6/15/2018
By Ingrid Sapona
Finding a title for today’s column was hard – not because I
couldn’t think of one, but because there were too many to choose from. I’ll
give you a few examples of those I vetoed in a minute, but before I do, let me explain
what’s been weighing on my mind.
What’s set my mind awhirl this week is Trump’s – and his
advisor’s – comments about my Prime Minister (Justin, as Trump likes to refer
to him) in the aftermath of the G7 meeting. I know the story got some play in the
U.S., but I also know it was swiftly overshadowed by Nobel Prize (self-)Nominee
Trump’s meeting with Kim Jong Un.
As you might imagine, north of the border we took note of Trump’s
post G7 tweet that Trudeau is “dishonest and weak”, not to mention the comments
his staff made on the Sunday political talk shows. The best that can be said
about Peter Navarro’s comments that Trudeau’s behaviour was “amateurish”,
“rogue”, and “sophomoric” is that Navarro clearly has a bigger vocabulary than
Trump.
But, Navarro’s comment about a special place in hell seemed
truly over the top to us. (Actually, always a sucker for a pun, I smiled when I
read one commentator’s reference to Navarro’s special place in hell comment as
“especially incendiary”.) And yes, Navarro’s subsequent admission that the
language he used was “inappropriate”, made the news here too. I’d be remiss if
I didn’t point out that by our standards, that didn’t cut it as an apology. But
never mind…
And yes, we also heard Larry Kudlow’s comment about Trump
not wanting to appear weak to Kim. Though I’ll get to why we found that
explanation odd – it did help us understand that Trump’s comments were not
really for our benefit. Instead, they were apparently meant to paint a picture
for Kim, who was next up in Trump’s speed dating overseas adventure. But, we
can’t quite understand why Kudlow and Co. don’t understand that Kim could, in
fact, see the President’s bullying of his closest allies as reason to not
believe anything he hears from Trump at the negotiating table. But never mind…
Anyway – with this background, I offer up some of the other
titles I considered for today’s column, along with the reason I decided against
each.
On being … baffling – too obvious.
On being … insulted – too obvious.
On being … an unprecedented attack – too obvious.
On being … an abrupt shift – too obvious.
On being … bizarre – well, this is true of pretty much
everything Trump says and does.
As it happens, these are all descriptions reporters and
commentators here used to describe Trump’s sudden decision to end the budding
bromance he and Justin had going.
While all these terms certainly reflect the astonishment we
feel, they don’t really capture the genuine concern we feel with Trump at the
helm of the neighbor we’ve shared the longest undefended border with. Bluster
and antics aside, how would you interpret the President’s statement that Trudeau’s
comment after the G7 meeting is going to cost the people of Canada a lot of
money. The common interpretation of that was that Trump is intent on punishing
the people of Canada. That kind of confirms our view that the national security
justification for imposing tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum is a ruse.
Regardless of the intended audience for the insults and exaggerations,
given what’s at stake – in terms of both trade and having an on-going working relationship
between the two countries – clearly you’d expect the Canadian government to
react. And it’s precisely the calm, dignified reaction of Trudeau and his cabinet
that has caused me to write today’s column.
I thought it was brilliant that Trudeau, rather than dignify
Trump’s bullying and personal attack, had Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia
Freeland respond. And I loved that her comment was that “Canada does notbelieve that ad hominem attacks are a particularly appropriate or useful way toconduct our relations with other countries.” A couple days later Freeland, who has been Canada’s main representative in the
NAFTA renegotiations, also reminded people that, “From day one, we have saidthat we expected moments of drama and that we would … keep calm and carry onthroughout those moments of drama.”
And it wasn’t just Trudeau’s governing party that took the
high road. Andrew Scheer, leader of the opposition party, was similarly
professional. Scheer said, “Divisive rhetoric and personal attacks from theU.S. administration are clearly unhelpful.”
I find it most admirable that our Prime Minister is able to
eloquently articulate our values (that Canadians are polite and reasonable but
that we will also not be pushed around) AND that our representatives live those
values.
©2018 Ingrid Sapona
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home