Ottawa:

After US President Donald Trump signed an executive order imposing 25 per cent tariffs on almost everything imported from Canada, outgoing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau offered a reminder to Americans that his country has been at their side in the “darkest hours” — be it Iran hostage crisis and war in Afghanistan, or deadly natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and the recent California wildfires. 

Addressing Americans directly from a press conference in Ottawa, Trudeau said he had no choice but to impose countermeasures.

“From the beaches of Normandy to the mountains of the Korean peninsula, from the fields of Flanders to the streets of Kandahar, we have fought and died alongside you during your darkest hours,” Trudeau said. “We’ve built the most successful economic, military and security partnership the world has ever seen…We’re always there, standing with you.”

Noting that the US and Canada have had differences in the past, Trudeau said that both countries always found a way to get past them. 

“As I’ve said before, if President Trump wants to usher in a new golden age for the United States, the better path is to partner with Canada, not to punish us,” he said.

“Unfortunately, the actions taken today by the White House split us apart instead of bringing us together,” Trudeau added.

Canada Hits Back

“Canada will be responding to the US trade action with 25 per cent tariffs against Can$155 billion ($106 billion) worth of American goods,” he said in a dramatic tone as he warned of a fracture in longstanding Canada-US ties.

The first round of tariffs would target Can$30 billion worth of US goods on Tuesday followed by further tariffs on Can$125 billion worth of products in three weeks.

“We’re certainly not looking to escalate. But we will stand up for Canada, for Canadians, for Canadian jobs,” Trudeau said.

He said the trade conflict will have “real consequences” for Canadians but also for Americans, who he said will suffer due to their President’s actions.

“Tariffs against Canada will put your jobs at risk, potentially shutting down American auto assembly plants and other manufacturing facilities,” the Canadian Prime Minister told US citizens. 

“They will raise costs for you, including food at the grocery store and gas at the pump,” he added.

The tariffs will apply to “everyday items” such as American beer, wine and bourbon as well as fruits, vegetables, consumer appliances, lumber and plastics, he added — “with much, much more.”

Trump’s Taxes

US President Donald Trump earlier announced broad tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, citing a threat from illegal immigration and drugs.

Canadian exports to the United States will face a 25 per cent tariff starting Tuesday, although energy resources from Canada will have a lower 10 per cent levy.

The 9,000-km (5,600-mile) U.S.-Canada border handles over $2.5 billion in trade a day, especially in energy and manufacturing, according to Canadian government data from 2023.

In 2023, Canada exported close to C$550 billion worth of goods and services to the U.S., or more than three-fourths of its total exports. Energy accounted for 30 per cent and manufacturing contributed around 15 per cent to exports south of the border.

Exports to the US account for roughly 17.8 per cent of Canadian gross domestic product and more than 2.4 million jobs in Canada.
 

Years ago, during my one and only trip to Pakistan to report on the 50th anniversary of independence for a Western media outlet, I had the pleasure of meeting some bright, articulate students at the famed Government College in Lahore. Feeling magnanimous (and admittedly swept by their genuine warmth), I decided to drop a bombshell of an idea: why not reunite India and Pakistan? Should we not right the wrongs of Partition, restore the subcontinent to its undivided glory, and perhaps save on visa fees?

Their reaction shook me up no end. Polite smiles laced with a palpable ‘what-is-this-guy-talking-about?’. Most of them agreed that Partition was a disaster—but, they were quick to add, not their disaster. The blame, they insisted, lay squarely with the Urdu-speaking folks, many of whom had fled to Karachi and now live as ‘muhajir‘ (immigrants). One student practically bristled at my proposal and said my suggestion reeked of a “typical Indian response” from the post-Partition generation, which was a rather diplomatic way of calling me naïve. I get it.

From their post-Partition Pakistani perspective, the students argued, reunification was a no-go. Sure, their country wasn’t perfect—admittedly not on a par with India—but it was their own. Sovereign, independent, and, crucially, theirs to nurture or mess up, without unsolicited advice from nostalgic neighbours across the border. The message was clear: the idea of negating Partition, no matter how silly they thought it was, wasn’t up for debate. Period. 

It was a perspective that had never crossed my Indian-bred mind. It reminded me of the shock Canadians are feeling at President Donald Trump’s latest shenanigan—his not-so-casual declaration that he would like to annex Canada and turn it into America’s 51st state. Last week, Trump, always a fan of the spotlight, used an international platform to float the idea. Addressing the Davos economic forum via video link, he coolly tossed out the notion to an audience of CEOs and business honchos. Predictably, gasps echoed through the room. And somewhere in Ottawa, I imagine, jaws hit the floor.

What’s surprising isn’t just the audacity of Trump’s suggestion but the sheer persistence of it. His rhetorical swipes at Canada’s independence have become so frequent that one wonders if he is genuinely serious or just bored with his neighbours.

The US-Canada overlap is everywhere—from culture to sports to shared traditions. Neighbours for sure, but they are more like squabbling siblings. In 2023, the US-Canada trade hit over a trillion dollars, with $2.8 billion crossing their border every single day. They are each other’s biggest trade partners, with Canada sending 78% of its goods and services to the US every year, and over 4,00,000 people moving across their shared 5,525-mile border daily.

