By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Prime Minister Mark Carney departed from the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland without meeting U.S. President Donald Trump after delivering a speech criticizing the current state of global relations. In his speech, Carney called for middle powers to build coalitions, as he believes the old international order is not returning. In response, Trump described Carney’s speech as ungrateful. Canada is now looking to diversify trade to other markets, including India, with the launch of a trade deal expected in February.
Read the original article here
Carney leaves Davos without meeting Trump after speech on U.S. rupture of world order, a scenario that seems increasingly understandable given the current geopolitical climate. It’s a bold move, and it speaks volumes. Apparently, Carney is making some real waves in the international arena, and it seems this is one of those times when actions, not words, are truly resonating.
The fact that Carney, a figure not always front and center in media coverage, is making such strong, clear statements backed by equally strong actions is noteworthy. It’s a powerful statement to simply refuse a meeting, especially when the other party is accustomed to being the center of attention. This approach, treating Trump with a certain degree of disregard, could be interpreted as a message that deals signed with him are essentially worthless.
Trump’s speech at Davos was apparently, well, let’s just say “unconventional.” Many found it to be deranged, even by his usual standards. It’s understandable, then, why a meeting might not be seen as a priority. This stance underscores the shift in global dynamics and the reluctance of some leaders to engage with a leader who often disregards diplomatic norms.
The very reason Carney became Prime Minister underscores the rejection of a “Trump-friendly” approach to governance by Canadians. Now, he’s actively opposing Trump’s policies, making him an important voice in the resistance. This marks a turning point and has made Carney a true leader. The fact that Trump’s rhetoric may have inadvertently boosted Carney’s popularity is an interesting side note.
The sentiment that Trump’s actions are isolating the U.S. is very strong. Many seem to wish that Trump had toned down his rhetoric and made more allies. This highlights the damage his administration’s actions have done to international relations. Carney’s decision not to meet seems to embody this shift away from the U.S. and its leadership.
There’s a palpable frustration with being held hostage by one country’s internal political struggles. The idea of EU leaders taking a similar stance is being voiced. The general consensus is, why waste time and energy on incoherent rants? Trump’s lack of trustworthiness is cited as a reason not to engage in dialogue, especially given his history of not honoring agreements.
The concept of ignoring Trump as a deliberate strategy seems to be gaining traction. The calls to focus on more productive work and let the “dumpster fire” of Trump’s administration burn itself out are loud and clear. There is frustration that he seeks attention, and the response is, essentially, let him. Canada’s actions are making people proud and the desire for more leaders to show the same backbone is strong.
The sheer absurdity of the situation is also highlighted, from the potential lack of translators to the prospect of enduring an hour of rambling. The need for a military and economic alliance without the U.S. is discussed, and the frustration with the current state of affairs is evident. Trump’s speech has been called incoherent.
The potential for economic leverage, particularly through the control of U.S. treasury bonds, is also a consideration. Middle powers potentially have the power to influence the U.S. economy, underlining the potential risks involved in alienating allies. The general desire to avoid Trump, be it due to his “stench” or the lack of any real value in engaging with him.
The expectation that Trump will try to portray the situation as though *he* refused to meet is probably right on the money. The core question is: how is this still happening? Despite the clear negative impact on the world stage, the U.S. continues. It’s time to “Seen” Trump, and move on.
The story of the U.S.’s actions is not the end of the world. It’s just the story of a country in a bad way. A country that is now being given the cold shoulder by the rest of the world.