Is Canada’s sovereignty safe in an age of US fascist aggression? Don’t bet on it.

Canada cannot afford complacency. Its future depends upon strengthening its economy, diversifying international relationships, deepening democratic institutions, and upgrading military capabilities. 

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

The decisive rejection of Alberta separatism should remind Canadians that the overwhelming majority of citizens, including Albertans themselves, remain committed to Canada as a united, sovereign, and independent country. It is also a result that was likely greeted with disappointment in certain political circles south of the border. Reports and allegations regarding contacts between American figures and leaders within Alberta's separatist movement raised legitimate questions about whether external actors were attempting to influence a domestic Canadian political debate. Whether those efforts were significant or largely symbolic, Alberta voters delivered a clear message: Canada's future will be decided by Canadians, not by outsiders seeking to advance their own interests.

Yet if there is one broader lesson to be drawn from that episode, it is that threats to sovereignty do not always originate from distant powers. Canadians frequently concern themselves with Russian aggression, Chinese influence operations, and geopolitical instability elsewhere in the world, while often overlooking the possibility that the most significant long-term challenge to Canadian sovereignty may emerge from the country that has been our closest neighbour, ally, and trading partner for more than a century.

This is not to suggest that an American invasion is imminent, nor is it to imply that most Americans harbour hostile intentions toward Canada. Rather, it is to recognize that many Canadians have not fully appreciated the extent to which American political culture, particularly within segments of the Republican Party and the broader MAGA movement, has changed during the past decade. That transformation has called into question assumptions that governed Canada-United States relations throughout much of the post-war era. Principles that Canadians once regarded as settled, including respect for alliances, international institutions, and the sovereignty of close partners, can no longer be treated as permanently secure.

Nor is the issue simply Donald Trump. The larger concern is the emergence of a political movement that increasingly views international affairs through the lens of power rather than partnership. Within this worldview, alliances, trade agreements, and even the sovereignty of neighbouring countries are often evaluated in terms of how effectively they serve American interests. From that perspective, Canada risks being viewed less as an equal partner deserving respect and more as a strategic asset, a source of natural resources, a captive market, and a territory that falls naturally within a broader American sphere of influence.

When combined with repeated rhetoric about Canada becoming the "51st state," such attitudes should prompt Canadians to think far more seriously about the future of their country's independence than many have in the past.

The greatest threat to Canadian sovereignty may not be a military invasion. It may instead be the gradual normalization of a political culture that increasingly views allies, trading partners, and neighbouring countries through the lens of leverage, coercion, and strategic advantage rather than cooperation and mutual respect. If that worldview continues to exert influence long after Donald Trump leaves office, Canada could find itself facing sustained economic, political, and strategic pressure from a neighbour that no longer regards Canadian sovereignty as beyond question.

The end of an assumption

For most of the twentieth century and into the early decades of the twenty-first, Canada and the United States enjoyed one of the most stable and successful bilateral relationships in modern history. Disagreements certainly occurred over trade, lumber, agriculture, defence spending, energy policy, and foreign affairs. Yet these disputes unfolded within a broader framework of mutual respect, shared interests, and a common understanding that both nations benefited from the relationship.

Since the first Trump administration, however, that framework has shown visible signs of strain.

Following his return to office in January 2025, Donald Trump repeatedly revived rhetoric suggesting that Canada should become the "51st state." He argued publicly that Canada depends more on the United States than the United States depends on Canada and suggested on numerous occasions that annexation would solve various bilateral disputes. Statements that once might have been dismissed as provocative humour took on greater significance because they were repeated so frequently and by the most powerful political figure in the United States.

History demonstrates that ideas repeatedly introduced into political discourse often become normalized over time. What begins as a joke, provocation, or rhetorical flourish can gradually evolve into a subject of serious debate once influential political and media figures begin repeating the same themes. While rhetoric alone does not constitute policy, it can help reshape public assumptions about what is politically acceptable.

Trump's treatment of Greenland is equally revealing. He repeatedly argued that the United States should acquire the Danish territory and at various points refused to rule out economic or military pressure to achieve that objective. Even when moderating some of his language, he continued to insist that American ownership of Greenland was a strategic necessity tied to national security concerns.

The significance of this rhetoric is not that Canada and Greenland occupy identical positions. Rather, the significance lies in the fact that senior American political leaders have demonstrated a willingness to discuss acquiring territory from allied countries in ways that would have been almost unimaginable only a few years earlier. The barrier that once separated democratic competition from great-power territorial ambition appears less rigid than many had assumed.

Power rather than partnership

The Trump administration's trade policies offer another warning sign.

Successive rounds of tariffs imposed on Canadian steel, aluminium, automobiles, and other exports were frequently justified on grounds that many economists, trade specialists, and policy analysts regarded as politically motivated or economically dubious. Canada responded with countermeasures while attempting to preserve the broader trading relationship. Yet the deeper concern is not the tariffs themselves. It is the mindset that made them possible.

For decades, many policymakers in both countries viewed trade between allies as a mutually beneficial enterprise. Increasingly, however, sections of American political discourse have begun treating economic interdependence as a source of leverage. Integration is valued not merely for the prosperity it creates but for the influence it provides.

