At the end of the summer, I recalled, in my column “Why the United States? “, that if Canada had been able to develop as a democracy freer from interference from Washington than many countries in the Americas, it was because we had been historically protected by our membership in the British Empire. But since the signing of the 1988 free trade agreement, our economic, and therefore political, codependence with the giant of the South has grown constantly.
A few days before the American election on November 5, I worried, in “Why (still) the United States?” », of the way in which the functioning of the House of Commons seemed paralyzed. Which other G7 state is waiting to see who will preside over the next republic before determining the composition of its own Council of Ministers? I was wondering, frankly, if Canada was not gradually losing autonomy and sovereignty.
Since then, Donald Trump has continued to refer to Justin Trudeau as the “governor” of Canada and to allude to our annexation, while all of Ottawa is busy responding to his threat to impose customs tariffs of 25 %. The Canadian dollar is declining. We have not seen a major post-Trump cabinet shake-up. And the Prime Minister’s attempt to put Chrystia Freeland in charge of this relationship — and take control of Finances away from her — led to a resounding resignation that calls into question Justin Trudeau’s very ability to exercise power.
We would like to treat Trump’s mockery as a joke in bad taste without consequences. But we can clearly see that even before officially reaching the White House, the man is already able, with one or two tweets, to blow away the Canadian political class like a house of cards. Donald Trump complains about border security and threatens the Canadian economy? There were provincial premiers, too happy to criticize a weakened Justin Trudeau, to respond: “You are right! »
The President-elect of the United States has compared the movement of people and drug trafficking at our border to that of Mexico, which is of course nonsense. But Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, who is scheduled to attend Trump’s inauguration on Jan. 20, responded that it’s true that our border is a big problem. François Legault, irritated by Ottawa on immigration, echoed him. For his part, Pierre Poilievre, who aspires to lead the country and therefore to be primarily responsible for protecting Canadian interests, added.
It was not until the Council of the Federation met on Monday that the provinces began to speak with a common voice, and in a tone somewhat commensurate with the political challenge. This moment of demonstration of maturity was quickly eclipsed by Freeland’s resignation and the political crisis in Ottawa.
Monday evening, Donald Trump resumed his “jokes” again. On Tuesday, Minister of Justice Dominic LeBlanc announced significant investments at the border to address his concerns and help ensure that this threat of tariffs does not come true. On Wednesday, François Legault took the time to highlight the weaknesses of Ottawa’s plan, which, of course, plays into Trump’s hands. Could we be in a position, in Canada, to make security requests to the Americans ourselves, particularly on the issue of gun control?
With a political class ready to tear each other apart in front of Washington and to explain how the Americans who threaten us are not wrong, the chances of demonstrating unity, and therefore force, are greatly reduced. This division and democratic weakening are not just Canadian problems. Faced with Trump, it is the world that seems incapable of coming together.
What is striking, however, is how isolated the Canadian response is. There has been, at least publicly, no particular attempt to consult across the Americas to respond to the threat that the new presidency presents as a risk of destabilization for the economies of the continent. This absence of “all for one” certainly contributes to Trump’s ability to dictate the tone of his relationship with each of the regional actors. Likewise, we have the feeling that the other G7 countries, and NATO members, are watching Trump ridicule Canada with a bag of popcorn in his hand. There is no sense of a particularly strong international community there either.
However, when it came to Canada’s relationship with a superpower like China, for example, Ottawa always insisted on the importance for a state of our size to act in a “concerted” manner with its allies to avoid suffering only the thunderbolts of a giant. Is the strategy no longer valid? When elected officials talk about the Canada-United States relationship as a historically unprecedented and unparalleled relationship, it seems that we are being taken at our word. So here we are, making do on our own with this precious “exception”.
Why are we subject to Donald Trump’s insults and threats? Perhaps because by insisting on the exceptionalism of our relationship with the Americans, we find ourselves in this “friendship” which seems more and more toxic, deeply alone.
Otherwise, speaking of friendship, I devoured the collective work with great interest The Empire that won’t die. A history of Françafrique (Seuil, 2021), which details how independent countries found themselves as vassal states of France, from De Gaulle to Macron. It explains how the word “friendship”, when used diplomatically between two countries whose power relations are too asymmetrical, can take on a connotation of submission, control, or even a slap delivered with a smile.
Even though there are stark differences between each context, I can’t help but think about the very possibility of friendship amid inequality. I probably read too much.
