Trump declared war on Canada upon taking office, and this country isn't prepared for the coming US invasion

The threat is not abstract or confined to some distant future, but is immediate and demands a fundamental recalibration of Canadian defence and foreign policy before it's too late. 

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this can be found on Substack. 

Since Donald Trump assumed the American presidency for his second term in January 2025, the United States has pursued a calculated campaign of economic coercion, rhetorical intimidation, and internal destabilization against Canada.  These actions amount to an undeclared war that erodes Canadian sovereignty without crossing into open military confrontation (yet).  Far from the traditional alliance built on shared defence and trade, the US-Canada relationship has been transformed into one of predation under Trump’s administration, where American power is leveraged to weaken and eventually absorb its northern neighbour. 

This is not mere speculation but a pattern evident in exorbitant tariffs on key exports, baseless accusations linking Canada to fentanyl flows into the US, allegations of Canada’s lax border insecurity, and public musings about Canada becoming the 51st state.  Regrettably the Canadian government’s hesitation in decisively and aggressively responding fuels public anxiety and highlight the urgency of the situation.

The tactics employed by Trump bear a striking resemblance to Adolf Hitler’s approach to Austria in the years leading to the 1938 Anschluss.  Hitler did not launch an immediate invasion, instead, he waged a war of nerves—a multi-year strategy of coercion, intimidation and subversion—often described as a “cold Anschluss.”  Through an aggressive propaganda campaign he portrayed Austria as a natural part of a greater German realm, funded and encouraged sympathetic factions within Austria to agitate for unification, applied economic leverage to create dependency and crisis, and issued ultimatums to the Austrian Chancellor.  This forced concessions that culminated in a rapid and essentially unopposed German troop crossing on March 12, 1938, after the Austrian government had already collapsed.  The result was a bloodless annexation that Hitler framed as inevitable and mutually beneficial.

Trump’s strategy follows a parallel script to Hitler’s.  During his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos he made claims that Canada survives only through American benevolence, while his administration coordinates with groups advocating Alberta’s separation in a manner reminiscent of Nazi Germany's support for annexationist factions in Austria.  Punitive tariffs on automobiles, aluminum, steel, and lumber have been imposed and been increased, with explicit warnings of 100 percent tariffs should Canada pursue independent trade ties with China.  Additionally, he has made public statements have demeaning Canada's leaders by referring to former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and current PM Mark Carney “governor”, and has threatened infrastructure projects like the Gordie Howe Bridge between Windsor and Detroit, unless Canada offers concessions.  These steps systematically undermine Canada's economic stability and national cohesion, softening resistance ahead of potential absorption, just as Hitler’s incremental pressures dismantled Austrian independence and stability before the final march across the border.

Canadians themselves have registered this shift in threat perception with remarkable clarity.  Multiple independent surveys conducted in late 2025 and early 2026 reveal that a majority now consider the US as the foremost danger to national security in the eyes of the public, eclipsing long-standing concerns about China or Russia.  One Nanos poll found that 55% of respondents identified the US as the greatest security threat, making it 3.5 times more likely to be named than China, and significantly ahead of Russia at 14%. 

Another survey indicated that 49% of Canadians view the United States as the single greatest threat to world peace, outpacing Russia by 20 points.  Even more alarmingly, polling in early 2026 showed that 57. 9% of Canadians consider a direct American military invasion plausible in the near term.  These figures mark a historic reversal, because for generations, the US was seen as a dependable partner.  Today, ordinary citizens across the political spectrum express fears of economic strangulation or worse, with many reporting increased interest in personal preparedness measures in the event of an American military assault.  The polling numbers demonstrate that Canadians no longer regard traditional adversaries as the primary risk.  The clear and present danger to Canada at this time emanates from Washington DC.

Compounding the danger is the evident lack of readiness within Canadian government and public institutions to respond to a American military incursion.  Senior officials within the Carney government continue to frame bilateral ties in terms of a longstanding and unbreakable partnership, insisting on cooperation despite aggressive US measures aimed at key economic sectors and territorial claims.  Comments about defence and security prioritize ongoing NORAD and NATO operations over standalone contingency measures to the US threat, and diplomatic statements emphasize outreach efforts that overlook the long-term impact of prolonged American trade pressures and internal division tactics.  To date, no comprehensive public strategies have emerged for strengthening Canada's border with the US, prioritizing military preparedness, or implementing protective economic policies to endure extended coercion or possible military action by the US.