Within this framework, economic relationships become instruments of coercion. The central question is no longer how trade benefits both countries but how economic power can be used to secure political or strategic advantages. Shared values become secondary to calculations of national gain.

This logic extends well beyond Canada. Similar patterns can be observed in disputes with European allies, debates surrounding NATO burden-sharing, pressure campaigns against trading partners, and rhetoric surrounding Greenland, Panama, and other strategically significant territories. When relationships are increasingly evaluated through the lens of dominance rather than cooperation, smaller states inevitably find themselves in a more vulnerable position.

Trump is not the entire problem

Many Canadians comfort themselves with the belief that everything will return to normal once Donald Trump eventually leaves office. That assumption may prove dangerously optimistic.

Political movements frequently outlive the individuals most closely associated with them. All you have to do is look to how Nazism still exists more than 80 years after Hitler’s death.

Trumpism did not emerge from a political vacuum. Rather, it reflects broader changes within American political culture that developed over decades. The growth of populist nationalism, increasing political polarization, declining confidence in international institutions, and resentment toward globalization all predate Trump himself. Trump became the most visible embodiment of these trends, but he did not create them alone.

Many of his closest advisers, media allies, ideological supporters, and political successors remain committed to a more nationalist and confrontational vision of American power. While they may differ on tactics, many share the belief that America's interests should take precedence over traditional diplomatic constraints and that international institutions should serve American objectives rather than limit them.

Even if Trump vanished from the political landscape tomorrow, many of the forces that elevated him would remain. Protectionist sentiment would persist, and nationalist politics would continue. The perception that allies have benefited disproportionately from trade with American and its military protection would still exist among substantial segments of the US electorate.

The question Canadians should therefore ask is not whether Trump will eventually leave office. The more important question is whether the political and cultural forces that produced Trump are likely to disappear with his departure from the White House. At present, there is little evidence to suggest that they will.

A Democratic victory may not restore the status quo

Nor should Canadians assume that a future Democratic administration would automatically restore the pre-Trump status quo. The United States is undergoing a broader structural transformation that transcends partisan politics. Canadian policymakers must recognize that the political environment shaping American foreign policy is changing in ways that neither party can entirely reverse.

Since the pandemic years, American policy debates have increasingly focused on supply chains, industrial policy, strategic industries, critical minerals, advanced manufacturing, and competition with major powers. These concerns are not confined to Republicans. Democrats generally frame them differently, but both parties are responding to growing public demands for economic security and national resilience.

The United States that emerged after the Second World War largely saw itself as the chief architect and guarantor of a rules-based international order. Today, politicians across the political spectrum face increasing pressure to pursue narrowly defined national interests, even when doing so creates friction with allies or long-established international norms. This shift did not begin with Donald Trump, and it is unlikely to end with his departure from the political scene.

Canadians should therefore recognize that the assumptions which governed bilateral relations for the past 80 years may no longer apply. The deeper economic and political forces reshaping American society remain intact, regardless of which party occupies the White House.

The Austria analogy

History never repeats itself exactly. Nevertheless, it often provides important warnings. Some commentators have compared contemporary developments in American politics to aspects of Europe in the 1920s and 30s, when fascism was on the rise. But while the US is not Nazi Germany the parallels can’t be ignored. While  intense political polarization and growing strains on democratic norms are increasing in the US it still remains a constitutional democracy with powerful institutions, an independent judiciary, a vibrant civil society, and vigorous political opposition.  However, history still offers lessons worth considering as Canada watches democracy under siege south of the border.

During the 1930s, many Europeans struggled to take seriously the increasingly aggressive rhetoric emanating from Berlin. Expansionist statements were frequently dismissed as posturing intended for domestic audiences. Each escalation was rationalized. Each warning sign was minimized. Many assumed that long-established norms would ultimately restrain more extreme ambitions.

Within this context, Austria occupied a uniquely vulnerable position. It shared language, culture, economic ties, and deep historical connections with Germany. Many believed those common bonds would provide security. Instead, they provided opportunities for political pressure and coercion. By the time Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany in 1938, its options had narrowed considerably.

The comparison to Canada has obvious limits. The circumstances are fundamentally different. Yet one lesson remains relevant. Familiarity and integration do not automatically guarantee security. Like Austria, Canada exists beside a much larger and more powerful neighbour. Like Austria, it is deeply integrated with that neighbour economically, culturally, and socially. And like Austria, Canada sometimes assumes that those close connections are all the protection it requires.

History suggests otherwise.  Some of the loudest voices within contemporary American nationalism increasingly speak about North America as though it were a naturally integrated geopolitical space that should be organized under American leadership. Within that worldview, Canada possesses resources America desires, territory America values, water resources that may become increasingly important in the future, and strategic Arctic access that is growing in significance as climate change reshapes the region.

Greenland is often discussed in similar terms because of its geography and mineral wealth. Mexico is frequently framed less as a sovereign partner than as a security challenge requiring unilateral American solutions. None of this means annexation is official American policy. But it does reveal an underlying mindset in which power increasingly creates a perceived entitlement to influence, shape, or direct the affairs of others.