‘No, Thanks’

The reactions to Trump’s comments range from polite Canadian indignation to outright laughter. Meanwhile, Americans seem split between “Wait, can we actually do that?” and “Why would we even want to?”. Let’s unpack these views:

Recently, BuzzFeed ran an article that asked Canadians about their thoughts on Trump’s eyebrow-raising proposal to annex Canada as America’s 51st state. Unsurprisingly, the responses were a mixed bag, though they leaned heavily towards a polite but firm “No, thanks”. Here’s what some of them had to say: 

• “I do not want to be American. No one I know wants to be American. I am not giving up my free healthcare and strict gun laws. And I am definitely not giving up my right to choose as a woman.”
• “I would rather take my son on a vacation to Europe for fear of our safety in the US. Your lax gun laws make me afraid that we could be shot while vacationing in any part of your country.” 
• “We are not America. We never will be. In fact, I think America would benefit from a more Canadian viewpoint.” 
• “Americans would be better off joining Canada than Canadians would be joining the USA.”

And then, of course, there were those I would call ‘dissenters’. Their voices often stemmed from frustration with their own Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, rather than an overwhelming love for Trump’s America. A few highlights:

• “Ask me 15 years ago, and I would have been ready to take up arms against any US threat; now, I’m not sure. The Liberal government, led by Trudeau, has divided and nearly destroyed our culture with ‘woke ideology’.”
• “I would be the first one to vote to become part of the United States.”
• “I would be over the moon to become an American. The US is the greatest country in the world. Canada has been riding their coattails for years. To be annexed into the US would be a dream come true.”

Their enthusiasm must be appreciated. Sure, they might get Florida, but they are also signing up for the ‘Florida Man’. And they are happy with it. However, in the end, while some Canadians may be open to the idea of annexation, the overwhelming sentiment seems to be, “Thanks, but we’re good.” 

The American public, it seems, isn’t exactly rolling out the red carpet for Trump’s latest brainwave. Surveys by The Wall Street Journal, Reuters-Ipsos and The Economist-YouGov—all conducted in recent days—indicate that the idea of annexing Canada is about as popular as a snowstorm in July. So, we must keep in mind that Trump’s land of the free isn’t exactly clamouring for a new northern star on its flag after all.

A Rare Precedent

Annexing a nation without a war is a rare feat, but history offers a few eyebrow-raising precedents that might bolster Trump’s audacious ambitions. Consider Texas in 1845: the Republic of Texas willingly joined the United States after breaking free from Mexico. Then there was Hawaii in 1898, annexed through a joint resolution of Congress following the not-so-gentle overthrow of its monarchy. Both cases, of course, were dripping with controversy and tangled in political gymnastics.

If President Trump were to actually chase his dream of annexing Canada as the 51st state, he would be plunging into a legal and political minefield. For starters, Canada’s Constitution is as silent as a winter morning on how a province—or the entire nation, for that matter—could secede and join another country. On the flip side, the US Constitution does allow for new states to join with Congressional approval, but annexing a fully sovereign country is uncharted territory, legally speaking.

Then there’s the political and populist angle. Agreed that Trump’s statement might strike a chord with certain populist audiences. But the logistics of such an annexation are a Herculean challenge. The deeply entrenched national identities and legal frameworks on both sides of the border make this idea more rhetorical than realistic.

Into Trump’s Mind

Trump himself drops plenty of hints about how he views his annexation dream. “Are you also considering military force to annex and acquire Canada?” a reporter asked him recently. “No. Economic force,” he said promptly. “Canada and the United States, that would really be something. 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. Don’t forget, we basically protect Canada.”

Justin Trudeau, who is stepping down as Canada’s prime minister, didn’t hold back on X, retorting: “There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell that Canada would become part of the United States.” Elon Musk on the other hand, ever eager to stir the pot, responded sarcastically: “Girl, you’re not the governor of Canada anymore, so doesn’t matter what you say.”

The banter may be entertaining, but the stakes of such a suggestion are no laughing matter. This is the kind of rhetoric that can tiptoe dangerously close to turning political theatre into a real diplomatic crisis.

(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

Finally, Justin Trudeau decided that he will have to quit to save himself any further ignominy. His politics and his career have been adrift for a while now with no seeming way out of the morass he was sinking into with each passing day. It must have seemed to him that he was being abandoned not only by his own party, his nation but also by the wider world. For someone who had risen as the darling of global media just about a decade back, the fall from grace of being lampooned as the governor of the 51st state of America has been equally scathing.

So, when Trudeau announced that he was resigning and that he would stay on in office until his Liberal Party can choose a new leader, and that parliament would be prorogued until March 24, it was hardly greeted with a shrug.

How Trudeau Scripted His Own Downfall

Yet, most of the problems facing Trudeau are of his own making. When deputy prime minister and long-time ally Chrystia Freeland abruptly resigned in December, accusing Trudeau of not doing enough to address the “grave challenge” posed by Trump’s proposal to impose a tax of 25% on imported Canadian goods, it was the last straw, as it led to the withdrawal of support of parties like the New Democrats and the Quebec nationalist party, Bloc Quebecois, which had kept the Liberals in power. The Conservatives as the main opposition had been gaining ground over the last few years, with Trudeau himself being increasingly viewed as a drag on the political fortunes of the Liberals.

In her resignation letter, Freeland strongly criticised Trudeau’s “political gimmicks”, likely referring to a two-month sales tax holiday and C$250 rebates for most workers, underscoring the fundamental problem with Trudeau’s brand of leadership. For a leader who had come to power in 2015 promising “Sunny Ways” for his nation, all he could offer in the end was political gimmickry.

The economic situation post-Covid has been debilitating for most Canadians and his management of Covid left a large majority unimpressed. As unemployment skyrocketed and the cost of living crisis gained ground, Canadians’ faith in Trudeau’s abilities kept dwindling. His popularity plummeted and backbenchers began to desert him, fearing for their own political future.