Of particular concern is the absence of any framework to counter a scenario in which the US applies the same approach used in Venezuela—leveraging economic and political pressures, followed by military action to orchestrate a change in leadership more aligned with Trump's agenda.  The recent US military strike and regime realignment there serve as a clear precedent for how resource-driven imperialism can force governmental change without full-scale conventional war, through sanctions, support for sympathetic factions, and strategic ultimatums.

In Canada, there are no apparent protocols to detect or neutralize comparable influence campaigns, such as the Trump regime coordinating with Alberta separatists, or amplifying calls for structural changes that could install more compliant political figures sympathetic to the US administration’s agenda.  As Adam Gordon, a visiting fellow at the Cascade Institute and former senior legal and policy adviser to Canadian foreign affairs ministers, warned in the wake of the Venezuela operation, “We can’t take off the table anymore the idea that it is at least plausible that there would be some use of force or threat of use of force, and we need to be prepared for that.”

This shortfall in Canadian preparedness propagates a dangerous complacency.  Vague statements by Carney or his ministers offer only broad assurances of national strength without specifying actionable defences for the population or key infrastructure.  Canadians are left with no evident strategy to safeguard territorial sovereignty or personal security, heightening feelings of exposure.

Experts are sounding alarms that are going unheeded, with international security scholar Aisha Ahmad of the University of Toronto stating bluntly that, “There is no political party, or leader, willing to relinquish Canadian sovereignty over economic coercion, and so if the US wanted to annex Canada, it would have to invade.” She added that, “Trump is delusional if he believes that 40 million Canadians will passively accept conquest without resistance.”

American political analyst Eric Ham echoed this in direct reference to the Venezuela precedent, calling it “a clear warning shot” for Canada and urging immediate recognition that Trump’s territorial ambitions extend northward.  Urgent steps, from expanding independent intelligence operations and securing new international partnerships to accelerating domestic production capabilities and even considering measures once unthinkable—mandatory military service, a hardened land border, acquiring nuclear weapons—are essential to avoid the fate of states that dismissed early warning signs until external forces dictated their leadership and future.

The broader international behaviour of the Trump regime underscores the gravity of the situation.  In rapid succession, the United States has launched an unprovoked war against Iran, increased the blockade of Cuba by blocking tankers from delivering essential fuel supplies, advanced explicit ambitions to assert control over Greenland and the Panama Canal under a revived hemispheric dominance doctrine, and executed military action leading to regime change in Venezuela.  These operations demonstrate a pattern of unilateral force and territorial appetite that treats smaller or neighbouring states as vassals that exist to serve the economic and security agenda of the US.

These actions illustrate that Canada is not dealing with a rational negotiating partner but a leader whose style is marked by sociopathic behaviour, erratic escalation, disregard for established norms, and a willingness to upend alliances for perceived economic and political gain.  Facing such unpredictability requires immediate recognition that traditional diplomacy with the US offers little protection, and that preparation must treat the possibility of further escalation as a realistic contingency rather than a remote hypothetical.

Independent assessments by security scholars and economists echo and amplify these concerns, consistently positioning the Trump administration as a more acute danger to Canada than either Beijing or Moscow.  Janice Gross Stein, a leading professor of conflict management at the University of Toronto, has analyzed the 2025 US National Security Strategy as a deliberate return to 19th-century spheres-of-influence thinking that explicitly challenges Canadian control over its Arctic waters and resources, framing it as incompatible with American hemispheric priorities.

Michael Devereux, an economics professor at the University of British Columbia, observes that longstanding assumptions of reliability have collapsed.  “We’ve always seen the US as a very strong and reliable ally.  That has really been undermined in the last year.”  Aaron Ettinger, a political-science professor at Carleton University, warns that bilateral ties have reached a dangerous “precipice,” where continued provocations risk irreversible damage to sovereignty and economic stability. 

These voices, drawn from academic and policy circles, converge on a sobering conclusion—the US threat is not abstract or confined to some distant future, but is immediate and structural, demanding a fundamental recalibration of Canadian defence and foreign policy before it's too late.