History teaches that when powerful nations begin thinking this way, smaller neighbours should pay attention.

What Canada must do

Most Canadians still see ordinary Americans as friends, allies, and partners. Canada's prosperity remains deeply connected to the United States, and that relationship will continue to matter enormously in the decades ahead. Friendship, however, does not eliminate the need for prudence.

The government of Prime Minister Mark Carney has taken important steps toward diversifying Canada's economic relationships. Expanding trade with Europe, the Indo-Pacific region, and emerging markets is no longer simply a matter of seeking new opportunities. It has become a strategic necessity.

However, a country that depends too heavily upon a single market inevitably becomes vulnerable to political and economic pressure. Greater diversification provides Canada with more freedom to pursue independent policies and defend its interests without fear of excessive economic retaliation.

Canada must also move much more quickly to remove internal trade barriers that continue to fragment its own domestic economy. These barriers increase costs, reduce productivity, limit competitiveness, and undermine national economic resilience. Strengthening east-west economic integration should be treated as both an economic and a nation-building priority.

Beyond trade, Canada’s move to deepen strategic partnerships with democratic middle powers that share an interest in preserving a rules-based international order is also a step in the right direction. Economic resilience and diplomatic diversification are essential. But they are not sufficient on their own.

Additionally, a sovereign country cannot indefinitely maintain full strategic independence if it lacks the capacity to defend itself. Canada must therefore begin treating national defence as a genuine priority once again, and it must be acknowledged that, in its current configuration, the Canadian Armed Forces could not defeat the United States in a conventional military conflict. Matching American military capabilities would require expenditures and levels of mobilization not seen since World War Two.

Fortunately, deterrence has never depended upon parity. Throughout history, smaller countries have preserved their independence not by matching the military strength of larger powers but by ensuring that aggression would carry unacceptable costs. Deterrence works when conflict becomes too expensive, too uncertain, and too risky to justify.

Recent confrontations involving Iran illustrate this principle. Although Iran possesses only a fraction of America's military capabilities, policymakers in Washington have repeatedly had to weigh the substantial costs that a large-scale conflict would entail. Military superiority alone does not guarantee favourable outcomes if an adversary retains the capacity to impose meaningful costs. That is the essence of deterrence.

Canada does not need a military capable of conquering the United States. It needs a military capable of making coercion costly, unpredictable, and politically unattractive. The objective is not victory in an offensive war but the preservation of sovereignty through credible defensive capability.

The danger of complacency

The greatest threat to Canadian sovereignty is not thousands of US soldiers and tanks crossing Canadian land borders or an armada of US military jets controlling the skies over Canada. It is the persistence of outdated assumptions. For generations, Canadians assumed that economic integration guaranteed security, that shared values guaranteed respect, and that American power would always operate within predictable bounds. Recent developments suggest those assumptions deserve far greater scrutiny than they once did.

Repeated discussions of Canadian annexation, escalating tariff disputes, coercive trade measures, territorial ambitions regarding Greenland, and a broader political culture that increasingly equates power with entitlement should compel Canadians to rethink old certainties. The issue is not whether every provocative statement made by Donald Trump represents concrete policy. The issue is whether Canada is prepared for a world in which such statements are no longer politically unthinkable.

The reality is that a sovereign nation cannot afford complacency. Canada's future depends upon strengthening its economy, diversifying its international relationships, deepening its democratic institutions, and maintaining credible military capabilities. The lesson of history is straightforward: countries that assume powerful neighbours will remain permanently benevolent often discover their mistake too late. Canada should not be one of them.

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

King Charles’ state visit to Trump’s America is a grave miscalculation by the UK government

The decision to go ahead with the visit has alienated the voters who expect more from their government. And it has squandered whatever remaining moral authority that the Starmer government claims on the world stage.

 

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

As King Charles III and Queen Camilla prepare to touch down in Washington this weekend for a four-day state visit hosted by President Donald Trump, the United Kingdom government’s decision to press ahead with it looks less like prudent diplomacy and more like a catastrophic political miscalculation.

Scheduled for April 27 to 30, 2026, the trip is billed as a celebration of the 250th anniversary of American independence. In reality, it unfolds against a backdrop of acute transatlantic strain—a US-led war in Iran that the UK has pointedly refused to support in full, and a president who has spent the past year publicly humiliating the British. By allowing the King to proceed with the visit, Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government has handed Trump a glittering propaganda victory while exposing the monarchy to potential embarrassment and, crucially, dragging Canada—where King Charles is also head of state—into the political crossfire. This is not statesmanship. In the current political climate between the US and the UK it is a blunder of historic proportions.

The case for cancellation was never abstract. It has been spelled out in stark terms by opposition leaders in the British Parliament, senior Labour Party figures, and ordinary citizens. A YouGov poll for The Times found that 45% of the British public believe the visit should be scrapped outright. Liberal Democrat Party leader Ed Davey has been relentless, describing the trip as a reward for “bullying behaviour”, and an “illegal war” in Iran that is destabilising the Middle East and driving up energy bills for British families. Davey has repeatedly called Trump a “mafia boss running a protection racket” and accused Starmer of weakness for refusing to stand up to him.

