Finding a safe, middle ground
Managing personal relations with President Donald Trump like walking a tightrope
At the recent G7 Summit in Sicily, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau held a 30-minute “pull aside” with U.S. President Donald Trump to discuss issues on the Canada-U.S. agenda. And there is certainly no shortage of trade irritants to exchange notes on.
“We talked about how the positive relationship between Canada and the United States is one that we have to enhance and strengthen for the benefit of both of our citizens,” he said plainly. But as the more dependent partner in this key bilateral relationship, what else could he say.
The critical challenge for any Canadian prime minister is crafting the right approach for managing our political and economic relations with our most important ally. As former deputy prime minister John Manley once quipped: “You can’t get too close to the United States. But you can’t get too far from them either.” It is most assuredly not an easy tight-rope to walk diplomatically.
The prime minister wants to establish a good working relationship and personal rapport with the U.S. president - irrespective of party, policy and personality differences. Yet he or she needs to be cognizant of the fact that Canadians don’t want their prime minister to fold like a cheap suit when confronting a U.S. president.
As Trudeau himself remarked to reporters: “I’m not going to lecture another country on what they should do, nor would I have my positions determined by anyone outside of Canada.” OK. But how exactly does that play out in terms of Canada-U.S. relations?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau tended to take a harder line - mostly behind closed doors - with respect to U.S. presidents like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. But he was careful not to criticize them in public or to pick fights with them at international gatherings like the G7, NATO or even at the United Nations (UN).
Former prime minister Brian Mulroney was a huge fan of “telephone diplomacy” with
U.S. presidents and building a strong personal bond between the two leaders. It wasn’t always successful, but he did manage to make gains in terms of Arctic sovereignty (and nuclear-powered submarines), acid rain and continental free trade.
The problem came when Mulroney pushed the friendship envelope too far - as he did at the March 1985 “Shamrock Summit” in Quebec City, when he and President Reagan were seen arm-and-arm and singing together, “When Irish Eyes Are Smiling.” Needless to say, Canadians were not impressed with this buddy-buddy approach.
They surmised, rightly or wrongly, that Mulroney would not be able to stand up to President Reagan and thus would sell out Canadian interests in order to stay in the good graces of the Reagan White House. The point was clear: Canadians are deeply uncomfortable with the notion of a Canadian prime minister being too cozy with a U.S. president.
Former prime minister Jean Chretien took a slightly different approach to bilateral relations than Mulroney. He said that his relationship with the U.S. would be cordial and respectful, more business-like and that it would be “friendly without being friends.” He made a point of saying that, unlike Mulroney, he wouldn’t call the U.S. president by his first name.
Chretien was successful in getting U.S. President Bill Clinton
to negotiate a softwood lumber deal, an airlines “Open Skies” agreement, some moderation in U.S. policy toward Cuba and a commitment to speak forcefully about the need for an united Canada before the 1995 Quebec referendum. However, his relationship with President George W. Bush was said to be strained beyond repair - and thus the bilateral agenda effectively stalled.
So with the tricky NAFTA renegotiations set to resume, and with a raft of potential trade landmines scattered about, Prime Minister Trudeau will be severely tested in the coming months. He must be careful, first and foremost, that he doesn’t come across as ingratiating or, even worse, sycophantic.
He may have to find some middle ground between the Mulroney and Chretien approaches - while staying clear of his father’s tougher line. But there is no “how to” book on the shelf that can pinpoint a strategy or style that can guarantee success for Canada.
What is for sure, though, is that Trudeau does not want to be perceived as weak or vacillating, caving in to U.S. pressure or doing Trump’s bidding. To have that perception firmly cemented in the minds of Canadians over the next two years would certainly cost him the 2019 federal election.