David Lammy believed he was providing comfort to Canadians during his recent trip to Canada for a G7 foreign ministers meeting. When questioned about Donald Trump’s assertion that Canada should become the 51st US state, the UK foreign secretary emphasized that Canada is a “proud [and] sovereign nation,” and he believes it will continue to be. When pressed for more details, he referenced the shared history and monarchy between Canada and the UK, along with their collaborative efforts during World War II.
Canadians are already well-versed in that shared history and the benefits Britain has reaped from its Commonwealth ties. My 96-year-old father narrowly missed enlisting to support Britain in the 1940s, but his two brothers, young boys from the Canadian prairies, lost their lives while serving as RAF bombers, with one resting in the serene Commonwealth war cemetery in Harrogate.
King Charles still plays a part in this dynamic, as he constitutionally remains the head of state. Was it too much to expect Mr. Lammy to offer a few supportive words—perhaps something like, “We stand by Canada in its aim to maintain a strong, sovereign nation”? Alternatively, he could have hinted at the UK’s “concern” (a perfectly diplomatic term) over attempts to undermine our territorial integrity.
It’s often said that politics is more about words than actions. Yet, language holds significant weight, especially in the current age of President Trump. Over the years, we have witnessed his comments being initially brushed off as absurd—nothing to be alarmed about, mere provocations, or starting points for negotiation. However, the recurrence of these provocations has allowed them to permeate various channels. For instance, statements like Barack Obama may not be American, Trump won the 2020 election, and the EU was designed to “screw” the US have been circulated by those seeking favor with Trump, ultimately empowering him to act upon the logic of his claims.
This parallels Trump’s proposition that Canada “only works” as a state within the US, suggesting the border between Canada and the US is merely an arbitrary divide. How lovely the geography would appear without that line!
In Canada, the first mention of Trump suggesting the annexation of our nation was dismissed as a joke. At one time, Canada’s G7 allies might have been forgiven for the same sentiment. However, that is no longer the case. If we are to interpret Trump’s remarks as serious yet not literal, then the foundations of his aggressive international approach must be recognized and incorporated into the foreign policies of all nations.
There are numerous scenarios currently being debated in Canada—some more extreme than others. While the US may not be poised to invade us militarily, it could engage in various actions that challenge our sovereignty, unity, and territorial integrity. This could begin with undermining our economy to relocate production and wealth to the US, extend to revising existing agreements regarding North American water resources (an issue Trump previously discussed with former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau), coercive negotiations for access to vital resources, and undermining established systems for security and defence cooperation. Additionally, there could be challenges to Canadian control over the Arctic region and interference in our democratic processes. A recent survey on foreign interference revealed that Canadian respondents ranked the US second among nations most likely to meddle in our upcoming elections, surpassing Russia and India.
During last week’s G7 meeting, Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio took “sanewashing” to unprecedented levels by framing a two-sided discussion on Canada’s sovereign status: “There’s a disagreement between the president’s stance and that of the Canadian government.” He implied that we could agree to disagree on this subject but should collaborate on a “variety of other issues.”
To clarify, the crux of this disagreement lies in whether Canada functions as a sovereign nation. This dispute is not merely about the wording of a G7 communique on Ukraine (though that occurred in private discussions) or whether the G7 should take action against “shadow fleets” evading sanctions on Russia (an initiative Canada advocated but failed to secure in the G7’s commitments). The central contention revolves around whether Canada operates as a sovereign state. While Rubio stated that this was not the main focus of the G7 meeting, the audacity of the Trump administration’s predatory stance on territorial integrity—whether concerning Greenland, Panama, or Canada— warrants a decisive response.
Lammy reiterated Rubio’s point about areas where G7 allies might disagree, arguing that the UK aims to foster unity in a tumultuous world. This is likely why he expressed “regret” and “disappointment” about the trade conflict but refrained from condemning US tariffs, and why he—unlike Germany’s foreign minister or the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy—wouldn’t address the US administration’s threats to Canadian sovereignty directly.
Having studied and taught international relations at one of Britain’s premier universities, I’m not naive regarding the UK’s national interests or the necessity to cultivate its “special relationship” with the US (which, by the way, Canada has often believed it has as well). Nevertheless, words hold significance. They must be articulated publicly, rather than merely behind closed diplomatic doors, with consideration for multiple audiences.
Yielding to the “sanewashing” about Canada’s sovereignty does not serve the UK’s interests, whether in the context of tariff disputes, long-term challenges to transatlantic economic and security cooperation, or broader global stability.
Canada’s new Prime Minister, Mark Carney, who recently visited the UK, has emphasized that Canadians do not expect our allies to “say nice things” about us. As “masters in our own house,” he stated on the day of his swearing-in, we must take our own steps to ensure our survival. Canadians are becoming increasingly conscious that, given our unique geography and history of interdependence with the US, we stand alone in this newly predatory world. Much like the members of our World War II generation, we have long memories: we will remember who stood with us during essential times for our country, through both their words and actions.
