media personality Kevin O'Leary, who said he likes the idea of a Canada-US union.

 

However, the situation is different today.  Rather than a merger as Francis proposed Trump's idea is for a hostile takeover of Canada via economic warfare, which is what the proposed 25% tariff on Canadian exports would be.  In Ontario alone the tariffs could result in the loss of up to 500,000 jobs and a decline in Canada's GDP of up to 2.5% ($77.46 billion).

However, if you examine the online responses to the suggestion that Canada becoming part of the US they have been overwhelmingly negative.  An Angus Reid poll released on January 14th showed that 90% of Canadians are opposed to Canada becoming America's "51st state".  In addition, American's oppose Canada joining the US by a margin of two to one.

 

To get a better understanding of being next door to the US and how it defines Canada, people should read the 2003 book written by Canadian political economist, professor and author James Laxer.  The book was titled The Border: Canada, the U.S. and Dispatches from the 49th Parallel and examined the Canada-US relationship in the context of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.  During that politically volatile period there were voices (mostly from business and right wing politicians) calling for greater integration and lowering of security barriers between Canada and the US for the sake of economic security.  But the arguments put forth by Laxer made a very compelling case for why Canada and the US should never consider giving up its independence, and remain separate nations.

He contended that borders act as brake points which limit the power of the state and allow divergent ideas to find a larger field in which to germinate and grow.  In the post-September 11th world, it asked pointed questions.  Will Canadians acquiesce to US pressure and allow policies to be implemented that violate Canada’s liberal values?  Are Canadians willing to allow our priorities, our values, and our society to be subservient to the political priorities of the US?  Do we continue into the 21st century as a sovereign, independent nation?

All these questions are more relevant now in the context of Trump's economic threats than they were in 2003 or any other time during the intervening years.

Of course in the years since Laxer wrote his book some of those questions have been answered.  Under both Liberal and Conservative governments the answers to those questions have respectively been “no", “no" and “yes”.

Given the questions and discussions that have been raised by the current debate about defending Canadian sovereignty against an imperialist American president, it is only appropriate that James Laxer's views on the importance of maintaining a division between Canada and the United States be given a second look, so that Canadians can see the counter arguments to the idea of a Canada-US merger, and especially so in light of threats by the incoming US president who believes that all nations should be subservient to American interests.

 

© 2025 The View From Here.  © 2025 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

*********************

T  H  E      B  O  R  D  E  R  :  

Canada, the U.S. and Dispatches 

from the 49^th Parallel

 

A Critical Analysis

 By Fareed Khan

March 2005

______________________________________________________________

“If good fences make good neighbours, do we have the sort of fence that will allow us to maintain neighbourly relations with the world’s only superpower?”

With this question highlighted on the inside cover of his new book The Border, noted Canadian political scientist James Laxer sets out on a journey to discover what it means to be Canadian when you share a frontier with the political, economic, military and cultural behemoth that is the United States.

In The Border, Laxer paints a complex picture about the boundary separating Canada from the United States. Using personal experiences and observations from travelling back and forth across various border points over an eighteen month period, Laxer raises important questions about Canada’s historic relationship with our continental neighbour, as well as how that relationship will evolve in the 21st century.  In a journey that takes him from Campobello Island on the east coast to Point Roberts on the west coast and up to the Yukon-Alaska boundary, Laxer illustrates that sharing a border with the U.S. has been an exercise in fear, frustration, tolerance and patience whether you are talking about the decades following the American Revolution or the months following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.  In addition, by recounting the historic and contemporary political, economic, social and cultural factors that led to the defining of the Canada-U.S. border he further illustrates how an invisible line can define the past, present and future of the northern half of this continent.

The Border can be divided into two sections.  The first section mostly deals with the Canada-U.S. relationship before the September 11, 2001, while the second section deals with the period after that date.

