By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly expressed confidence in Canada’s ability to overcome the trade war initiated by US tariffs, emphasizing Canada’s significant purchasing power from the US. She highlighted the interconnectedness of the economies, suggesting that American consumers, also impacted by increased prices, hold considerable influence in resolving the conflict. Joly further noted that the upcoming Canadian federal election will center on the government’s response to Trump’s trade actions and the potential for reciprocal tariffs. The Liberal party seeks a mandate to navigate this trade dispute effectively.
Read the original article here
Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly’s assertion that Canada can win a trade war with the United States is a bold claim, sparking considerable debate. It’s a long game, though, and not a quick victory. Significant time—at least six months—is needed for the consequences of any actions to fully ripple through the US economy and political system. Patience and sticking to a well-defined plan are key.
The key to success, it seems, lies within the United States itself. The hope is that pressure applied to US businesses and the resultant political fallout will force American lawmakers to intervene, ultimately benefiting Canada. While surviving a trade war initiated by the US won’t be easy or pleasant, the same can be said for American businesses scrambling to find alternative supply chains.
A “win” for Canada, in this context, might mean a return to the previous trade agreement, perhaps even to the status quo ante of March 4th. This isn’t necessarily a complete victory, but it would at least remove immediate trade barriers. Canada’s willingness to absorb economic hardship during this period stands in contrast to what is perceived as a focus on profit over national interest by some within the US.
Canada’s position is strengthened by its role as the largest consumer of US goods globally. This economic dependence, however, cuts both ways. Diversifying trade relationships is crucial, both to mitigate the effects of US tariffs and to secure alternative markets. The US’s broader trade war, impacting numerous countries, weakens their position, making it less likely that Canada will shoulder the entire burden alone.
Focusing on key sectors and specific businesses in politically sensitive “red” states could create targeted pressure, forcing the US to reconsider its approach. The argument that no country “wins” a trade war is true in the broadest sense, but the reality is that one country may suffer disproportionately. The US’s current internal strife and economic instability may leave them more vulnerable than Canada.
International alliances are essential. Canada’s potential for increased trade with Europe, Australia, the UK, and Japan, spurred by the US’s erratic trade policies, demonstrates this. These countries have a vested interest in supporting Canada because a trade war’s impact is not limited to the direct participants.
While some suggest drastic measures like cutting off refined oil or aluminum exports, other more subtle actions could be more effective. The current US situation – high inflation, economic uncertainty and internal political division – creates an opportunity for Canada. Canada is not immune to pain, but the US may be more exposed to the consequences of its own trade policies given its current internal challenges.
The timing is crucial. Waiting until the US midterm elections, hoping for a shift in political power towards a more moderate administration, is a viable strategy. The success of this approach depends on a significant change in American political sentiment and a shift away from the current trade policies.
In essence, while a trade war will bring economic challenges for both sides, Canada’s strategic approach, coupled with the US’s internal vulnerabilities and the support of global allies, gives them a potential pathway to a less detrimental outcome than the US. The Canadian government’s strategy involves carefully targeted actions rather than all-out conflict, aiming to inflict economic pain on specific US sectors to create political pressure. The long-term success of this strategy is dependent on several factors, most significantly sustained resolve and international collaboration, but the initial assessment paints a picture of a plausible, albeit challenging, pathway to a favorable resolution.