Twenty-nine Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament signed a motion urging cancellation. Green Party leader Zack Polanski labelled Trump “dangerous” and “unpredictable” and condemned the government’s capitulation. Even within Labour, MP Emily Thornberry warned that the visit against the backdrop of an illegal war risks embarrassing the royals. Guardian letter-writers echoed the sentiment, arguing that Trump would see the visit as personal tribute rather than apolitical protocol, and calling the optics “awful”, accusing the government of pandering to Trump’s narcissism. 

Yet Starmer’s government ploughed on, insisting the visit is “non-political soft diplomacy.” That claim collapsed the moment one examines how Trump operates. The president has never met a photo opportunity he did not turn into a personal endorsement. A state banquet, an address to Congress, joint appearances with the King in Washington, New York, and Virginia—these are not neutral ceremonies. They are catnip for a man who already boasts about restoring the “special relationship” on his own terms. Trump will frame every handshake, every toast, every regal flourish as implicit British (and therefore allied) approval of his most controversial policies—the Iran campaign, his confrontational style with NATO partners, and his willingness to berate allies in public. The visit becomes Exhibit A in his narrative that even the stuffiest of old-world institutions have come around to “Trumpism.” Starmer’s ministers may whisper that the monarchy is above politics, but Trump will shout the opposite from every podium.

Worse, the risk of real-time embarrassment is not hypothetical—it is almost inevitable. Trump’s well-documented penchant for straying from the script has already produced diplomatic disasters. He has dismissed the Royal Navy's ships as “toys,” sneered that Keir Starmer is “no Winston Churchill,” and accused his government of wrecking the special relationship. During the visit he could easily veer off-message with a casual aside about British military “weakness,” a boast about forcing allies to “pay up,” or a joke at the expense of the very man standing beside him. Buckingham Palace’s careful choreography—every word of the King’s speeches pre-vetted, every gesture calibrated for neutrality—will mean nothing if the American president treats the occasion like a political rally. The King, whose role demands dignified silence in the face of provocation, would be left either to smile awkwardly or to endure a breach of protocol that damages the institution he represents. No amount of post-visit spin can erase footage of the monarch standing mute while his host insults the country over which he reigns.

The domestic cost to Britain is already evident. Cancellation would have been a principled signal that London will not legitimise unilateral wars, will not reward public insults to its armed forces, and will not allow the monarchy to become a prop in someone else’s political agenda. Instead, the British government’s decision has deepened divisions in that country. It has handed the opposition in Westminster a ready-made stick with which to beat Starmer as “weak on bullies.” The decision to go ahead with the visit has alienated the very voters who expect the British government to do far better. And it has squandered whatever remaining moral authority that the Starmer government claims on the world stage. When the prime minister’s office insists the visit is “on government advice,” it merely confirms the parliamentary opposition’s claims that the Labour government lacks the spine to say no—even when the national interest screams otherwise.

The repercussions extend beyond the United Kingdom. King Charles is not only the United Kingdom’s monarch, he is also Canada’s head of state. The visit therefore implicates Ottawa in ways that haven’t even been considered in London. Canadian public opinion has long been critical of Trump’s style and policies. Many Canadians continue to be outraged at the trade war launched by Trump, about tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum, his threats about possibly cancelling the USMCA, and his repeated expressions of disrespect directed at former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and current Prime Minister Mark Carney. A royal state visit—complete with Trump’s inevitable claims of restored friendship—will be interpreted by many in Canada as tacit endorsement of the very administration with which Ottawa now has an adversarial relationship.

Polls in Canada already show unease about the monarchy’s relevance, and this episode could turbo-charge republican sentiment. More dangerously, it risks complicating Canada-US relations at a delicate moment. If Trump uses the King’s presence to pressure Canada, Ottawa will find itself caught between loyalty to the Crown and the need to protect Canadian interests. The constitutional fiction that the King acts solely on British ministerial advice offers little comfort when the images will be broadcast live from the White House lawn. Canadians did not ask for their head of state to become a prop in Trump’s diplomatic theatre.  And the fact that Canada wasn’t consulted given Canada’s close economic and military ties with the US (far closer than what the UK has) is deeply troubling.

The UK government’s defenders will trot out the usual bromides—tradition, the 250th anniversary, the importance of the special relationship. But tradition does not require grovelling before a leader who has spent months disparaging Britain. Anniversary symbolism cannot justify tacitly endorsing a war against Iran that the UK itself has declined to join. And the so-called special relationship has never been more lopsided. Trump’s own disparaging words towards the British reveal how he views the UK. It should be noted that a state visit is not a repair kit, it is a reward. By granting it, Britain signals that insults can be forgotten, that unilateral aggression carries no diplomatic cost, and that even the monarchy can be co-opted. That is precisely the message Trump craves.

Critics inside and outside government offered Starmer a clear off-ramp. Ed Davey’s warnings about humiliation, the Early Day Motion, the public polling, the Guardian letters—all pointed to the same conclusion, that the visit should be postponed, cancelled, or at minimum scaled back to a working visit without the full royal pageantry. Starmer decided to ignore them resulting in a self-inflicted wound. The King will arrive in Washington not as a symbol of continuity and dignity, but as the reluctant face of a policy that looks to much of the British public and many international observers, like appeasement hiding behind pageantry.

