Trump waved a 1908 treaty as ammo in his disputes with Canada

Article content

When U.S. President Donald Trump last spoke with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Trump pointed to a 1908 treaty as apparent ammunition to support his threats of a tariff war and his envisioned takeover of Canada.

Article content

Article content

Trump’s reference to the 116-year-old treaty regarding the Canada-U.S. border reportedly took Trudeau and his office by surprise, sending staff searching for the pact online as the leaders spoke on the phone. That’s not a surprise. The treaty is somewhat obscure in terms of the historical relationship between the former British colonies that became Canada and the United States of America.

Article content

Referencing an old border treaty follows a series of increasingly menacing comments by Trump about coveting Canada, from musings shortly after winning the U.S. election — dismissed by many as jokes — that Canada could become America’s 51st state, to threatening “economic force” to take Canada, and publicly dismissing the Canada-U.S. border as “an artificially drawn line.”

“I view it as, honestly, a country that should be a state,” Trump said last month, in spite of the heads of all major political parties in Canada, and past prime ministers, robustly rejecting the idea. Trump’s menace on sovereignty and economic tariffs prompted a unique visit to Washington, D.C., last week by all 13 premiers during which they told White House officials that amalgamation was a “non-starter.” In reply, Trump’s deputy chief of staff, James Blair, said: “We never agreed that Canada would not be the 51st state.”

As Canadians rally against annexation, they are left with Trump’s cryptic reference to a treaty few have heard of.

The National Post turned to several historical specialists to help explain what the treaty is, what it means, and why Trump might be trying to weaponize it.

Article content

What is this 1908 treaty Trump talked about?

Signed under the Republican presidency of Theodore Roosevelt and the reign of King Edward VII, back when Canada’s international relations were conducted by the British, the treaty’s official name sure makes it sound important: Treaty Between the United States of America and the United Kingdom Concerning the Boundary Between the United States and the Dominion of Canada From the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean.

Its preamble, however, narrows its scope significantly: “providing for the more complete definition and demarcation of the international boundary.”

The treaty deals largely with marking rivers and lakes. Article I of the treaty, for instance, is to survey the precise border through the waters of Passamaquoddy Bay, an inlet of the Bay of Fundy, between New Brunswick and Maine.

“The 1908 treaty was the last and arguably the least important of a series of U.S.-British treaties pertaining to the U.S.-Canada border,” said Ohio State University history professor Peter Hahn, who specializes in U.S. history and foreign relations.

Article content

Article content

John Dunbabin, an emeritus professor of history at Britain’s Oxford University, and author of The Longest Boundary, two volumes detailing the drawing of the Canada-U.S. border, agrees.

“The 1908 Treaty was a minor part of a general settlement of outstanding U.S.-Canadian issues,” Dunbabin said.

“The only stretches of the U.S.-Canadian border whose line had not then been agreed were some mudflats in Passamaquoddy Bay. The treaty provided for the settlement of this short stretch.” It also agreed to chart the border’s course down the middle of the St. Croix River, and “marking and monumenting” the border from St. Croix to the Pacific, splitting costs equally.

“But this merely represented improved marking of lines already both agreed and marked,” Dunbabin said.

Said Hahn: “The 1908 treaty provided simply that the United States and Canada would jointly survey the border using modern technology and mark it with monuments and buoys. A joint survey followed, facilitating final adjustment of areas where there had been ambiguity.”

What were the circumstances at the time?

Article content

The border was a big problem in the aftermath of the American Revolutionary War. After George Washington defeated the British, the British government conceded to the U.S. nearly all its territory east of the Mississippi River and south of the Great Lakes in 1783. The British retained land that is now Canada.

Over decades, as populations grew and new settlements were established, border issues popped up. Territorial expansion was one trigger for the War of 1812.

“Border demarcation was a major issue in Anglo-American relations in the 19th century, and it almost provoked war on several occasions. But the two powers managed to agree to a mutually acceptable boundary through such treaties as the Convention of 1818, the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842, and the Oregon Treaty of 1846,” said Hahn.

The International Boundary Commission, a joint agency for marking and maintaining the border, lists 11 agreements that defined the Canada-U.S. border, starting with the Definitive Treaty of Peace in 1783, that formally ended the Revolutionary War. That roughed in the boundary between the newly established United States and Britain’s remaining colonies to the north.

Article content

Some ambiguities in the wording of treaties written in the 19^th Century were found, and exploration, land use, and mapping technology evolved. There was a need to modernize and iron out some grey areas.

The 1908 treaty was one agreement that did that. The boundary commission lists two other treaties that came after it, one in 1910 and another in 1925.

Is it an important treaty in Canada-U.S. relations?

“I recall the Robert Frost adage that good fences make good neighbours. The 1908 treaty contributed to the foundation of friendship that has characterized U.S.-Canada relations for more than a century,” said Hahn. “With the border settled, both powers could concentrate on issues of far greater consequence to both nations.”

Is the treaty still in force?

Yes. The treaty was signed and ratified by both sides, has not been rescinded by either country, and has since been referenced in other international agreements.

Can one side ignore the treaty?

“There is nothing in the treaty that specifically allows the United States to withdraw from it because it was not designed to be revisited,” said Kurk Dorsey, a University of New Hampshire professor specializing in American history and U.S. foreign policy.

Article content

“The goal of the treaty was to make sure that there would be no further border disputes over small pieces of territory that had flared up from time to time. It’s not too far a stretch to suggest that it would be an act of war to force a change in a boundary,” Dorsey said.

Hahn said the treaty cannot legally be ignored or violated.

“Any such changes would need to be mutually agreed. Of course, history is full of examples of nations revoking or violating treaties — but that often is when one power is committing aggression on another.”

Why did Trump mention the 1908 treaty?

It is hard to know someone’s motivation, or of events that transpire in private, but observers were surprised by the president waving this old treaty as an apparent threat.

“I am shocked, and I wonder who in his administration discovered it and made enough of an impression on Trump that he remembered to mention it on the phone call,” said Dorsey. He called it “incredibly irresponsible” to use the treaty as a bargaining chip.

“I do not think that he would start any sort of shooting match with Canada, but I do think that he would constantly badger the Canadian government to make concessions. It is rather remarkable that Trump gives away the store to Russia and then threatens Canada,” Dorsey said.

Article content

Hahn said it might be part of Trump’s showmanship and negotiation tactics.

“The most benign interpretation of President Trump’s reported remark that I can think of is that he made an extreme statement as an opening negotiating position,” Hahn said. “Under this reasoning, the president was aiming to redress something like a trade imbalance by putting the prime minister back on his heels and thereby inducing him to make concessions on the other matters.

“He has a track record of saying outrageous things to stir up tension and tumult, and then moving on,” said Hahn.

Dunbabin suggested Trump hadn’t read the treaty, perhaps only its title, meaning he pointed to the treaty out of “ignorance.”

“Trump may not care for Canadians, per se. I seem to remember that Trump (during his first term) once complained that in 1814 they had burnt his house,” Dunbabin said. The professor added that the burning of the White House in the War of 1812 was by the British, not Canada, and was a response to American troops looting York, which is now called Toronto.

• Email: ahumphreys@postmedia.com | X: AD_Humphreys

Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark nationalpost.com and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here.

Article content