On the foreign policy front, Trump’s election victory came as a huge setback. Trump has claimed that his pressure over tariffs led to Trudeau’s resignation; he also took a jibe at Canada’s situation, saying that it should become “the 51st State” of the US. “If Canada merged with the US, there would be no Tariffs, taxes would go way down, and they would be TOTALLY SECURE from the threat of the Russian and Chinese Ships that are constantly surrounding them,” he said on Truth Social, rubbing salt in Trudeau’s wounds.

A Lost Decade For India-Canada

Of course, when it comes to India, Trudeau was an unmitigated disaster. Canada, under his leadership, has managed to achieve the unthinkable: become the ‘new Pakistan’ in the Indian foreign policy matrix. Trudeau’s contribution to the fiasco that is the current India-Canada ties can’t be overestimated. The two nations had almost succeeded in moving beyond the Kanishka bombings, the nuclear challenge, and the wider Cold War strategic divergence. In particular, under Stephen Harper, Prime Minister from 2006 to 2015, the shift in tone and tenor, as well as substance of engagement, became pronounced.

Under Trudeau’s leadership, on the other hand, the decline was swift. His courting of Khalistani extremists to strengthen his domestic position clouded his ability to view India-Canada relations with the seriousness they deserved. By focusing on India as a target, he sought to rally his party’s base in a last-ditch effort. When Trudeau claimed last September that Canadian security agencies had credible evidence linking Indian government officials to the killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar, few in India took his assertions seriously. After all, it was his own government that had repeatedly refused to extradite Nijjar and other extremists despite India’s persistent requests, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the hateful, violent rhetoric of pro-Khalistan groups.

Good Riddance?

Self-righteous posturing by Trudeau and his party has been aimed at courting a key electoral demographic. Yet, his unwillingness to understand Indian concerns and lack of sensitivity about Sikh separatism have done some serious damage to the very fabric of India-Canada ties. Trudeau’s departure was needed for an India-Canada reset as the strategic partnership that was put in place in 2015 now lies in shambles. His successors will have to work hard to ensure that this reset happens quickly in order to make up for the lost decade under Trudeau.

(Harsh V Pant is Vice President for Studies at Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

A video of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau attending a Taylor Swift concert amid the ongoing violence in Montreal has drawn massive outrage on social media. Trudeau, who represents the Papineau district in Montreal, reportedly attended Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour concert in Toronto with his family on Friday.

A viral video posted on X (formerly Twitter) shows the politician dancing and singing in the audience. In another video, he can be seen distributing friendship bracelets among the people.

However, this did not sit well with the internet users as the timing of him attending the concert coincided with the Montreal violence. 

“Trudeau at a Taylor Swift concert while Montreal burns,” one user wrote. 

Trudeau at a Taylor Swift concert while Montreal burns.pic.twitter.com/biFD1CEva0

— Defiant World (@DefiantWorld) November 23, 2024

Another said, “Justin Trudeau exchanging friendship bracelets at the Taylor Swift concert last night – AFTER we all learned Montreal was burning to the ground.”

Justin Trudeau exchanging friendship bracelets at the Taylor Swift concert last night — AFTER we all learned Montreal was burning to the ground. pic.twitter.com/vSMXSgFKs4

— dahlia kurtz ︎ דליה קורץ (@DahliaKurtz) November 23, 2024

Some people also drew parallels between Trudeau and Roman Emperor Nero – who was known for his cruelty and debauchery. 

“According to ancient tradition, the degenerate Emperor Nero got on stage and recited poetry while Rome burned. Here’s Trudeau dancing at tonight’s Taylor Swift concert after doubling the debt to $1.2 trillion and creating a housing crisis by opening Canada’s borders,” a user said.

However, the internet also seemed to be divided as some people came in support of Trudeau.

“Ya know, all it looks like, is that he’s being a goofy Dad with his daughter, at a concert. Nothing nefarious going on here. And I don’t even like the guy, not one bit,” one user said.

Montreal’s streets were engulfed in violent chaos as anti-Israeli protests escalated on November 22 – at a time when the  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was holding its parliamentary assembly in the Quebec metropolis. The protesters were denouncing the trans-Atlantic alliance.

The tensions escalated when the demonstrators burned an effigy of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the streets. The protestors, around 800 people, also set ablaze vehicles, smashed windows of nearby shops, and set off smoke bombs, reported news agency AFP. Following this, the police had to use chemical irritants and truncheons to disperse the crowd.

The Montreal police have reportedly arrested three people so far. 

On Saturday, Justin Trudeau condemned the violence in Montreal, saying that there “must be consequences and rioters should be held accountable”.

“What we saw on the streets of Montreal last night was appalling. Acts of antisemitism, intimidation, and violence must be condemned wherever we see them. The RCMP are in communication with local police. There must be consequences, and rioters held accountable,” he wrote in a post on X.

Ottawa:

Days after an attack on Hindus at a Brampton temple, Canadian MP Chandra Arya has come down heavily on politicians pitting Hindus and Sikhs on “opposing sides” and asserted that the Hindu-Canadians and the Sikhs are on one side and the Khalistanis on the other.

Due to the deliberate actions of some politicians and the influence of Khalistanis, Canadians now mistakenly equate Khalistanis with Sikhs, Arya said in wake of several Canadian politician trying to portray the Brampton incident as a clash between the Canadian Hindu and Sikh communities.

Protesters carrying Khalistani flags clashed with devotees at a Hindu Sabha temple and disrupted an event co-organised by the temple authorities and the Indian Consulate on November 3 at Brampton, a city in Ontario’s Greater Toronto Area.