All the evidence available since Trump took office in 2025—from targeted economic sabotage and propaganda mirroring pre-Anschluss Austria, through public opinion data that now ranks the US as the top security threat above all other powers, the administration’s record of aggressive interventions elsewhere, to the absence of credible Canadian defensive planning—paints a coherent picture of hostile intent towards a nation that has been America’s closest friend, neighbour, biggest trading partner, and strongest ally.

In the face of what is on the horizon Canadians cannot afford denial or delay.  The window for building resilience, forging new alliances, and hardening national defences is narrowing.  History shows that nations which fail to confront incremental aggression early pay a far higher price later.  The time to acknowledge the reality and act decisively is now, before Trump’s rhetoric becomes reality and economic blackmail gives way to something far more dangerous and violent.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

Alberta separatism endangers all Canadians and fuels US aggression against Canada

By facilitating a separatist referendum Danielle smith has violated her oath of office and allegiance to the crown that she is sworn to uphold.

 

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this article can be found on Substack.

As Canada marks the 61st anniversary the red and white maple leaf flag today (February 15th), a symbol of unity forged in the fires of national identity, we find ourselves confronting an insidious threat from within. The Alberta separatist movement, spearheaded by groups like the Alberta Prosperity Project (APP), may appear marginal but need to be taken seriously by all Canadians, with polls indicating support for separation hovering between 16% and 30% of Albertans. While much of this support is soft and symbolic, based on grievances against Ottawa, this relatively small faction poses an outsized danger to the fabric of Confederation. It weakens Canada at a dangerous moment in history when we face overt aggressions from the United States under President Donald Trump, including tariff wars, annexation rhetoric, and direct meddling in our sovereignty.

Even worse, the movement is riddled with white supremacist, racist, and fascist undertones that go beyond mere fringe elements, amplifying divisions that could profoundly erode social cohesion in Alberta and across Canada. Recent analyses highlight how separatist “town halls” have featured inflammatory anti-immigrant language, including mentions of the “great replacement” conspiracy theory that falsely claims federal policies are designed to displace “old stock” (i.e. white) Canadians with racialized newcomers. Speakers at Alberta Prosperity Project events have scapegoated immigrants as economic burdens and cultural threats, prompting formal complaints to anti-racism organizations like StopHateAB, and contributing to documented upticks in xenophobic harassment and fear among racialized communities.

This xenophobia often intersects with anti-Indigenous sentiments, where separatists portray treaty rights and reconciliation efforts as obstacles to provincial sovereignty, disregarding that historic treaties with First Nations predate Alberta’s existence and bind the Crown directly. Indigenous leaders from Treaties 6, 7, and 8 territories have condemned the movement outright, launching legal challenges and warning that it threatens ongoing reconciliation and Indigenous rights.

These exclusionary narratives align Alberta separatists with broader far-right networks in Canada, including neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups that have historically overlapped with anti-government militias and promoted ideologies of racial homogeneity for white people. Far from being isolated, such racist ideologies normalize hate speech, heighten risks of discrimination and violence against racialized Canadians and Indigenous peoples, and shred the multicultural fabric that defines modern Alberta. This makes the movement’s apparent marginality all the more deceptive in its potential to bring dangerous extremism into the political mainstream.

The separatist support, while limited in numbers, is by no means ineffective or benign. Recent surveys reveal that only about 16% of Albertans are “hardline” separatists committed to full independence, with broader support—around 28%—often serving as a protest vote against Ottawa rather than a genuine call for secession. The APP’s petition drive, aiming for 177,000 signatures by May 2026 to trigger a referendum, has garnered attention through community meetings, aggressive campaigning and the effective use of social media. But the relatively small size of the movement belies its impact.  Even a minority movement can destabilize a nation, as history shows with Quebec’s referendums in 1980 and 1995, which nearly tore Canada apart, and set the stage for years of rancorous federal-provincial relations.

In Alberta’s case, the danger is amplified by external forces in the form of Donald Trump and his designs on Canada. In this scenario the province’s oil-dependent economy, strained by federal environmental policies, becomes an issue that could be leveraged by Trump to the benefit of the US as the separatists seek American support.

It seems the separatist camp are ignoring how an independent Alberta would face insurmountable hurdles—currency shifts, border controls, having to take on their share of Canada’s $1.3 trillion national debt, and trade disruptions, as they suddenly fall outside trade agreements signed by the Canadian government.  All the political and economic infrastructure that has taken decades for Canada to build, all of this could cascade into economic turmoil and chaos for Alberta, and would also impact Canada negatively resulting in declining GDP and lost jobs.

