There are moments in international diplomacy when the most audacious thing a country can say is “no”. Mark Carney has just provided one. The Canadian Prime Minister walked away from trade negotiations with the US after Washington put forward terms Ottawa deemed unacceptable, including demands that would have come at the cost of its sovereignty, key industries, French language and culture, and its freedom to negotiate with other countries. Carney’s formulation was blunt: The Americans “asked too much and offered too little”. He has also announced dollar-for-dollar retaliation against new US tariffs, making clear that Canada will not absorb American pressure without imposing costs of its own. He deserves applause.

Canada sends roughly three-quarters of its exports south, into an economy roughly 10 times its size, and a sustained trade confrontation could put up to 90,000 Canadian jobs at risk. But Carney’s gamble is not without its logic. It rests on three key calculations.

Advertisement

One, he has broad domestic backing, including from the Conservative opposition, amid public frustration with US President Donald Trump’s threats and repeated talk of making Canada the 51st state. Two, the new tariffs apply to only about 5 per cent of overall Canadian exports to the US, roughly $20 billion. And three, the breakdown will also hurt the US.

Canada is the largest export market for 26 American states and among the top three trading partners for 45 of the 50. It supplies roughly 60 per cent of America’s crude-oil imports. Canadian electricity helps power grids in New England and the upper Midwest. Canadian potash is vital to American agriculture, while Canadian critical minerals feed strategically important American supply chains. A prolonged trade war, therefore, cuts both ways.

The timing is also hardly ideal for Washington. The stalemate with Iran has pushed US gasoline prices above $4 a gallon, while the 30-year Treasury yield has climbed above 5.3 per cent, its highest level since 2007. Federal debt has crossed $40 trillion, and Trump’s net approval rating has fallen to minus 26 per cent. Carney does not need to win a trade war outright. He only needs his retaliatory tariffs to land on the right swing states long enough to make the arithmetic politically painful in Washington.

Advertisement

There is another reason his gamble deserves attention. Carney did not improvise his defiance. After his warning in Davos, that middle powers must stand up or risk ending up “on the menu”, he spent the better part of a year building trade ties with China, the Gulf, and Asia, India among them, so that a closed door in Washington did not mean a locked room globally. That is statecraft of the highest order. And this is why the Canadian episode matters far beyond Canada.

From Mexico City to Brussels to Tokyo, governments have spent the past year confronting an American president who increasingly treats a signed trade agreement not as a settlement, but as an opening bid that can be revisited whenever it suits him. Trump’s playbook has remained unchanged: Coerce partners with escalating tariff threats, demand unilateral concessions on domestic policy, and attempt to impose restrictions that erode national economic sovereignty. The conventional wisdom in many capitals has been to bend, compromise, and sign whatever deal avoids immediate retribution. Carney tore up that playbook. By walking away from unacceptable terms, Carney demonstrated a fundamental truth of international relations: It is always useful — and often necessary — to stand up to a bully.  If Canada demonstrates that a middle power can withstand US pressure by exploiting its own strategic importance, diversifying its markets and making the costs of retaliation visible inside America, it changes the negotiating psychology for everyone else.

India should pay close attention. New Delhi is still waiting to conclude its own trade deal with the US, and India has powerful reasons to pursue one. Access to the US market matters enormously to Indian exporters, just as American capital and technology remain crucial for domestic growth. Ultimately, a stable trading relationship with Washington is firmly in India’s national interest. But the need for a deal must never mutate into a willingness to accept any deal.

India must know what it can negotiate and what it cannot. It must protect policy autonomy, avoid concessions that permanently damage vulnerable sectors and retain the freedom to pursue independent economic and strategic relationships. Above all, it must build alternatives. So that if its own moment to say “enough” arrives, it costs a great deal less to say it.

Trump’s calculus is that in a contest between unequal powers, the bigger bully always wins. Carney has just shown that, in geopolitics as in life, size isn’t everything.

The writer is a former high commissioner to Canada