John Turner was right in 1988. Canada-US free trade has become a threat to our sovereignty

Turner understood that Canada’s infrastructure—its east-west trading routes, its regulatory systems, its resource management—had been deliberately designed to resist US continental pressure.

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

In 1988, during what became known as Canada’s “free trade election,” Liberal Leader and former Prime Minister John Turner issued a warning that was dismissed by many at the time as alarmist, emotional, or simply outdated. Turner argued that binding Canada’s economy to that of the United States through a free trade agreement would, over time, erode Canadian sovereignty, undermine economic independence, and place the country at the mercy of American political whims. His words—delivered with unusual moral force during the English-language leaders’ debate—were not merely campaign rhetoric. They were a diagnosis of structural vulnerability.

Today, nearly four decades later, Turner’s warning has been vindicated with almost eerie precision. Canada now finds itself in the crosshairs of a trade war launched by US President Donald Trump, whose administration has imposed 50% tariffs on roughly $20 billion worth of goods and openly mused about absorbing Canada as the “51st state.” The very interdependence and market access that free trade advocates celebrated as a triumph of globalization has today become a weapon of coercion. Prime Minister Mark Carney is now confronting the consequences of a political decision made long before his time—an error Turner tried to warn Canadians about.

But Turner’s warning should not only be seen as one for Canada, but also as a warning that America’s friends and allies across Europe and Asia should have heeded. The political and economic instability now radiating from Washington demonstrates that globalization, when built around a single dominant power, can be a conduit for coercion and economic blackmail rather than cooperation. The world is learning that lesson the hard way.

Sovereignty lost by degrees

During the 1988 election debate, Turner delivered one of the most memorable rebukes in Canadian political history. He accused Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of reversing 120 years of nation-building “with one signature of a pen,” warning that once Canada surrendered control over its economic levers through an all encompassing trade deal, then “political independence is sure to follow.”

Turner’s critique was not abstract. He understood that Canada’s infrastructure—its east-west trading routes, its regulatory systems, its resource management—had been deliberately designed to resist US continental pressure. Free trade, he argued, would undo that architecture and replace it with a north-south dependency that would eventually leave Canada exposed.

Mulroney dismissed Turner’s concerns as overwrought, calling the agreement “a commercial document.” But Turner insisted: “That document relates to every facet of our life.”

He was right.

The Canada-US Free Trade Agreement of 1989, followed by NAFTA in 1994, created one of the largest integrated economies in the world. By 2000, the NAFTA economy reached US$11.7 trillion—far surpassing the European Union’s US$7.8 trillion. By 2025, the Canada-US-Mexico GDP had grown to US$32.9 trillion, compared to the EU’s US$21.24 trillion.

Canada prospered—but at a cost. Today, nearly three‑quarters of its exports flow south to a US economy ten times its size. Over time, supply chains fused, investment patterns aligned, and regulatory systems converged. For years, this tight integration looked like a triumph of modern globalization. But Turner saw what others missed. Interdependence is not equality. It is exposure. And the recent eruption of tariffs and trade threats by Trump has confirmed just how accurate his warning was.

Turner’s prophecy comes true

The first tremors appeared during Trump’s initial presidency (2016–2020), when Canada was sidelined in trade negotiations in favour of a US-Mexico bilateral deal. But the real earthquake struck after Trump’s return to office in 2025.

In August 2026, the United States imposed sweeping 50% tariffs on Canadian steel, autos, lumber, honey, dairy, and other goods—tariffs that even members of his own party at the federal and state levels admitted they had not requested. The Trump administration then introduced language in trade negotiations that would have required US approval for any future Canadian trade deals—a condition that would have effectively placed Canadian trade policy under Washington’s control.

Carney walked away from the talks, calling the demand “a question of sovereignty.”

British Columbia Premier David Eby was more blunt: accepting such terms would have reduced Canada “to the economic equivalent of the 51st state.”

Turner’s warning had come full circle.

Economic interdependence as a weapon

Economic interdependence has become the defining fault line of the current crisis between Canada and the United States. What Prime Minister Mark Carney is confronting today is not simply a trade dispute or a clash of personalities with Donald Trump. It is the culmination of a structural imbalance that has been building for decades—an imbalance rooted in America’s dominance over the global financial system, technological infrastructure, and supply chains. The Trump administration’s coercive tactics against Canada are not an aberration. They are part of a broader pattern of American behaviour toward allies and adversaries alike, enabled by the extraordinary reach of US economic power. What Turner feared in 1988—that Canada would one day be unable to chart its own course because its economic lifelines ran through Washington—has now become a lived reality, that Canada is quickly trying to reverse.

Washington’s ability to weaponize financial networks is perhaps the most potent example. American Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s threat to exclude foreign partners from the American financial system if they maintain ties with Iran was not merely diplomatic pressure, it was a demonstration of how deeply global commerce depends on US dollar infrastructure. Because most international trade, debt settlement, and cross-border banking rely on dollar clearing, the United States can freeze assets, block transactions, and cripple national economies with administrative decisions that require no multilateral approval. The European Policy Centre has warned that this creates “single points of failure” across Western economies—points controlled entirely by Washington. In effect, the US dollar has become a geopolitical lever, one that can be pulled at any moment to discipline allies or punish adversaries.

Secondary sanctions amplify this vulnerability. Even companies based in allied nations can be penalized for trading with states targeted by US sanctions regimes, because the transactions inevitably pass through American-controlled systems such as SWIFT or US correspondent banks. European governments have spent years attempting to build alternative payment channels—most notably INSTEX—to allow them to conduct independent foreign policy without risking American retaliation. Yet these efforts have largely failed, demonstrating how deeply entrenched US financial dominance remains. As one senior EU official put it, Europe has discovered their vulnerability—that “sovereignty without financial autonomy is an illusion.”