Laxer provides this frame of reference by explaining in the preface his intentions when he set out to write this book.  He states that it was, “. . . in an age that has now passed – the less fearful time prior to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington D.C.” (p. 1)

However, he ends the preface by noting that, “My approach to the book changed after September 11.  In the end I was afforded a unique perspective on the border before and after a date when the world changed.  For North America, September 11 brought on a twin crisis, that of the role of the Unites States in the world, and that of Canada’s relationship with the Unites States. The Border addresses that twin crisis.” (p. 3)

 

By declaring this at the outset Laxer establishes a moment in time which he uses to focus the analysis of the relationship that has existed between Canada and the U.S. over the past two centuries.  This reference point itself acts like the border between Canada and the U.S., becoming the doorway between a “simpler” more “innocent” period of the cross-border relationship and a new period of the relationship  after “the world changed”.

However, this perception must be viewed as a paradox.  By relating various historical and contemporary events, interspersed with personal border anecdotes of his journey, Laxer reveals that simplicity and innocence can hardly be the terms used to describe the history of the Canada-U.S. relationship whether before or after September 11, 2001.

Although the terrorist attacks are a defining event in the history of the U.S. and how it has affected its relationship with Canada, I believe that Laxer demonstrates there have been many more important defining moments in Canadian and American history that have had a greater impact on the relationship between the two countries.  Throughout the book he relates some of these major events including: the Loyalist experience after the American Revolution, the outcome of the War of 1812, the Canadian view of the U.S. Civil War, Confederation, Prohibition, the Cold War, Quebec separatism, and more recently the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

 

All of these are seminal events that have defined the Canada-U.S. relationship and they are all events that begs the question, what does the border mean and what does it mean for Canadians?  In a strictly technical sense the Canada-U.S. border is a mutually agreed upon arrangement between two parties that define the limits within the geographic mass of North America based on a set of historic, political, social, cultural, economic and physical circumstances.  This arrangement exists only as long as each party remains committed to it.  In a broader sense, however, Laxer demonstrates that the border means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

For many Canadians the border is an abstract political concept that guarantees the sovereignty and independence of the political entity that is Canada.  It has allowed this country the freedom to become a society that, despite assertions (legitimate and otherwise) about the dominating nature of our southern neighbour, is separate from the U.S., and definitely different.  As Laxer states, because of the border Canadians can control their own political, economic and cultural destiny.  It is essential to who we are as a people and because of it the quality of life of the average Canadian is superior to that enjoyed south of the border.

For others, however, the border has a totally different meaning.  For these people (primarily Canada’s business and economic elites and the political right) the border is seen as a barrier to Canada’s economic growth and prosperity.  Laxer refers to these as the “deep integrationists” – those interested in the integration of Canadian policies with those of the U.S.   Although not a new idea, this idea seems to have more advocates today than in past decades.

These Canadians call for the elimination of Canadian customs and immigration controls, harmonized visa, refugee and security policies, taxes lowered to the same levels as those in the U.S., and less government restrictions on the way businesses can operate.  In effect these Canadians call for policies that would result in the loss of Canadian nationhood, and would lead to an effective loss of Canada’s independence resulting in the Canadian Parliament merely being a rubber stamp for policies made in Washington D.C.  According to Laxer, these are the same elites that supported the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement – two policies that have led to a diminishing of Canadian sovereignty.  He also refers to these Canadians as a potential “fifth column” – Canadians who are active in promoting the merging of Canada with the United States.

As an example of the lack of commitment these Canadians have to their country, Laxer cites the fact that the smoke had barely cleared after the September 11th terrorist attacks when Canada’s political right and corporate interests were, “. . . quick off the mark making the argument that the world had changed and that Canada needed to press for a wide-ranging deal with the United States to promote much closer North American integration.” (p. 259)

These arguments are based mainly on economic factors and do not appear to take into consideration that nationhood is about more than just the bottom line, and that the border is not there as a mere inconvenience for Canadian business elites.

