Logically speaking, instigating a conflict is different from responding to a conflict. Without the instigator, the conflict would not exist. That’s why there is an ‘instigation’ penalty in hockey, for example.
Instigation is an active move, while responding is a reactive move. That doesn’t mean any response is automatically correct, but that there would not be the need for a response at all had the instigator not moved first.
For example, recent tensions between Canada and the U.S. were instigated by the U.S. President’s comments on removing Canadian sovereignty and the imposition of tariffs.
Canada did not question U.S. sovereignty, nor did Canada initiate the widespread imposition of tariffs. This is not to say that Canada has done everything right. We have underspent on defence for many years (something that is now being addressed). We have our own protectionist measures and systems like supply management that are criticized by some of our trading partners, just as Canada criticizes subsidies and other measures in partner nations. However, those were part of long-standing disagreements, rather than the instigators of recent tensions.
Regarding recent tariffs from the Trump Administration and the questioning of Canada’s sovereignty, Canada has responded to these moves with a mix of measures, including concessions like the Digital Services Tax withdrawal, compromises like the Gordie Howe Bridge Deal (a response to the U.S. President choosing not to honour a deal that was already signed), pushback, like imposing some countertariffs, and diversification, like deepening ties with the European Union and a limited trade rapprochement with China. It can be argued that these are moves that represent ‘weakness,’ and it can also be argued that these are moves designed to buy time while Canada’s other trading relationships are strengthened.
What cannot be disputed is the fact that these were responsive measures. The party that questions another’s sovereignty and imposes the tariffs is the instigator, and no amount of rhetorical inversion changes who moved first. Just as it would be illogical to claim Canada undermined the relationship with the U.S., it would be illogical to claim Denmark undermined its relationship with the U.S. when the U.S. President spoke of taking Greenland.
This adherence to logic is important, because twisting the truth to flatter the powerful may buy a sense of security in the short-term, but a society built on dishonesty will lose its ability to respond to reality, and responding to reality is ultimately how we will build a more prosperous and just world.
Spencer Fernando
This piece handled today. The Long Work, my Patreon, is for thinking past the week. Joining is free.