Placating bully with concessions 'fool's errand': China Daily editorial

Uncertainty and caprice have become hallmarks of some US policies, and the US administration's latest tariff threat to Canada illustrates this concerning trend again.

On Saturday, the US administration threatened to impose a 100 percent tariff on goods imported from Canada if the United States' northern neighbor, under the Mark Carney government, proceeded with its trade deal with China.

Yet China is only an excuse for the US administration to disguise the true reason of its new tariff threat against Canada.

Carney's decision to stand up against US bullying has clearly irked the US administration. The US president's frequent jibes about making Canada the 51st state have already soured relations, and his latest taunt, referring to the Canadian prime minister as "Governor Carney" has only added fuel to the fire.

In his recent speech at the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, the Canadian prime minister called for a united front against unilateralism and coercion. That seems to have struck a nerve with the US administration.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent's comments on a potential independence referendum in Canada's Alberta province have further strained relations. It is hard to imagine a senior official of a country openly instigating the split of another country.

The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, which currently shields Canada from the worst impacts of tariffs, is soon up for renewal. Senior US officials have already threatened to revoke the agreement.

In response to the latest US tariff threat, the Carney government has encouraged Canadians to buy Canadian products to support domestic industries and reduce reliance on US goods.

"With our economy under threat from abroad. Canadians have made a choice: to focus on what we can control," said Carney, implying that Canadians have already done their utmost to appease the US, as demonstrated by the Justin Trudeau government's efforts. But the US has continued to respond with threats and intimidation despite Canada's appeasement efforts, leaving Canada no choice but to stop currying favor with the US at the cost of its own interests.

The US' recent pressuring of Canada clearly indicates Washington has scant regard for the interests of its allies and trade partners.

Aware of that, what makes the US administration truly feel uneasy is not the awakening of some US allies themselves but that they are now showing the courage to call for the rest to join hands with them to say no to the US' unilateralist exploitation.

US political scientist Francis Fukuyama rightly urged European countries to stand up to the US in the face of the US administration's tariff threats over Greenland. Calling the US fundamentally a "bully" that wants to dominate everyone, Fukuyama noted that trying to placate the US administration with concessions is a "fool's errand".

Self-interest is a crucial determinant of US policies. When the US administration recklessly crosses the line of international relations norms, prioritizing its own interests above those of other countries, it inevitably harms the interests of other nations. When this damage becomes unbearable for other countries, even US allies, the superficial harmony based on "alliances" will be broken by the opposing and conflicting demands of reality.

Therefore, if Washington continues to act unilaterally, it's only a matter of time before its allies say enough is enough one after another. The awakening of traditional allies such as Canada might have a significant ripple effect. Many other US allies are already weighing their options; Carney simply boldly spoke it out, challenging the US leader at Davos.

What also worries Washington is that while Carney's call to action may not yield immediate results, the empathy and support it inspires in other allied leaders, if left unchecked, will inevitably translate into more distant trade policies toward the US in the future.

The US should recognize that multilateralism and cooperation will serve its interests best in the long run. Creating uncertainty, division and risk for the world is not true expectation management; if anything, it only reinforces the expectation among countries worldwide that the US is not a reliable partner.