How Trump drew Trudeau out of multilateral comfort zone

It took Justin Trudeau more than 12 hours to issue a definitive statement on U.S. President Donald Trump’s surprise missile strikes on the Syrian regime, but in the end he made a black-andwhite choice.

Just a few hours before the U.S. strikes, the prime minister was still insisting that the international community had to do more to investigate the deadly Syrian chemical weapons attack.

But in a communiqué issued early Friday Trudeau said Canada “fully supports” Thursday’s strikes, albeit as “a limited and focused action” to reduce the regime’s ability to launch chemical attacks on civilians.

On the need to deter Bashar al-Assad from using chemical weapons on his people there is unanimity among U.S. allies, but on Trump’s decision to strike a regime-controlled airbase Thursday, there were shades of grey.

No major ally blamed the U.S. president publicly for taking action against the Syrian regime in potential defiance of international law, but French President François Hollande and German Chancellor Angela Merkel stopped short of explicitly backing it.

France and Germany declared al-Assad had brought the strikes upon himself. The German foreign office described the U.S. move as “understandable,” but stressed the need for the United Nations to facilitate a political resolution.

The tone of Trudeau’s statement aligns Canada more closely with Australia, the United Kingdom and Israel, to name some of the other countries that have fully approved the Trump strikes. It is unequivocal. And although it restates Canada’s wish for a diplomatic resolution of the Syrian conflict, it makes no mention of the (deadlocked) UN.

The prime minister’s stance amounts to a rare but clear break from the long-standing Liberal doctrine of insisting on a demonstrated measure of multilateralism before endorsing or participating in military action.

Part of the rationale for Jean Chrétien’s refusal to sign Canada up for the U.S.-led offensive on Iraq in 2003 was based on the contention that it was not approved by the UN or conducted under the auspices of NATO.

Neither organization had a say in Thursday’s strikes and no U.S. ally took part in the operation. At best, most of them got a heads-up in the hours before it took place. There was not even the semblance of a multilateral umbrella.

The prime minister will probably be supported by a majority of Canadians. Some though may find his foreign policy logic hard to follow. This is after all a leader who has professed doubts as to the merits of conducting airstrikes against Islamic State.

But the many Canadians still reeling from the chemical horror inflicted on Syrian civilians will for the most part agree that the right thing to do is for Trudeau to back Trump’s decision to punish the regime militarily.

Supporting the U.S. president on this also happens to be the path of least resistance.

Canada’s trade relationship with the U.S. is at a crossroads with the future of NAFTA up in the air. Former prime minister Brian Mulroney has warned that Canada is not in for an easy ride. This is not a time when Trudeau can afford to let much light shine between his government and an unpredictable White House.

But with that unpredictability also comes the risk that the Trump administration will treat the support of its allies as a licence for more unilateral military action.

Many in the international community, have been hoping that Trudeau would manage to use his influence to bring the U.S. administration in the multilateral loop.

Trump has drawn Trudeau out of Canada’s multilateral comfort zone.