"If Washington truly believed the agreement no longer served American interests, there is a mechanism to leave.
The deal requires six months’ notice for withdrawal.
That notice has not been issued.
Which suggests this isn’t really about ending CUSMA.
It’s about controlling the conversation around CUSMA."
It's gangster tactics plain and simple, and all about control by bully-boying the negotiations. Negotiations can be co-operative or they can be oppositional, or a combination of the two. Clearly, USA is being oppositional.
However, it's not very smart long-term, as anyone who has ever dealt with such methods in any negotiations can tell you.
To deal with bully boy tactics in negotiation, Canada must remain stoic, keep calmly pointing out that we desire co-operation but we are wise to the oppositional maneuvers, and also just keep pointing out ad nauseum the objective facts of our trade arrangements in CUSMA.
Since gangster negotiations use intimidation, artificial urgency, and personal attacks to force hasty concessions, it will never serve us to react hastily, nor to respond with matching aggression. Similarly, compliance or cowering in submission will not work.
Patience. Patience. Patience. Even to the point of suggesting we are grateful for the Pause because it lets us get some other ducks— or geese if you prefer— lined up.
Also, as an extension of the Grateful Pause, Canada can do what is known as flipping the script: Ask USA for a timeline as to when they might be ready to reconsider and if they suggest "not sure" or say "never" then give them our terms, like three to six months (after their midterms) for our decision as to whether or not Canada might be withdrawing from CUSMA.
Finally, as the PM did before,we tell USA that the owners of Canada do not approve of the President's tactics, which keeps it objective and avoids making it personal which bullies love to do. We can state that in deference to the elected mandate, Canada's trade team are just doing its job. Sorry. (Not sorry.)
It's imperative that we present a strong front and push back against the obvious foreign interference, hoping as it does, to "divide and conquer".
Clearly, we are stronger together. That's why in negotiations it's called a "team".
PM Carney is wise. His experience and calm demeanour will be vital. As will his sense of humour.
The obvious answer -- and the middle powers seems to be working on this -- is to establish "certainty" elsewhere: CETA agreements with Europe, India, Australia, S. Korea -- heck, even Mercorsur (which is gradually drifting right-wing in alignment with Trump, though they seem to behave themselves in the economic zones). So, I think the world has got the memo: Uncertainty = USA, You want certainty in foreign trade, don't deal with USA (or at least, recognize that they are extremely fickle and have no problems with unilaterally changing the rules on a president's whim).
I agree that capital markets don't like uncertainty -- frankly, this is why USA is now trying to undermine Canada by nurturing Alberta separatists, if not the Quebec ones, too. But if those capital markets haven't noticed the manipulations, then they really are not good at the business they are supposedly running.
(and, sigh, yes, they have near-100 years of having the American side of things representing "stability" in general, in a chaotic world. So I do grant that this is a huge paradigm shift for them -- that the stable one is now the source of chaos. This is why even if USA flips and goes "democrat" later this year and 2028, the problem will still exist: They've shown that they can't ensure a stable government, that their "guardrails" really are just suggestions, and that there're (broadly speaking) two competing versions of what "America" is supposed to be, and that won't change even if Trump et al are no longer in power)
Unfortunately the US. Hasn’t taken Mark Carney into its machinations! He has been two steps ahead of every thing that Trump and Co have tried. Canada is seen by the whole world as the grown up in the room. It is ultimately the USA that will suffer.
Fred, you said it in a nutshell when you write:
"If Washington truly believed the agreement no longer served American interests, there is a mechanism to leave.
The deal requires six months’ notice for withdrawal.
That notice has not been issued.
Which suggests this isn’t really about ending CUSMA.
It’s about controlling the conversation around CUSMA."
It's gangster tactics plain and simple, and all about control by bully-boying the negotiations. Negotiations can be co-operative or they can be oppositional, or a combination of the two. Clearly, USA is being oppositional.
However, it's not very smart long-term, as anyone who has ever dealt with such methods in any negotiations can tell you.
To deal with bully boy tactics in negotiation, Canada must remain stoic, keep calmly pointing out that we desire co-operation but we are wise to the oppositional maneuvers, and also just keep pointing out ad nauseum the objective facts of our trade arrangements in CUSMA.
Since gangster negotiations use intimidation, artificial urgency, and personal attacks to force hasty concessions, it will never serve us to react hastily, nor to respond with matching aggression. Similarly, compliance or cowering in submission will not work.
Patience. Patience. Patience. Even to the point of suggesting we are grateful for the Pause because it lets us get some other ducks— or geese if you prefer— lined up.
Also, as an extension of the Grateful Pause, Canada can do what is known as flipping the script: Ask USA for a timeline as to when they might be ready to reconsider and if they suggest "not sure" or say "never" then give them our terms, like three to six months (after their midterms) for our decision as to whether or not Canada might be withdrawing from CUSMA.