History will not be kind to Starmer for this decision. British history will note that in April 2026, with the Middle East in flames and the Atlantic alliance fraying, all due to Trump’s actions, a Labour government chose to send the King to break bread with a president whose actions endangered the world. They will record the predictable outcome—Trump crowing about how the British love him, the King placed in an impossible situation, and Canada by extension caught in the back wash. The special relationship is not being strengthened, it is being cheapened, and the monarchy is being politicized. With this visit the United Kingdom’s reputation for principled restraint is being further tarnished, and the likely political gain will be minimal.

There is still time—barely—for a last-minute adjustment. The Starmer government could issue a discreet clarification that the visit proceeds with reservations. The prime minister could use the remaining hours to impose stricter ground rules on what can be said in the presence of the King. But the wiser course would have been to cancel the visit weeks ago. Unfortunately, that ship has sailed.

This weekend’s events represent a colossal mistake born of a huge political miscalculation. Britain—and Canada—will be living with the consequences long after King Charles returns home and the state banquet candles are extinguished. Even as Canada and the UK’s allies redouble their efforts at traditional diplomacy—quiet negotiations, multilateral forums, and appeals to shared history—the Donald Trump’s unpredictable impulses suggest that fresh rounds of chaos, tariffs, territorial jabs, or diplomatic broadsides are likely to follow no matter the efforts to maintain “normal” relations with the US.

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

PITY THE NATION

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

Invasion of Venezuela proves again that the US is a rogue superpower and a threat to world peace and stability

The Venezuela invasion is part of a long, bipartisan US pattern of unlawful military interventions that has made America the most destabilizing nation on Earth.

By Fareed Khan

A version of this article can be found on Substack.

On January 3, 2026, mere days into the new year, the United States launched a shocking military assault on Venezuela code named “Operation Absolute Resolve.” American forces conducted airstrikes on key sites in Caracas and surrounding areas, including military bases like Fort Tiuna and La Carlota airbase, before special operations teams—reportedly including Delta Force—captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, extracting them and confining them aboard the USS Iwo Jima.

President Donald Trump announced the operation triumphantly, stating that the US would temporarily “run” Venezuela and be “very strongly involved” in its oil industry again, given the nation’s vast reserves of over 303 billion barrels—the largest in the world. This blatant act of aggression, justified vaguely as a response to “narco-terrorism,” reveals the US once again as the world’s most dangerous rogue state, a nation that habitually violates international law, invades sovereign countries for strategic and economic gain, and destabilizes the world while preaching a “rules-based order” for all other nations.

The American military operation constitutes clear violations of multiple pillars of international law. It directly contravenes Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. The airstrikes on Venezuelan soil and the forcible removal of a sitting head of state lack UN Security Council authorization and do not meet the strict criteria for self-defence under Article 51 of the Charter, as no imminent armed attack on the US was evident. Prominent legal experts, including Geoffrey Robertson—a former president of the UN war crimes court in Sierra Leone—have called it a “crime of aggression“—the planning and execution of unlawful force, deemed the “supreme international crime” since the Nuremberg trials. Similarly, Chatham House analysts and others describe it as an “unlawful use of force” without any genuine basis in self-defence or UN resolution.

The capture of Maduro and Trump’s explicit intentions to control Venezuela’s oil resources further breach principles of state sovereignty and non-intervention, enshrined in international law and the 1970 UN Declaration on Principles of International Law. Preceding actions, such as strikes on Venezuelan vessels in international waters and seizures of oil tankers, raise concerns under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), involving unauthorized lethal force and extraterritorial actions without jurisdiction.

Global condemnation has been swift. The UN Secretary-General expressed deep alarm, stating that the action sets a “dangerous precedent“ and that “international law hasn’t been respected.” Countries including Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Cuba, Russia, China, Iran, France, and Spain denounced the strikes as flagrant violations of sovereignty and the UN Charter. Even allies expressed concern, while enforcement remains blocked by the US veto in the Security Council.

This aggression is indistinguishable from Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Both involve unilateral military force against a sovereign neighbour, justified by contrived pretexts—Russia’s claims of “denazification” and threats, versus US allegations of drug trafficking without proof of imminent harm—and both aim at regime change with an underlying focus on natural resources or strategic interests.

The US vociferously condemned Russia for breaching the UN Charter and sovereignty principles, imposing sanctions and rallying global support. Yet now, America commits the same acts in Venezuela. If China were to launch a similar operation in Taiwan, citing “security threats” from US arms sales or alliances, the United States and its allies would thunderously decry violations of international law and the rules-based order. This glaring double standard exposes US disregard for international law, and its actions for what they are—a license for imperialism, where the rules bind everyone except the US and its allies.

The Venezuela invasion is not an outlier but part of a long, bipartisan US pattern of unlawful interventions that has made America the most destabilizing force in the world. Under President Dwight Eisenhower the CIA tried to pressure Egyptian King Farouk I into embracing political reforms favourable to American interests, and when he resisted they worked with disaffected members of the Egyptian military to overthrow him in a 1952 coup. In 1953 the CIA was also integral to helping install Mohammad Reza Pahlavi of as Shah of Iran, after removing the democratically elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, who had nationalized Iran’s oil resources.

