With the U.S. election now decided, what does the outcome – a re-elected Donald Trump and Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress – mean for Canada’s foreign policy and national interests?
The reality is the results are grave for many U.S. allies, including Canada, and bode poorly for international relations over the next four years and beyond. A narrow plurality of American voters have made a choice with impacts that will echo around the world. Far-right figures and movements celebrated, while the U.S.’s democratic allies and partners privately recoiled while offering polite public statements.
Given Trump’s views on issues, such as security and defence, trade and economic policy, multilateral institutions and diplomacy, immigration, climate change and energy, and democratic norms and human rights, we may be about to experience one of the most disruptive periods in the post-Second World War international order. Trump was unprepared to govern in 2017, but the deluge of unqualified and dubious individuals being nominated to senior foreign policy roles in his second administration shows that this time he is moving fast even before returning to office in January.
What this means for Canada remains to be seen, but the federal government is bracing for the worst. The United States, Mexico and Canada (USMCA) free trade agreement, as a product of Trump’s own foreign policy, may survive until its scheduled renewal date in 2026. However, Trump won’t be bound by that agreement (or any other) if it contradicts his wishes, and it’s unlikely Canada will be spared his promised tariffs on foreign goods.
When they come, the free trade renegotiations will likely be rough on Canada, particularly in industries like dairy, agriculture, forestry, and the electric vehicle battery plant investments that have been made in Ontario and Quebec. Trump has vowed to expand U.S. fossil fuel production, driving prices down and undercutting productivity in the Canadian energy sector. Contrary to what many Albertans expect, Trump will likely be bad for Alberta’s economy.
In hopes of avoiding this, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has joined Ontario’s Doug Ford in calling for Canada to abandon free trade with Mexico to appease Trump. These cracks do not bode well for a unified Canadian response to the threats to North American free trade. Economic stress will be heightened further by the impact of Trump’s promised mass deportation of more than 20 million undocumented migrants, which will spur irregular migrants and asylum seekers to flee the U.S. for Canada, as we experienced during his first term. While there will be some opportunities to attract skilled immigrants to Canada as a result, the pressure to house and resettle refugees will fuel our current divisive debates over immigration, housing, racism and social services.
Globally, Canada is vulnerable to Trump’s ire because of its reliance on U.S.-led institutions. Trump’s hostility toward NATO and affinity for Russian and Chinese leaders, among other authoritarians, makes continued U.S. support for the war in Ukraine an open question. The likely withdrawal of U.S. aid may be balanced by increased European support, but Trump could pressure Ukraine into a negotiated settlement that cedes to Russia at least some of the territory it has occupied. Trump has also threatened consequences for allies like Canada which have yet to reach NATO’s defence spending target of two per cent of GDP. He could even attempt to withdraw the U.S. from NATO, which would also augur poorly for the future of NORAD as a binational Canada-U.S. joint command for the defence of North America.
Finally, the global effort to combat climate change is about to experience its second Trump shock. The U.S. will almost certainly withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement (again), which will mark the death knell of the multilateral diplomatic process to reduce global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
This is grim, but the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change has also failed in its goals, and many have focused instead on the private sector to encourage electrification and the clean energy transition. The best hope for continued progress in reducing GHGs is twofold: the global market is already too invested in the energy transition, and should the U.S. withdraw from the clean industrial commitments made under the Biden administration, other countries (read: China) will pick up their market share.
Emissions reductions worldwide are being driven by the business case for clean energy. We must hope the power of the market is sufficient to withstand the ideological backlash against lower-carbon energy systems that will be unleashed by the Trump administration, (similar to the anti-market campaign against renewable energy by the UCP government in Alberta).
The short-term reality is that political support for the clean energy transition will suffer, while medium- and longer-term climate change impacts will be increasingly severe due to ongoing high levels of global emissions.
