As Canada marks the 60th anniversary of its flag Canadians need to unite against the fascist agenda of Donald Trump

Applying the label of "fascist" to Trump is not a casual accusation.  It is a descriptor that carries the weight of history, a term that evokes images of oppression, authoritarianism, and the suppression of dissent.   And in this context, it is an accurate assessment of the man and not hyperbole.  

 

By Fareed Khan

 

February 15th marks the 60th anniversary of Canada's iconic maple leaf flag.  It’s a day to celebrate the values that it represents – diversity, inclusivity, equity, pluralism and compassion.  Yet, as Canadians gather to commemorate this milestone, a chilling reality casts a long shadow over the "Great White North".   The threat of Donald Trump, a "malignant, narcissistic sociopath" whose rhetoric and actions since being sworn in as US president for the second time, echoes the darkest chapters of modern history, one where fascism was ascendant, and one which demands resolute action.

Trump's increasingly hostile posture towards Canada since being re-elected has alarmed and angered Canadians from coast to coast.  His threats to wreck this country’s economy with punishing tariffs and annex Canada as the “51st state” represent a direct assault on this nation’s existence as a free and sovereign nation and all that it represents.

Since being sworn in only a few weeks ago, his presidency has been punctuated by a constant stream of inflammatory pronouncements and policies, and is a masterclass in demagoguery and divisiveness.   His executive orders targeting migrants, refugees, the LGBTQ2 community, women, Muslims, and countless other vulnerable minorities in the US are also threats to those communities in Canada with Trump’s unofficial declaration of war on this country and its people.  The barrage of hate, misogyny, transphobia, and xenophobia that has emanated from the Oval Office, along with his ultimatums and decrees to Canada and other nations, are the actions of someone who wants to be a tyrant and cares little about the norms of diplomacy and international relations.

Applying the label of "fascist" to Trump is not a casual accusation.  It is a descriptor that carries the weight of history, a term that evokes images of oppression, authoritarianism, and the suppression of dissent.   And in this context, it is an accurate assessment of the man and not hyperbole.   Eleven former high-ranking officials from Trump's first administration, including his longest-serving chief of staff and the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have publicly acknowledged the alarming reality that Trump is a fascist.   Their insider perspectives paint a picture of a man driven by a lust for power, contempt for democratic norms, and a willingness to use the powers of the presidency to violate treaties, laws and fundamental rights in pursuit of his personal and political agenda.

To millions of Canadian immigrants Trump’s threats against Canada are a threat to their homes, their livelihoods and their families.   They or their parents chose Canada by design, choosing to be Canadian not American, seeking better lives for themselves and their children, and refuge from the very ideologies Trump embodies.  To them, and indeed to all patriotic Canadians, Trump's threats are not just political manoeuvring, they are a direct assault on Canada's sovereignty, freedom and independence.

Trump's repeated and increasingly ominous musings about annexing Canada are not the bluster of a sane politician.  They are, rather, a window into the mind of a man whose sociopathic tendencies were laid bare for all to see in the 2017 book "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump".   It offered a chilling diagnosis of the most powerful politician in the world.   Twenty-seven psychiatrists and mental health professionals, using their expertise, concluded that Trump poses a grave threat not just to the United States but to the entire world.  They described him as impulsive, immature, and incompetent, prone to sliding into the role of a tyrant when wielding ultimate power.  They characterized his sociopathic characteristics as undeniable, his malignant narcissism as profound, and warned that his unchecked behaviour could lead to devastating global consequences, including World War III.

Trump is not a man with whom Canada can engage in a conventional diplomatic dance like it would with a normal national leader.   He is a man who, through his words and actions, has declared himself an enemy to Canada with his tariff threats and musings about absorbing Canada into the US as the the 51st state.   So to this nation's political leaders the message is clear, we must treat Trump as the existential threat that he is and prepare to defend our nation with all means available.

Canada's news media also have a critical role to play in the battle for the body and soul of this country.   It is time for journalists and media executives to use the same frank language to talk about Trump that those with the most intimate knowledge about him have used.   The media must tell the whole story of the fascist sociopath occupying the Oval Office, and must stop couching the threat that he is in polite language.   They must convey the very real danger that we all face, and awaken the Canadian public to the peril that is upon us.