Under President Lyndon Johnson, the US massively escalated its involvement in the Vietnam War by orchestrating the Gulf of Tonkin Incident on August 2, 1964 to justify deeper American involvement. For the next decade the US bombed and invaded North Vietnam without UN approval, resulting in over a million Vietnamese dead, along with hundreds of thousands more in Laos and Cambodia. The devastation from the war in North and South Vietnam was widespread and now more than 50 years later the nation is still recovering, and has yet to heal. 

George H.W. Bush’s 1989 invasion of Panama was condemned by the UN General Assembly as a violation of the UN Charter, with not a single American government official being held legally accountable for American crimes. George W. Bush initiated illegal wars in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), causing over one million deaths through violence and ensuing chaos and the destruction of civil society infrastructure. American’s “War on Terror” saw the US also violate the sovereignty of Somalia and Yemen, all without proper Security Council authorization. In total it is estimated that America’s post-9/11 wars have resulted in the death of more than 4.5 million Arabs and Muslims.

Barack Obama perpetuated these conflicts while adding unilateral interventions in Libya (2011, transforming a stable state into a failed one rife with slave markets and militias), and authorized airstrikes in Syria. Joe Biden maintained ongoing operations in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Somalia. And in his two administrations Donald Trump ordered strikes in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Iran, frequently bypassing congressional oversight. Now, in 2026, Venezuela becomes the latest victim of America’s criminal foreign policy where any nation that doesn’t bow to US demands becomes a target of economic warfare or military assault.

This history includes dozens of coups and regime changes since 1945—from the 1953 overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, to the 1954 Guatemala coup protecting United Fruit Company interests (sparking a civil war killing 200,000), to the 1973 coup in Chile which overthrew Salvador Allende, and installed Augusto Pinochet  as dictator. The early 20th-century “Banana Wars” in Central America also installed regimes compliant with America’s agenda, earning the derogatory term “banana republics.” Additionally, with over 750 military bases in 80 countries—far exceeding any historical empire—the US sustains “forever wars” that have killed 13-23 million deaths in at least 28 nations, while sanctions have crippled economies in Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela.

Every such violation and illegal act by the US breeds instability. The Iraq invasion birthed ISIS, Libya’s intervention fragmented the region and empowered warlords, Afghanistan’s occupation ultimately revived the Taliban. In the Global South, America’s insatiable hunger for resources—oil in the Middle East, minerals in Africa and Latin America—sacrifices national sovereignty and violates the UN Charter repeatedly, fuelling resentment, causing refugee crises, and energizing terrorism. Venezuela’s enormous oil wealth makes it a prime target, and Trump’s open declarations of control echo the fabricated pretexts for Iraq in 2003, where lies about weapons of mass destruction masked desires for oil dominance.

The prelude to this invasion involved months of escalation—a massive US military buildup in the Caribbean with 15,000 personnel and 150 aircraft, strikes on over 35 vessels killing at least 115 people, and seizures of oil tankers—actions already criticized as potential acts of aggression and violations of maritime law. This campaign, framed as an anti-narcotics operation but escalating to direct attacks on Venezuelan soil, underscores how the US manipulates domestic legal pretexts to bypass international norms, setting precedents that weaken the global order.

Despite Maduro’s authoritarian flaws and contested elections, Venezuela under the Chavismo ideology achieved remarkable social gains, including over 95% literacy rates and expanded healthcare access for millions lifted from poverty. Regime change here primarily opens doors for US firms like ExxonMobil and Chevron to reclaim assets nationalized years ago, prioritizing corporate interests over genuine democratic or humanitarian concerns.

Under Trump, this imperial recklessness reaches alarming heights, reviving the hegemonic shadow of the Monroe Doctrine over Central and South America. Each US transgression erodes the post-World War Two international order, encouraging lawlessness where power trumps principle. The Venezuela crisis risks wider regional conflict, akin to the sectarian spillover from Iraq, potentially drawing in allies of Venezuela like Russia or China.

The human cost is already emerging with reports of civilian and military casualties in Caracas, power outages, and fears of refugee influxes prompting border mobilizations in Colombia. This deliberate and unnecessary violence, inflicted without congressional authorization or broad international support, highlights America’s overreach alongside global illegality.

For genuine global stability, the world must work to dismantle the US empire by shutting down overseas military bases, end the sale of arms to rights abusers, lift sanctions that punish civilians, and restrain the military-industrial complex profiting from perpetual conflict. The Global South watches apprehensively, aware that any resource-rich nation defying Washington could be next in line. Until the US confronts its history of predation disguised as liberation, it remains the paramount threat to world peace—a rogue state perpetuating cycles of violence that endangers the world.

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

OP-ED -- Canadians are mad as hell and ready for a battle over Trump tariffs

By Fareed Khan

Originally published on TheHill.com: https://thehill.com/opinion/5195289-canada-trade-war-trump/

 

From the frozen and sparsely populated northern territories to Toronto’s crowded streets, and from Newfoundland to Vancouver, a storm of fury is building in Canada. It’s not aimed at Americans — our friends and neighbors — but at President Trump and the enablers who are helping facilitate an economic disaster of his making. 

