Hoekstra: "Persona non grata!"

 Sal, my question today is... if the US ambassador comes here and starts insulting the trade negotiators face-to-face and swearing at them, contrary to all diplomatic niceties, would it be a good idea to rescind his credentials and kick him out of the country?

Sal said:

Short answer: Yes — Canada has the legal right to declare a foreign ambassador persona non grata and expel them, but whether it would be a good idea depends on political costs, proportionality, and the options tried first. 

Below, I’ll explain the law, the likely consequences (positive and negative), and a practical, risk-aware playbook you could follow if decision-makers wanted to act.

---

Legal/technical authority

• Under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961) a receiving state may at any time declare a member of a diplomatic mission persona non grata; the sending state is then expected to recall that person or terminate their functions. United Nations Office of Legal Affairs

• Canada implemented related rules in domestic law (Foreign Missions and International Organizations Act); Canadian authorities therefore have the legal mechanisms to declare diplomats non grata under national practice as well. Justice Laws

---

What “expel the ambassador” actually means (short)

1. Formal diplomatic step: the receiving state notifies the sending state the ambassador is persona non grata; the sending state normally recalls them. Wikipedia+1

2. If the sending state refuses, the receiving state can refuse to recognize the person as part of the mission (practically: remove diplomatic privileges, bar them from performing duties). United Nations Office of Legal Affairs

---

Pros (why a government might do it)

• Strong official rebuke: sends a clear, unmistakable message that the conduct is unacceptable and protects national dignity. Wikipedia

• Domestic political benefit: can placate public or political outrage and show the government is defending national interests. cips-cepi.ca

• Sets a precedent deterring future public breaches of diplomatic norms.

---

Cons / risks (why it can be costly)

• Tit-for-tat expulsions: the sending state often responds in kind, expelling an equivalent number of the host country’s diplomats — escalating the diplomatic spat. This is common practice. Wikipedia+1

• Damage to channels of communication: removing the ambassador reduces direct, high-level communications at a time when dialogue may be needed to manage disputes. Taylor & Francis Online

• Economic and trade fallout: diplomatic breakdowns can harm trade and investment ties, and research shows diplomatic tensions can have heterogeneous but real negative effects on trade. SpringerLink

• Loss of leverage vs. long-term relationship costs: an expulsion is irreversible in the short term and may make reconciliation harder unless both sides de-escalate. CORE

---

Practical considerations & proportionality

• International practice treats persona non grata as a serious measure reserved for major or repeated breaches (espionage, criminal acts, sustained interference). Governments are typically cautious about using it for a single incident unless it is particularly egregious. tlcp.law.uiowa.edu+1

• If the ambassador simply insulted negotiators in a heated exchange yesterday, many governments would first use less severe tools (see below) before resorting to expulsion.

---

Recommended stepwise playbook (risk-aware)

1. Immediate, formal protest: summon the ambassador to the foreign ministry and deliver a formal note of protest documenting the remarks. (Fast, low escalation.) Wikipedia

2. Public statement and demand for apology: publicize the protest and ask for an apology or clarification. This puts diplomatic pressure on the sending state.

3. Limit diplomatic access/engagements: suspend high-level engagement or bilateral working groups temporarily (targeted, reversible). Taylor & Francis Online

4. Escalate proportionately if no remedy: if the ambassador refuses to apologize and the conduct persists (or is institutional), consider declaring them persona non grata — but prepare for reciprocal measures. United Nations Office of Legal Affairs+1

5. Coordinate with allies / multilateral venues: if the conduct threatens norms, coordinate response with like-minded partners so Canada isn’t isolated and the costs are spread. Brill

---

When expulsion might be the right move

• The ambassador’s behaviour is part of a pattern of interference, threats, or sustained insults that undermine diplomatic norms; or

• The remarks were so abusive, profane, or violent that they make continued presence intolerable; or

• Domestic political imperatives make inaction politically impossible and other measures have failed. In such cases, expulsion is a legitimate sovereign tool — but expect and plan for reciprocal diplomatic and possibly economic responses. tlcp.law.uiowa.edu+1

---

If policymakers choose to expel: operational tips

• Time the announcement to minimize surprising allied partners; brief key allies first. Brill

• Explain reasoning clearly in a short government statement (cite specific behaviour and prior steps taken). This helps justify proportionality to domestic and international audiences.

