It is, of course, impossible to take the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States for granted. Polls show that he faces a high rate of unpopularity among the population and must also face the courts of his country, some of which risk judging him before the elections. The role of victim has paid off so far, but will the character of the condemned be as beneficial?
If by chance Mr. Trump becomes President of the United States again, without saying that he would be unfriendly to Canada, the fact remains that we cannot believe that he will be a friend of Canada. We will remember that, during his first visit to the White House, Mr. Trump left a G7 meeting held in Charlevoix by calling Prime Minister Trudeau dishonest and weak. There is certainly no reason to consider that he has changed his opinion since he is no longer at the head of the American executive branch.
There will certainly be several sources of tension between the two countries. There is no doubt that the low financing of NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) equipment by Canada, and more generally of its army, will be likely to create tensions and the wrath of the president. We can also add that Canada has been trying for several months to attract businesses to this side of the border that the United States would also like to attract. As for lumber, there is no reason to think that the two countries will ultimately find an agreement.
Can we hope that, in the trade area, Canada can expect help from the third member of CUSMA (Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement) to stand up to the United States led by an unpredictable president? After all, Mexico also has an interest in ensuring that free trade agreements are maintained and respected. Let us not forget that following the arrival of Mr. Trump as president, it was necessary to renegotiate NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement).
Canadian diplomats certainly did a high-quality job during the negotiations, but the current president of Mexico has already said he pressured Mr. Trump to keep Canada in the free trade agreement. Will the next person to lead Mexico support Canada in the same way? Nothing is less certain.
Canada recently had the opportunity to stand with Mexico and demonstrate its unwavering support when the Mexican embassy in Quito was invaded by Ecuadorian forces. Normally, Canada should denounce this violation of international law. If it would have been normal for Canada to do it for any embassy, a fortiori it should do it for an allied country. This would have been appropriate according to international law, but also in terms of international relations. Canada would not have been alone since the countries of America and the OAS (Organization of American States) denounced this attack.
However, the websites of the Prime Minister and his Minister of Foreign Affairs contain no statement on this subject. There was, however, a discreet statement on “X” in which Global Affairs Canada said it was “deeply concerned by Ecuador’s apparent violation of the Vienna Convention” without official condemnation. The use of the word “apparent” had the good fortune of shocking the president of Mexico, who did not see it as a great support from a country that one would think of as a friend.
On April 9, during his daily conference, the President of Mexico highlighted the ambiguous nature of the Canadian position and asked for it to be clarified. It would certainly be appropriate for the Prime Minister of Canada to make a clear statement establishing that Canada strongly opposes this violation of diplomatic premises. It would also be possible for Canada to intervene during the proceedings before the International Court of Justice to support its ally and international law. As things currently stand, however, this intervention seems more than doubtful.
Canada’s idle speech comes at a bad time since in the eyes of the Mexicans, it was a second snub in a few months.
It is common knowledge that Canada has reintroduced visa requirements for Mexican nationals. Even if this obligation may be unpleasant for these people, the fact remains that this decision falls entirely within the prerogatives of a sovereign country. Moreover, the United States also requires visas for Mexicans. What posed a problem for the Mexican authorities was the moment when this visa was imposed, during the presidential election. The current president of Mexico ruled that the imposition of a visa by Canada could be perceived by voters as a failure of his administration likely to guide votes towards the opposition candidate. It is true that the introduction of this visa has not gone unnoticed in this country.
The president would have liked Canada to wait until the electoral exercise was over. Some in Canada might respond that there was an emergency and that it was not possible to wait any longer. However, one could retort that, if there was an emergency, this new visa should have been imposed well before. In any case, the imposition of the visa was not appreciated by our partner and was detrimental to our relations. Failure to support Mexico in this context only makes the situation worse.
With the Mexican-Canadian friendship having been damaged, it remains to be hoped that Canada will not need the support of Mexico to face an uncontrollable President of the United States. There would be no reason for a president of Mexico to expose his country, when he knows he cannot count on Canada.
Another side effect of Canadian silence is possible. Canada has already suffered two failures during election procedures to become a non-permanent member of the Security Council. However, when Canada presents its candidacy on a future occasion, it is to be feared that the countries of the American continent will remember that Canada is not an ardent defender of international law.