At a recent high-level climate summit in Montreal, policymakers including Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly spoke with an expectation of 2.7 to 3.1 degrees Celsius average global warming by the end of the century. This assessment requires the emissions reduction promised by the Biden administration’s policies, so may now be optimistic. Whatever the prospects of mitigating climate change, the urgency of climate adaptation in terms of how and where we build infrastructure, expand cities, deliver services and support industry will be an unavoidable reality for the rest of our lives.
Worsening climate change impacts, reduced economic growth, a more insecure homeland, and a more unstable international system are the likely Canadian outcomes from the re-election of Trump. The questions now are how bad will the damage be, how will federal and provincial governments respond, and how will it impact the next Canadian election in 2025?
But there is little doubt that Canada’s national interests and foreign policy will be tested by a second Trump administration. Without a cooperative U.S. partner, Canada’s national interests will be threatened, and its capacity to contribute to international peace and security will be greatly reduced.
Will Greaves is an associate professor of international relations at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, where his research examines climate change, security, Canadian foreign policy, and Arctic geopolitics.
Comments
It's unfortunate with global ecomonies still recovering from pandemic and other factors, that the president elect Orange Shyincter will further disrupt the global economies. The cost of everyday goods will become even more expensive by their policies and the impacts already being seen with the food supply due to climate change.
The rest of the world should get together to foster more trade between our countries and let the US rot under a convicted felon who's track records of business failures and banruptcies speak for them selves. The US can reap what they sow alone.
I completely disagree that Trump will have any power to "force" Ukraine to cede territory to Russia. The EU is lining up to support Ukraine to keep Russia out of Europe. The Baltic nations, Poland, Finland and Sweden all have direct experience with past rule and territorial infiltration and manipulation from Moscow, and will never go back. Finland and Sweden were so appalled by Putin's empire building craziness today that they willingly gave up their long held neutrality and joined NATO. All the above nations have increased their military spending well beyond the 2% threshold.
Any discussion of giving up sovereign Ukrainian territory IN THE ABSENCE OF UKRAINIAN PARTICIPATION is mere empty talk that stinks of outside appeasement and weakness. Putin loves weakness and exploits it to create division, and this kind of giving up talk is a perfect example. Ukraine has stated repeatedly it will continue fighting the tyrant to save its own people's lives regardless of the state of outside assistance.
Trump is a lying braggart who is susceptible to criticism. Putin will likely continue the war because his country has now been greatly weakened and he needs war just to keep the economy rolling -- now with his own outside military help. That would embarrass Trump whose end-the-war-in-24-hours ego would be bruised, and who would probably respond with more help for Ukraine in retribution for Putin's duplicity, and to keep his own red state weapons factories in production.
Russian inflation and interest rates are now in the low 20 percent range. It has lost hundreds of thousands of men in the war just as the Russian population is in decline.
The ruble is worth a fraction of one US cent. Russian oil capacity has been hamstrung by both smart Ukrainian tactics using cheap drones, and by stupidly being so dependent on Western tech and spare parts that are now under sactions. US$700B of Russian money stupidly parked in Western bank accounts has been frozen. And it all started with the equivalent of a trillion US dollars being stolen from the Russian people by Putin with less than 1,000 of his oligarchs in league with their little Napoleon.
"Giving" Putin Ukrainian territory would be a gift to Putin and only encourage him or his chosen successor to regroup, build up the Russian military again and launch another thrust deep into Europe starting with Moldova, Hungary and Slovakia. THAT would lead to WWIII, not giving Ukraine the help it needs to defeat a now greatly weakened Russia...which never was thas strong when it launched Putin's three-day special military operation that only strengthened Ukraine's motivation to survive and join Europe.
The evidence is now plain as day that Eastern European nations will never go back to Moscow rule even with a cowardly US pulling out of NATO under Trump. And the threat of nuking the West has now been uttered more than 300 times without ant action, rhat would surely be the end of Putin and of the Russian oligarchy that really wants to survive to enjoy their ill gotten gains.