“Politicians are deliberately avoiding recognising and mentioning Khalistanis as responsible for this attack or are shifting the blame to other entities. They are misleading Canadians by framing this as an issue between Hindus and Sikhs,” Arya, a member of Parliament from Nepean, Ontario, said in a post on X on Friday.

“Politicians are portraying Hindus and Sikhs as opposing sides regarding the attack on the temple by Khalistani extremists. This picture is simply not true. The two sides are actually Hindu-Canadians and the vast majority of Sikh-Canadians on one side, and Khalistanis on the other,” Arya said in the post on X which had both a video and a text statement.

Strongly condemning the attack by Khalistani extremists “on behalf of Hindu-Canadians and the vast majority of Sikh-Canadians,” Arya also pointed out how it is common in Canada to see Hindus visiting Sikh Gurudwaras and Sikhs visiting Hindu temples.

“Politicians may try their best to divide Hindus and Sikhs. We can—and must—prove them wrong,” he appealed. “We, as Hindus and Sikhs, will not and should not allow vested interests to divide us for their political gain.” The relations between India and Canada have come under severe strain following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s allegations in September last year of a “potential” involvement of Indian agents in Khalistan extremist Hardeep Singh Nijjar’s killing.

New Delhi rejected Trudeau’s charges as “absurd.” Nijjar, a Canadian citizen, was designated a terrorist by India.

India has been maintaining that the main issue between the two countries is that of Canada giving space to pro-Khalistan elements operating from Canadian soil with impunity.

India has expelled six Canadian diplomats and withdrawn its high commissioner Sanjay Verma and other “targeted” officials from Canada after strongly dismissing Ottawa’s charges.

Arya, who has been vocal on the issue earlier too, also mentioned the Sikh community leader and former British Columbia Premier Ujjal Dosanjh, who said that a silent majority of Sikhs do not want to have anything to do with Khalistan and that they just don’t speak out because they’re afraid of violence and violent repercussions.

Dosanjh said Khalistani supporters control many of the Gurudwaras in Canada but the silent Sikhs “still hold power over which politicians get elected,” Arya said.

“Due to the deliberate actions of some politicians and the influence of Khalistanis, Canadians now mistakenly equate Khalistanis with Sikhs,” he said, adding, Hindus and Sikhs alike must educate Canadians “that we stand united in our fight against Khalistani extremists and their political backers.” He also appealed to Hindus and Sikhs in Canada to urge the community leaders “not to provide a platform at any of our events or temples to politicians unless they publicly recognise and expressly condemn Khalistani extremism.” Meanwhile, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has acknowledged the presence of Khalistan supporters in Canada but said they do not represent the Sikh community as a whole.

His comments came during Diwali celebrations at Ottawa’s Parliament Hill recently amid an ongoing diplomatic row with India over Nijjar’s killing.

“There are many supporters of Khalistan in Canada, but they do not represent the Sikh Community as a whole. Similarly, there are supporters of Prime Minister (Narendra) Modi’s government in Canada, but they do not represent all Hindu Canadians,” Trudeau said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

Ottawa:

Days after an attack on Hindus at a Brampton temple, Canadian MP Chandra Arya has come down heavily on politicians pitting Hindus and Sikhs on “opposing sides” and asserted that the Hindu-Canadians and the Sikhs are on one side and the Khalistanis on the other.

Due to the deliberate actions of some politicians and the influence of Khalistanis, Canadians now mistakenly equate Khalistanis with Sikhs, Arya said in wake of several Canadian politician trying to portray the Brampton incident as a clash between the Canadian Hindu and Sikh communities.

Protesters carrying Khalistani flags clashed with devotees at a Hindu Sabha temple and disrupted an event co-organised by the temple authorities and the Indian Consulate on November 3 at Brampton, a city in Ontario’s Greater Toronto Area.

“Politicians are deliberately avoiding recognising and mentioning Khalistanis as responsible for this attack or are shifting the blame to other entities. They are misleading Canadians by framing this as an issue between Hindus and Sikhs,” Arya, a member of Parliament from Nepean, Ontario, said in a post on X on Friday.

“Politicians are portraying Hindus and Sikhs as opposing sides regarding the attack on the temple by Khalistani extremists. This picture is simply not true. The two sides are actually Hindu-Canadians and the vast majority of Sikh-Canadians on one side, and Khalistanis on the other,” Arya said in the post on X which had both a video and a text statement.

Strongly condemning the attack by Khalistani extremists “on behalf of Hindu-Canadians and the vast majority of Sikh-Canadians,” Arya also pointed out how it is common in Canada to see Hindus visiting Sikh Gurudwaras and Sikhs visiting Hindu temples.

“Politicians may try their best to divide Hindus and Sikhs. We can—and must—prove them wrong,” he appealed. “We, as Hindus and Sikhs, will not and should not allow vested interests to divide us for their political gain.” The relations between India and Canada have come under severe strain following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s allegations in September last year of a “potential” involvement of Indian agents in Khalistan extremist Hardeep Singh Nijjar’s killing.

New Delhi rejected Trudeau’s charges as “absurd.” Nijjar, a Canadian citizen, was designated a terrorist by India.

India has been maintaining that the main issue between the two countries is that of Canada giving space to pro-Khalistan elements operating from Canadian soil with impunity.

India has expelled six Canadian diplomats and withdrawn its high commissioner Sanjay Verma and other “targeted” officials from Canada after strongly dismissing Ottawa’s charges.