Laxer counters the integrationist argument by stating that in light of U.S. government actions after September 11th that have curtailed American civil liberties and violated the U.S. Constitution, Canada needs the protection of our border with the U.S. now more than ever.  By describing the damage that has occurred to some of the key pillars of America’s liberal-democratic traditions, he makes us witnesses to what could be the nascent footsteps of  neo-fascism in the U.S. that  can only be kept out of Canada by ensuring that our southern border remains intact and our sovereignty protected.

Since that fateful September morning, as issues related to “homeland” and border security have dominated discussions between the two nations, Laxer also notes that there are voices that have been and still are opposed to greater Canada-U.S. integration.  These voices see Canada heading down the road of “Finlandization” – where Canada would need U.S. agreement to implement policies that impact on American interests – a situation similar to the relationship between Finland and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The Border cuts across a wide field of history and politics, and it illustrates the left-wing bent of its author on political, economic, social and cultural issues.  It is a book authored by an academic that is not an academic book.  This is clearly evident by the dearth of references and footnotes, and by the unwillingness to offer a fair criticism of Canada on matters where there is heavy criticism of the United States (e.g. slavery, civil rights violations).  It is also illustrated by the ample of use of personal anecdotes and experiences – writing styles that are not necessarily compatible with a written work that is intended for academic reference.

This aspect of the writing jumps out at the reader in the introduction when Laxer begins by describing the view outside a railway car as he travels across the Prairies by train en route to Toronto.  He uses the same style in several later chapters.  This use of a travelogue style of writing is more indicative of someone writing for a travel publication, and although it might be disconcerting to some, I believe that this non-academic and unpretentious style makes the book accessible to a wider audience.

Laxer contends that borders act as brake points which limit the power of the state.  By being written in a style that is more accessible to the general public, The Border also acts as a brake on those who argue for fewer border limits between Canada and the United States.  It allows these ideas to find a larger field in which to germinate and grow.  In the post-September 11th world, it asks pointed questions.  Will Canadians acquiesce to U.S. pressure and allow policies to be implemented that violate Canada’s liberal-democratic traditions?  Are Canadians willing to reassert our nationhood and defend our borders, or do we allow our priorities, our values, and our society to be subservient to the political priorities of the U.S.?  Do we continue into the 21st century as a sovereign, independent nation?

In a steel plant the workers who work closest to the blast furnaces require extra protection to protect them from the intense heat of the steel-making process.  The Border illustrates that similar to the steelworker, Canada’s physical closeness to the political heat of the U.S. requires that we maintain the protection of the border in order to protect this country’s sovereignty, society, economy, and culture.

The Border is an enjoyable if controversial read, and it should be on the bookshelves of anyone who feels that Canada needs to be protected from the overwhelming presence of the our neighbour to the south.

© Fareed W. Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

______________________________________________________________

 

It should be noted that since the publication of Laxer's book in 2003 a number of events have taken place that raise the question of whether in a globalized and technologically integrated world where trade is the lifeblood of the Canadian economy, can a nation as small as Canada ever be truly protected within its borders and pursue policies independent of the interests and pressures of its largest trading partners and international corporations.  Some of those events in addition to Donald Trump being re-elected to a second term as president include the following:

• negotiations to implement the Security and Prosperity Partnership in North America;
• Canada's discussions to ratify the FIPA treaty with China;
• revelations that the American National Security Agency illegally spied on anyone communicating with those living in the U.S. and bugged the foreign missions of allies in Europe and at the United Nations;
• possible collusion by Canada's Communications Security Establishment with the American NSA to spy on Canadians;
• the debate over the Keystone XL pipeline and further developing the Alberta tar sands despite it's greenhouse gas footprint;
• The Trans Pacific Partnership trade treaty and how it would give corporations leverage to bully governments; and 
• numerous other public policy issues too numerous to mention.