Compounding the separatist threat is the movement’s deep entanglement with white supremacist, racist and fascist elements. Alberta has a troubling history of far-right extremism, from the Aryan Guard neo-Nazi group to militant networks like Diagolon, which blends neo-fascism with anti-authority ideologies. While the APP positions itself as a mainstream advocate for provincial autonomy, its events have featured inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric echoing white supremacist tropes by members of such groups. Speakers at separatist town hall events have invoked the “great replacement” conspiracy theory, alleging federal immigration policies intend to dilute “old stock” (i.e. white) Canadians. Anti-immigrant sentiments run rampant within the movement, with calls to restrict newcomers in an independent Alberta, portraying them as economic drains and cultural threats. This xenophobia has real-world consequences, with immigrant support groups in Alberta reporting surges in harassment and racist incidents linked to separatist messaging.

Anti-Indigenous racist rhetoric is equally pervasive, with separatists dismissing treaty rights as barriers to sovereignty, ignoring that treaties the Crown made with First Nations existed before Alberta came into being.  These treaties predate its creation by many years before Alberta was carved out of the North-West Territories via a federal statute.  First Nations leaders from Treaties 6, 7, and 8 territories, which cover almost all of the province, have unanimously rejected the concept of separatism, filing constitutional challenges and warning that not only is Alberta’s separation not possible under constitutional and federal laws, but that it undermines reconciliation efforts.

These elements align the movement with broader far-right ecosystems in Canada, where white supremacist groups like the Soldiers of Odin and Three Percenters have proliferated, often overlapping with anti-government militias. By normalizing hate within the movement the separatists not only endanger immigrants, racialized communities, and Indigenous peoples, but also damage Alberta’s social fabric, fostering an environment where a MAGA type movement would become rooted and foster violence similar to what we have seen in the US.

This internal division could not come at a worse time, as Canada grapples with escalating threats from the Trump White House. Since his return to office, the US has imposed near-universal tariffs on Canadian exports outside the Canada-US-Mexico trade agreement (CUSMA), escalating a trade war that has already cost both nations billions. Additionally, since returning to office Trump has repeatedly mused about annexing Canada as the “51st state,” dismissing our border as an “artificial line” and labeling Prime Minister Mark Carney (and former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau) as “Governor” in derogatory tweets. These are not idle jests, as they echo historical American imperialist narratives.

Additionally, APP leaders have held multiple covert meetings with US officials since April 2025, discussing logistics like switching to the US dollar, border security, and even a $500 billion credit line to fund Alberta’s independence. These meetings, confirmed by US State Department staff, represent blatant foreign interference in Canadian affairs, with the goal of exploiting Alberta’s oil and resource wealth and weakening Canada. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has called Alberta a “natural partner” for the US, signaling an intent to carve up our nation. In this context, separatism isn’t just provincial discontent—it’s a seditious fifth column that amplifies American aggression. A fractured Canada would be weaker and ill-equipped to counter Trump’s hegemonic designs in the Western Hemisphere leaving us vulnerable to economic coercion and loss of territory.

At the heart of this peril to Canadian sovereignty is Premier Danielle Smith’s role in enabling separatism. While publicly disavowing independence, claiming to support “a sovereign Alberta within a united Canada,” Smith has taken concrete steps to bolster the movement when her government amended provincial legislation, slashing the referendum petition signature threshold from 600,000 to 177,000, thereby making an independence vote far more feasible. This change directly aids groups like the APP and Stay Free Alberta. Moreover, Smith has permitted United Conservative Party (UCP) MLAs to openly sign the separation petition without repercussion, stating they “can sign whatever petition they want.” Separatist leader Jeff Rath claims multiple UCP caucus members have done so, blurring the lines between governance and disloyalty.

Smith’s Mar-a-Lago visit with Trump in January 2025 and her refusal to denounce US meddling further suggest alignment with forces undermining Canada, and should be viewed as sedition under the Criminal Code. Section 59 defines seditious intention as advocating force to effect governmental change, while Section 61 criminalizes seditious conspiracy with up to 14 years’ imprisonment. Though experts note sedition laws are archaic and rarely applied without violence, Smith’s facilitation of the separatist cause goes far beyond mere political tolerance.  By amending legislation to reduce the referendum petition signature threshold—making a separation vote far more attainable—she has actively facilitated separatism and thereby enabled a movement that seeks to dissolve Alberta’s place within the Canadian federation. These steps constitute not only potential sedition but also a direct violation of her oath of office.