During World War II, over 45,000 Canadian soldiers, sailors, and airmen sacrificed their lives to defend this nation from a fascist threat.   Millions more from allied nations also paid the ultimate price, and their courage and sacrifice preserved Canada's freedom.  But freedom is never a permanent state.   It is a constant struggle, that requires vigilance and the willingness to confront evil where it appears and defend what is right.   To honor their legacy, we must stand firm against the resurgence of the hateful ideology of fascism embodied in Donald Trump, and refuse to let the very costly lessons of history be forgotten.

This 60th anniversary of Canada's maple leaf flag demands more than a simple celebration and patriotic flag waving.   It must be a moment for sober reflection, for unity, and for action in defence of this nation and its people.   Every Canadian who loves this country, who believes in the principles of justice and equality, who is committed to the vision of the just society that former prime minister Pierre Trudeau articulated over 50 years ago, must rise to this challenge.   We must stand together, shoulder to shoulder against Donald Trump, and defend our flag, our country, and our sovereignty against this fascist, racist, misogynistic, and transphobic demagogue who seeks to destroy our nation.

The time for decisive action to counter Trump's threats against Canada is now if Canadians want the red and white maple leaf to fly over a sovereign Canada for generations to come.  To borrow from the national anthem, “O Canada.  We stand on guard for thee”.

 

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

Trump’s deranged imperialist ambitions are a threat to world peace

The ramifications of Trump's sociopathic inclinations . . . hint at a greater mental imbalance that could result in armed conflict.  His authoritarian style, dictatorial leanings, and empathy deficit reveal a man consumed by self-interest rather than concern for the collective well being of either the American people or the global community.  

 

By Fareed Khan

 

The relationship the United States has with the world has always been complex, but no recent American leader has muddled this relationship more than Donald Trump.  Amidst his myriad of controversial statements and actions since being re-elected, Trump's repeated musings about annexing Canada, taking ownership of Greenland, and the US retaking control of the Panama Canal reveal a fundamental disconnect with reality and a disturbing inclination toward autocracy.  As the world watches, it becomes increasingly clear that Trump's behaviour is not just a product of bombastic rhetoric.  Furthermore, it aligns with the insights of clinicians and first-hand accounts from those who worked closely with him that paint a portrait of a deranged sociopath posing a serious threat to peace and stability in the western hemisphere and around the world.

 

At the heart of Trump's approach to geopolitics lies an alarming disregard for the sovereignty of nations and a seeming reckless ambition for territorial expansion regardless of the consequences. His statements about annexing Canada sound bizarre, almost comical, and yet they reveal a mindset that views neighbouring countries not as independent sovereign entities, allies or friends, but as territories ripe for acquisition and exploitation.  

Trump’s remarks, peppered throughout his first presidency and since he was re-elected, evoke images of an imperialistic era reminiscent of tyrants rather than democratically elected leaders.  Claims that the US should own Greenland or that it would retake control of the Panama Canal serve to further illustrate this disturbing trend.  Such sentiments, particularly from the president of a global superpower, have a ripple effect, undermining international relationships and the principles of international law and diplomacy.  Such statements by the world’s most powerful nation also give ideas to adversarial nations like China and Russia that might makes right, and that more powerful nations can use force to take over less powerful nations.

In the 2017 book “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,” 27 psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health professionals described the “clear and present danger” that Trump's mental health posed to the “nation and individual well being”.  These contributors articulated concerns that his apparent narcissism and sociopathic traits could lead to dangerously unpredictable behaviour.  Their analysis suggested that when someone in power exhibits a blend of grandiosity, lack of empathy, and disregard for the consequences of their actions the potential for catastrophic decisions rises exponentially.  Trump’s cavalier discussions about territorial acquisition exemplify this mindset — where diplomacy is replaced by fantasies of control and conquest.