This begs the question, what do Canadians need to do to ensure that what is done in the name of Canada to protect its borders is done in such a way that those who benefit are not just the rich, the connected and the powerful, but also the more than 95% of Canadians who fall into the category of middle and lower income earners -- people who have seen their incomes essentially stagnate since the 1990s as the rich have gotten richer and the gaps in wealth and income have reached historic levels.

© 2025 The View From Here.  © 2025 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

Trump's hostility towards Canada telegraphs possibility of future aggression and attacks on Canadian sovereignty

The dismissiveness with which Trump treats relations with nations that are friends and allies, glossing over tactless comments as jokes or misunderstandings, is reminiscent of other world leaders who have used bullying, threats and aggression to assert dominance and control.

 

By Fareed Khan

 

In the realm of international relations, political rhetoric matters.  Words, especially those coming from the leaders of nations, carry weight and can serve as precursors to actions.  Donald Trump's return to the American presidency four years after a tumultuous first term, characterized by divisive comments about allies and threats against those who wronged him, raises alarming questions about the future of US-Canada relations. 

 

In light of his recent belittling remarks regarding Canada's sovereignty, and the potential for aggressive action against Canada — a neighbour, long time ally, and largest trading partner — should be taken seriously. American aggression against Canada is not merely a hypothetical scenario but a plausible outcome given Trump's erratic behavior, his lack of respect for political and diplomatic conventions, and his history of treating international relations as transactions rather than friendships.

A hostile comment passed off as a joke

At a recent event to honour Trump's political triumphs, he doubled down on comments that can only be interpreted as mockery towards Canada and Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau.  During the Fox Nation's "Patriot of the Year" ceremony, Trump repeated a remark that Canada should consider becoming the "51st state" and encouraged a chant from the audience that derided Canada's status as an independent nation.  While this comment has been framed as a joke by Trump insiders, they reflect a dismissive attitude towards one of America's closest allies and sends a troubling message that undermines Canadian sovereignty.

These comments followed his threats to impose a staggering 25% tariff on Canadian imports to the US in response to an unfounded claim that Canada was failing to stem the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants into the US.  This rhetoric echoes Trump's longstanding pattern of using fear and hostility to control narratives and assert dominance, not just over individuals but entire nations.  He appears to perceive Canada not as a partner, but as an entity that must bend to American whims, a notion that is fundamentally colonial and imperialist in its orientation.

The realities of tariffs and economic consequences

Should Trump follow through with his tariff threat, the repercussions for the Canadian economy would be dire given Canada’s dependence on the US as it’s largest trading partner.  Retaliation by the Canadian government would be inevitable, and the likelihood of an escalating trade war would result in ominous consequences for both nations, with retaliatory measures by Canada inviting a further response from a Trump administration, fuelling a cycle of hostility that would severely damage Canada-US relations.

 

Trump's propensity for rash reactions to perceived provocations cannot be underestimated.  If history has shown us anything, it is that he views conflicts as power struggles that need to be won at all costs.  Thus, if a trade war ensues, the escalation could veer into territory with ominous implications for Canadian sovereignty.

The possible threat of military action

Trumps aggressive attitude towards Canada and other allied nations during his first administration signals how he would behave during his second administration, and is not the sort of thing one expects from the leader of a nation that is a friend.  It is something one sees mainly in politicians with a far right, and some would say fascist, world view.  And given that fears surrounding Trump's fascist tendencies have been highlighted in public statements by former Trump administration officials, as well as by his ex-wife Ivana Trump, all of whom alleged that he was a fascist and admired authoritarian figures such as Adolf Hitler, should raise dozens of red flags in Ottawa and across the country about what will happen when Trump is in full control of the US government.