The same dynamic exists in global supply chains. The United States can disrupt critical manufacturing inputs, energy exports, and technological components through abrupt export controls or regulatory delays. The Small Wars Journal notes that this leverage is particularly acute in sectors where the US dominates upstream production, such as advanced semiconductors, aerospace components, and specialized industrial machinery. When Washington tightens access, entire industries in partner nations can be thrown into crisis overnight. The Biden administration used similar tactics against China, and Trump has now turned them against Canada and Europe. The message is unmistakable—supply chains are not neutral economic structures—they are instruments of state power.

American tech dominance weaponized

Technological dependence adds another layer of vulnerability. American firms command a massive share of global tech profits, cloud infrastructure, and artificial intelligence capacity. This gives Washington indirect control over digital services, data flows, and cybersecurity frameworks worldwide. European governments have grown increasingly anxious about this imbalance, prompting efforts to develop local cloud systems, digital currencies, and anti-coercion mechanisms designed to reduce exposure to US pressure. The New York Times has reported that European leaders now openly discuss “digital sovereignty” as a strategic priority—a term that would have been unthinkable two decades ago. The EU’s push for GAIA‑X, a federated cloud system designed to reduce reliance on American tech giants, is a direct response to fears that Washington could one day weaponize digital infrastructure the same way it has weaponized financial networks.

Canada’s confrontation with Washington is unfolding against this backdrop. Carney has framed the crisis as a test of whether middle powers can preserve sovereignty in a world where economic integration has become a tool of coercion. His warning that “America is trying to break us so that they can own us” was not hyperbole but a recognition of the structural reality Canada faces. Scholars such as University of Toronto professor Nelson Wiseman argue that Canada is providing “the biggest test yet” of whether middle powers can resist great‑power economic pressure—and whether others will follow. The Atlantic Council has similarly cautioned that US coercive behaviour is straining alliances and accelerating global efforts to diversify away from American systems. Canada, in other words, has become the proving ground for a new era in international relations—one in which nations must decide whether they will remain dependent on American systems or build the capacity to stand apart from them.

What Canada is experiencing is not merely a bilateral dispute. It is a structural crisis in the global order—one that exposes the illusion at the heart of post–Cold War globalization. Policy makers believed that economic interdependence would create stability, prosperity, and shared interests. But Turner understood something they did not—globalization built around a single dominant power is not interdependence. It is asymmetric dependence. And the United States has now demonstrated that it is willing to weaponize that dependence even against its closest allies.

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

US at “war” with Canada (Part II): Preparing to live beside a hostile neighbour

Canadians must recognize that the US, under Trump, is an adversary led by someone whose increasingly erratic, coercive, and hostile behaviour towards Canada is an existential threat.

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

Part I discussed why Canada was right to walk away from trade negotiations with the United States. Part II confronts a more sobering reality. Canada must now treat the United States, under Donald Trump, as a hostile power, a coercive state seeking to subordinate a neighbour rather than negotiate with an ally.

The erosion of trust between Canada and the United States is not a diplomatic misfortune—it is the predictable outcome of Trump’s approach to governance. His administration has repeatedly violated CUSMA, imposed unilateral tariffs, threatened annexation, supported the separatist movement in Alberta, and used propaganda to portray Canada as dependent on American “benevolence.” These actions collectively demonstrate that Trump does not view Canada as a sovereign partner but as a subordinate entity whose economic and political choices should be dictated from Washington.

The first clear signal of how Trump viewed Canada emerged immediately after his election in November 2024, when he casually suggested that Canada should become the “51st state.” Although this remark was initially dismissed in the American media as a joke—and brushed off by Trump allies on Capitol Hill—it quickly took on a more ominous tone in Canada as it became a recurring talking point in Trump’s public appearances. By early 2025, the comment was no longer an isolated quip but a repeated assertion, echoed by figures within Trump’s inner circle, prompting Canadians to interpret it not as humour but as an expression of intent. The shift in perception was driven by the recognition that these statements aligned with Trump’s broader pattern of coercive behaviour during his first administration. His habit of referring to former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as a “governor” following his re-election—a label he later applied to Prime Minister Mark Carney—reinforced the sense that Trump viewed Canada not as a sovereign nation but as a subordinate jurisdiction. This impression was further strengthened when Trump threatened to block the opening of the Gordie Howe Bridge unless Canada offered concessions in ongoing trade discussions. These were not idle remarks or empty bluster. Taken together, they formed a coherent pattern of rhetoric and pressure that Canadians increasingly understood as a signal of intent.

Political observers and security experts have warned that Trump’s ambitions toward Canada may not be limited to economic pressure. American political analyst Eric Ham has described Trump’s actions in Venezuela—economic strangulation followed by military intervention—as a “clear warning shot” for Canada. The precedent is chilling because the United States used sanctions, propaganda, and military force to install a government more aligned with its interests. The logic behind such actions is straightforward. When a smaller state resists American pressure, Trump has shown a willingness to escalate beyond economic tools. The question is no longer whether Trump would consider using military pressure against Canada, but whether Canada is prepared for that possibility.

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.” His warning reflects a growing recognition among Canadian security experts that Trump’s unpredictability and disregard for international norms make previously unthinkable scenarios plausible. His foreign policy record reinforces this concern. Since returning to office his administration has taken military action in Venezuela, launched an unprovoked war against Iran, illegally blockaded Cuba, and asserted territorial ambitions over Greenland and the Panama Canal. These actions demonstrate a willingness to use force to achieve political objectives and a belief that American power should be exercised unilaterally, without regard for international law or long‑standing alliances, and this should have Canada’s political establishment very worried.

Canada’s vulnerability is not simply a matter of military imbalance. It is the combination of economic dependence, geographic proximity, and resource wealth. Canada possesses vast reserves of oil, critical minerals, and fresh water—resources the US increasingly covets. In a world of increasing demand, these assets make Canada a strategic target. Trump’s supporters have openly discussed Canada’s resource wealth as justification for annexation, arguing that American access to Canadian oil, minerals, and water is essential for America’s national security, despite the fact that a strong majority of Americans have no interest in Canada becoming the 51st state. However, this rhetoric, amplified on social media and in nationalist circles, reflects a growing sentiment within parts of the American political landscape that Canada’s resources should be controlled by America.

