With 2025 in it's infancy, it can already be dubbed The Year of The Bizarre Legal Questions. One of the weirdest of the lot, and one none of us have ever heard before is: if Canada is attacked by the United States, what protections does Canada have?
This is a rather breathtaking question, given the longstanding friendship between our two countries, but here we are. How we got here and where we go from here are the crucial questions.
The GOP began threatening Canada around the convoy protests, when in February, 2022, Republican congresswoman, Lauren Boebert, claimed that the United States has, "neighbors to the north who need freedom and who need to be liberated.”
Then entered Tucker Carlson, with comments and a film, proclaiming, "the US should invade our neighbors in the north.
“I'm completely in favor of a Bay of Pigs operation to liberate that country,”
Many Canadians thought this was an extremely odd way to object to how Canada handled a domestic issue. Then, in November, 2024 when Canada's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, met with the incoming U.S. president-elect, Trump talked about the potential annexation of Canada to make Canada the 51st state.
Since then, this conversation has become one where the issues are a moving target.
After threatening 25% tariffs on all Canadian imports if Canada didn't improve border security, Trump responded to Canada's proposed border investment of $1.2-billion with a new spin that the United States pays to protect Canada. Since Canada has never required protection from attacks, this must mean NATO investments, but Canada's ramping up their investments in NATO also doesn't seem to satisfy Trump. He responded by saying, "Canada and the United States, that would really be something," Trump said. "You get rid of that artificially drawn line, and you take a look at what that looks like, and it would also be much better for national security."
After meandering around this issue, trying out many narratives, Trump seems to have settled into the idea that he will use, ''economic force to acquire Canada."
Others in the GOP are lining up on this with Rep. Brandon Gill, a Republican from Texas saying, "I think that the people of Canada, for that matter, should be honored that President Trump wants to bring these territories under the American fold."
The moving of goal posts is breathtaking, but worse is the misuse of language.
"In his essay “Politics and the English Language” (1946) Orwell observed that “political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” In other words, certain political language (propaganda) uses words and phrases to hide ugly truths. He foresaw how politicians would misstate and mislead in order to stay in power, using words to distort more than to inform, not to convey meaning but to undermine it."
The deliberate misuse of of language is hiding a potential march to war.
Clearly, Canada is an independent and sovereign country and is not a 'state' or 'territory' but by refusing to call Canada a country, Trump et al suggests that 'annexation' of Canada is easy.
But we all know that any attempt to 'annex' another country is a declaration of war and we only need to look at Russia's attempt to 'annex' the Ukraine to know the dire consequences of such actions.
So, as we meander along the path of Trump and his sycophants, it's understandable why Canadians - who are generally a calm people - are asking about International laws.
I really hope that someone with true expertise answers the questions that are arising from all this. Certainly, Canada has many multilateral defence agreements, but the most significant and most talked about these days is NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization). Canada was one of twelve founding members of NATO in 1949, and now there are 32 members. Of these, three of NATO's members have nuclear weapons: France, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Since the United States and Canada are both founding members of NATO, perhaps this article analyzing this question in the context of the 2020 tensions between NATO allies Turkey and Greece, helps clarify this issue:
"what if this altercation between two NATO allies did escalate, leading to the beginning of a new armed war? Considering there are no such precedents, what would this mean for the fighting allies and in what way will NATO interfere?
"The goal of collective defence is codified in Article 5 NAT. It states that an attack against one member of NATO should be considered an attack against all. In this case, all other NATO allies will assist the said attacked member...it is important to note that this article does not make a distinction between NATO members and external attacking parties. This could imply that the article could even be triggered when the attacking party is a NATO ally. Since an event like this never occurred, there are no precedents to look into.
"Another Treaty article that could give us more insights into the consequences of such conflict between allies, is Article 8 NAT. The specific article states that ‘Each Party undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty’. Knowing that the main purpose of the Treaty is peacekeeping and preventing attacks against NATO members, this could imply that fighting allied nations means disobeying the article and therefore breaching the Treaty."
The last point is crucial. The main purpose of NATO is to prevent attacks against members. So, will NATO act as a form of deterrence? Will the United States, if it attacks Canada, be expelled from NATO? Given that the United States is a major contributor to NATO, this will give everyone pause. However, the United States attacking a peaceful country like Canada, with a stellar reputation around the world, will worry all NATO nations that their country could be next on the list and joining Canada in this fight would be a form of self-defence much like the Ukraine is seen as the frontline of Russia's aggression and, if it falls, other countries will be that frontline.
After walking down this road, one wonders how the road ahead will look. First, it could go like all the other trade and tariff wars Canada and the United States have had over the years and end up at a negotiating table with a deal hammered out. Second, Trump et al could be forced to back down by Americans - citizens and members of the government - calling out the Orwellian language and demanding a stop to calls for war. Third, it could end up as a war where the United States attempts to take Canada by force with NATO and other allies of each country being involved. The option that is not on the road ahead is Canada, an independent country, happily becoming a state of America.
I have it on good authority, the following will occur. First, Steve Bannon will declare he's building a wall along the Canadian border, and to send him lots of money to his personal account #554262. He instructs donors to ignore his personal name on the account. To his surprise, Canadians pitch in to help build the wall.
ReplyDeleteWhilst Washington is distracted by warring with Canada and Mexico, Puerto Rico, treated horribly by the previous Orangeade administration and yet to be granted statehood, will quietly withdraw and establish itself as an independent democracy. It elects Jennifer Lopez President, Vice-President, and Secretary of State. It also appoints Bad Bunny Ambassador to Tik Tok.
Once recognized by Turkistan and Iranistan, The Independent and Loving Nation of Puerto Rico will annex the United States and Cuba, assuming their desks at the United Nations. Immediately quisling Ted Cruz who has claimed citizenship of all three countries, will announce himself Manchurian candidate for President Premier Prime Minister of the Continent of CUC (Canada, United States, and Cuba), whereupon both liberals and conservatives will finally fall upon him with rakes and pitchforks and shovels, exiling him to Russia with Love.
Mary, on a serious note, encouraged by ultra-right idealogues like Stephen Miller, our dear leader fails to understands NATO, its purpose, and its benefits to the world at large.
DeleteAs for border security, I note how differently the European Union handles security. Most countries have taken down inter-European barriers and turn their attention outwards where real enemies gather. Even Switzerland border guards wave as cars pass through without stopping. I miss that interaction with Canada, where passage called for little more than, "Hi Burt. How's the Missus?" and small schools on both sides ignored the line in the dirt to play basketball against one another. Bin Laden succeeded: He changed us.
Back during the Watergate era National Lampoon used to have a Canadian Content column because 1) several of its editors were Canadian, and 2) if I remember correctly, there were financial advantages if a publication had Canadian Content. In one of these the authors said that Canadians sneered that a mess like Watergate could never happen in the north. The authors agreed: If Canada ever got that messed up the U.S. would jump in to fix it. Hey, it's a complicated relationship. And these are scary times.
ReplyDeleteIn the very early 70s when major media trembled in fear of the White House, a politics magazine hit the newsstands… sort of. When dozens upon dozens of printers refused to touch the publication, the magazine turned to Canada, where a Québécois printer brought it to life. They survived perhaps a half dozen issues before the politics of the time crushed them. We're once again seeing the leading edge of the rotted teeth of retribution.
Delete