Without ever mentioning the name of Donald Trump, Canada has defined a new foreign policy agenda in stark opposition to the American President鈥檚 priorities.
In a speech to the legislature on Tuesday, Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland took the unusual step of expressing Canadian government discontent with the U.S., citing concerns about America鈥檚 growing protectionism, its withdrawal from the Paris climate-change agreement and the desire by its voters to 鈥渟hrug off the burden of leadership鈥� globally.
Canada plans to strengthen its military presence in the most dangerous parts of the world, Ms. Freeland said, and will on Wednesday release details on spending plans for a new defense policy. [鈥
鈥淭o rely solely on the U.S. security umbrella would make us a client state,鈥� she said. 鈥淪uch a dependence would not be in Canada鈥檚 interest.鈥he fact that our friend and ally has come to question the very worth of its mantle of global leadership puts into sharper focus the need for the rest of us to set our own clear and sovereign course,鈥� Ms. Freeland said.
The WSJ hyperbolically claims that Freeland鈥檚 speech marks a 鈥渉istoric鈥� shift away from Washington. But the announcement that Canada will not align its policy with Trump and will pursue its own global goals should hardly be a surprise. Justin Trudeau is a media and soft-Left darling whose political appeal is almost the opposite of Trump鈥檚. And this kind of thing is not unusual in U.S.-Canada or U.S.-UK relations. The political rhythms of the English-speaking countries don鈥檛 always move in sync, and Canada may step left while the U.S. steps right, or, more rarely, vice versa.
One of the things that makes the relationship among the great English-speaking democracies so unusual is that it isn鈥檛 institutionalized like so many international organizations. There is no Anglosphere Council, no English-Speaking Union. Yet in the absence of formal institutional structures, a common language, common culture, and common interests bring the English-speaking world together more often and more effectively than many of the complicated and creaky international bureaucracies.
The last time one English-speaking country tried to impose its views on another was when the British tried to squelch the American Revolution. That didn鈥檛 go well, and since then the British have learned to let Canadians, Australians, and New Zealanders chart their own course.
But as Canada and the United States agree to disagree on a number of international issues, it is likely that the trade and business links between the countries will continue to deepen, and a serious threat to one will have strong repercussions for the other. If the Russians try to pressure Canada in the Arctic, or if the turmoil in Venezuela continues to worsen until it becomes a serious hemispheric problem, it鈥檚 more than likely that Canadian and U.S. policy will realign.