In this context, Canada must adopt a posture of strategic resistance. Economic countermeasures are one component of this strategy. Canada has already imposed retaliatory tariffs, and Canadians have launched widespread consumer boycotts of American products.  In addition, Canadian travel to the US has plummeted since Trump took office, declining by 25% to 30%.  These actions have had measurable effects on the US economy in the areas of tourism, agriculture, alcohol, and manufactured goods. Canadian tourism alone accounts for over $20 billion annually, and has declined by $12.5 billion in 2025 with a larger decline expected for 2026. These measures reflect a national resolve to resist economic coercion and demonstrate that Canada is willing to endure economic pain to protect its sovereignty.

Diplomatic realignment is another essential component. For Canada to survive an economic war with the US it must deepen ties with Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America to reduce dependence on American markets. This diversification is not a rejection of economic ties to the United States but a recognition that Canada cannot rely on a partner that repeatedly violates agreements and uses economic tools as weapons. Strengthening trade relationships with other regions will help insulate Canada from future American coercion and ensure that Canadian industries have alternative markets. 

Military preparedness is perhaps the most sensitive and difficult aspect of Canada’s response. Canada must prepare for scenarios once considered unthinkable. Hardening the land border, expanding intelligence operations against the US, increasing defence spending, and considering nuclear deterrenceoptions, as some experts have suggested, may be possibilities Canada will have to consider. These measures are not signs of aggression but signs of realism. Canada’s current defence posture is built on the assumption that the United States is a reliable ally. That assumption is no longer valid and Canada must therefore develop independent capabilities to deter coercion and protect its sovereignty.

Public mobilization is also a strategic asset. Canadian public opinion has shifted dramatically. Canadians overwhelmingly reject annexation, support boycotts, and view the United States as the top security threat. This unity strengthens Canada’s ability to resist American pressure and signals to Washington that Canadians will not accept subordination. The surge in national pride and the widespread rejection of Trump’s rhetoric reflect a population that understands the stakes and is prepared to defend its sovereignty.

Finally, Canadians must recognize the new reality—the United States, under Trump, is not a partner. It is an adversary led by someone whose increasingly erratic, coercive, and hostile behaviour towards Canada is an existential threat. Trump’s policies are not designed to strengthen alliances but to destroy them. His approach to international relations is transactional, coercive, and driven by short‑term political gain rather than long‑term strategic stability. Canada must therefore abandon the illusion that diplomacy alone can resolve the crisis. The collapse of trade negotiations was the first step. The next steps will determine whether Canada emerges from this crisis as a sovereign nation or as a vassal state.

Canada wasn’t looking for this war, but it is one that it is willing to fight to protect its sovereignty and the Canadian economy. The path forward will be difficult, but the stakes could not be higher. Canada must act decisively, strategically, and with unwavering resolve, because the future of the nation depends on it.

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

US at “war” with Canada (Part I): Why ending trade talks was the rational choice

The US tried to include provisions in the proposed deal that would give the US a say on which countries Canada could make trade agreements with—a direct attack on Canadian sovereignty.

By Fareed Khan

A version of this article can be found on Substack.

When Canada suspended trade negotiations with the United States on August 22, 2026, it marked a decisive moment in a rapidly deteriorating bilateral relationship. The collapse of talks was not the product of diplomatic miscalculation or insufficient flexibility on Canada’s part. Rather, it reflected a sober recognition of a political reality—under Donald Trump, the United States cannot be trusted to honour any trade agreement it signs. Canada’s withdrawal was not only justified, it was necessary.

The immediate trigger for the breakdown was a set of last‑minute demands from the US delegation that would have sharply curtailed Canada’s economic sovereignty. As Prime Minister Mark Carney explained in a media conference after trade negotiations collapsed, Washington attempted to insert provisions that would “reduce tariff relief for Canadian-made vehicles, restrict Canada’s ability to strike trade deals with other countries, and weaken protections for language, culture and sovereignty.” These demands, Carney said, were “unacceptable.”

But the deeper reason—one that isn’t mentioned openly—that Canada walked away lies in the pattern of behaviour exhibited by the Trump administration since returning to office in 2025. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that the United States’ signature on a trade agreement is not worth the paper it is written on. The Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA)—the very deal Trump negotiated, signed, and celebrated as “the best trade deal ever”—has been systematically violated by his own government since he returned to office.

Beginning in March 2025, Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum, autos, lumber, and dozens of other goods, despite CUSMA’s explicit prohibitions on such unilateral measures. He escalated these tariffs throughout 2025 and 2026, threatening 35% duties on Canadian imports, as well as a threat of 100% tariffs if Canada pursued independent trade ties with China. These actions shredded the agreement he once touted as a triumph of American deal‑making.

The pattern is unmistakable. Trump negotiates agreements for political theatre, then disregards them when they no longer serve his immediate interests. This behaviour mirrors his decades‑long record in private business, where he was notorious for breaking contracts, stiffing contractors, and using litigation as a weapon to avoid fulfilling contractual obligations. The same tactics now define his approach to international diplomacy.

Canada entered trade negotiations fully aware of Trump’s history. Any new agreement would have been vulnerable to the same fate as CUSMA—signed with fanfare, then violated at will. In this context, walking away was not an act of defiance but an act of prudence. As Carney and other Canadian leaders said repeatedly, “No deal is better than a bad deal.”

The stakes for Canada in any deal are enormous, and Carney decided to pull the plug after some last minute American demands that Canada found unacceptable. The US attempted to include provisions that would have restricted Canada’s ability to negotiate trade agreements with other countries—a direct attack on Canadian sovereignty—as well as demanding a restriction on provisions to protect the French language and Canadian culture. Accepting such terms would have subordinated Canada’s economic future to the whims of an unpredictable US president who has repeatedly mused about annexing Canada as the “51st state.” These comments, dismissed by some in Washington as jokes, are taken seriously in Canada because they align with Trump’s broader pattern of coercive behaviour.

