Trump and Carney May Be Headed Toward a Grand Bargain

In 1972, United States president Richard Nixon travelled to China to establish diplomatic relations with the Communist regime. Given Nixon’s past record as a fervent anti-Communist, notably his involvement in the investigation of Alger Hiss, an idiom emerged from the visit: Only Nixon could go to China. The idea was that only a president with strong anti-Communist bona fides could normalize diplomatic ties with Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party.

We may be seeing a similar thing happening with Prime Minister Mark Carney and the United States. Recent developments suggest that Ottawa and Washington may be considering a new security arrangement for North America, possibly as part of a renegotiation of the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement.

Many Canadians would be taken aback if Canada signed a new security and defence pact with the United States. Carney, after all, has spent the past year emphasizing the need to reduce Canada’s economic and security dependence on America, diversify our trade and military partnerships, and build sovereign defence capabilities. Announcing that Canada and the United States are deepening their security relationship would run counter to these messages.

Yet that may be why Carney could pull it off. Having built up his credibility as the champion of Canadian sovereignty, Carney would have enough credibility and political capital to negotiate a new North American security and defence deal. Only Carney can go to Donald Trump’s Washington, as it were.

How do we know that there might be a security deal in the works? During a recent speech to the Global Progress Action Summit in Toronto, Carney stated, “Like Mexico, Canada remains open to deeper integration, including options for ‘Fortress North America’ in selected sectors . . .” A couple weeks later, the American under secretary of defense/war for policy, Eldridge Colby, announced a suspension of the Permanent Joint Board on Defense (PJBD). Colby justified the move as follows: “Only by investing in our own defense capabilities will Americans and Canadians be safe, secure, and prosperous . . . Unfortunately, Canada has failed to make credible progress on its defense commitments.”

And shortly after that, an American defence official told Canadian media that the United States had presented Ottawa with a new continental defence plan but that the Canadian government had failed to provide an adequate response. The PJBD suspension may have been a warning of what could happen to other Canada–United States defence institutions if Ottawa doesn’t sign onto the proposed plan, which likely comes with a big price tag for Canada.

Now, you may be thinking that these developments indicate that the Canada–United States defence relationship is fraying. My recent post on the PJBD suspension saw Colby’s comments in that light. But there’s another possibility: that Canada is trying to link a new security agreement to the removal of tariffs and a renewed American commitment to free trade. The American ambassador, however, has made it clear that tariffs are here to stay. So, Ottawa and Washington are likely at an impasse if security talks are indeed happening. Canada may be willing to contribute to a wider Fortress North America but wants free trade in exchange, while the United States wants Canada to spend a lot more on integrated continental defence but also to accept permanent tariffs.

If neither side were willing to budge, Carney could press ahead with his plans to pivot Canada away from the United States militarily and economically. I also take Carney at his word when he tells us that we need to reduce Canada’s dependence on the United States. Agreeing to take part in a new North American security and defence pact wouldn’t mean abandoning the Carney government’s emphasis on sovereign capabilities and trade diversification. But these policies would likely get diluted.

What would that dilution look like? Canada could launder the acquisition of additional American capabilities through Canadian subsidiaries and negotiate more control of intellectual property, as per the Defence Industrial Strategy. This would involve a preference for buying Canadian-ish rather than strictly Canadian. Since defence expenditures are slated to climb, Ottawa could still move forward with investments in Canadian industry and the development of certain sovereign capabilities as well. Yet a commitment to Fortress North America would probably involve an agreement to acquire a greater number of capabilities that are interoperable and interchangeable with those of the United States military.

Could Carney really get away with this sort of deal? I suspect so, for three reasons.

First, many Carney supporters think the guy walks on water and will go along with pretty much anything he proposes. To wit, a solid portion of Liberals strongly support much higher defence spending despite being traditionally skeptical of military expenditures, because the prime minister has made this a priority. Second, Carney and his ministers have been saying different things about Canada–United States relations for months, and it hasn’t affected their polling; on the contrary, he’s only gotten more popular. Carney was able to commit Canada to the Golden Dome, on the one hand, while saying the old security relationship with the United States is over, on the other hand, without too many people wondering if there’s possibly a tension between the two ideas.

Third, to repeat the main thrust of this post, Carney’s “elbows up” reputation is solid enough that he can get away with negotiating a security rapprochement with the United States. If opposition leader Pierre Poilievre started musing about Fortress North America, he’d likely be accused of cozying up to Trump and failing to stand up for Canadian sovereignty. Were Carney to do it, his supporters would see it as the prime minister deftly managing a difficult but essential relationship.

Would Canadians really accept tighter security co-operation with the United States for freer trade? Wouldn’t they assume that Trump will renege on any deal? Probably. If Carney presented it as a grand bargain that’s in Canada’s long-term economic interests, though, he would likely be given the benefit of the doubt, especially if he promised to immediately bring his elbows back up if Canada gets screwed over.