CHARLEBOIS: From Kyiv to Ottawa – the real war is over resources, not borders
The scene in the Oval Office on Friday between Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and U.S. President Donald Trump was deeply unsettling.
The geopolitical ramifications remain uncertain, but one thing is clear: peace in Eastern Europe may have drifted even further out of reach. For global food security, stability in that region is critical, and the current trajectory suggests an increasingly bleak outlook for Ukraine and its ability to regain economic and agricultural footing.
What has transpired in negotiations between Ukraine and the United States under the new administration should serve as a stark warning to Canada. While the rhetoric surrounding Canada as the so-called '51st state' may be irritating and dismissive, what could unfold in the coming months is far more concerning.
The U.S. has leveraged Ukraine's desperate need for support to secure access to its valuable mineral resources, all while using peace as a diplomatic cover. The global community has now witnessed a new form of economic coercion – offering military and financial assistance with explicit expectations of resource control in return.
This is not diplomacy; this is a transactional power play. And Canada must take note.
CHARLEBOIS: Nova Scotia smashes food trade barriers, will the rest of Canada follow?
CHARLEBOIS: Canada's internal trade fix leaves major barriers untouched
WARMINGTON: Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre trades words with Donald Trump
While international leaders have stepped up to defend the sovereignty of nations like Panama and Greenland, Canada has not received the same level of support. Not one global leader has spoken out against President Trump's recent inflammatory statements about Canada's status. Even British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, while in Washington last week, avoided commenting on Canada's sovereignty when directly asked. That silence is telling.
Canada's political class has thus far responded to the '51st state' rhetoric with nothing more than performative indignation. The idea that the U.S. would formally annex Canada is absurd. The U.S. has no need to assume the burden of governing Canada when it can simply extract value from our vast wealth of resources through economic and trade policy.
As Canada's former foreign minister Lloyd Axworthy recently pointed out, a country can exert control over another without outright annexation. This can be achieved through strategic access to three fundamental assets: natural resources, energy, and data.
From a food security perspective, these are the pillars of a resilient agri-food sector. Canada is uniquely positioned as a world leader in all three, making it a prime target for foreign influence.
Water, potash, and oil are among Canada's most valuable resources – resources the U.S. desperately needs to sustain its economic dominance.
However, an often-overlooked asset in this equation is data. Canada's agri-food sector is undergoing a transformation, with advanced data analytics driving efficiency, sustainability and resilience. The U.S. understands that enhanced access to Canada's agricultural data and biotechnological expertise could propel its own agricultural sector far beyond its current capabilities.
Canadians can worry about symbolic threats of annexation, but the real concern should be the looming economic and geopolitical maneuvering that could compromise our strategic resources. The coming months may bring further challenges, and Canada's political landscape is poised for change.
However, whoever takes the helm must move beyond mere anti-annexation rhetoric and reactionary trade measures. The priority should be safeguarding Canada's competitive advantages – its resources, energy independence and agri-food data.
Rejecting American products and boycotting American tourism may offer short-term emotional satisfaction, but such gestures will not shield Canada from a White House that plays geopolitical chess while Ottawa remains stuck playing checkers.
The real defense against economic subjugation is a proactive strategy to fortify the industries that make Canada a global leader in food security and sustainability.
– Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is the director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University and co-host of The Food Professor Podcast
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
27 minutes ago
- USA Today
Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? 'We'll see,' he says
Will Trump invoke the Insurrection Act? 'We'll see,' he says Show Caption Hide Caption Anti-ICE raid demonstrators protest into fourth night Anti-immigration raid protests are continuing into the fourth night as the Pentagon deployed active-duty U.S. Marines. President Donald Trump mulled invoking the Insurrection Act, which would give him more leeway to use the military for domestic purposes, as he deploys troops to Los Angeles in response to protests prompted by ICE raids in the region. "If there's an insurrection, I would certainly invoke it,' Trump said June 10 during an event in the White House. 'We'll see. But I can tell you, last night was terrible. The night before that was terrible." Trump deployed the California National Guard to Los Angeles over the objection of Gov. Gavin Newsom, sparking a lawsuit from the state. Marines were also sent to help the guard after protests erupted over his immigration enforcement efforts. The troops are limited to protecting federal property and law enforcement officers. The Insurrection Act would give Trump authority to use them more broadly. More: 'High-stakes game': Trump-Newsom clash pits two political heavyweights Trump said there were parts of Los Angeles on June 9 where "you could have called it an insurrection. It was terrible." Newsom described Trump's actions as "the acts of a dictator" and accused the president of 'inciting and provoking violence,' 'creating mass chaos,' and 'militarizing cities.' Legal experts say invoking the Insurrection Act is an extreme step. It has been done 30 times in U.S. history. "The invocation of it would be viewed as a pretty dramatic act," said Duke Law Professor H. Jefferson Powell. Powell said the law is "dangerously broad." The last time the Insurrection Act was invoked was in May 1992, by President George H.W. Bush at the request of California's governor, to quell rioting in Los Angeles after four White police officers were acquitted for beating Black motorist Rodney King.