 

The dismissiveness with which Trump treats relations with nations that are friends and allies, glossing over tactless comments as jokes or misunderstandings, is reminiscent of other world leaders who have used bullying, threats and aggression to assert dominance and control.  The last hundred years is replete with examples of national leaders who, when diplomacy failed, resorted to sabre rattling and even military interventions to achieve their objectives.  As disturbing and unlikely as it may sound, the undercurrent of Trump's rhetoric could easily be a precursor to military action against Canada — especially in the context of controlling resources such as fresh water and critical mineral resources of value to the US and its military.

The role of military command and loyalty

Trump's proposed cabinet and the allegiance he seeks from those he is nominating to senior positions raises further concerns. His inclination to fill key positions with loyalists — individuals more interested in serving Trump's agenda than in upholding democratic tenets or maintaining positive relations with allies — means that checks and balances within the US political system are eroding.  When in office this could also extend to his choice of military leaders, who historically are supposed to serve the national interest and defend the US Constitution.  However, if Trump's regime consists of zealots with a belief in American exceptionalism and superiority, we may find them willing to support aggressive actions against non-existent threats.

Imagining a scenario where US military forces are directed against Canada is not as far-fetched as it appears under a fascist minded Trump administration.  Once feeling threatened economically or politically Trump may resort to using all US resources including the military to assert dominance over Canada either through threats or direct action. 

 

A Call to Canadian Vigilance

The growing body of evidence — both from public statements and actions taken by Trump since he first entered politics — demands that Canadian officials reassess their approach to dealing with him over the next four years.  Trump's penchant for belittling Canada, paired with the very real threat of economic warfare, must be viewed as a potential precursor to more aggressive actions.  Taking into account his apparent affinity for authoritarian and militaristic leaders it is imperative for Canada to enhance its defence strategies and alliances with allies, particularly those in NATO, that prioritize sovereignty and democratic values.

Canada's leaders must prepare for all scenarios while addressing domestic political concerns affected by a potential trade war or even more aggressive US actions.  Engaging with international bodies, strengthening partnerships with other allied nations, and fostering resilience at home will be vital to safeguard Canada and its interests.

Canadian leaders have been complacent about the Canada-US relationship for far too long.  In the coming years diplomatic niceties may not suffice with a US leader like Trump, a man who sees relationships as transactional, subject to capricious whims.  

Trump’s 51st state comment is a bad joke — until such a time it isn’t.  Therefore, it is incumbent upon Canadian leaders to take Trump’s tariff threats seriously in ways they haven't considered before, and to prepare to deal with the US in ways that haven't been contemplated since the 19th century.

The time to act to defend Canadian sovereignty from US aggression is now, and the potential for American aggression arising out of an economic dispute should not be dismissed as hyperbole. In a scenario where Canada-US relations could be upended it is better to prepare for the worst while hoping for the best.

 

 © 2024 The View From Here.  © 2024 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

The Eagle, The Beaver and Border Politics: Can Canada Remain Sovereign In A World Dominated by the U.S. and China

Updated October 7, 2013  11:04 PM

It's time for Canada to merge with the United States and create one giant capitalist economy on the top half of North America in order to be competitive globally in a 21st Century that will likely to be dominated by China.

At least that is the argument being put forth by National Post columnist Diane Francis in her most recent book Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country.

Related:

Diane Francis’ plan to merge Canada and the United States has many, many problems

As the editor for the Financial Post and then columnist for the National Post newspapers over the years Francis never made any secret of her desire for a less regulated Canadian economy that more closely matched what exists in the United States.  Having more freedom to conduct business would be better for the bottom line and better for Canada according to Francis.

As an American-Canadian Francis writes passionately about the many historical and cultural ties that bind her country of birth and her adopted country. Merger of the Century makes the case for erasing the formal distinction between the two entirely.  The key justification she puts forth for the merger is that this would be the best way for Canada to counter the economic threat of countries like China and Russia, “which use state-controlled sovereign wealth funds to buy control of resources and key industries of other nations.”  "The best option for the U.S. and Canada to survive the new economic reality would be to devise protective policies and to merge into one gigantic nation," Francis argues.