As Premier, Smith swore under the Oaths of Office Act to be “faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law,” and to “diligently, faithfully and to the best of my ability execute according to law the office of Premier.” By making it easier for those pushing separation to orchestrate a referendum that would repudiate allegiance to the Crown and the constitutional unity of Canada, she has breached this solemn pledge of loyalty to the Sovereign and the federation she is sworn to uphold. Former deputy premier Thomas Lukaszuk has publicly accused her and her caucus of violating their oaths, arguing that elected officials who support separation while drawing salaries funded by the Crown are disloyal hypocrites.

By most accounts this amounts to sedition—aiding a movement that invites foreign powers to dismantle the federation. Alberta MLAs who have signed the separation petition are equally in violation of their identical oaths of office, flirting with disloyalty and warranting investigation as potential subversion. In an era of escalating US threats, such conduct erodes national unity and demands immediate accountability—whether through federal oversight, calls for their resignation from positions held under the Crown they have betrayed, or calls for their arrest under the criminal code.

Canada’s strength lies in unity symbolized by our flag, which replaced colonial symbols with a maple leaf representing all provinces. Allowing Alberta separatism to fester, unchecked with its racist undercurrents and foreign collusion, invites catastrophe. It weakens Canada against Trump’s bellicose policies, from tariffs that could devastate our economy to annexation fantasies that mock our sovereignty.

Let this flag day serve as a call to recommit to the federation for which Canadians past and present have fought and died.  In their name and in the name of all Canadians who believe in a united Canada we must reject separatism in all its forms, stand resolute against American aggression, and hold our own political leaders to account for actions that undermine the country they swore to serve. Only through this collective resolve can we preserve the inclusive, diverse, pluralistic, and resilient Canada that has endured for generations. Failure to act decisively now risks not merely Alberta’s isolation, but the gradual unravelling of the entire nation generations of Canadians have worked so hard to sustain.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

To protect Canadian sovereignty from US belligerence Carney must cancel the F-35 fighter jet deal

If Prime Minister Mark Carney meant what he said in his Davos speech rejecting the F-35 deal is the logical decision. The financial stakes are immense, and the cost of inaction endangers Canada.
 

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this article can be found on Substack.

In the shadow of escalating US threats to Canadian sovereignty, the New Democratic Party’s recent demand for Prime Minister Mark Carney to scrap the $19 billion F-35 fighter jet contract with Lockheed Martin has ignited a crucial national debate. The NDP is not merely suggesting a pivot. They are insisting on cancelling all 88 jets, including the 16 to which Canada is already committed, in favour of Sweden’s Saab Gripen.

This call comes amid a barrage of American provocations, from tariff threats on Canadian aircraft to repeated musings by President Donald Trump about annexing Canada as the “51st state.” As Canada grapples with these realities, it is imperative to recognize that procuring advanced defence hardware from a nation increasingly hostile to its allies poses an existential risk to its territorial integrity and independence. In such a scenario the NDP says that Canada must abandon the F-35 program completely to avoid entrusting its air defences to a partner that could disable them at will through software controls or a de facto kill switch.

The post-World War Two era of stable US-Canada relations, built on mutual trust and shared democratic values, is unequivocally over. For decades, Canada benefited from this alliance, contributing to NATO missions, protecting North American skies under NORAD, and enjoying the security umbrella provided by American military might. But under Trump’s second administration, that partnership has devolved into coercion and intimidation. Just days before the NDP’s announcement, Trump threatened to decertify the approximately 2,600 Bombardier jets operating in the US, and impose a 50% tariff on Canadian-made aircraft, ostensibly because Canada did not certify certain American made Gulfstream models swiftly enough. This threat against Canada’s aviation industry was no isolated incident. It followed punitive tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum, and softwood lumber that often bypass the protections of the Canada-US-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), which Trump negotiated in his first administration.

But Trump’s rhetoric has escalated further. Since returning to the White House he has repeatedly floated the idea of annexing Canada as the 51st state, a notion he has invoked in speeches and on social media posts, framing it as a “joke” that thinly veils aggressive intent. Such statements are not harmless. They signal a fundamental shift where the US views its northern neighbour not as an equal ally but as a subordinate entity ripe for economic domination or outright absorption.

