A eulogy for U.S. ties

The prime minister has arguably jeopardized the prospects for a constructive personal relationship with the president-elect of the U.S. His indefensible eulogy of the communist dictator Fidel Castro evoked much criticism and derision, some of it hilarious, some profoundly bitter, not unlike the satirical hashtag-storm that followed Trudeau professing his admiration for China’s “basic dictatorship.” More to the point, Trudeau’s “deep sorrow’” at the death of a “legendary revolutionary” could not have stood in greater contrast to Donald Trump who, with considerable justification, said that “Fidel Castro’s legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights.”

A shockingly inappropriate statement from the PM can have enduring consequences, especially if it raises questions about his reliability as a partner. Nevertheless, his defenders lined up with a plethora of dubious justifications.

On the day after a death, it is respectful to focus on the positive. However, a better approach, consistent with diplomatic tradition, would be to sympathize with those in grief, withhold judgment and wish the Cuban people a brighter future.

Defenders of the PM’s statements might rationalize that Canada is signalling to the incoming American administration that we will go our own way on foreign policy when we choose to do so. As a sovereign nation, Canada can, of course, chart its own course, even at the risk of alienating its closest ally and biggest trading partner. But we should do so very cautiously and never for the self-indulgent and frankly insecure pleasure of sticking it to the U.S. The rationale has to be substantive and relate to our core values or interests.

However, whitewashing the memory of a brutal tyrant is the antithesis of Canadian values and undercuts Justin Trudeau’s statement after the death of Fidel Castro was “shockingly inappropriate,” says Joe Oliver. our international reputation as an advocate for liberty, democracy, freedom of speech, the rule of law and human rights. Why should other countries listen to Trudeau sanctimoniously hector them for their abuse of human rights if he praises the memory of someone notorious for comparable crimes? I will get to our interests in a moment.

Another questionable justification of Trudeau’s response is that we need to protect our international trade agreements in the individual leaders. However, personal ties between leaders can be important, especially since Trump’s policies are uncertain and in flux, he promises to reset global trade, and there is a political divide, going into the relationship, that can lead to exacerbated tensions if not handled carefully. Former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper forged a productive working relationship with Democratic President Obama, leading, for example, to the Beyond the Border initiatives. His cabinet

Brian Mulroney unfairly received a lot of flack for singing “When Irish Eyes are Smiling” with his friend Ronald Reagan. Mulroney understood that a close relationship with the U.S. president could serve Canada’s interests and it did, countering the forces of protectionism and ultimately leading to a historic free-trade agreement. For the media, that famous duet smacked of toadyism. Decades later, however, they celebrated the bromance between Trudeau and Obama. A double standard? Say it isn’t so.

Much of what is happening is back to the future. There’s Trudeau’s emulation of his father’s preference for tried and failed tax-andspend fiscal policies, with massive deficits and ballooning debt. His inherited belief that government can solve most problems real and imagined. His predilection for socialism, multilateralism and anti-Americanism. The proclaimed admiration for communist regimes, in the face of personal enrichment of their leadership, undeniable and ghastly crimes against humanity and economic catastrophe. This serene sense of entitlement, inevitability and moral superiority, frequently at odds with the common sense opinions of ordinary Canadians, who will eventually come to understand what it is in their best interests.

Good looks and charisma can be powerful political assets. It is nevertheless remarkable when they render politically irrelevant a leader’s long-held beliefs that do not reflect the views of most Canadians, run counter to our core values and are inimical to our national interests.

One can only hope either the prime minister wakes up to the negative consequences of his failed mindset or that people will at least hold to account a government whose words and actions run counter to their interests.