Carney should know that appeasement never works when dealing with a bully like Trump

Bullies like Trump exploit perceived weakness because their goal is not mutual benefit but dominance . . . History offers stark warnings about the dangers of appeasing coercive actors. 

 
By Fareed Khan

 

Yesterday the Canadian government announced it would remove retaliatory tariffs on US goods compliant with the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), a move framed as an effort to reset stalled trade negotiations with the United States. Prime Minister Mark Carney described this as a strategic shift, likening it to a hockey game where Canada moves from “elbows up” to deft stick handling. Yet, this decision reeks of appeasement—a concession to Donald Trump, a president who has relentlessly bullied Canada with escalating tariffs and provocative rhetoric about annexing it as the 51st state. 

History and psychological studies warn us that appeasing bullies rarely ends well, and Canada’s current path risks repeating the mistakes of those who have caved to coercion before. By softening its stance, Canada is not outmanoeuvring a bully, it is inviting further aggression from a leader with a well-documented history of breaking promises and exploiting perceived weakness.

The psychology of bullies: Why appeasement fails

Psychological studies on bullying provide a clear framework for understanding Trump’s tactics and why appeasement is doomed to fail. Bullies thrive on power imbalances, using intimidation to assert dominance and extract concessions. According to the American Psychological Association bullies target those who display submissive behaviours, interpreting acquiescence as an invitation for further aggression. Appeasement, far from de-escalating conflict, signals to the bully that their tactics are effective, encouraging escalation.

This dynamic is evident in Trump’s trade war. After Canada imposed retaliatory tariffs on US goods in response to Trump’s 25% tariffs on Canadian exports (and 10% on energy), Trump raised the stakes, increasing tariffs to 35% on non-CUSMA-compliant goods and 50% on steel, aluminum, and copper. Canada’s decision to lift tariffs on CUSMA-compliant goods, while maintaining levies on key sectors like steel and autos, appears conciliatory—a move that risks emboldening Trump to push for more concessions.

Bullies like Trump exploit perceived weakness because their goal is not mutual benefit but dominance. A 2020 study in Personality and Individual Differences noted that individuals with narcissistic traits—such as grandiosity and a need for admiration—often engage in bullying to maintain control and suppress challenges to their authority. Trump’s public persona, marked by boastful rhetoric and personal attacks, aligns with this profile. His repeated references to Canada as a potential 51st state and his dismissal of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as a mere “governor” reflect a desire to humiliate and subordinate, not negotiate as equals. Canada’s tariff rollback, intended to foster dialogue, may instead signal to Trump that Canada is willing to bend under pressure, inviting further demands.

Historical lessons: The perils of appeasement

History offers stark warnings about the dangers of appeasing coercive actors. The most infamous example is the 1938 Munich Agreement, where Britain and France allowed Nazi Germany to annex the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia in hopes of securing “peace in our time.” This concession, driven by the desire to avoid conflict, emboldened Adolf Hitler, who interpreted it as a sign of weakness. Within a year, Germany occupied the rest of Czechoslovakia and invaded Poland, triggering World War II. The lesson is clear: appeasing a bully who seeks dominance does not lead to peace but to escalation.

Similarly, in the early 20th century, Japan’s expansionist ambitions in Manchuria were met with tepid responses from the League of Nations. The 1931 invasion of Manchuria, followed by the League’s failure to impose meaningful sanctions, emboldened Japan to pursue further aggression in China and beyond, contributing to onset of further Japanese aggression in the Pacific theatre of World War II. These examples illustrate that conceding to coercive demands often strengthens the aggressor’s resolve, leading to greater losses for the appeaser.

Canada’s current situation mirrors these historical missteps. Trump’s violation of CUSMA—a trade agreement he signed in 2020—demonstrates his disregard for commitments. By imposing tariffs on Canadian goods despite CUSMA’s provisions, Trump has shown that agreements with him are, as critics argue, “not worth the paper they’re written on.” Canada’s decision to remove retaliatory tariffs risks reinforcing Trump’s belief that he can dictate terms without consequence, potentially undermining Canada’s economic sovereignty in future CUSMA renegotiations.