Trump’s tariff policies are not merely economic measures, they are instruments of pressure designed to weaken Canada’s economy and force political concessions. As one article noted, Trump has pursued “a calculated campaign of economic coercion, rhetorical intimidation, and internal destabilization against Canada.” The comparison to Adolf Hitler’s “cold Anschluss” strategy toward Austria—incremental pressure, propaganda, support for separatists, and economic strangulation—is not made lightly.

Experts across Canada’s academic and policy communities have warned that Trump’s actions represent a structural threat to Canadian sovereignty. International security scholar Aisha Ahmad stated bluntly: “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.” Her warning reflects a growing consensus that Trump’s ambitions extend beyond trade.

Public opinion data reinforces this shift. Multiple polls conducted in late 2025 and early 2026 show that Canadians now view the United States—not China or Russia—as the greatest threat to national security, a dramatic reversal of decades of public sentiment and a reflection of how deeply trust in the bilateral relationship has eroded. A Nanos Research survey found that 55% of Canadians identified the United States as the single greatest security threat, making it more than three times more likely to be named than China and far ahead of Russia, which stood at 14%. Another poll conducted by Léger revealed that 49% of Canadians believe the United States poses the greatest threat to world peace, outpacing Russia by nearly 20 points and marking one of the most striking shifts in Canadian geopolitical perception since the end of the Cold War. Even more alarming, an Angus Reid Institute survey in early 2026 reported that 57.9% of Canadians consider a direct American military invasion plausible in the near term, a finding that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago and underscores the extent to which Trump’s rhetoric and policies have shifted public perception of the US.

The economic consequences of Trump’s tariffs have been severe on both sides of the border, producing cascading disruptions across industries, supply chains, and household budgets. The Tax Foundation estimates that US households will pay an additional $1,253 annually due to tariff‑driven price increases, a burden that falls disproportionately on lower‑income families who spend a greater share of their income on imported goods. Analysts also note that tariffs function as a regressive tax, raising prices on essential goods while offering no compensatory benefit to consumers, and warn that prolonged tariff escalation could reduce real household income nationwide. The automotive industry—one of the most integrated sectors in North America—has been hit particularly hard, with Trump’s tariffs on Canadian and Mexican auto parts increasing production costs by approximately $3,000 per vehicle, a figure that ripples through assembly plants in Michigan, Ohio, Ontario, and Mexico.

Canada has not stood idle. Canadians have launched a widespread boycott of US goods, with 71% pledging to buy fewer American products. Liquor stores in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia have removed US wines and spirits from shelves. Tourism from Canada to the US—worth over $20 billion annually—has plummeted, costing the US an estimated $12.5 billion in 2025 alone. These actions reflect a national resolve to resist US economic coercion.

Canada’s energy leverage is also significant. The US Midwest relies on Canada for more than 60% of its crude oil imports, a dependency that has grown over the past decade as American refineries optimized their operations around Canadian heavy crude. Any disruption—whether through tariffs, export restrictions, or politically motivated supply constraints—would have immediate consequences for American refineries and consumers, driving up gasoline prices, straining industrial production, and destabilizing regional economies that depend on affordable energy. Analysts have noted that even modest interruptions in Canadian supply can produce price spikes of 40 to 50 cents per gallon, with ripple effects across transportation, agriculture, and manufacturing sectors. This vulnerability is compounded by the fact that several Midwestern states, including Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, lack alternative sources of heavy crude that can be substituted without costly refinery adjustments. Energy economists warn that if Canada were to impose retaliatory export taxes or redirect supply to other markets—such as Europe or Asia—US refiners could face shortages lasting months or years, given the time required to reconfigure processing units.

The strategic importance of Canadian electricity exports is equally notable. Provinces such as Quebec and Manitoba supply significant amounts of power to northeastern and Great Lakes US states, meaning any disruption could affect grid stability and consumer prices. In this context, Canada’s energy resources function not only as economic assets but as geopolitical leverage—an often overlooked dimension of the current trade conflict that underscores the risks inherent in weaponizing tariffs against a neighbour.

The broader geopolitical context is equally alarming. Trump’s tariff policies echo the catastrophic Smoot‑Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which helped trigger the Great Depression, fuelled nationalist extremism, and destabilized global markets at a moment when international cooperation was most needed. Economists and historians have repeatedly warned that large‑scale tariff escalation tends to produce retaliatory spirals, collapsing trade flows and amplifying political tensions between states. The International Monetary Fund, OECD, and World Bank have all issued formal warnings that Trump’s tariff regime risks plunging the global economy into recession or even depression, noting that today’s interconnected supply chains make the world far more vulnerable to protectionist shocks than in the 1930s. Global growth forecasts have been downgraded multiple times since early 2025, with analysts citing Trump’s trade policies as a primary driver of financial volatility, declining investment, and rising inflation across advanced and emerging economies. The stock market crash following Trump’s announcement of a universal 10% tariff in April 2025—erasing trillions of dollars in value—illustrated how quickly markets react to protectionist threats.

International observers have also expressed concern that economic nationalism often coincides with geopolitical aggression, pointing to historical patterns in which trade wars preceded military conflict. French economist Frédéric Bastiat’s maxim, “When goods do not cross frontiers, armies will,” resonates strongly today, as Trump’s rhetoric toward allies—including Canada—has grown increasingly hostile.

Trump’s foreign policy has further destabilized the international order, reflecting a pattern of unilateralism and coercive action that has alarmed allies and international institutions. His administration authorized military strikes in Venezuela in 2025, aimed at forcing regime change after years of escalating sanctions and political pressure—an operation widely condemned by regional governments and international legal experts for violating sovereignty norms. His decision to launch a war against Iran in conjunction with Israel, including strikes on Iranian naval assets and energy infrastructure, severely disrupted the movement of oil and natural gas out of the Persian Gulf, prompting the International Energy Agency and multiple global markets analysts to warn of heightened volatility in global energy prices and supply chains.