This erosion of trust extends to the heart of defence procurement. The F-35 is not merely a fighter jet, it is a sophisticated network-dependent platform with its operational effectiveness dependent on US-controlled software and data systems. Central to this are the Mission Data Files which serve as the aircraft’s “brains,” providing critical information on threat identification, route planning, and combat communication. These files are managed by a US team at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida and require frequent updates, especially in conflict scenarios. American policy explicitly prohibits international operators from performing independent updates outside the continental United States, with Israel being the sole exception. For Canada (and other nations that buy the aircraft) this means total dependency, and without friendly relations with the US our F-35s could fly but would be rendered ineffective against threats, much like a smartphone starved of updates the aircraft would be vulnerable and obsolete.

Defence analysts have long warned of this “all the eggs in one basket” scenario, which is a set up for failure. The F-35’s Autonomic Logistics Information System funnels all data through US servers in Fort Worth, Texas, managed by Lockheed Martin. In a belligerent situation—such as escalated disputes over tariffs or border issues—the US could withhold updates, restrict access, or even implement a metaphorical “kill switch” to degrade the aircraft’s capabilities. This is not speculative fiction, it echoes restrictions placed on Ukraine’s use of F-16s against Russia, where the US limited operational freedoms to avoid escalation of the war. For Canada to invest $19 billion upfront—and a staggering $74 billion over the F-35’s life cycle—in a system that the US could neuter, is not strategic, it is suicidal.

Canada is not alone in having these concerns. Across NATO, allies are re-evaluating their reliance on American systems amid Trump’s erratic policies. Denmark, for instance, has expressed profound regret over its F-35 purchase. Rasmus Jarlov, chairman of Denmark’s parliamentary defence committee, publicly lamented the decision, fearing the US could disable the jets by halting spare parts supplies to coerce concessions over Greenland—a territory Trump has obsessively targeted for annexation, even threatening the use of force. Trump has also threatened tariffs on NATO allies opposing US control of Greenland, further straining the alliance. European officials have echoed these worries, suggesting contract cancellations if the US mirrors its restrictions on Ukraine’s fighters. Germany’s $10 billion deal for 35 F-35s is currently under scrutiny, and projections of over 550 European F-35s by decade’s end now seem precarious as trust evaporates.

Trump has also disparaged NATO troops’ contributions in Afghanistan and questioned the alliance’s mutual defence commitments. This has prompted a cascade of doubt. If the US can abandon commitments to Ukraine or threaten Denmark over Greenland, what prevents it from leveraging F-35 dependencies against Canada or other NATO allies over trade disputes? The stable alliance that defined the post-war order—where the US was the reliable guarantor—has been weaponized into a tool of coercion. As Prime Minister Carney articulated at the World Economic Forum in Davos, we are amid a “rupture, not a transition,” where middle powers like Canada must unite against great power rivalry and weaponized economic integration. Carney’s call for “strategic autonomy” resonates and shows that middle powers are not powerless. They can build alternatives that embody values like sovereignty and solidarity.

Enter the Saab Gripen as a viable path forward. Unlike the F-35, the Gripen offers operational sovereignty, with no requirement for permission on updates or mission planning. Saab’s proposal includes intellectual property transfer and assembly in Canada, enabling independent maintenance and upgrades. This deal promises up to 12,600 high value added jobs bolstering the Canadian aerospace sector while reducing dependency. By switching to the Gripen, Canada would signal to allies like Australia, Japan, and South Korea that alternatives exist, potentially unravelling US military hardware export dominance worth hundreds of billions.

Critics may argue that the F-35’s stealth capabilities are superior, but technical edge means little if political whims can result in the fleet being inoperable. Canada’s situation is symbolic, and the NDP’s demand followed Carney’s Davos speech, echoing his language on middle powers collaborating. If Carney meant what he said, rejecting the F-35 deal is the logical step. The financial stakes are immense—$74 billion committed to a multi-generational dependency—but the cost of inaction is higher. A compromised air defence network in an era where the US could sabotage the air force fleets of Canada if needed leaving this country vulnerable to American aggression.