Arya, who has been vocal on the issue earlier too, also mentioned the Sikh community leader and former British Columbia Premier Ujjal Dosanjh, who said that a silent majority of Sikhs do not want to have anything to do with Khalistan and that they just don’t speak out because they’re afraid of violence and violent repercussions.

Dosanjh said Khalistani supporters control many of the Gurudwaras in Canada but the silent Sikhs “still hold power over which politicians get elected,” Arya said.

“Due to the deliberate actions of some politicians and the influence of Khalistanis, Canadians now mistakenly equate Khalistanis with Sikhs,” he said, adding, Hindus and Sikhs alike must educate Canadians “that we stand united in our fight against Khalistani extremists and their political backers.” He also appealed to Hindus and Sikhs in Canada to urge the community leaders “not to provide a platform at any of our events or temples to politicians unless they publicly recognise and expressly condemn Khalistani extremism.” Meanwhile, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has acknowledged the presence of Khalistan supporters in Canada but said they do not represent the Sikh community as a whole.

His comments came during Diwali celebrations at Ottawa’s Parliament Hill recently amid an ongoing diplomatic row with India over Nijjar’s killing.

“There are many supporters of Khalistan in Canada, but they do not represent the Sikh Community as a whole. Similarly, there are supporters of Prime Minister (Narendra) Modi’s government in Canada, but they do not represent all Hindu Canadians,” Trudeau said.

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)

New Delhi:

Billionaire Elon Musk has predicted the downfall of Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in the upcoming Canadian federal election, scheduled to take place on or before October 2025. “He will be gone in the upcoming election,” posted Musk on X, while responding to a user’s request to help Canada get rid of Trudeau.

He will be gone in the upcoming election

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 7, 2024

The exchange on social media started when a Swedish journalist shared an update on the German government and wrote, “The German Socialist government has COLLAPSED and there are now talks about a snap election.”

To this, Musk, Chief executive officer (CEO) of electric automobile maker Tesla and the private space company SpaceX, called German Chancellor Olaf Scholz a “fool” after the collapse of his three-party coalition.

He responded in German: “Olaf ist ein Narr.” The sentence translates to: “Olaf is a fool.”

Olaf ist ein Narr https://t.co/Yye3DIeA17

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 7, 2024

To this, a user said, “Elon Musk we need your help in Canada getting rid of Trudeau”.

This is not the first time Musk has bashed Mr Trudeau. Musk had earlier slammed the Justin Trudeau government in Canada for “crushing free speech” in the country.

Last year, the Canadian government made it compulsory for online streaming services to formally register with the government for ‘regulatory controls’. Musk called it “shameful” and wrote, “Trudeau is trying to crush free speech in Canada.”

Trudeau is trying to crush free speech in Canada. Shameful. https://t.co/oHFFvyBGxu

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 1, 2023

Before this, in February 2022, when Mr Trudeau invoked emergency powers – for the first time in the country’s history – to arm his government with more power to respond to truckers protesting the vaccine mandates at that time, Musk compared him to Adolf Hitler.

Responding to a social media post describing how Trudeau’s government had ordered banks to help cut funding to the protesters, Musk posted a meme of a photo of Hitler, with “Stop comparing me to Justin Trudeau” written above his head and “I had a budget” below it.

Later the post was deleted.

The war of words continues.

On a blustery, cold January day in 2011 in Lahore, a CIA contractor and former US Special Forces operative was driving through a busy street when two motorcyclists who allegedly attempted to rob him—or that is what he claimed—were shot and killed by him. In the ensuing chaos, he hit another car, got caught and was promptly charged with murder. You might think this was a minor incident, but Washington didn’t.

Davis was hardly a big fish in the CIA pond, yet the Obama administration threw a diplomatic tantrum generally typical of a superpower. Diplomatic relations and the $2 billion in annual aid to Pakistan were frozen. The US falsely claimed Davis was a diplomat, deserving immunity. Pakistan’s investigation showed he was a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) operative and therefore wasn’t covered by diplomatic immunity. Initially, it refused to back down despite the political heat.

In the end, after a 50-day standoff, Davis was whisked back to the US, but not before $2.34 million of blood money exchanged hands, reportedly compensating the victims’ families. He later wrote about this cloak-and-dagger saga in his 2016 book The Contractor: How I Landed in Pakistan’s Deadliest Jail and Then Escaped, revealing how the CIA operates when things get messy.

CIA’s Long Arms

The Raymond Davis affair revealed how deeply the CIA was operating in Pakistan’s backyard, raising public anger about America’s covert meddling in a country it called an “ally” in the war on terror. The Pakistanis felt betrayed by their trusted ally.

This brings us to the present: the CIA, the agency behind countless covert operations all around the world, lectures India on cooperating with Canada over Hardeep Singh Nijjar’s assassination. It’s as if the US forgot it’s been running around the world in the shadows since the CIA’s inception in 1947, toppling governments, orchestrating coups, and assassinating foreign leaders—all in the name of national interest. But let’s not dwell on the hypocrisy or “double standards”, as India’s foreign minister S. Jaishankar put it in a recent interview with NDTV. He didn’t hold back in calling out Canada’s double standards and pointed out how it is quick to gather intel through its diplomats on foreign soil but becomes very protective when it comes to limiting similar activities by diplomats from other nations on its own turf.

Indeed, while Canada plays the victim, it conveniently turns a blind eye to the unchecked privileges its own diplomats enjoy in India. Jaishankar, ever direct, put it plainly: “Double standards is a very mild word for it.” His pointed remark wasn’t just a dig at Canada’s hypocrisy but also an indictment of the wider Western duplicity.