Bloomberg
27 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Hegseth Defends Trump Decision to Send Marines to Los Angeles
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says President Donald Trump was legally allowed to deploy Marines into Los Angeles, telling Congress that the Trump administration wants to protect immigration agents and keep demonstrations there from getting out of control. The deployment is estimated to cost $134 million and last 60 days. (Source: Bloomberg)
CNN
36 minutes ago
- CNN
Trump's aggressive moves on immigration protests put Democrats in a political bind
President Donald Trump's deployment of military troops to California is forcing Democrats back onto politically perilous turf, as they look for ways to condemn his actions without being drawn into a broad debate over immigration or tying themselves to the chaotic scenes emerging from Los Angeles. Republicans are relishing a fight that directs attention away from their monthslong, intraparty debate over tax and spending legislation, and the messy political breakup of Trump and Elon Musk, and toward what they view as Democrats' biggest vulnerabilities: immigration, law enforcement and public disorder. Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman warned his fellow Democrats about the images emerging from California, where protests erupted Friday after Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids and escalated into outbreaks of violence. Some protesters have thrown objects at law enforcement, looted businesses, blocked a major freeway and set self-driving cars ablaze — while police in riot gear fired rubber bullets to disperse crowds. While much of the protest activity has been peaceful, images of burning cars and chaos have been widespread across social media and traditional news coverage. 'You can't defend when people start setting things on fire or they start damaging buildings or going after members of law enforcement. That's not free speech. That is not peaceful protest,' Fetterman said Tuesday. Fetterman, who was lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania during racial justice protests around the country in 2020, said Democrats 'should have learned the lesson back in 2020. Absolutely, there was righteous outrage over what happened to George Floyd, but that never means that you can support or be quiet if there's destruction or rioting and destroying and looting and those kinds of things.' He said he was 'not judging any of my other colleagues in my party,' but warned: 'You can't be quiet on those things. You have to just call it really what it is.' Some Democrats privately agree with Fetterman, saying their party's leaders must be more forceful in condemning the rioters' behavior. Lawmakers in competitive swing districts also worry about the political ramifications down the road, particularly if party activists resurrect a years-old battle cry for abolishing ICE. And in the meantime, they believe Democrats will be forced to grapple with an existential question: Do they support federal law enforcement officials actually enforcing federal immigration law? In a clear sign of the fraught political moment, lawmakers from across the Democratic Party's ideological spectrum issued warnings Tuesday against violence. Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, a progressive independent who caucuses with Democrats, urged protesters to exhibit the same 'disciplined non-violent resistance' to Trump that civil rights leaders used to end segregation. 'Violent protests are counterproductive and play right into Trump's playbook,' he said on X. Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar, a conservative Democrat who has long represented a Rio Grande Valley district, said in a statement that 'when people start throwing bricks and hammers at law enforcement, that's no longer protest — that's criminal.' 'We can debate policy without attacking the people who wear the badge and work to keep us safe,' Cuellar said. Trump, for his part, has blamed Democrats broadly and California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Karen Bass specifically for mishandling the situation, saying on Truth Social the city 'would be burning to the ground right now' had he not deployed troops there. And Republicans have delighted in pitting Trump against Newsom. House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters Tuesday that Newsom — who has aggressively criticized the Trump administration's moves — 'ought to be tarred and feathered.' 