Ultimately, Canada can no longer afford to trust the US as a steadfast ally. The threats of tariffs, annexation rhetoric, and potential control over our air defence hardware demands a decisive break from business as usual. Cancelling the F-35 contract, beyond the initial 16 jets at the least, and embracing Sweden’s Gripen is not anti-American, it is pro-Canadian, ensuring our sovereignty and territorial integrity. As Carney warned, if middle powers do not act together, they risk being on the menu.

Ottawa must heed the NDP’s urgent call to decisively change course on Canada’s fighter jet procurement, scrapping the F-35 program beyond the initial 16 jets and committing instead to the Saab Gripen to secure genuine operational independence. This is not merely a policy adjustment—it is an essential act of national self-preservation. The time for complacency is emphatically over. The defence of Canada now demands the immediate establishment of true independence in military procurement from the United States, an ally whose trust has been irreparably fractured by relentless threats, economic coercion, and annexation rhetoric that has been unseen in Canada-US relations since the 19th century.

In this new era of great-power belligerence, where Canada risks becoming a vassal state rather than a sovereign partner, strategic autonomy is no longer optional. It is the only path to safeguarding this nation’s territorial integrity, air sovereignty, and future as a free and independent nation. It’s time to fly on our own wings or Canada is sure to be grounded by a leash held by a belligerent neighbour.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

The United States has gone from supposed guardian to destroyer of the post-World War Two international order

The old world order is gone . . . Nostalgia won’t save us, but honesty and strength at home, and collective action abroad can forge a better future.

By Fareed Khan 
A version of this article can be found on Substack.

In what has been called an era-defining speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos on January 21, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney laid bare the “rupture” in the global order that has sustained relative peace and prosperity globally since the end of World War Two. Drawing on Václav Havel’s parable of the greengrocer who props up a false system by displaying a sign he doesn’t believe in, Carney urged middle powers to stop “living within the lie” of a rules-based international system that no longer exists. The great powers, he argued—with a clear reference to the United States—now pursue naked self-interest, weaponizing economic integration and abandoning multilateral institutions.

For Canada, this means confronting a brutal reality where our largest trading partner, the US, is no longer an ally but an active enemy of the world order that has kept global peace for eight decades. It’s time for Canadians to remove our own signs of compliance, recognize the US as a clear threat to our sovereignty, and forge new alliances with nations that still uphold values like territorial integrity, multilateralism, and solidarity.

The post-World War Two order, built on institutions like the United Nations and the World Trade Organization, was imperfect but effective in preventing large-scale conflicts and promoting collective security and prosperity. The US, as its chief architect, provided benefits such as guaranteeing open sea lanes and supporting dispute resolution mechanisms. But under Donald Trump’s second presidency, America has morphed into a rogue actor, dismantling these very foundations through unilateral aggression and imperial overreach.

Consider the US military incursion into Venezuela on January 3, 2026, where special forces captured President Nicolás Maduro in a raid involving airstrikes on military installations and the temporary blackout of parts of Caracas. Trump brazenly declared that the US would “run the country” until a transition to a new regime suited American interests, echoing colonial-era interventions and violating the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force except in self-defence or with Security Council approval. This operation, planned for months without congressional authorization, underscores how the US now flouts international law, treating sovereign nations as extensions of American interests or as vassal states.

Trump’s threats against Iran further illustrate this erosion. Amid widespread protests in Iran, Trump has repeatedly warned of “very strong action,” including military strikes, if the regime executes demonstrators. He has gone so far as to vow that Iran would be “wiped off the face of this earth“ if it acts on assassination threats against him or harms protesters. While he dialed back immediate action after reports of declining violence, the sabre-rattling persists, with options like cyberattacks and airstrikes on the table. Such rhetoric not only destabilizes the Middle East but revives the spectre of pre-emptive wars, reminiscent of the 2003 Iraq invasion that shattered global trust in US leadership.

Even more insidious is Trump’s effort to “own” Gaza through his so-called “Board of Peace.” Ostensibly created to oversee Gaza’s reconstruction following Israel’s genocide of Palestinians, under a 20-point ceasefire plan endorsed by the UN Security Council, this body has ballooned into a pay-to-play imperial council with Trump appointing himself as chairman. Nations can buy permanent seats for $1 billion, with funds supposedly for rebuilding, but the charter omits any specific mention of Gaza, instead positioning the board as a “bold new approach to resolving global conflict” that could supplant the UN. This includes an executive committee controlling Gaza’s demilitarization and governance, effectively placing the territory under US-led oversight and sidelining Palestinian self-determination. By commodifying international diplomacy and bypassing established institutions, Trump is not building peace but entrenching US hegemony, turning the post-war order into a marketplace for those who can afford to pay his price.

