For most of the past 80 years, the United States has been a stabilizing force in international economic and political affairs. That is no longer the case. If there was any doubt about that point, it was dispelled by Donald Trump’s Orwellian claim that Ukraine is the aggressor in its war with Russia. The point was reinforced by his insistence on extracting the equivalent of protection money through an agreement by which Ukraine signs over its mineral rights. All this was on top of his thinly veiled threats to annex Greenland and Canada. And now, the North American trade war.
To put it bluntly: Under Donald Trump, the United States has become a source of global instability. The uncertainty and confusion, moreover, aren’t accidental outcomes of inconsistent and incompatible policies. The chaos is wholly intentional. Its objective is to elevate the United States by pushing the rest of the world down. It’s the goal of a bully, empowered by a malaise of misinformation.
Unfortunately, the rest of the world is also exposed to this disease. And, as with any epidemiological threat, prudence dictates that potential vectors of transmission be closed. So if Trump wants to pursue isolationist policies, the rest of the world should oblige him.
But obliging him does not mean following him into isolation. On the contrary, the need for international cooperation has never been greater; countries committed to democratic principles and a rules-based international order must redouble their efforts to find collective solutions to shared problems. The threat to world peace posed by authoritarian tyrants and the risks of global warming, for example, is no less urgent because the United States has abandoned those principles and no longer supports that order.
Prudent precautions to contain vectors of transmission need not entail hostile actions, either. They simply require recognizing that since US participation in international fora is likely to be unproductive at best and disruptive at worst, progress is more likely to be achieved without American involvement. As the decision made by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Secretary of State Marco Rubio not to attend Group of 20 (G20) meetings in South Africa demonstrates, the Trump administration would surely be relieved to be freed of the burden of participating in the countless meetings required for effective international collaboration.
The logical conclusion to draw is that Canada and like-minded countries must be prepared to shoulder additional responsibilities. It is time to identify and build a new coalition of partners sharing democratic values: with the loss of the United States as an effective and constructive player, and Russia and China hostile to democratic government, the G20 is not a viable option. In a showdown between democracy and authoritarianism, the key criterion for membership must be a commitment to the fundamental freedoms that animated and kept the allied coalition together during the Second World War. And the sooner that a union of democratic countries is formed the better.
Of course, the United States retains the right to participate in international bodies in which it remains a member in good standing and an important shareholder, including the United Nations and its affiliated institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, as well as various regional development banks. But given the challenges confronting them, countries united in the defence of the principle of democratic government and the rules-based order need to better coordinate their policy positions in these bodies and institutions; that coordination need not include the United States.
Indeed, it would be folly to ignore the threat to the global economy presented by Trump’s actions. Though Canada and Mexico stand to suffer the most given North American economic integration, all countries would suffer from a collapse of the global trading system. In the face of this threat, they must mobilize to protect their interests. And they should indulge Trump’s infatuation with tariffs.
Individually, the threat of retaliation doesn’t register. A collective threat of retaliatory tariffs, by contrast, could be a powerful deterrent and perhaps the surest means of preventing a prolonged, destructive global tariff war.
Realistically, each member of the coalition will be tempted to placate Trump’s demands, hoping to escape his wrath. However, that approach would be interpreted as a sign of weakness. While it might buy some time, the reprieve would last only as long as Trump is distracted by other matters. Eventually, he would take offence from some real or imagined slight and resume his threats. The only recourse is collective security. Ben Franklin understood the stakes when, referring to himself and the other leaders of the American Revolution, he warned: “We must all hang together, or we shall assuredly hang separately.”
This coalition shouldn’t be necessary. In fact, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was created to prevent tariff wars and protect the gains from trade. But the WTO’s Appellate Body, which adjudicates trade disputes, has been hamstrung since the first Trump administration. By blocking appointments to the tribunal, the United States has evaded penalties that would likely be assessed in response to its trade actions. Lacking a quorum, the trade “court” has been effectively adjourned; international trade is now governed not by rule of law but rather by the law of the jungle.
What matters in the jungle is strength and power. Countries committed to democracy and a rules-based international order should therefore give the US president the two things he wants — isolation and tariffs.