Moreover, the assessments of former senior officials from the first Trump administration provide a chilling look into his character.  In interviews with The New York Times and The Atlantic in October, John Kelly, Trump’s longest serving chief of staff, warned that the man met the definition of a fascist, and that during his first presidency, he suggested that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler “did some good things.”  Such assertions — from insiders who once aligned with him — indicate a disturbing mindset.  Rather than being a mere aberration of presidential behavior, these claims reflect a coherent psychological profile stretching beyond just personal traits to encompass ideological beliefs that could have long-term ramifications for global peace.  His admiration for Hitler and other authoritarian leaders — projected through flippant comments and praise — highlights an affinity for power structures reminiscent of fascism.

The testimony received during both impeachment hearings and those related to the January 6 insurrection further solidifies this understanding of Trump's psyche.  Witnesses described a man willing to stoke violence and division for personal gain, a behavior that could have devastating consequences not just domestically but also on the international stage.  Such an approach to governing results in the trampling of democratic principles in favor of self-serving narratives which in turn leads to a breakdown of trust — both within the US and with nations that are friends and allies.

 

 

 https://www.axios.com/2019/10/28/donald-trump-world-peace-threat-kim-putin-xi-maduro

Former White House officials consistently pointed to Trump's unpredictable nature as a catalyst for destabilization in international relations.  His tendency to make unilateral decisions or uninformed and unhinged proclamations, usually without evidence or expert consultation fostered chaos, not just for domestic policy but also in America's global standing.  Consequently, statements suggesting that US should have authority over territories outside its jurisdiction not only unsettles nations it also compromise the very foundation of the international legal order which has prevented another world war for 80 years.

Consider the implications of a world where the leader of the US (or any powerful nation) has the right to dictate the fate of other nations based on personal whims.  In an era where global cooperation is more crucial than ever in confronting issues like climate change or pandemics, Trump's insistence on making irrational claims on the territory of other nations showcases a profound disconnect with the realities of international relations and governance, suggesting an imminent threat to peaceful relations with neighbours and allies.

The ramifications of Trump's sociopathic inclinations extend beyond mere bluster.  They hint at a greater mental imbalance that could result in armed conflict.  His authoritarian style, dictatorial leanings, and empathy deficit reveal a man consumed by self-interest rather than concern for the collective wellbeing of either the American people or the global community.  As the world continues to try to grapple with issues like human rights, trade, and security, leaders unable to acknowledge the fundamentals of cooperation and respect — such as Trump — pose a direct threat to world peace.

As we watch Trump begin to undo American laws and institutions that protect the underprivileged, the marginalized and the persecuted, and as he issues ultimatums and threats to the world, it is time for world leaders, particularly those from the democratic West, to see the danger he poses to peace and stability.  His repeated statements about territorial expansion are not just idle threats, they are indicative of a psychological profile that endorses aggression in place of genuine diplomacy.  

When insults become ambitions and fantasies threaten state sovereignty global peace hangs in a delicate balance.  In such circumstances it is imperative that the lessons learned from 20th Century history and the Trump political era guide world leaders to take the actions necessary to defend peace and stability and keep the world free from the inane political vision of a deranged sociopath. 

© 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.

Donald Trump’s second presidency is a looming threat to Canada and the western hemisphere

If Trump believes that it is America’s right to exert control over Greenland for strategic reasons then there’s also little standing in the way of his administration taking a similar approach to Canada, Mexico or other nations in the hemisphere where the national security, economic or strategic interests of the US are prioritized above all else.  

By Fareed Khan

 

As the world stands on the precipice of a new administration in the United States, the election of Donald Trump to his second term as president raises urgent questions regarding peace and stability in the Western Hemisphere, in the context of increasing American nationalism.  Since his election in November his unpredictable musings have not been limited to very damaging economic policy proposals, but have also extended into the realm of possible violations of the territory and sovereignty of other nations, and could involve potential military aggression against friends and allies.  Under such a scenario it is imperative for Canada and its neighbouring nations to prepare for the potential fallout of Trump’s erratic behaviour, and ambitions which echo a distinctly fascistic ideology that could threaten North American unity and the sovereignty of nations surrounding the US.

