Justin Trudeau’s very bad day at the United Nations

Spare an empathic moment for Justin Trudeau at the UN this week. As a ripple of laughter spread through the General Assembly while Trump spoke, did Justin wonder: Are they laughing at me? They weren’t but well they might’ve.

His dearest UN ambition for Canada was collapsing: a seat on the security council when it’s available in two years. Not everyone would covet that but it’s buried deep in the Liberal mindset, ever since Lester Pearson won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1956, for helping create a UN peace force. Liberals love to feel they’re peaceable global players.

Yet nothing went right. The U.S. had drafted a declaration of renewed commitment to the odious, failed War on Drugs, then strong-armed others to sign. That’s not the (at least overtly) consensual way things are done at the UN. They refused any discussion of changes while their UN ambassador said, “I’m taking names.” They did recruit two “co-hosts;” top-tier international thugs, the Philippines and Russia. Canada signed.

The statement was anodyne enough that, if necessary, you could hold your nose and join. But it was clearly contra the direction countries like Canada are going on drugs: public health vs. law enforcement, legalized weed, safe injection sites. Otherwise why bother with a statement?

Lots of others signed — why ask for more Trump trouble — including financially desperate ministates, but there were notable refusers, whose names were, presumably, taken. They included Spain, Germany, New Zealand, Brazil, South Africa and Norway. Curses! Norway — one of our two rivals for that seat.

There’s little sympathy for the U.S. at the UN right now, as the hilarity during Trump’s speech showed. Canada’s signup, doubtless, came to try and save a NAFTA deal: already improbable but not quite extinct. Mexico too signed, but they aren’t pining for the security council.

Then came lunch, just when you thought things couldn’t get worse. Oopsie. Justin made two embarrassing attempts to chit-chat with Trump, who brushed him off, then bragged about it (and everything else) to the press. Not highly impressive as a sign of our independence from the U.S.

I want to note that there are multiple other reasons to doubt Canadian claims in this area: like its equivocating on Palestine/Israel or my personal fave, our support for U.S. policy in Honduras during its anti-democratic coup. But all nations have these lapses in foreign policy, in fact they effectively amount to foreign policy in the real world. So little things like lunch can loom large.

Trudeau basically admitted failure at his UN press conference. He reminded viewers that running for the seat was “a means, not an end.” Come again? Bicycles and bank accounts are a means to an end. But are we now to think it was mysteriously worth the effort whether we get the seat or not?

There’s one other negligible, even trivial, implication here yet it saddens me deeply. Life’s like that. The most delightful reason I heard to support Trudeau in 2015 was that he’s the only political leader anywhere who you can picture in the Hugh Grant role as prime minister in Love, Actually. The character’s great moment comes when he summons the nerve to firmly, though politely, challenge the U.S. president publicly. OK, it was because the president groped a 10 Downing staffer (more pertinent now than then, actually) but it made citizens proud.

Justin has also had good moments firmly, but politely, challenging Trump (”Canadians, we’re polite, we’re reasonable, but we also will not be pushed around.”) However, lunch at the UN wasn’t one.

So stay tuned, I guess. There are signs the Trudeau government is finally confronting its deepest dread: no NAFTA. Like many such fears, it’s less horrifying when you face it. Justin keeps saying, No NAFTA is better than bad NAFTA.

And our ambassador to the U.S. this week noted, about Trump joyfully inflicting tariffs: “If you can’t have some curb on the arbitrary use of tariffs … then I don’t think it’s much of an agreement.” Thank you, sir, for reminding us that the entire definition of free trade used to be: freedom from fear of tariffs.