His policy of 25 percent tariffs on Canadian exports to the U.S. has sparked a needless trade war with America’s closest friend and ally. Canadians are not going to sip maple syrup and just take it. This is a betrayal, plain and simple. We are done being polite and pretending otherwise.

 

Let us start with Trump’s absurd claims about the U.S. getting a raw deal from Canada. He negotiated the U.S., Mexico, Canada Trade Agreement, crowed that it was the best trade deal ever, and signed it in 2020. Now, he is torching it with tariffs built on lies and bluster. He gripes about dairy, claiming Canada slaps 390 percent tariffs on U.S. imports. The reality? It’s only 250 percent, and that’s only above a quota negotiated by Trump that the American dairy industry hasn’t even hit since the deal began. So there have been no tariffs triggered yet — none.

 

Then there is the laughable claim that the U.S. subsidizes Canada. Subsidizes us? American firms own chunks of our economy — our own fault, sure, but it’s the truth. Meanwhile, we have sold you cheap electricity for decades, propping up your electrical grids and your economy. So, who is subsidizing whom? It’s maddening to hear Trump administration officials whine when the U.S. is getting a deal that many Canadian hydro consumers would relish. This is another Trump lie for which Americans and Canadians will pay the price.

 

The rage of Canadians isn’t targeted at the American people but at your leader, whose irrationality seems to have no limits, and toward the sycophants propping him up. Those who voted for him also own this. You elected him again, and now he’s smashing a bond that’s benefitted both countries for generations. Canada is not mere collateral damage. We’re the target, and we’re not going to take it sitting down.

 

Canadian steel and aluminum is also a target where tariffs could severely damage the U.S. economy by disrupting integrated North American supply chains that support millions of jobs. Canada is the largest supplier of these materials with exports valued at over $35 billion annually, feeding the automotive, construction and aerospace sectors which rely on these exports for production. Imposing tariffs would feed inflation and trigger retaliatory measures from Canada.

 

Canada’s retaliation to this trade war has become personal for millions of Canadians. Consumer boycotts of U.S. goods are reshaping store shelves in Canada — not out of spite, but because no one is buying. Canadian retailers are dropping American produce, wines and spirits, and other products and finding alternatives. Lower prices once drove us to your fruits and vegetables, but sourcing elsewhere at a slightly higher price isn’t the hit we feared. Your farmers though, they are going to watch crops rot as markets vanish — just ask Jack Daniel’s what’s happening with their whiskey, which sits on pallets unsold.

 

Energy is a bigger issue. We supply 60 percent of your crude oil, for which your refineries are specifically built. Swapping out Canadian crude for Saudi or Venezuelan won’t help if we cut off oil exports. And then there are autos. Parts can cross the Detroit-Windsor border as many as eight times before a car is completed. That is a business decision made by Ford, GM, and Stellantis, not Canada. Trump’s tariffs are clogging a system that has powered both our economies for decades to the benefit of both nations. But now his tariffs will kill jobs not save them.

 

Canadian travel to the U.S. is also plummeting. Canadians are the No. 1 visitors to the U.S. spending over $20 billion annually but Canadians don’t want to spend their dollars in a nation led by a man that is threatening our country with annexation. Canada will never be the 51st state, and Americans need to accept this.

 

A trillion-dollar trade relationship is coming apart. Although it will sting us, it will cost the U.S. far more. Factories don’t appear overnight, and Trump’s “reciprocal tariff” fallacy won’t balance anything. This slow-motion train wreck is Trump’s doing and Americans will pay a steep price for his economic vandalism.

 

But the real pain comes from the betrayal. Canada has stood with you through wars and other crises. We’re not just neighbours, we’re family. Yet Trump and his cheerleaders treat us like a punching bag, egged on by MAGA cultists who swallowed his nonsense whole. His enablers in Congress and the media parrot every lie, while his base cheers a policy as stupid as it is mean spirited. This isn’t leadership — it’s sowing pandemonium.

 

We don’t want this fight. Stop this insanity and our counter-tariffs vanish fast. We’ll apologize for the corner you boxed us into — not from weakness, but because we cherish what we had. We’ll stay your friends if you want but until then our anger will burn bright — not at Americans, but at the madness you’ve unleashed and the system sustaining him. Trump isn’t just bullying Canada, he is attacking sanity, and we’re not backing down as long as he continues.

 

Fareed Khan is a government relations and public policy professional with over three decades of experience addressing a broad spectrum of domestic and international public policy issues. His op-eds and analyses of public policy have been published in newspapers across Canada.

 

© 1998 - 2025 Nexstar Media Inc. | All Rights Reserved.

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

OP-ED -- Trump’s tariff policies could lead to world-wide recession and political instability

History has shown us that trade wars escalate global instability and can often be a prelude to open conflict.