The American president also tightened and expanded the US embargo on Cuba, including the unprecedented step of ordering US naval vessels to block fuel tankers from reaching Cuban ports—an action criticized by the United Nations and humanitarian organizations for exacerbating shortages of food, medicine, and electricity for millions of civilians. In addition, he revived earlier ambitions expressed during his first term to take control of Greenland—comments that Denmark’s government described as “absurd” and destabilizing. His administration also signaled interest in exerting greater U.S. control over the Panama Canal, with senior officialsarguing that American strategic dominance in the Western Hemisphere required “direct oversight” of critical infrastructure—remarks that alarmed Panamanian leaders and raised concerns among international observers about a return to pre‑1977 U.S. interventionism.

Taken together, these actions demonstrate a willingness to use force, coercion, and territorial pressure to achieve political objectives—behaviour that many analysts argue has not been seen from a major Western power since the early 20th century. In this context, Canada’s decision to walk away from trade negotiations was not only justified—it was essential. The US under Trump has shown itself to be an untrustworthy partner, repeatedly violating trade agreements, and using economic tools as instruments of political intimidation. Trump’s behaviour toward Canada has been erratic, coercive, and increasingly hostile, marked by threats of 100% tariffs, public musings about annexation, and efforts to restrict Canada’s ability to negotiate trade agreements with other countries. His administration’s willingness to disregard international norms, destabilize global markets, and pressure smaller states into compliance underscores the risks Canada faces in any negotiation with a Trump led US administration.

The question now is not whether Canada should have walked away—it is how Canada should respond to an escalating threat from a neighbour whose leadership has embraced unpredictability, coercion, and a worldview fundamentally at odds with the stability and mutual respect that once defined the bilateral relationship.

Part II will continue this analysis by examining the strategic, economic, and security implications of treating the United States as an adversary—and what Canada must do to protect its sovereignty in the years ahead.

Part II will continue this analysis by examining the strategic, economic, and security implications of treating the United States as an adversary—and what Canada must do to protect its sovereignty in the years ahead.

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

Carney’s moral failure is sacrificing human rights on the altar of trade and finance

Mark Carney sees the world through balance sheets and trade deals not moral obligations, and treats human rights as negotiable, secondary, or inconvenient. 

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

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has been described by many political observers as a “technocrat.” Canada has had technocratic prime ministers before—leaders who manage rather than inspire, who prefer balance sheets to moral clarity. But in living memory, there has been no PM that has been as weak on human rights as Mark Carney. His tenure has revealed a troubling truth—when confronted with the suffering of persecuted peoples, Carney consistently chooses financial gain over the defence of human dignity.

This is not a partisan critique, it is a moral one. And the pattern has become impossible to ignore.

Carney presents himself as a modern, rational, data‑driven leader. But beneath the polished language of markets and macroeconomics lies an apparent worldview in which human rights are treated as irritants—obstacles to be managed rather than principles to be defended. He speaks fluently about GDP growth, supply chains, and investment flows, yet stumbles when confronted with the basic question of whether human beings deserve protection from mass atrocity.

This moral hollowness is not theoretical. It is visible when he has been asked to respond to every major human‑rights crisis of his premiership.

The Gaza Genocide is Carney’s most damning failure

Carney’s refusal even to utter the word genocide in relation to Israel’s 34‑month genocidal campaign in Gaza is not political caution—it is a moral abdication. The term is not a fringe accusation, nor is it controversial among experts. It has been applied by dozens of respected global human‑rights authorities, including the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry; Amnesty International; Human Rights Watch; Israeli human rights group B’Tselem; Physicians for Human Rights Israel; the International Federation of Human Rights; and the International Association of Genocide Scholars. Leading Israeli Holocaust scholars—Omer Bartov, Amos Goldberg, Daniel Blatman, Raz Segal and Shmuel Lederman—have likewise affirmed that Israel’s actions meet the definition of genocide. When such a broad and authoritative chorus recognizes the reality of genocide, a prime minister’s refusal to acknowledge it is not prudence; it is a profound failure of moral responsibility.

This silence is not neutrality. It is a deliberate political choice to avoid moral responsibility. Carney knows that naming genocide carries obligations—legal, diplomatic, and ethical. He knows that acknowledging genocide would require sanctions, embargoes, and a fundamental shift in Canada’s relationship with Israel. And he knows that such actions would disrupt trade, investment, geopolitical alliances, and domestic political considerations for the Liberal Party he leads.

So rather than doing what is right he chooses silence.

Worse still, he has refused to impose sanctions on Israel—sanctions Canada deployed swiftly and forcefully against Russia when it committed the same crimes in Ukraine. The contrast is glaring. When Russia violated international law, Canada responded with boycotts, sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and moral outrage. When Israel committed the same crimes, the Canadian government offered platitudes, evasions, and the language of “concern.”

This hypocrisy reveals the core of Carney’s worldview, Human rights matter only when they align with economic or geopolitical interests. When they do not, they are quietly set aside.

Carney’s now‑infamous statement condemning Israeli Minister Itamar Ben‑Gvir for the “abominable” treatment of kidnapped Sumud flotilla activists, which was shared on social media, was revealing not for what it said, but for what it ignored. By singling out one extremist minister, Carney sidestepped the far more consequential truth. The atrocities in Gaza are not the work of one man, but of an entire political and military apparatus, led by people who consider Palestinians subhuman, that has inflicted decades of oppression, occupation, brutality and death on the Palestinian people. This infrastructure has inflicted More than 34 months of genocide in Gaza; a 20-year siege on Gaza that has deliberately restricted food, medicine, and humanitarian aid; six decades of a brutal occupation in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza; nearly eight decades of ethnic cleansing across the territories controlled by Israel; and a conservatively estimated 80,000—possibly as many as 680,000—Palestinians murdered in Gaza. By condemning only Ben‑Gvir, Carney avoided confronting the full scale of state violence, and in doing so revealed the limits of his moral courage, the character flaws of his leadership, and the extent of his cowardice.

