By John Q. Hosedrinker 
U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick asserted that President Trump’s tariff threats against Canada, specifically targeting Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s energy surcharges, were a strategic maneuver to achieve a quick resolution. Lutnick compared Canada’s reaction to that of Ukraine, suggesting a lack of gratitude for past U.S. support. He characterized Ford’s actions as a mistake, claiming the premier’s energy tax prompted Trump’s response and subsequent withdrawal of the threat. The situation highlights ongoing trade tensions and Trump’s determination to protect American interests, particularly within the automotive and energy sectors.
Read the original article here
The assertion that Canada should simply “say thank you” to the U.S. in ongoing trade negotiations is ludicrous. The idea that Canada should express gratitude for actions that have severely disrupted the economy is nonsensical. What is there to be thankful for? The imposition of tariffs has thrown a highly interconnected economic system into chaos. This isn’t a simple matter of differing tax rates; it’s about the potential destabilization of long-standing trade relationships and the resulting economic hardship for many.
The suggestion borders on insulting. Threats to redraw borders, even those established over a century ago, are not something to be thanked for. Nor is the implied suggestion of annexation or the offer of statehood a reason for gratitude. Such proposals are alarming and undermine the sovereignty of a nation. The underlying implication is that the US should be appeased regardless of its actions, a position that is untenable and disrespectful to Canada’s independent identity.
The proposed “thank you” ignores the detrimental effects on various sectors of the Canadian economy. Farmers face tariffs on potash, dairy, and crops; the car industry grapples with tariffs on aluminum and steel; and the consequences ripple across the entire economy. Attributing the entire economic downturn to a single perpetrator – in this case, a particular individual – is a simplification that ignores the complexities of international relations and economic interdependence. To simply accept the blame and offer thanks is to capitulate and accept the consequences of actions that have been harmful.
The comparison to Ukraine’s situation during negotiations is particularly revealing. In that context, the “thank you” is framed as a response to aggressive and threatening behaviour. Just as Ukraine defends its sovereignty against unwarranted aggression, Canada is right to resist harmful trade policies and actions that undermine its interests. To imply that Canada should show the same level of gratitude to the U.S. as a nation at war would be deeply inappropriate. The comparison highlights the aggression inherent in the demand for thanks, not a call for Canadian deference.
The very idea of expressing thanks in this situation seems bizarre. International relations are not transactional; they are based on mutual respect and the pursuit of shared benefits. Expecting thanks in the face of damaging actions is not only presumptuous but also reveals a worrying lack of understanding of the principles of diplomacy and respectful international engagement. The implication that a nation should thank its adversary for hostile actions is not just unacceptable; it’s illogical.
Furthermore, this perspective suggests an abusive relationship dynamic. A pattern of aggression followed by a demand for gratitude is not conducive to constructive negotiations. A healthy relationship necessitates mutual respect and a willingness to find solutions that benefit both parties. In this situation, the demand for thanks feels less like diplomacy and more like a manipulation tactic.
The demand for Canadian gratitude is not only unreasonable; it’s a sign of a declining superpower. The US is losing its influence globally, losing ground in South America and Africa to China, and potentially risking its relationship with Canada and the EU. This behaviour, which has the effect of pushing allies away, is a dangerous trend. The need for continued trade with Canada is undeniable for the US.
A demand for “thanks” in the context of these trade negotiations obscures the true nature of the situation. The actions of the US are not those of a friend seeking cooperation but those of a bully demanding submission. While a negotiation is beneficial, it’s not a moment for submissive gratitude, but rather, a negotiation between equals who hold mutual respect and recognise the legitimacy of each other’s positions and concerns. The alternative is the abandonment of principle and submission to an abusive power dynamic. Canada is right to stand firm in defending its interests, just as Ukraine does in protecting its sovereignty.