We Can Deter or Defeat US Aggression without the Use of Armed Force

Richard Sandbrook

“If the people are ready to defend Latvia, no aggressor will ever dare to attack our country,” recently declared Latvia ‘s Defense Minister. Is that true? Could that also be true for Canada?

There are ways to deter and resist an invasion without taking up arms and without suffering major casualties and damage. The history, theory, and practice of organized nonviolent defence are well-known by a small coterie of specialists and activists, but they are virtually unknown by the public. A vast majority of people assume that “defence” means “military defence.”

Let’s be clear: Canada would be outgunned in any military confrontation with an invading US force. This judgment holds true even if Canada does mobilize 100,000 volunteers in a lightly trained National Service. Those volunteers would be strung out thinly along an immense border. Military leaders talk of mounting an insurrection along the lines of the successful Afghan insurgency against the Americans and its allies. However, how realistic is this scenario? Canadians have believed in “peace, order and good government”; how likely is it they will take to the hills to kill Americans?

Armed resistance would exact a high toll. The obvious one is widespread death and destruction – just think Ukraine, Syria, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Iraq. Less obviously, the use of armed resistance would force reluctant American troops to defend themselves and, inevitably, develop an antipathy toward Canadian defenders. Equally, the deaths of US forces personnel would make it difficult (“unpatriotic,” “treasonous”) for Americans to mount massive protests over the assault on America’s closest friend and ally.

The alternative? Rapidly organize strategic nonviolent resistance and devise a plan for the joint deployment of military and unarmed defence in the event of an invasion. This project would involve widespread training and planning for a decentralized defence leaning heavily on symbolic protest and complete noncooperation with the invading force.  It may be easy to invade Canada, but it will be hellish to occupy it, or any part of it. Alberta, of course, is the most likely target, during and following a referendum on separation.

Volunteers would receive training in the strategic objectives and related tactics of nonviolent resistance. They would organize themselves into affinity groups (relatives, friends, neighbours) to look out for each other in the event of injury or arrest. No resister left behind! Planning and training would also take place at the level of governmental organizations – municipalities, provincial and federal governments, and agencies of government. Each would devise a plan, congruent with the overall strategy of noncooperation. Each plan would designate which services it would provide (such as water, electricity, public transit, sanitation, policing), and which it would cut off with the advent of an invasion. Tactics of slow-work, stay-at-homes, defiance of dictates from the American command, and inaccurate work and information would paralyze administration.

Voluntary organizations, especially those with an affinity for nonviolent action, would also play a major resistance role. The question each organization needs to pose is: what can we do to prevent the occupiers from exercising control over the population or its resources? Religious institutions, peace organizations, trade unions, youth groups, indigenous organizations, women’s organizations, environmental and climate bodies, social-justice organizations - all can define a nonviolent role for themselves in the overall defence of Canada.

Deterrence is the primary aim of all this organization, planning and training. The central idea is simple: raise the cost to Trump of any intervention in Canada and the prospect even of a humiliating defeat. Courageous nonviolent defence will undermine further the morale of already disheartened US troops invading a friendly ally. It will encourage widespread protests in the US that might overturn the regime itself. And it will provoke global condemnation. The USA will be a pariah. If Canadians can show unity, resolve, and planning, Trump will perceive the risks and perhaps desist.

This strategy is not, however, without risks, if deterrence fails. Some resisters will be injured, arrested and even killed, though we can expect the casualties to be far fewer than those arising from an armed response. Each affinity group must calculate the level of risk its members are willing to take, and act accordingly.

There is also the risk that some groups will resort to violence in confronting the occupiers or punishing collaborators with the American forces. (Opinion surveys suggest that about 10 percent of the population is open to annexation by the US, with higher proportion of Gen Z and Albertans in this category.) This lack of nonviolent self-discipline not only imperils the nonviolent defenders but also undermines the logic of nonviolence resistance. Consistent nonviolence is the road to rallying passive supporters, demoralizing the opponents, and winning the contest.

Although strategic nonviolence is inexpensive, it will take months to organize – even with the government’s support. Without government support, the task is more onerous, requiring civil society to organize itself through consultative methods. This is a difficult and lengthy process.

What is essential is the determination of most Canadians to resist the subjugation of our country, either in the form of a “vassal state” cowed by US threats or an outright conquest.

Richard Sandbrook is Vice-President of Science for Peace and Professor Emeritus of Political Science at the University of Toronto.