However, if you examine the online responses to stories of Francis’ proposal it has been overwhelmingly negative.  Comments such as "Not in this lifetime" and "Over my dead body" pretty much sum up the sentiments expressed.

Related:

What are we worth to the U.S.? (About $17-trillion)

North American Union? Diane Francis Pushes U.S.-Canada Merger

Could Canada and America Ever Merge?

Writer’s idea that Canada and U.S. should merge likely DOA

Diane Francis on a Canada-U.S. merger

Seeing the story about Diane Francis' book reminded me about a book written by Canadian political economist, professor and author James Laxer a few years back.  The book was titled The Border: Canada, the U.S. and Dispatches from the 49th Parallel and was published in 2003 only a couple of years after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001.  During that politically volatile period there were voices (mostly from business and right wing politicians) calling for greater integration and lowering of security barriers between Canada and the U.S. for the sake of the economy.  But the arguments put forth by Laxer made a very compelling case for why there is a real need for a border between Canada and the U.S.

He contended that borders act as brake points which limit the power of the state and allowed divergent ideas to find a larger field in which to germinate and grow.  In the post-September 11th world, it asked pointed questions.  Will Canadians acquiesce to U.S. pressure and allow policies to be implemented that violate Canada’s liberal-democratic traditions?  Are Canadians willing to reassert our nationhood and defend our borders, or do we allow our priorities, our values, and our society to be subservient to the political priorities of the U.S.?  Do we continue into the 21st century as a sovereign, independent nation? 

Of course in the years since Laxer wrote his book some of those questions have been answered.  Under the Conservative government of Stephen Harper the answers to those questions have respectively been “yes”, “no” and “maybe”.

Given the questions and discussions that have been raised by the Diane Francis book I thought it only appropriate that James Laxer's views on the importance of maintaining a division between Canada and the United States be given a second airing so that people could see the counter arguments to the idea of keeping Canada and the United States as separate political and cultural entities.

 - Fareed Khan 

*********************

T  H  E      B  O  R  D  E  R  :  

Canada, the U.S. and Dispatches 

from the 49^th Parallel

 

A Critical Analysis By: Fareed Khan

______________________________________________________________

“If good fences make good neighbours, do we have the sort of fence that will allow us to maintain neighbourly relations with the world’s only superpower?”

With this question highlighted on the inside cover of his new book The Border, noted Canadian political scientist James Laxer sets out on a journey to discover what it means to be Canadian when you share a frontier with the political, economic, military and cultural behemoth that is the United States.

In The Border, Laxer paints a complex picture about the boundary separating Canada from the United States. Using personal experiences and observations from travelling back and forth across various border points over an eighteen month period, Laxer raises important questions about Canada’s historic relationship with our continental neighbour, as well as how that relationship will evolve in the 21st century.  In a journey that takes him from Campobello Island on the east coast to Point Roberts on the west coast and up to the Yukon-Alaska boundary, Laxer illustrates that sharing a border with the U.S. has been an exercise in fear, frustration, tolerance and patience whether you are talking about the decades following the American Revolution or the months following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.  In addition, by recounting the historic and contemporary political, economic, social and cultural factors that led to the defining of the Canada-U.S. border he further illustrates how an invisible line can define the past, present and future of the northern half of this continent.

The Border can be divided into two sections.  The first section mostly deals with the Canada-U.S. relationship before the September 11, 2001, while the second section deals with the period after that date.

Laxer provides this frame of reference by explaining in the preface his intentions when he set out to write this book.  He states that it was, “. . . in an age that has now passed – the less fearful time prior to the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington D.C.” (p. 1)

However, he ends the preface by noting that, “My approach to the book changed after September 11.  In the end I was afforded a unique perspective on the border before and after a date when the world changed.  For North America, September 11 brought on a twin crisis, that of the role of the Unites States in the world, and that of Canada’s relationship with the Unites States. The Border addresses that twin crisis.” (p. 3)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

By declaring this at the outset Laxer establishes a moment in time which he uses to focus the analysis of the relationship that has existed between Canada and the U.S. over the past two centuries.  This reference point itself acts like the border between Canada and the U.S., becoming the doorway between a “simpler” more “innocent” period of the cross-border relationship and a new period of the relationship  after “the world changed”.