Rhetoric of aggression

The threatening comments emanating from Trump and his camp are alarming.  At a dinner with Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau and some of his senior officials at his Mar-a-Lago estate in November Trump floated the ludicrous idea of making Canada the 51st state when responding to Trudeau’s comment about the devastating impact of Trump’s suggested 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, nations with which the US renegotiated a free trade agreement in 2020.  While some within the United States may laugh off these comments as a bad joke or mere politics, they breed a toxic environment of hostility that undermine long-standing cordial and stable relationship that Canada has had with the US.

A recent Leger poll released in early December in Canada, 13% of Canadians expressed support for Canada joining the US, demonstrating a disturbing inclination within a segment of the Canadian population towards Trump’s imperialistic vision.  It suggests that some Canadians are willing to sacrifice Canada’s autonomy and the freedom of their fellow Canadians for perceived benefits like lower taxes and the right to own firearms that come with American citizenship.  This mindset reflects a vulnerability within Canada’s population that can be exploited by those within the Trump movement ho wish to see Canada absorbed into the US, stripping it of its identity, culture, and independence.

Threats to sovereignty

Canada and the US have been friends and allies for well over a century, and have enjoyed a relatively peaceful and cordial relationship characterized by mutual respect.  But Trump’s blatant disregard for this history and the norms of diplomacy and international relations threatens to destabilize what has been a long-standing and mutually beneficial alliance and economic partnership.  Furthermore, the repercussions of his approach to relations between the US and other friends and allies in the hemisphere could lead to a realignment of treaties and agreements that have safeguarded the boundaries and relationships of sovereign states in North America.

Consider Trump’s ominous musings regarding the potential for American military intervention in Mexico to combat drug cartels.  Reports suggest that there are plans being contemplated within his inner circle that would disregard Mexican sovereignty and undermine international law to go after narcotics kingpins.  Such discussions raise profound concerns about American military imperialism, evoking historical memories of US interventions in Latin America that often sought to establish control rather than collaborate with neighbouring countries for mutual benefit.

The Greenland Calculus

In addition, Trump’s past fixation with controlling Greenland as an “absolute necessity for purposes of national security,” is not an isolated incident.  And given his history as a businessman it but shows a pattern of behaviour that indicates a willingness to disregard laws and legal niceties, and even the territorial integrity of other nations, if it helps him achieve his objectives.  In response to Trump’s most recent social media post about buying the territory Greenland’s prime minister made it unequivocally clear that the territory is “not for sale.”  Additionally, Denmark’s reaction, to Trump’s comments was to announce that it would significantly boost defence spending for the territory, and indicates the seriousness with which the Danish government take Trump’s rhetoric.  When Trump made a similar comment about buying Greenland in 2019 the foreign affairs spokesman for the Danish People’s Party said, “If he is truly contemplating this, then this is final proof, that he has gone mad.”

Given the proximity of Canada’s eastern Arctic territory to Greenland such posturing by Trump brings this country squarely into the frame as a player in a geopolitical game where the end result would be very bad news for all the parties involved if he decided on a military option to make his vision a reality.  And given his comments during his first term about his admiration for Hitler and other authoritarian figures, and his proclivity to do anything to get what he wants, it would be within the realm of possibility that he would violate the territorial integrity of other nations to achieve his foreign policy goals.

If Trump believes that it is America’s right to exert control over Greenland for strategic reasons then there’s also little standing in the way of his administration taking a similar approach to Canada, Mexico or other nations in the hemisphere where the national security, economic or strategic interests of the US are prioritized above all else.  Such actions could potentially lead to military mobilization that could have dire repercussions not just for North America but also for the NATO trans-Atlantic relationship, which has been the foundation that has underpinned peace and stability in Europe since after World War 2.