 

By Fareed Khan

 

Originally published on: https://rabble.ca/politics/canadian-politics/trumps-tariff-policies-could-lead-to-world-wide-recession-and-political-instability/

 

Since Donald Trump’s re-election as president of the United States a storm of economic and political turmoil has loomed over Canada and the world, driven by Trump’s determination to impose aggressive tariff policies on America’s friends and allies. The 25 per cent tariffs that went into effect on March 4 on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China — America’s largest trading partners — alongside threats of tariffs against the European Union and other nations, risks plunging the global economy into a deep recession, if not an outright economic depression. 

  

If we take lessons from history such economic upheaval could ignite political instability and possible military conflict, but with the US positioned as the antagonist this time against its long-standing friends and allies.

The historical parallels between Trump’s trade policies and the economic protectionism of the early 20th century are alarming and unmistakable. In the aftermath of World War I, the US enacted a series of tariffs aimed at protecting its economy. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 raised duties on hundreds of imports, prompting retaliatory tariffs from other nations and severely constricted global trade. These measures contributed significantly to the onset of the Great Depression, which ultimately became a catalyst for protectionism, resulting in the rise of nationalism and fascism, which led to World War II.

The interconnectedness of national economies around the world demonstrated that the economic volatility generated by those tariffs had far-reaching and lethal consequences.

Economists and historians alike agree that historically there has been a clear connection between trade wars and military conflicts. French economist Frédéric Bastiat is often quoted for his insight that “when goods do not cross frontiers, armies will.” 

His words resonate today when we consider the possible repercussions of the trade war initiated by the Trump administration. When economic ties fray and nations retreat into isolationism, a vacuum is created, one that can be easily filled by inflamed nationalist sentiments. If we look at the reaction of many Americans on social media to Trump’s denigrating remarks about Canada and his repeated comments about annexing the country as the 51st state, we will find many instances of chauvinistic nationalism with militaristic narratives targeting Canada by Trump’s MAGA loyalists.

Economists have consistently warned that the consequences of Trump’s tariffs will not be confined to the countries directly affected. Increased costs on imports will destabilize local economies, raise consumer prices, and ultimately diminish the purchasing power of consumers both in the US, Canada and any other nations targeted by tariffs. Key industries will find demand for their products from export markets reduced significantly as countries which are their primary foreign markets retaliate with tariffs of their own.

The potential for an inflationary spiral also looms large as tariffs will increase the costs of goods in all sectors of the economy, which will be felt by consumers. Coupled with reduced spending power, this could easily push the American and Canadian economy into recession, and the downturn would ripple through global markets given that the US accounts for 26.1 per cent of the world’s GDP. American families, far from reaping the promised benefits of Trump’s tariff policy, will likely face higher unemployment and suffer a decline in living standards instead.

In addition, one cannot overlook the broader geopolitical implications of Trump upending decades of American foreign policy. While casting traditional friends and allies like Canada in an adversarial role, the Trump administration has extended an olive branch to Russia — a nation that historically embodies potential threats to US and European security and to democracy. This inversion of relationships has created a precarious diplomatic landscape, wherein mutual trust and cooperation have been eroded, and the alliance that preserved peace in Europe since World War II has been shaken to core.

With Trump appearing more inclined to treat Russia as a partner while labeling Canada and its European allies as economic adversaries, the global political order has reached an unsettling and critical inflection point with broad implications for the global political order. Just as tariffs have the potential to economically destabilize countries, the geopolitical tensions resulting from this seismic shift in US foreign policy could eventually ignite conflicts that run far deeper and wider than trade concerns.

This begs the question whether there is a path forward to restore economic stability and the international order that has maintained economic stability and an uneasy global peace since World War II. The answer is that there is and it is the US Congress, which would need to take decisive action to reign in a president who is shredding relationships that have been built over eight decades. Because while Trump may wield power through executive orders to impose tariffs, Congress possesses the authority to repeal the laws enabling such actions. But it will take a united stand by courageous members of Congress and Senators against a president pursuing policies that are contrary to the interests of the US and its allies.

History serves as a stern reminder of the devastation wrought by trade wars. If Trump’s “America first” approach to international trade compels other nations to adopt more protectionist stances, economic systems around the world will destabilize, while political extremism rises, and the spectre of military aggression looms ever larger. The connection between trade and peace has been articulated by thinkers like Immanuel Kant, whose assertion still holds water today, that the spirit of trade is synonymous with prosperity, while the absence of commerce could facilitate war.

If Canada wishes to avert the potential catastrophic outcomes associated with trade wars — outcomes that our history has painfully illustrated — it is imperative for our leaders to recognize the urgency of the moment. As the world stands at an inflection point in history, Canada and its allies need to push back hard against American tariffs, and recommit to diplomacy and trade while opposing division and hostility. Just as the present is informed by the lessons of the past, it is up to our leaders to remember that history and ensure that we chart a course that will avoid a potential conflict which would have global ramifications.

 

Fareed Khan is a government relations and strategic communications professional with more than 30 years of experience addressing public policy issues across a broad spectrum of porttfolios.  He has written and commented extensively about public policy issues in Canada and internationally.

 

© 2025 Rabble.ca.  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
© 2025 The View From Here.  © 2025 Fareed Khan.  All Rights Reserved.