However, this perception must be viewed as a paradox.  By relating various historical and contemporary events, interspersed with personal border anecdotes of his journey, Laxer reveals that simplicity and innocence can hardly be the terms used to describe the history of the Canada-U.S. relationship whether before or after September 11, 2001.

Although the terrorist attacks are a defining event in the history of the U.S. and how it has affected its relationship with Canada, I believe that Laxer demonstrates there have been many more important defining moments in Canadian and American history that have had a greater impact on the relationship between the two countries.  Throughout the book he relates some of these major events including: the Loyalist experience after the American Revolution, the outcome of the War of 1812, the Canadian view of the U.S. Civil War, Confederation, Prohibition, the Cold War, Quebec separatism, and more recently the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.

 

All of these are seminal events that have defined the Canada-U.S. relationship and they are all events that begs the question, what does the border mean and what does it mean for Canadians?  In a strictly technical sense the Canada-U.S. border is a mutually agreed upon arrangement between two parties that define the limits within the geographic mass of North America based on a set of historic, political, social, cultural, economic and physical circumstances.  This arrangement exists only as long as each party remains committed to it.  In a broader sense, however, Laxer demonstrates that the border means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

For many Canadians the border is an abstract political concept that guarantees the sovereignty and independence of the political entity that is Canada.  It has allowed this country the freedom to become a society that, despite assertions (legitimate and otherwise) about the dominating nature of our southern neighbour, is separate from the U.S., and definitely different.  As Laxer states, because of the border Canadians can control their own political, economic and cultural destiny.  It is essential to who we are as a people and because of it the quality of life of the average Canadian is superior to that enjoyed south of the border.

For others, however, the border has a totally different meaning.  For these people (primarily Canada’s business and economic elites and the political right) the border is seen as a barrier to Canada’s economic growth and prosperity.  Laxer refers to these as the “deep integrationists” – those interested in the integration of Canadian policies with those of the U.S.   Although not a new idea, this idea seems to have more advocates today than in past decades.

These Canadians call for the elimination of Canadian customs and immigration controls, harmonized visa, refugee and security policies, taxes lowered to the same levels as those in the U.S., and less government restrictions on the way businesses can operate.  In effect these Canadians call for policies that would result in the loss of Canadian nationhood, and would lead to an effective loss of Canada’s independence resulting in the Canadian Parliament merely being a rubber stamp for policies made in Washington D.C.  According to Laxer, these are the same elites that supported the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement – two policies that have led to a diminishing of Canadian sovereignty.  He also refers to these Canadians as a potential “fifth column” – Canadians who are active in promoting the merging of Canada with the United States.

As an example of the lack of commitment these Canadians have to their country, Laxer cites the fact that the smoke had barely cleared after the September 11th terrorist attacks when Canada’s political right and corporate interests were, “. . . quick off the mark making the argument that the world had changed and that Canada needed to press for a wide-ranging deal with the United States to promote much closer North American integration.” (p. 259)

These arguments are based mainly on economic factors and do not appear to take into consideration that nationhood is about more than just the bottom line, and that the border is not there as a mere inconvenience for Canadian business elites.

Laxer counters the integrationist argument by stating that in light of U.S. government actions after September 11th that have curtailed American civil liberties and violated the U.S. Constitution, Canada needs the protection of our border with the U.S. now more than ever.  By describing the damage that has occurred to some of the key pillars of America’s liberal-democratic traditions, he makes us witnesses to what could be the nascent footsteps of  neo-fascism in the U.S. that  can only be kept out of Canada by ensuring that our southern border remains intact and our sovereignty protected.