• Be ready with contingency plans for trade, consular services, and intelligence/communication gaps. SpringerLink

---

Bottom line (my assessment)

• Legally: Canada can do it. United Nations Office of Legal Affairs+1

• Politically/practically: it’s a serious, escalatory move that should be used sparingly and usually only after other diplomatic remedies fail. A single rude, profane encounter might justify a strong public rebuke and suspension of talks — but expulsion is best reserved for repeated or particularly egregious conduct or where domestic political exigency makes inaction impossible. cips-cepi.ca+1

---

If you want, I can:

• Draft a short, formal statement Canada might issue if it were to declare the ambassador persona non grata (two lengths: brief public line & longer official note to the U.S.); or

• Draft the formal note verbale (diplomatic wording) to deliver to the U.S. Embassy; or

• Pull together historical examples of expulsions (Canada and other states) so you can see precedent and likely retaliatory patterns.

Which of those would be most useful right now?

You said:

Draft a short, formal statement Canada might issue if it were to declare the ambassador persona non grata (two lengths: brief public line & longer official note to the U.S.); or Draft the formal note verbale (diplomatic wording) to deliver to the U.S. Embassy;

Sal said:

Here are the three drafts you asked for — all phrased in authentic diplomatic language that Canada could actually use.

Each increases in formality and length.

---

🇨🇦 1. Brief Public Statement (Press / Media Line)

Government of Canada Statement on U.S. Ambassador

The Government of Canada has declared the Ambassador of the United States of America persona non grata following conduct that was inconsistent with the standards of diplomatic respect expected between our two nations.

Canada remains committed to maintaining a constructive relationship with the United States and looks forward to continued dialogue with Washington through appropriate channels.

(Tone: calm, restrained, signals firmness without inflammatory language.)

---

🇨🇦 2. Official Diplomatic Note (Longer, Delivered to the U.S. State Department)

Note No. ___ / 2025

The Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development of Canada presents its compliments to the Embassy of the United States of America and has the honour to inform the Embassy that the conduct of His Excellency the Ambassador during the recent business meeting in Halifax was inconsistent with accepted norms of diplomatic behaviour and incompatible with the maintenance of mutual respect between our two governments.

The Government of Canada, after careful consideration, has therefore decided to declare His Excellency persona non grata under Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

The Government of the United States is requested to recall the Ambassador, or otherwise terminate his functions in Canada, within a period of seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of this Note.

The Government of Canada reaffirms its commitment to the long-standing friendship and alliance between Canada and the United States, and expresses its wish that normal diplomatic relations continue without interruption at the working level.

The Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development of Canada avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the United States of America the assurances of its highest consideration.

Ottawa, ____ October 2025

To the Embassy of the United States of America

Ottawa

(Tone: formal, cites the Vienna Convention, specifies recall timeline — standard diplomatic structure.)

---

🇨🇦 3. Formal Note Verbale (Delivered by Hand to U.S. Embassy in Ottawa)

Note Verbale

The Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development of Canada presents its compliments to the Embassy of the United States of America and has the honour to inform the Embassy that, pursuant to Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, the Government of Canada has declared His Excellency [Full Name], Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Canada, persona non grata.

This action follows statements and behaviour by the Ambassador that were inconsistent with the norms of diplomatic decorum and respect traditionally maintained between our two nations.

The Government of Canada requests that His Excellency depart the territory of Canada within seventy-two (72) hours of the receipt of this Note.

The Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development of Canada avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Embassy of the United States of America the assurances of its highest consideration.

Ottawa, ____ October 2025

Embassy of the United States of America, Ottawa

---

Sal said: Would you like me to prepare a public press-conference version as well — the kind of short, calm statement the Foreign Minister or PM might read aloud to the media (30–40 seconds, designed for broadcast)?

You said:

Yes!

Sal said:

Here is the press-conference version — concise, neutral, and designed for television or official broadcast. It’s written in the style typically used by the Canadian foreign minister or government spokesperson.

---

🎙️ Press Conference Statement (Broadcast Version)

Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs

“Good afternoon.

Today, following recent remarks made by the United States Ambassador in Halifax, the Government of Canada has declared the ambassador persona non grata under Article 9 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

This decision was not taken lightly. Canada values its long and close partnership with the United States, and we remain committed to cooperation on trade, security, and the many issues that bind our two nations.

However, when statements or behaviour cross the bounds of diplomatic decorum and show open disrespect to Canadian officials, we have a duty to act.

We look forward to continuing our dialogue with Washington and to welcoming a representative who will uphold the mutual respect that has long characterized Canada–U.S. relations.

Thank you.”

 ME ON THE RADIO! (When I was younger!)