More trade with China—another genocidal state

Carney’s weakness on human rights is not confined to Israel. His pursuit of expanded trade with China—despite Beijing’s ongoing genocide against the Uyghurs—shows the same pattern of moral blindness.

The Chinese government has built a vast network of concentration camps, indoctrination boarding schools that separate Uyghur children from their families, forced-labour factories, and an all‑seeing surveillance state designed to crush an entire people. The United States, the United Kingdom, and several European governments have formally recognized these atrocities as genocide, while Canada has not. And Carney’s response has been one of astonishing moral indifference.

He treats China’s genocide as a regrettable footnote rather than the absolute barrier to trade it should be. He speaks in the antiseptic language of “market access,” “strategic partnerships,” and “economic diversification,” while millions of Uyghurs are subjected to forced labour, mass detention, sterilization campaigns, cultural erasure, and the destruction of their religious identity. There is no moral universe in which a genocide can be bracketed off as an inconvenient detail in a trade negotiation. Yet that is precisely what Carney is doing—reducing one of the gravest crimes known to humanity to a background concern that must not interfere with Canada’s economic ambitions.

Under Carney, Ottawa has sought deeper economic ties with Beijing. Human rights have not been a meaningful point of negotiation. Forced labour has not been a red line. The genocide of Uyghurs has not been a barrier.

The message is unmistakable: profit is more important than people.

Appeasing a Hindu supremacist regime

The Carney government’s efforts to negotiate a comprehensive trade deal with India is another example of his willingness to overlook atrocities for economic gain. Under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India has embraced a racist, fascist, Hindu supremacist ideology that has made persecution of Muslims, Dalits and other Indian minority communities a matter of state policy. Citizenship laws target Muslims. Lynchings of Muslims by Hindu extremists occur with impunity. Journalists, academics, and activists face arrest for criticizing the government. The Modi regime has dismantled democratic norms and weaponized Hindu fundamentalism and nationalism as a tool of exclusion.

Yet Carney has pursued trade negotiations with India without including human rights a factor in negotiations. There has been no insistence on protections for Indo‑Muslims, Dalits, Christians or other minorities. No pressure on Modi’s government to end discriminatory policies. No moral leadership.

As South Africa’s Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu once said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” But it seems Carney hasn’t learned this lesson.

More trade with authoritarian states

Carney’s eagerness to forge trade deals with authoritarian regimes in the Persian Gulf and Saudi Arabia further underscores his disregard for human rights. These states—Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain—are among the least free societies in the world when it comes to civil liberties. Laws ban criticism of the ruling families, state policies, or Islam. Their governments use spyware and monitoring tools to target dissidents and activists. Political parties are illegal, and national legislatures have no real power. Millions of low-income workers face harsh conditions under the kafala sponsorship system. Activists and critics face arbitrary detention, lengthy prison terms, and unfair trials. Women’s rights are suppressed, being LGBTQ2 is criminalized, and independent journalism is silenced.

Yet Carney has treated these governments as normal trading partners, never making human rights a major point of negotiation. He speaks of Gulf autocracies as if they were simply emerging markets rather than repressive states where human rights are an afterthought. Canada, a nation that once prided itself on being a moral voice in global affairs, has now silenced itself under Carney.

Carney fails to defend Canadians’ Charter rights

Carney’s weakness on human rights is not limited to foreign policy. It is visible at home in his refusal to confront provincial governments that abuse the Canadian Constitution’s notwithstanding clause to violate the fundamental rights of Canadians. The clause was never intended as a routine political tool. It was meant to be an extraordinary measure used sparingly. But provinces have increasingly deployed it to override Charter rights for political convenience to: suppress labour rights; restrict freedom of expression; target vulnerable communities (Muslims in Quebec, the LGBTQ2 community in Alberta and Saskatchewan); and to pre‑empt judicial review of legislation.

This trend represents the slow normalization of constitutional vandalism. And Carney has done nothing to stop it (nor did his predecessors).

Refusal to use the power of “Disallowance”

The Constitution gives the federal government a powerful tool: disallowance. Under sections 55–57 of the Constitution Act, 1867, Ottawa can invalidate provincial laws that violate national principles or constitutional norms. This power has fallen into disuse, not because it is unconstitutional, but because federal governments have lacked the political courage to use it when needed.

Carney’s refusal to even consider disallowance to address Quebec’s Bill 21 “secularism” law or Alberta’s violation of LGBTQ2 rights is not restraint it is dereliction. When provinces openly use the notwithstanding clause to strip Canadians of Charter protections, the federal government has both the authority and the responsibility to intervene. But the federal government refuses

Political leaders who will not protect the rights of their own citizens cannot be trusted to defend the rights of persecuted peoples abroad.

Comparing Trudeau and Carney

While this analysis focuses on Carney and his government, similar criticisms can be levelled at his predecessor Justin Trudeau. On Gaza, on Israel’s decades-long occupation, on the misuse of the notwithstanding clause by provinces, Trudeau also failed to show the moral courage required of a national leader. He avoided naming Israeli atrocities for what they were. He refused to impose sanctions. He allowed provinces to weaponize the notwithstanding clause without federal intervention. On China, India, and the Gulf autocracies, Trudeau walked the same path Carney is now sprinting down—prioritizing trade, investment, and geopolitical convenience over human rights.

But there is one crucial difference. One of Trudeau’s first and most admirable decisions as prime minister was accepting thousands of Syrian refugees fleeing war and persecution just after he was elected prime minister. That act did not make Trudeau an angel on the other issues discussed here, but it demonstrated that he possessed at least some moral compass when it came to defending humanity. Carney has shown no such instinct. Where Trudeau jogged slowly down the path of moral compromise, Carney is racing down that road headlong, unencumbered by even the faintest hesitation about concerns for human rights.

