BROMANCE NOT NEEDED
Justin Trudeau on Monday helped Donald Trump do something one wouldn’t naturally expect from the U.S. president: endorse an initiative that’s good for women. But there they were, the feminist leader and the, uh, less-than-feminist one, introducing the Canada-United States Council for Advancement of Women Entrepreneurs and Business Leaders. It was good optics for the prime minister, who has long supported equal treatment for women, and it was helpful to Trump if he wishes, over time, to be perceived as more than an aging misogynist.
Mostly it set the tone for what Trudeau needed to accomplish in Washington. He came to find common ground, and at first blush it appears he did — or at least that he did nothing to harm relations. How?
He repeated simple but key points about the trade partnership: Two-way trade is about $2 billion a day; 35 states see Canada as their main trading partner, Canada and the U.S. have the world’s largest energy trading relationship.
He deliberately de-personalized areas where the two have disagreed. “As we know, relationships between neighbours are pretty complex and we can’t always agree on everything,” said Trudeau; he could have said the same about the Obama administration.
He emphasized security. In answer to one reporter’s question, Trudeau spoke of how security and immigration must work together, adding the two leaders had “strong and fruitful” discussions on it.
For his part, Trump appeared to respond with relative gentleness, declaring “we are going to have a great relationship with Canada” and adding the leaders intend to make things “a lot easier for trade.”
What that will mean for the renegotiation of NAFTA is yet unclear, or for Trump’s demands that NATO members (such as Canada) carry more of the load. But there is no reason to think either damaged the bilateral relationship.
Some will be disappointed that Trudeau did not beat the drum over Trump’s executive order banning travellers from seven mostly Muslim countries; instead, the prime minister said Canadians wouldn’t expect him “to “lecture” another country about its policies (actually, some would). But he did acknowledge differences of opinion on the topic and noted, with the subtlety that diplomacy sometimes demands, that Canada wants to “be a positive example” on such matters. It would not have escaped the president’s notice that we disagree with the harshness of his travel ban.
For a first meeting, it seems to have gone pretty well. Bromance, no. Businesslike, yes. Canada can build on that.