Cables From The Diplomatic Frontlines - Canada shows how to deal with "allied" states that cross red lines.

A political assassination on a friendly soil.

• The news around the assassination of a (Canadian citizen) Sikh leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar did not capture global media attention until the Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused Indian state of the complicity in this assassination:

• “Over the past number of weeks, Canadian security agencies have been actively pursuing credible allegations of a potential link between agents of the government of India…Any involvement of a foreign government in the killing of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil is an unacceptable violation of our sovereignty."

• That the Indian government would be interested in ‘‘neutralizing’’ a leader of a Khalistan separatist movement is beyond doubt.

• That they would actually go ahead and do this is not yet proven - but (given Modi’s prior shameful record in resorting to violence within India itself) neither is it implausible.

• Thus far, we know three things:

• 1) The Canadian PM is confident in offered evidence and intel enough to accuse a highly strategically valuable state of orchestrating a hit on its territory;

• 2) Canada received this compelling evidence/intel from a) its intel-sharing partners in Five Eyes (which are the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and UK) and b) the US, and;

• 3) Given that the US offered this intel, we can make a rather safe inference that Washington itself believes India’s involvement in this assassination (although official rhetoric has been limited to demands for ‘‘accountability’’ by the Secretary of State Antony Blinken).

• With all that said, it is also questionable whether Canada’s strategy of refusing to (thus far) publicize all of the available evidence is a correct play here.

• (side note: some of it has in fact been published already. For example, there is this video of at least six men and two vehicles involved in the waiting game prior to the assassination: level of logistics and sophistication implies involvement of a big player - Nijjar wasn’t known for having enemies of such heft. That is, except for the Indian government)

• One could certainly see the argument against it: this could place the investigation into jeopardy.

• But then again: 1) Why not wait until a higher level of evidentiary confidence has been achieved - where going public would no longer endanger the investigation? and; 2) India is already aware - it will try to cover its tracks no matter what notice of specific evidence it receives.

• (side note: and Indian officials are certainly trying to preempt and label future attacks: "Whether the quality of evidence or intelligence will stand the legal test or not, expect Trudeau to throw some Indian name in the air and pin the Nijjar murder on him or her.")

• A good precedent for the opposite strategy is the UK’s decision to immediately publicize all available evidence following political assassinations/attempts on former Russian spies: Alexander Litvinenko and Sergei Skripral.

• Releasing such compelling evidence quickly essentially invalidated the Kremlin propaganda that the UK was engaged in a smear campaign.

• And this is important since India is doing the very same thing - accusing Canada of slander, and retaliating by kicking out a Canadian diplomat.