Carney’s defenders often point to his credentials: a former governor of the Bank of Canada, former governor of the Bank of England, celebrated economist, respected financial thinker. But these accomplishments reveal the core problem. Carney approaches politics like a banker, not as a political leader representing all Canadians. He sees the world through balance sheets, not moral obligations, and treats human rights as negotiable, secondary, or inconvenient. He is a man who believes the market can solve everything except the things that matter most.

When humanity becomes a variable in an economic equation, it is always the first thing sacrificed.

Canada deserves a prime minister who understands that human rights are not optional. They are not bargaining chips to be traded away in back-room negotiations, nor are they secondary considerations to be weighed against export markets, investment flows, or geopolitical convenience.

Human rights are the moral foundation of any society that claims to value dignity, equality, and justice. In all the cases mentioned in this analysis Carney has responded not with the instinct to protect the vulnerable but with the instinct to protect economic interests

History teaches a simple lesson. A leader who refuses to protect humanity cannot be trusted on anything else. The measure of a prime minister is not the size of the economy he manages, but the size of the moral obligations he is willing to shoulder. By that measure, Carney has failed—and Canada must reckon with the consequences of a leader who has forgotten that the first duty of public office—to defend human life, not the bottom line.

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

Carney should know that appeasement never works when dealing with a bully like Trump

Bullies like Trump exploit perceived weakness because their goal is not mutual benefit but dominance . . . History offers stark warnings about the dangers of appeasing coercive actors. 

 
By Fareed Khan

 

Yesterday the Canadian government announced it would remove retaliatory tariffs on US goods compliant with the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), a move framed as an effort to reset stalled trade negotiations with the United States. Prime Minister Mark Carney described this as a strategic shift, likening it to a hockey game where Canada moves from “elbows up” to deft stick handling. Yet, this decision reeks of appeasement—a concession to Donald Trump, a president who has relentlessly bullied Canada with escalating tariffs and provocative rhetoric about annexing it as the 51st state. 

History and psychological studies warn us that appeasing bullies rarely ends well, and Canada’s current path risks repeating the mistakes of those who have caved to coercion before. By softening its stance, Canada is not outmanoeuvring a bully, it is inviting further aggression from a leader with a well-documented history of breaking promises and exploiting perceived weakness.

The psychology of bullies: Why appeasement fails

Psychological studies on bullying provide a clear framework for understanding Trump’s tactics and why appeasement is doomed to fail. Bullies thrive on power imbalances, using intimidation to assert dominance and extract concessions. According to the American Psychological Association bullies target those who display submissive behaviours, interpreting acquiescence as an invitation for further aggression. Appeasement, far from de-escalating conflict, signals to the bully that their tactics are effective, encouraging escalation.

This dynamic is evident in Trump’s trade war. After Canada imposed retaliatory tariffs on US goods in response to Trump’s 25% tariffs on Canadian exports (and 10% on energy), Trump raised the stakes, increasing tariffs to 35% on non-CUSMA-compliant goods and 50% on steel, aluminum, and copper. Canada’s decision to lift tariffs on CUSMA-compliant goods, while maintaining levies on key sectors like steel and autos, appears conciliatory—a move that risks emboldening Trump to push for more concessions.

Bullies like Trump exploit perceived weakness because their goal is not mutual benefit but dominance. A 2020 study in Personality and Individual Differences noted that individuals with narcissistic traits—such as grandiosity and a need for admiration—often engage in bullying to maintain control and suppress challenges to their authority. Trump’s public persona, marked by boastful rhetoric and personal attacks, aligns with this profile. His repeated references to Canada as a potential 51st state and his dismissal of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as a mere “governor” reflect a desire to humiliate and subordinate, not negotiate as equals. Canada’s tariff rollback, intended to foster dialogue, may instead signal to Trump that Canada is willing to bend under pressure, inviting further demands.

Historical lessons: The perils of appeasement

History offers stark warnings about the dangers of appeasing coercive actors. The most infamous example is the 1938 Munich Agreement, where Britain and France allowed Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia in hopes of securing “peace in our time.” This concession, driven by the desire to avoid conflict, emboldened Adolf Hitler, who interpreted it as a sign of weakness. Within a year, Germany occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland, triggering World War II. The lesson is clear: appeasing a bully who seeks dominance does not lead to peace but to escalation.

To Americans from Canadians: The bully you elected as president started a fight we’re going to finish

Canada will not be your 51st state. We will not be bullied, and we will not back down . . . we are prepared to endure any economic pain to protect who we are. 

 

By Fareed Khan 

 

A letter to America:

 

For the better part of a century, Canada has been your steadfast ally, your unwavering partner, and your friend through the trials of history. We have stood shoulder to shoulder in wars and times of crisis, opened our homes to Americans in moments of need, and built an economic relationship that has enriched both our nations. But today, under the leadership of Donald Trump, that relationship has been betrayed (again).

 

Your leader has chosen the path of a bully, wielding tariffs as weapons and threatening annexation masked as a jest that hides dangerous intent. America's actions—most recently the escalation of tariffs on Canadian goods to 35% on August 1, 2025—have made it clear that you see Canada not as a partner, but as a target to be subdued. Let us be unequivocal—Canada will not bend, we will not break, and we will not be bullied.  Canadians are prepared to endure whatever pain is necessary to protect our sovereignty and to ensure that your economic aggression costs you dearly.

The history of Donald Trump is one of betrayal, a pattern as old as the parable of the scorpion and the turtle. In that tale, the scorpion promises not to sting the turtle that carries it across the river, only to betray that trust because it is in its nature. Your president has shown his nature time and again in the business world and during his first presidential term—through broken promises and broken contracts with business associates, political allies, and now entire nations. Since November 2024, his repeated calls to make Canada the “51st state” have not been taken as mere rhetoric in Canada but as a direct threat to Canada’s sovereignty. His tariffs, which began at 25% and now stand at 35% on many Canadian goods, are not just economic policy, they are an attempt to bring Canada to its knees. But your president underestimates Canadian resilience. Canada is not a nation of weakness, we are a nation of tough, innovative, and resolute people who will fight back with every tool at our disposal.