Take the recent case of the US charging former Indian intelligence agent Vikas Yadav with being involved in a plot to assassinate Sikh separatist Gurpatwant Singh Pannun in New York. Now, imagine if the tables were turned. Would the US sit quietly? Absolutely not. By now, Washington would have launched a full-scale diplomatic offensive to bring its man home, just like it did in the above-mentioned case of Davis. And if this led to a potential diplomatic row, so be it. The hypocrisy is so obvious.

West’s Unquestioned Hypocrisy

In the murky realm of espionage, agencies like the CIA, Mossad and MI6 have always played by their own rules, causing diplomatic rifts, regime changes and the occasional assassinations. But when the tables turn, if at all, well, it’s all about the rule of law and international cooperation. I do not suggest the Indian spy agency RAW is doing what the likes of CIA, Mossad and MI6 have been doing for decades without being questioned by anyone. The US, for instance, never lectured Israel for Mossad’s countless extraterritorial activities overseas. India is cooperating with the US in the Vikas Yadav case. It wants to cooperate with Canada in its investigation of Hardeep Singh Nijjar’s murder upon receipt of credible evidence.

Jaishankar’s view isn’t just an Indian perspective—countries across the Global South, and even some in the West, are getting increasingly fed up with the blatant foreign policy double standards.

‘Ajax’ To ‘Condor’, CIA’s Myriad Assassination Plots

The US government’s own report on assassination plots involving foreign leaders reveals some shocking truths about the CIA’s covert operations overseas. The report Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders wasn’t fully declassified and released until July 23, 2002. The report, also known as the Church Committee report, investigated alleged CIA assassination plots against foreign leaders, including Cuba’s Fidel Castro and Congo’s Patrice Lumumba. The report also mentions other foreign leaders who were targeted for assassination, although their names were not disclosed.

Despite the White House’s efforts to bury the report, the Church Committee conducted a thorough investigation into the CIA’s assassination plots. It confirmed the CIA’s involvement in these plots and recommended legislation to prohibit assassinations. The reports also raised important questions about the ethics and legality of targeted killings, which remain relevant today. And yet, the CIA often disregards its rule books and ethical standards.

Some of its notable plots were 

• Operation Ajax (1953): Successfully overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, consolidating Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s power. This was a joint operation between the CIA and Britain’s MI6. 
• Bay of Pigs Invasion (1961): Failed to overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro, resulting in embarrassment to the US and loss of life.
• Operation Condor (1970s-1980s): Supported Latin American dictatorships in eliminating leftist opposition, leading to human rights abuses.

In more recent times, the CIA’s extraterritorial actions in the Middle East, especially during the ‘War on Terror’, have had long-term destabilising effects. US drone strikes, covert actions in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have sometimes led to increased radicalisation. While these operations are aimed at counterterrorism, the resulting instability often fuels new cycles of violence and anti-American sentiment.

Mossad’s Misdemeanours

Many experts in the West are bracing for a fiery Israeli strike on Iran in response to Tehran’s October 1 missile attack. But here’s the catch—it may not come from the skies at all. Instead of sending jets and missiles, Israel could very well stick to its trusted playbook: cyberattacks or political assassinations. After all, these methods have proven highly effective in the past, often executed with the help of local assets within Iran. So, while everyone waits for a military show of force, Israel might be quietly sharpening its digital knives or preparing for another covert strike that leaves no fingerprints but sends a very loud message.

It is widely believed, and not disputed by Israel, that Mossad has been actively involved in covert operations inside Iran for years, particularly targeting Iran’s nuclear programme. One might recall the cyberattack using the Stuxnet virus, which disrupted uranium enrichment in 2010. In 2018, Mossad is believed to have stolen 55,000 pages of documents and 183 CDs from Iran’s nuclear archives, revealing the country’s nuclear programme details.

However, Mossad’s most high-profile and controversial actions have been the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists. These operations are believed to be part of a broader Israeli strategy to delay or dismantle Iran’s nuclear capabilities, which Israel sees as an existential threat. Between 2010 and 2012, at least five Iranian nuclear scientists were assassinated in Tehran in a series of precision attacks that many attributed to Mossad. Israel has not commented on them. The most notable method involved motorcyclists attaching magnetic bombs to the victims’ cars during busy commutes. The victims included Majid Shahriari, a key figure in Iran’s nuclear research, and Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, a prominent scientist at Iran’s Natanz nuclear facility. These killings sent shockwaves through Iran’s scientific community, severely damaging its nuclear programme and provoking outrage from Tehran, which accused Israel and the West of orchestrating the murders.

The Strikes On Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions

The most striking assassination occurred in 2020 when Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, considered the father of Iran’s nuclear weapons programme, was killed in a highly sophisticated operation. Reports suggested the use of a satellite-controlled machine gun to eliminate Fakhrizadeh near Tehran. This assassination was a major blow to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Mossad’s operations inside Iran demonstrate the agency’s deep penetration into the country and its relentless efforts to undermine Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Iranian secret agents have also been active against Israel, with the Israeli government successfully foiling Iranian plots to assassinate Israelis in Israel, Cyprus and elsewhere.

MI6 And Its Legacy Spy Network

The United Kingdom, as the original colonial power, practically wrote the book on covert operations. MI6, founded in 1909 as the Empire’s main Secret Intelligence Service, was tasked with protecting British interests worldwide—sometimes by any means necessary. One of its most infamous escapades was its role in the 1953 coup against Iran’s Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, a man who dared to nationalise Iran’s oil, threatening Britain’s golden pipeline. As mentioned above, the MI6 teamed up with the CIA for Operation Ajax, toppling Mossadegh and reinstalling the Shah, whose authoritarian reign would last until the 1979 revolution.