The threat to take back the Panama Canal

Trump’s latest target for his imperialist ambitions is Panama.  In a speech in Phoenix on December 22nd he threatened to take back the Panama Canal if that nation’s government didn’t reduce shipping fees.  This is another example of Trump’s restorationist rhetoric — an attempt to re-establish US dominance based on its imperialist past regardless of contemporary realities.  This call has reverberated poorly across Central America where it is seen as inflammatory, and risks reigniting tensions between the US and many Latin American countries, after those nations have worked hard to move past fears about the US violating their sovereignty

The Panamanian president’s emphatic response asserting that “every square meter” of the canal belongs to Panama highlights the potential for tensions to escalate into diplomatic crises across the hemisphere.  Such rhetoric destabilizes regional relationships, undermines diplomacy and political stability honed over decades, and erodes trust between the US and its neighbours.

As Canada tries to develop a strategy in response to Trump’s approach to global territorial disputes, leaders in this country must recognize that his public comments are indicative of a mindset where US foreign policy could be formulated based on his ignorance about and disregard for the norms of international relations and international law.  This is a man who seemingly cares little about diplomacy and cordial relations, and is willing to bully and threaten friends and allies to achieve his foreign policy goals regardless of the long term damage it might do.

Need for Preparedness and Solidarity

As members of the international community scan the horizon for the implications of a new Trump presidency, vigilance must become paramount for Canada and its neighbours.  The rhetoric of military intervention, annexation, and hegemonic ambition should be a warning sign to prepare for the real possibility of aggressive policies that threaten the sovereignty of Canada and other nations in the hemisphere.

The Canadian government must engage in proactive diplomacy to fortify alliances in the Latin American region and in Europe.  By fostering relationships built on mutual respect, collaboration and historic ties Canada can position itself as a regional leader committed to preserving sovereignty and peace.  There must be a concerted effort to deter the idea that America’s policy goals can be achieved through bullying, intimidation, territorial expansion or military aggression, aiming to unify voices against the fascistic impulses emanating from the US that threaten peace and stability in the Americas.

Addressing the threat of fascism

The threat that Trump’s presidency poses to the US and its neighbouring nations is symptomatic of a broader internal threat to democratic principles and the rule of law in that nation.  The suggestion that territories can be commandeered or absorbed based solely on American priorities stems from rising fascist sentiments over the last decade that have garnered traction within US politics within a the segment of society that are hard core supporters of Trump.

In “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump”, a compilation of psychiatric insights put together during his first term, professionals delineate how Trump’s character poses a risk to national and individual well-being.  The inadequacies he displays in addressing complex geopolitical issues reveal a troubling trend toward authoritarianism, where personal whims bypass logic, justice and international norms.

As such the incoming Trump administration poses a “clear and present danger” not only to the principles of democracy but also to the very sovereignty that defines Canada and its neighbours.  His upcoming presidency challenges how nations collaborate, engage, and exist alongside one another, and poses a danger to the nations which stand in the way of his imperialist policies.
 
Shaping a Path Forward

As Canada and the other nations of the Western Hemisphere stand on a precipice of uncertainty, America’s neighboring nations must come together to defend the principles of sovereignty and the shared ideals of democracy.  Canadian leaders cannot afford to be naive and hope that traditional diplomatic tactics will save Canada from an incoming US president who has been described as a “sociopath”.  Its leaders must act decisively in forming coalitions and alliances that prioritize collective security over subjugation to a superpower led by a man with the impulse control of a child and the mental acuity of someone who shuns facts and valuable intelligence.
 
The rising tide of fascism in the US, which began in his first administration, calls for strategic responses that not only prioritize peace, cooperation, and respect for national boundaries, but also demonstrate national resolve to a bully who feels he can do what he wants without consequence.  If Canada and its allies fail to sufficiently prepare for the incoming Trump presidency the consequences could extend far beyond policy disagreements, and could threaten peace and stability throughout the hemisphere.

Only through united action, strong diplomatic ties, defence alliances, and a clear stand against imperialist ambitions can Canada and its allies hope to fend off the looming perils of a second Trump administration. In the dance for power, Canadian leaders need to make sure that our borders aren’t just lines on a map but expressions of sovereignty, identity, and mutual respect for the independence of all nations.

Fareed Khan is the founder of Canadians United Against Hate, a human rights activist, and has spoken and written extensively on public policy issues affecting the lives and the rights of Canadians.

© 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.