Since that fateful September morning, as issues related to “homeland” and border security have dominated discussions between the two nations, Laxer also notes that there are voices that have been and still are opposed to greater Canada-U.S. integration.  These voices see Canada heading down the road of “Finlandization” – where Canada would need U.S. agreement to implement policies that impact on American interests – a situation similar to the relationship between Finland and the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

The Border cuts across a wide field of history and politics, and it illustrates the left-wing bent of its author on political, economic, social and cultural issues.  It is a book authored by an academic that is not an academic book.  This is clearly evident by the dearth of references and footnotes, and by the unwillingness to offer a fair criticism of Canada on matters where there is heavy criticism of the United States (e.g. slavery, civil rights violations).  It is also illustrated by the ample of use of personal anecdotes and experiences – writing styles that are not necessarily compatible with a written work that is intended for academic reference.

This aspect of the writing jumps out at the reader in the introduction when Laxer begins by describing the view outside a railway car as he travels across the Prairies by train en route to Toronto.  He uses the same style in several later chapters.  This use of a travelogue style of writing is more indicative of someone writing for a travel publication, and although it might be disconcerting to some, I believe that this non-academic and unpretentious style makes the book accessible to a wider audience.

Laxer contends that borders act as brake points which limit the power of the state.  By being written in a style that is more accessible to the general public, The Border also acts as a brake on those who argue for fewer border limits between Canada and the United States.  It allows these ideas to find a larger field in which to germinate and grow.  In the post-September 11th world, it asks pointed questions.  Will Canadians acquiesce to U.S. pressure and allow policies to be implemented that violate Canada’s liberal-democratic traditions?  Are Canadians willing to reassert our nationhood and defend our borders, or do we allow our priorities, our values, and our society to be subservient to the political priorities of the U.S.?  Do we continue into the 21st century as a sovereign, independent nation?

In a steel plant the workers who work closest to the blast furnaces require extra protection to protect them from the intense heat of the steel-making process.  The Border illustrates that similar to the steelworker, Canada’s physical closeness to the political heat of the U.S. requires that we maintain the protection of the border in order to protect this country’s sovereignty, society, economy, and culture.

The Border is an enjoyable if controversial read, and it should be on the bookshelves of anyone who feels that Canada needs to be protected from the overwhelming presence of the our neighbour to the south.

© Fareed W. Khan.  All Rights Reserved.

______________________________________________________________

 

It should be noted that since the publication of Laxer's book in 2003 a number of events have taken place that raise the question of whether in a globalized and technologically integrated world where trade is the lifeblood of the Canadian economy, can a nation as small as Canada ever be truly protected within its borders and pursue policies independent of the interests and pressures of its largest trading partners and glointernational corporations.  Some of those events include the following:

• negotiations to implement the Security and Prosperity Partnership in North America;
• Canada's discussions to ratify the FIPA treaty with China;
• revelations that the American National Security Agency illegally spied on anyone communicating with those living in the U.S. and bugged the foreign missions of allies in Europe and at the United Nations;
• possible collusion by Canada's Communications Security Establishment with the American NSA to spy on Canadians;
• the debate over the Keystone XL pipeline and further developing the Alberta tar sands despite it's greenhouse gas footprint;
• Stephen Harper's Conservatives withdrawing Canada from the Kyoto Treaty on climate change (the only country to do so) with no viable alternatives to address Canada's greenhouse gas emissions;
• The Trans Pacific Partnership trade treaty and how it would give corporations leverage to bully governments; and 
• numerous other public policy issues too numerous to mention.

This begs the question, what do Canadians need to do to ensure that what is done in the name of Canada to protect its borders is done in such a way that those who benefit are not just the rich, the connected and the powerful, but also the 99% of Canadians who fall into the category of middle and lower income Canadians -- people who have seen their incomes essentially stagnate over the past two decades.

© F. Khan.  All rights reserved.