In more recent times, especially during the early 2000s, MI6 found itself embroiled in another scandal, this time involving Libya. Partnering again with the CIA, MI6 was accused of helping to render Libyan dissidents back to Gaddafi’s regime, where they were tortured. The most prominent case was that of Abdel Hakim Belhaj, an opposition leader kidnapped and sent to Libya allegedly with MI6’s help. After years of legal battles, Belhaj won an apology from Prime Minister Theresa May in 2018.

India’s RAW Power

India’s Research and Analysis Wing (RAW) was established in 1968 as the nation’s primary external intelligence agency. While RAW has gained significant prominence within the global intelligence community, its capabilities still trail behind those of the CIA, Mossad, and MI6. With a reported budget of around $700 million, RAW operates on a fraction of the resources available to the CIA, whose budget hovers between $18-20 billion. Its main mandate is national security, with a sharp focus on counterterrorism—disrupting terror outfits, cutting off funding to extremists, and monitoring state enemies abroad. 

Contrary to popular belief, RAW does not operate with unchecked power. Its operations are governed by strict directives from the Indian government and, at least on paper, must adhere to Indian laws. While RAW plays a crucial role in safeguarding the nation, it is by no means a rogue agency; it works within the limits of its mandate, with each mission requiring government approval.

From the CIA’s colossal resources and Mossad’s precision strikes to MI6’s legacy of colonial espionage and RAW’s rising influence, these agencies navigate the murky waters of international politics and diplomacy. Yet, they remain indispensable tools of statecraft in an increasingly complex world.

(Syed Zubair Ahmed is a London-based senior Indian journalist with three decades of experience with the Western media)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

“We’re not so different, you and I. We’ve both spent our lives looking for the weakness in one another’s systems. Don’t you think it’s time to recognize there is as little worth on your side as there is on mine?”

Those who’ve been rooting for Gary Oldman playing Jackson Lamb, the instantly unlikeable boss of the good-for-nothings of MI5, the British intelligence agency, in Apple’s Slow Horses, may not even remember this line the actor delivered playing another spy boss in another spy thriller: as George Smiley in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, a 2011 film based on John la Carre’s book. 

Addressed to Smiley’s Russian counterpart, Karla, this line, emblematic of the film’s politics, was celebrated and decried in equal measure for creating an equivalence between the US and the USSR during the Cold War. Going by the recent media stories and diplomatic activity, George Smiley could have very well said it about India and Canada today.

Blow Hot, Blow Cold

New Delhi and Ottawa have expelled each other’s top diplomats, following the Canadian Prime Minister’s latest accusation of the Indian establishment being directly involved in the assassination of a Sikh separatist on Canadian soil. India, on the other hand, has not only denied it but also mounted a counterattack on Canada for nurturing anti-India groups within its territory. 

Fall is not fair weather for India-Canada relations. Exactly one year ago, the two countries were engaged in similar diplomatic acrimony over the same assassination. Khalistan, after nuclear proliferation, has been their proverbial bee in the bonnet for several decades. With the exception of the lull during the turn of the millennium, the issue has stayed alive and volatile. It is not going anywhere in a hurry.

Canada’s soft approach towards anti-India outfits was once attributed solely to its domestic politics: the country is home to the largest Sikh diaspora, with around 7,70,000 of them living there. The current strain in the relationship, however, may not just be about Canada’s vote bank politics or India’s internal affairs involving resistance from a sect of Sikhs. There is, quite clearly, an emergence of bilateral antagonism now. Are the rapprochement personnel doing their job well? Or, more provocatively, are the spies doing theirs?

Flashbacks From 1975

Realistically speaking, assassinations on foreign soil are not a no-go zone, even with declared enemies, if the assassins are smart. The morality and legality of such actions is another story. What, then, has compelled Canada, a limited ally, to make public its investigations in the Nijjar assassination case and hold India responsible? Has there been a slight or a breach of trust, intended or otherwise, behind the scenes that a public show is to be put up? Are there bad-faith actors at work on either side, or is it sheer incompetence? It could be either or both, but as venerable Canadian writer Margaret Atwood reminds us, “Stupidity is the same as evil if you judge by the results”. Therefore, it’s the breakdown of bilateral ties that matters, much more than the nitty-gritty of what caused it. 

This escalation of diplomatic tensions between India and Canada is beginning to loosely resemble another controversial diplomatic event that occurred half a century ago: the breakdown of the then newly forged Australia-North Korea relations. On October 30, 1975, Pyongyang recalled its diplomats from Canberra, citing the host country’s ‘unfriendly attitude’ and ‘intolerable provocative acts’ in a communication sent via commercial mail. Less than ten days later, Australian diplomats were ousted from Pyongyang on November 8 on account of ‘unfriendly behaviour’ and ‘abuse of diplomatic immunity’.

The actors and the times are different, but the problem is the same. This inability to smoothen out the rough edges time and again reflects poorly on the political and diplomatic leaders of India and Canada. What are long bilateral ties worth if they cannot withstand such events? Both Ottawa and New Delhi have engaged in the game of provocation and reconciliation. The classic blow-hot, blow-cold approach. To what end, though? 