The relationship between Canada and the United States stretches back well over a century, forged through shared challenges and mutual respect. In World War One, Canada sent over 600,000 troops to fight for freedom while the US remained neutral until 1917. In World War Two, we joined the Allies in 1939 at the start of the conflict, two years before America entered the fray. When the tragedy of 9/11 struck, Canada opened its skies and homes, welcoming over 33,000 US bound passengers onto its soil, with almost 7,000 hosted by families in the town of Gander, Newfoundland (a community of approximately 10,000).  Canada hosted our guests with kindness and patience until the passengers could return home. We stood by you in Afghanistan, sacrificing 158 Canadian lives in a shared mission. Yet, when you pursued the Iraq War on false pretenses, we held firm to our principles, refusing to join a conflict built on deception.

This is the Canada your president now threatens—a nation that has proven its loyalty, its courage, and its moral compass. In contrast, your government has chosen chaos over cooperation, taking a wrecking ball to the post-World War Two order that both our nations helped build. The US-Canada trade relationship, the largest in the world, with over $2.7 billion in trade across our border daily, is a cornerstone of prosperity for both nations. Three-quarters of Canada’s exports go to the US, and Canada is the top destination for exports from 34 US states, with Canadians purchasing $349 billion in American goods last year. Yet, your president has chosen to disrupt this mutually beneficial partnership with tariffs that economists warn will harm both our economies.

Trump’s tariffs are not just an attack on Canada, they are a self-inflicted wound on the American economy. Stephen Tapp, Chief Economist at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, has stated that these tariffs will “raise costs for businesses, make American production less competitive internationally, and raise prices even more for US consumers, who have recently suffered through the highest inflation in generations”. The Tax Foundation estimates that US tariffs will amount to an average tax increase of $1,219 per US household in 2025, with market income dropping by 1.3% in 2026. The Yale Budget Lab projects that Canada’s economy could shrink by 2.1% in the long term, but the US will also suffer long-term damage as supply chains falter and prices rise.

Canadians are not standing idly by. In response to Trump’s aggression against Canada, 71% of us have pledged to buy fewer American products, a boycott that is already hitting US exporters hard. In 2024, Canada was America’s  second-largest food export market, valued at $28.4 billion. That market is shrinking as Canadian supermarkets label domestic products and consumers willingly pay 50% more for fruit and vegetables from Mexico, Latin America and other nations rather than buy produce from the US. Liquor stores in the provinces of Quebec, British Columbia, and Ontario have pulled American wines and spirits from their shelves, replacing them with Canadian alternatives. Tourism, a $20.5 billion contributor to your economy from Canadian visitors, accounting for 140,000 jobs, has plummeted, with a six-month decline in cross-border travel costing the US an estimated $12.5 billion in 2025 alone. These actions are not mere gestures, they are a calculated response to your president’s economic bullying, and they are working.

Furthermore, your president’s threats of annexation have only strengthened the resolve of Canadians. Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau captured the national sentiment when he declared, “We didn’t ask for this, but we will not back down.” Polls have shown a surge in Canadian pride, with 44% of Canadians expressing they are “very proud” of their country, up 10 points since December 2024. The idea of joining the US as a state has been rejected by 90% of Canadians. From small business owners to everyday consumers, people across the country are uniting to protect the Canadian economy and our sovereignty. Across Canada grocery stores now feature products made in Canada, and shoppers choose Canadian products even when it’s less convenient, calling your tariffs an “economic attack”. But this is not just about economics; it is about identity.

Canada is the nation that gave the world insulin, the electron microscope, IMAX, the smartphone, the pacemaker, and yes, even peanut butter. We are the birthplace of hockey and basketball, and the home of cultural icons like Drake, Shania Twain, and Gordon Lightfoot. We are a nation of innovators, creators, and peacemakers, and we will not allow our legacy to be erased by your bully president who sees Canada as a prize to be claimed.

However, we know that standing up to your president’s deranged tariff policy will come with costs. Economists predict that the Trump tariffs could lead to a million job losses in Canada and push our economy into recession. But we are prepared to endure this pain to protect our sovereignty and to send a message that US bullying will not go unanswered. Our government has already imposed retaliatory tariffs on $20.8 billion of US goods, and Canada is exploring further measures, such as export taxes on resources like oil, gas, electricity and critical minerals which the US relies on for its industrial and defence sectors. As Prime Minister Mark Carney has said, “We’re their number one customer. I’m not too sure if they fully understand the impact on both sides of the border.”

Your own economists are sounding the alarm, warning that the boycott and retaliatory tariffs will cause a “drop in US exports,” particularly in food and alcohol. A “stagflationary shock” is also predicted in the US, with growth reduced by 1.5% and rising consumer prices. Even General Motors has reported a $1.1 billion loss in quarterly earnings due to the Trump tariffs on Canadian auto parts.

These are not abstract numbers; they are the real-world consequences of your president’s reckless policies, felt by American businesses and consumers alike. He seems to have mistaken Canada’s politeness for weakness, but we are a nation forged in resilience. We have faced external threats before and emerged stronger, and we will do so again. Our boycott is not temporary. It is a commitment to reshape our economy, reduce our reliance on US trade, and strengthen ties with Europe, Asia, and beyond. We are taking action to boost our domestic economy by an estimated $200 billion annually and undertaking nation building projects in support of that objective. We are united and we will not relent until the Trump administration ceases its attacks on our economy and our sovereignty.

This is our declaration of independence from the US as our main trading partner. Canada will not be your 51st state. We will not be bullied, and we will not back down. If Trump persists in this insanity, the economic pain will be felt on both sides of the border, but we are prepared to endure it to protect who we are. The scorpion may sting because it is in its nature, but Canada will not drown from the scorpion you have installed as your president. We will rise, stronger and prouder than ever, and you will learn that a true friend, when betrayed, becomes an unyielding force.

Sincerely,

Patriots Across Canada
 

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