'He's standing in the way of the administration carrying out the federal law. He is applauding the bad guys and standing in the way of good guys,' Johnson said. Trump's actions have put Democrats in a complicated political spot. The party has struggled to navigate the issue of immigration since the president's victory in November — split between the moral outrage of the Democratic base over Trump's unprecedented deportation efforts, and polls that have largely reflected public support for the president on the issue overall. In particular, surveys have shown that most voters want tougher border security than the Biden administration put in place for much of the previous four years. But the politics get murkier when Americans are asked about the details of how Trump is carrying out his campaign promise to conduct the largest deportation effort in the nation's history. In the past — particularly when federal law enforcement cleared Lafayette Square, near the White House, amid 2020 protests — polls found that Americans opposed the use of rubber bullets and tear gas, and opposed deploying the US military in response to protests within the country. A CBS News/YouGov survey conducted before the protests in Los Angeles broke out found somewhat contradictory results: Fifty-four percent of Americans support Trump's deportation program, and 55% like its 'goals.' However, 56% said they dislike 'the way you think [Trump] is going about' the deportations. Prev Next Democrats this week argued that Trump's actions have only worsened tensions in California. Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly said the president's deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles is 'like throwing the match onto the kindling.' 'He took some actions that escalated an issue — a problem, but it was under control. And now the problem is bigger because of the actions he took,' Kelly told CNN. Democrats also accused Trump of hypocrisy, pointing out that he was slow to deploy the National Guard on January 6, 2021, when his supporters were rioting and attacking police officers at the US Capitol. 'We begged the president of the United States to send in the National Guard. He would not do it,' California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who was the House speaker at the time, said Tuesday. California Rep. Ro Khanna told CNN outside the Capitol on Monday that Democrats 'need to continue to unequivocally condemn the violence, the threats or attacks on law enforcement agents — I mean, that has no place.' But, the progressive congressman added, Trump's actions are unconstitutional. 'One can hold two thoughts — that political violence should be absolutely condemned, vandalism needs to be condemned, but that the appropriate remedy are state and local police — that you can't deploy the military against our own people, unless there's a real crisis,' Khanna said. Massachusetts Rep. Seth Moulton similarly said that 'there's no excuse for violence.' 'If you're protesting the fact that ICE officers are sometimes too violent, doing that with violence doesn't make the point,' he said. However, Moulton also said Trump is using the US military to achieve political aims at home. 'This is not an opportunity to turn active-duty Marines against the American people. And that's what Trump is doing,' Moulton said. Trump has used Newsom as a foil as he deploys troops to the Los Angeles area — even suggesting Monday that border czar Tom Homan should arrest the governor. Newsom, a potential 2028 presidential contender, has embraced the clash and publicly dared Homan to arrest him. Newsom himself has been in regular touch with lawmakers on the Hill, and held a briefing with his state's delegation and the leader of the California National Guard on Monday to update them on Trump's actions, according to two people familiar with the call. Newsom's office has also been distributing copies of some of attacks on him, including Trump's calls to arrest him, to House Democrats' offices, those people said. The scenes unfolding in California are also leading Democrats elsewhere to grapple with what they would do if Trump took similar actions in their states. And they fear they'd be powerless to stop it. Rep. Mikie Sherrill, one of the Democratic candidates in Tuesday's New Jersey gubernatorial primary, said Trump's move 'shows the further incompetence coming from Washington and the constant level of chaos that is almost intentionally generated there.' Sherrill also warned that military missions are much different from those of law enforcement in the United States. Another New Jersey gubernatorial candidate, Rep. Josh Gottheimer, highlighted Trump's actions in a speech. He said the scenes in California make clear 'just what's on the line in this election and why it's so important that we have a governor who's willing to stand up and fight.' The Democratic Governors Association, in a statement signed by 22 governors, called Trump's deployment of troops to California 'an alarming abuse of power.' But the statement did not address the president's handling of his deportation program. 'It's important we respect the executive authority of our country's governors to manage their National Guards — and we stand with Governor Newsom who has made it clear that violence is unacceptable and that local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation,' the Democratic governors' statement said.