A Lesson From Bridge Of Spies

Coming back to George Smiley’s wisdom, looking for weaknesses in the other is a zero-sum game. This isn’t the Cold War yet, but as India grows in stature, the chances of this game intensifying will increase correspondingly. India and Canada are not directly engaged in any military-territorial jostling, so these flare-ups have an even more limited scope. Both are citing long-term national security concerns, and other countries like the UK and the US are trying to broker ‘peace’ by urging India to cooperate in the investigation.

Diplomacy is an exercise in sifting fact from fiction but addressing both because both matter, even if unequally. Another popular culture reference to demonstrate it comes from Bridge of Spies, a 2014 film about the famous spy exchange between the US and USSR. James Donovan (Tom Hanks), a lawyer representing a Russian spy called Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance), tells him, “The case against you matters. Making them prove it matters. The fiction is: whether you did it or not doesn’t matter. The state has to prove it, that you’re a spy”.

Before anyone condescends about taking lessons from fiction, remember, apart from John la Carre, celebrated writers like Ian Fleming and Graham Greene once served in MI6. 

(Nishtha Gautam is a Delhi-based author and academic.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author

“We’re not so different, you and I. We’ve both spent our lives looking for the weakness in one another’s systems. Don’t you think it’s time to recognize there is as little worth on your side as there is on mine?”

Those who’ve been rooting for Gary Oldman playing Jackson Lamb, the instantly unlikeable boss of the good-for-nothings of MI5, the British intelligence agency, in Apple’s Slow Horses, may not even remember this line the actor delivered playing another spy boss in another spy thriller: as George Smiley in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, a 2011 film based on John la Carre’s book. 

Addressed to Smiley’s Russian counterpart, Karla, this line, emblematic of the film’s politics, was celebrated and decried in equal measure for creating an equivalence between the US and the USSR during the Cold War. Going by the recent media stories and diplomatic activity, George Smiley could have very well said it about India and Canada today.

Blow Hot, Blow Cold

New Delhi and Ottawa have expelled each other’s top diplomats, following the Canadian Prime Minister’s latest accusation of the Indian establishment being directly involved in the assassination of a Sikh separatist on Canadian soil. India, on the other hand, has not only denied it but also mounted a counterattack on Canada for nurturing anti-India groups within its territory. 

Fall is not fair weather for India-Canada relations. Exactly one year ago, the two countries were engaged in similar diplomatic acrimony over the same assassination. Khalistan, after nuclear proliferation, has been their proverbial bee in the bonnet for several decades. With the exception of the lull during the turn of the millennium, the issue has stayed alive and volatile. It is not going anywhere in a hurry.

Canada’s soft approach towards anti-India outfits was once attributed solely to its domestic politics: the country is home to the largest Sikh diaspora, with around 7,70,000 of them living there. The current strain in the relationship, however, may not just be about Canada’s vote bank politics or India’s internal affairs involving resistance from a sect of Sikhs. There is, quite clearly, an emergence of bilateral antagonism now. Are the rapprochement personnel doing their job well? Or, more provocatively, are the spies doing theirs?

Flashbacks From 1975

Realistically speaking, assassinations on foreign soil are not a no-go zone, even with declared enemies, if the assassins are smart. The morality and legality of such actions is another story. What, then, has compelled Canada, a limited ally, to make public its investigations in the Nijjar assassination case and hold India responsible? Has there been a slight or a breach of trust, intended or otherwise, behind the scenes that a public show is to be put up? Are there bad-faith actors at work on either side, or is it sheer incompetence? It could be either or both, but as venerable Canadian writer Margaret Atwood reminds us, “Stupidity is the same as evil if you judge by the results”. Therefore, it’s the breakdown of bilateral ties that matters, much more than the nitty-gritty of what caused it. 

This escalation of diplomatic tensions between India and Canada is beginning to loosely resemble another controversial diplomatic event that occurred half a century ago: the breakdown of the then newly forged Australia-North Korea relations. On October 30, 1975, Pyongyang recalled its diplomats from Canberra, citing the host country’s ‘unfriendly attitude’ and ‘intolerable provocative acts’ in a communication sent via commercial mail. Less than ten days later, Australian diplomats were ousted from Pyongyang on November 8 on account of ‘unfriendly behaviour’ and ‘abuse of diplomatic immunity’.

The actors and the times are different, but the problem is the same. This inability to smoothen out the rough edges time and again reflects poorly on the political and diplomatic leaders of India and Canada. What are long bilateral ties worth if they cannot withstand such events? Both Ottawa and New Delhi have engaged in the game of provocation and reconciliation. The classic blow-hot, blow-cold approach. To what end, though? 

A Lesson From Bridge Of Spies

Coming back to George Smiley’s wisdom, looking for weaknesses in the other is a zero-sum game. This isn’t the Cold War yet, but as India grows in stature, the chances of this game intensifying will increase correspondingly. India and Canada are not directly engaged in any military-territorial jostling, so these flare-ups have an even more limited scope. Both are citing long-term national security concerns, and other countries like the UK and the US are trying to broker ‘peace’ by urging India to cooperate in the investigation.

Diplomacy is an exercise in sifting fact from fiction but addressing both because both matter, even if unequally. Another popular culture reference to demonstrate it comes from Bridge of Spies, a 2014 film about the famous spy exchange between the US and USSR. James Donovan (Tom Hanks), a lawyer representing a Russian spy called Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance), tells him, “The case against you matters. Making them prove it matters. The fiction is: whether you did it or not doesn’t matter. The state has to prove it, that you’re a spy”.

Before anyone condescends about taking lessons from fiction, remember, apart from John la Carre, celebrated writers like Ian Fleming and Graham Greene once served in MI6. 

(Nishtha Gautam is a Delhi-based author and academic.)

Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author