Finally, as the PM did before,we tell USA that the owners of Canada do not approve of the President's tactics, which keeps it objective and avoids making it personal which bullies love to do. We can state that in deference to the elected mandate, Canada's trade team are just doing its job. Sorry. (Not sorry.)
It's imperative that we present a strong front and push back against the obvious foreign interference, hoping as it does, to "divide and conquer".
Clearly, we are stronger together. That's why in negotiations it's called a "team".
PM Carney is wise. His experience and calm demeanour will be vital. As will his sense of humour.
We've got this!
❤️🇨🇦
Cath you bring up something a lot of experienced negotiators understand...
The side that creates the most drama often wants the other side to make the first mistake.
Canada's biggest advantage right now may be patience.
If Washington hasn't issued the six-month withdrawal notice, then the deal remains in place.
That means Ottawa doesn't have to negotiate from a position of panic.
The temptation is always to respond to pressure with more pressure, but that usually benefits the person who created the crisis in the first place.
I also think you're right about avoiding the personal side of it.
Trade agreements are between countries, not personalities.
Leaders come and go.
The agreement, the supply chains, and the economic realities remain.
Canada's challenge is to stay calm, keep diversifying trade, keep building alternatives, and negotiate from facts rather than emotions.
The less dependent we become, the less effective uncertainty becomes as a negotiating tool. ❤️
Thanks for replying! Yes to all you say. And, no deal is better than a harmful one! ❤️🇨🇦
It looks like we are in for a long hard ride.
We have a trading partner who uses every tactic to destroy us.
I wouldn't give them an inch.
Thank God we have PM Carney.
I suspect you're right, Carol-Ann.
The challenge will be staying firm without becoming reckless.
Trade wars rarely produce winners, but giving in to pressure simply invites more pressure later.
Canada's best response is probably what we're already seeing...
stay calm, diversify our markets, strengthen our economy, and negotiate from a position of confidence rather than fear.
This one feels more like a marathon than a sprint.
The obvious answer -- and the middle powers seems to be working on this -- is to establish "certainty" elsewhere: CETA agreements with Europe, India, Australia, S. Korea -- heck, even Mercorsur (which is gradually drifting right-wing in alignment with Trump, though they seem to behave themselves in the economic zones). So, I think the world has got the memo: Uncertainty = USA, You want certainty in foreign trade, don't deal with USA (or at least, recognize that they are extremely fickle and have no problems with unilaterally changing the rules on a president's whim).
I agree that capital markets don't like uncertainty -- frankly, this is why USA is now trying to undermine Canada by nurturing Alberta separatists, if not the Quebec ones, too. But if those capital markets haven't noticed the manipulations, then they really are not good at the business they are supposedly running.
(and, sigh, yes, they have near-100 years of having the American side of things representing "stability" in general, in a chaotic world. So I do grant that this is a huge paradigm shift for them -- that the stable one is now the source of chaos. This is why even if USA flips and goes "democrat" later this year and 2028, the problem will still exist: They've shown that they can't ensure a stable government, that their "guardrails" really are just suggestions, and that there're (broadly speaking) two competing versions of what "America" is supposed to be, and that won't change even if Trump et al are no longer in power)
Grant, I think that's the key point many people are missing.
This isn't just about one trade agreement.
It's about reputation.
For decades, the United States benefited from being viewed as the predictable partner.
Businesses could disagree with American policies, but they generally assumed the rules wouldn't change overnight.
Once that assumption cracks, countries start looking for backup plans.
That's what we're seeing with Europe, Asia-Pacific partners, India, and other middle powers.
Not because they want to abandon the U.S., but because they no longer want all their eggs in one basket.
And you're right that this challenge doesn't disappear the day a different administration takes office.
Trust takes years to build and can be damaged surprisingly quickly.
Investors, governments, and businesses now have to factor political volatility into their calculations in ways they didn't before.
The irony is that diversification isn't necessarily anti-American.
It's simply what prudent countries and companies do when uncertainty rises.
Nobody cancels their house insurance because they expect a fire.
They buy it because they don't.
Does this uncertainty also affect US interests? Although the regimes plan seems to mostly want to destroy the US.
Absolutely, Rebecca.
Uncertainty doesn't stop at the border.
American manufacturers, farmers, exporters, investors, and consumers all depend on stable trade rules too.
If companies delay investments, postpone hiring, or rethink supply chains because they don't know what the rules will be next year,
that affects jobs and growth in all three countries.
That's why economists often say uncertainty itself can become an economic cost.
Businesses can adapt to almost any set of rules.
What they struggle with is not knowing what the rules will be.
Unfortunately the US. Hasn’t taken Mark Carney into its machinations! He has been two steps ahead of every thing that Trump and Co have tried. Canada is seen by the whole world as the grown up in the room. It is ultimately the USA that will suffer.