Trump’s history of bullying and broken promises

Trump’s track record as a businessman and politician underscores his unreliability and penchant for coercion. Before entering politics, Trump was notorious for stiffing contractors and leveraging his wealth to intimidate smaller businesses into accepting unfavourable terms. A 2016 USA Today investigation found that Trump faced over 3,500 lawsuits, many from contractors and vendors who claimed he failed to honour contracts or used legal threats to force settlements. This pattern of bullying—using power to extract concessions while disregarding agreements—has carried over into his political career.

In his first term, Trump renegotiated NAFTA into CUSMA, touting it as a triumph of his deal-making prowess. Yet, upon returning to office in 2025, he was critical of the deal he had negotiated, and imposed tariffs that violated CUSMA’s spirit, targeting Canadian goods and threatening further hikes to coerce Canadian compliance in negotiations. His rhetoric about Canada becoming the 51st state, repeated since after he won the election, is not mere jest but a deliberate attempt to undermine Canada’s sovereignty and pressure it into submission. As Ontario Premier Doug Ford warned, Trump could “pull the carpet out from underneath us on CUSMA tomorrow with one signature,” highlighting the fragility of any deal with a leader who views agreements as tools for manipulation.

Canada’s misstep

Canada’s removal of retaliatory tariffs is a textbook example of appeasement. While Carney framed it as a pragmatic move to “re-establish free trade for the vast majority” of goods, critics like Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre argue it represents a “capitulation” that weakens Canada’s leverage. This decision follows months of escalating US tariffs, which have already disrupted Canadian businesses, with food exporters losing US accounts as Trump’s policies incentivizes American companies to on-shore manufacturing. By scaling back tariffs, Canada hopes to de-escalate and focus negotiations on key sectors like steel and autos. However, this approach assumes Trump will negotiate in good faith—a dubious assumption given his history.

Canada is like a boxer who, after being repeatedly pummelled and fighting back, lowers their guard in hopes of softer blows from their opponent. Trump’s response to Canada’s earlier retaliatory tariffs was not to back down but to escalate, raising tariffs from 25% to 35% and threatening more. His administration has also criticized Canada for “pulling the rug out from under CUSMA” by imposing counter-tariffs, despite Trump’s own violations of the agreement. This hypocrisy underscores the futility of expecting fair negotiations from a bully whose goal is dominance, not fairness.

Standing firm, not caving

Canada’s efforts to diversify its trade relationships—expanding ties with Europe and Asia—are commendable and necessary, but they don’t address the immediate crisis. While Canada must diversity it must not come at the cost of capitulating to US coercion. As Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz argued, Canada should have stood firm against Trump’s bullying over its digital services tax, which Trump used as a pretext to threaten tariffs. Yielding to such pressure risks Canada becoming, as Stiglitz warned, a “de facto 51st state,” surrendering its economic sovereignty.

Instead of appeasement, Canada should maintain targeted retaliatory tariffs, as it did initially with levies on politically sensitive US goods like Florida orange juice and Kentucky whisky. These measures sent a clear message without escalating into a full-scale trade war. Canada could also leverage its energy exports—critical to US states around the Great Lakes—to negotiate from a position of strength. By standing firm, Canada can signal that it will not be bullied, forcing Trump to confront the economic fallout of his tariffs, which economists warn will not only raise US consumer prices and disrupt supply chains, but will also amount to an average tax increase of $1,219 per US household in 2025, with market income dropping by 1.3% in 2026.

Appeasing a bully like Trump, who has a documented history of coercion and broken promises, is a dangerous gamble. Psychological research confirms that bullies exploit concessions, and history—from Munich to Manchuria—shows that appeasement emboldens aggressors. Canada’s decision to lift retaliatory tariffs may buy temporary relief, but it risks signalling weakness to a leader who thrives on dominance.

Trump’s violation of the longstanding and mutually beneficial Canada-US trade relationship, along with his 51st-state rhetoric, are not idle threats but existential challenges to Canada’s sovereignty. By choosing appeasement over resolve Canada invites further aggression, threatening its economic and political independence. The lesson is clear: standing up to a bully, though costly, is the only path to preserving dignity and security in the face of coercion.

© 2025 The View From Here. © 2025 Fareed Khan. All Rights Reserved.