MapleResistance

It is not just the attack on Venezuela, breaches of the United Nations’ Charter, or the use of illegal force that still somehow left a dictatorship in place.

It is not just the threats to annex Greenland or to make Canada the 51st state — both of which would violate the territorial integrity of sovereign states protected under international law.

It’s not just the admiration that U.S. President Donald Trump has for Russia’s Vladimir Putin or Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, both in the process of illegally annexing territory.

And it’s not just the sanctions issued against Canadian officials at the International Criminal Court (ICC) or defunding the UN.

America is engaged in a full-frontal, multi-pronged attack on what still exists of the international rules-based order and its institutions — and we are just one year into Trump’s second four-year term.

Yet, the Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney appears incapable of calling out U.S. violations of international law.

On Venezuela, Carney tried desperately to avoid condemning the illegal attacks, stating that “Canada calls on all parties to respect international law.” That stance is (hopefully) true every day, and so offers little during a concrete geopolitical crisis.

When asked about whether American strikes on suspected Venezuelan drug traffickers were legal (they aren’t), Foreign Minister Anita Anand said that it was “within the purview of U.S. authorities to make that determination.” In other words, Anand believes violators of international law get to decide if they violated international law.

Such logic is not only wrong, but dangerous. It sets precedents for further breaches of international law — not only by autocrats like Putin in Ukraine and ICC suspects like Netanyahu in Palestine — but by China in Taiwan as well as America in Greenland and, yes, even Canada.

As Canada’s former ambassador to the UN, Bob Rae, says: “I don’t think they’re musings … The fickle finger of fate can point to us just as surely as it can point to Denmark or anywhere else.”

Now, some might argue that the Canadian government should pull its punches. It is facing a belligerent administration willing to incarcerate hundreds of Canadian citizens in ICE detention centres and impose punishing tariffs on Canadians.

Ottawa also hasn’t secured a trade deal with Washington, and the last time a Canadian politician — Ontario Premier Doug Ford — irked Trump, the Washington kiboshed progress toward a renewed trade partnership and tariff relief.

Perhaps, then, former Liberal adviser Brian Clow is right in insisting that on contexts like Venezuela, “there’s not much use hyperventilating about it or lecturing the United States. Canada has one main goal with the United States in the coming year: It’s to navigate the USMCA review and resolve the current tariffs. We’ve got to keep our eye on that ball.”

Such views prioritize the Liberal government’s particular notion of pragmatic politics over principled action. But at what cost? Does Canada have a red line? If so, what does Trump have to do for the Canadian government to find its spine, let alone its elbows?

The idea that Canada can secure a reasonable trade deal without robust protection of international law is preposterous.

As a middle power, Canada benefits tremendously from the protections afforded by international law, including in the areas of trade and finance. The international rule of law is also what allows us to instinctively understand that acts of aggression and annexation aren’t just wrong, but illegal.

Canada’s reputation as a country historically engaged in promoting respect for international law and resolving international conflicts is perhaps its most important calling card on the world stage. To those beyond our borders, it is part of the lore, the image, and very idea of what Canada is.

The Trump administration today poses the gravest threat to international law of any U.S. government in history, not only because of what it does but because of the lawlessness it permits in contexts like Ukraine and Palestine. There is a cost.

Every precedent and institution that is weakened puts more people and states at peril. The idea that somehow Canada can pull its punches forever and somehow be spared is delusional.

Canada must find it within itself — along with other states — to defend international law. It can do so with its traditional European allies, and also with South American and African states, among others, who have been the most clear-eyed about defending international law and institutions from Trump’s attacks.

As Rae notes, “In our own self-interest, we have to work with other countries to do everything we can to stop the United States.” Doing so would help diversify Canada’s pool of close allies and perhaps even trading partners.

The famous poem by pastor Martin Niemöller following the Second World War and The Holocaust imparts the wisdom that when perpetrators come for others, yet we remain silent, there will eventually be no one left to speak out when they come for us.

Ottawa has remained silent as Trump attacked the ICC and the UN, remained mealy-mouthed on the unlawful attacks on Venezuela, and cannot bring itself to unequivocally denounce Washington’s obsession with annexing other states’ territory. If that silence continues, who will stand up for us if Washington puts our own country in its crosshairs?