For Canada, the implications are dire. Despite being our largest trading partner and neighbour, the US under Trump is no longer a friend or ally. Trump’s fixation on territorial expansion directly threatens our sovereignty as well as Greenland’s, Mexico’s and that of other nations. He has repeatedly floated annexing Canada as the 51st state since he was re-elected, citing our vast natural resources as motivations. In a September 2025 speech, he claimed Canadian leaders wanted to join his “Golden Dome” missile defense system “for free,” retorting, “Why don’t you just join our country? You become the 51st state.” Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau warned that these threats stem from the US coveting Canadian resources, noting, “They’re very aware of our resources, of what we have, and they very much want to be able to benefit from those.”

This ambition extends to the Arctic, where Trump’s wants the US to seize Greenland, and has threatened to impose tariffs on Denmark and allies like Norway, Sweden, France and the UK if they oppose his efforts. He has announced that tariffs of 10% on those supporting Denmark will begin on February 1, 2026, rising to 25% by June if no deal is reached to purchase or cede Greenland for reasons of America’s “national security.”

Trump frames this as benefiting Canada by countering Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic, but it is nothing less than a thinly veiled land grab. He has also criticized Canada’s defense spending as inadequate, pushing for joint military operations, updated warning systems, and US patrols in Canadian waters—steps that could erode Canadian control over the Northwest Passage, which Canada considers internal territorial waters. American insiders reveal a “secret plot” for larger takeovers, with aides noting Trump’s view that “the status quo is not enough” for Canada’s Arctic capabilities.

Canadian leaders have urged standing up to these threats, warning that if Canada fails to stand up for Greenland today, then can it can’t expect anybody aid Canada when we need it. Trump’s history of threats, including economic force during his first term, makes clear that military options aren’t off the table, though he deems them “highly unlikely. Yet, his invasion of Venezuela shows how quickly rhetoric can be turned into reality.

Canadians need to realize that this nation’s territory and sovereignty are now under threat from the United States—the world’s biggest economic and military power. As Carney noted in his speech, our geography and alliances no longer guarantee security. We face an era of economic and political instability, with the world’s three major powers vying for dominance.

However, in light of developments over the past year since Trump returned to the White House, the greatest threat to world peace today is not China or Russia, whose aggressions are predictable and often contained. It’s the United States, whose erratic, unilateral actions—fuelled by Trump’s irrationality and demagoguery—undermine the very alliances that once restrained such powers. In some very disturbing ways the US has become a modern-day incarnation of Nazi Germany, not through ideology alone but through its expansionist impulses, disregard for borders and international law, and willingness to coerce or invade other weaker nations under pretexts of security or access to resources.

To survive, Canada must heed Carney’s call for “values-based realism.” We need to depend on alliances with nations that share our commitments to sovereignty, international law, and sustainable development—partners like the European Union, with whom we’ve deepened strategic ties, or emerging coalitions in Asia and Latin America. Carney’s government has already pivoted by cutting taxes to boost the domestic economy, doubling defence spending by 2030, and signing trade agreements with China, Qatar, Indonesia and the United Arab Emirates. We are championing multilateral initiatives, like bridging the Trans-Pacific Partnership with the EU to create a 1.5-billion-person trading bloc, and forming buyer’s clubs for critical minerals to reduce dependence on any single power.

But policy alone isn’t enough. Canadians also must rise up to express our outrage and opposition to this American betrayal. Protests, boycotts, and public campaigns can signal our refusal to “go along to get along.” As Havel taught, one act of truth can crack the illusion. By naming the US as the dangerous adversary it has become, we reclaim our power and invite other middle powers to join us in building a new order—one free from the fortresses of isolation and the coercion of hegemonic powers.

The old world order is gone, as Carney said. Nostalgia won’t save us. But honesty and strength at home, and collective action abroad can forge a better future. For Canada, that starts with turning our backs on a former ally turned enemy, and facing the world with open eyes and unyielding resolve.

© 2026 The View From Here. © 2026 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.

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.