美加贸易摩擦升级，前加外长称对等反制有效

Of course you want to talk about the Independence Day commemorations here and in just a few minutes, but let's talk about the US Canada relationship. First, you were the lead negotiator in 2018 on Usmca. Kuzma, in Canadian parlance. And given all of that experience, I just wanted to ask you first if you were surprised by what happened here, drawing again from the Prime Minister's remarks yesterday, he said proposed last minute changes were, in his words, unfair and uneconomic, and they called into question the reliability of any deal.

I'm very proud of the position that Canada and Prime Minister Carney have taken. Uh, I'm not surprised, I am relieved. Uh, I think that we were on the brink of a deal that would have been a bad deal for Canada and also, frankly, a bad deal for the United States. And I'm glad that that didn't happen. My experience in the ultimately successful negotiation of the Usmca is that the way to get a good deal with the Trump administration is you need to do three things.

First, do you look for areas where you can cooperate and there are a lot? Ultimately, this is a win win relationship. Second, I think it's so important for Canada to make the case beyond the white House. In 2018 we called it the doughnut strategy. And I think Americans are basically good, decent, smart people. And I think Americans broadly recognize their relationship with Canada is excellent and they don't want to break it.

And I think Team Canada now really needs to go out and explain that to Americans. And then the third thing, which can be hard, and which we saw just now, is with this administration, you cannot capitulate. My motto was we do not escalate and we do not back down. And I think that is the only language that the Trump administration understands, unfortunately. Chris, I want to ask you about the potential consequences here of this escalating or spiraling trade war.

Uh, so you have the tariffs put in place, the retaliatory tariffs we expect the Prime Minister to put in place on September the 8th. Um, this could escalate and escalate. And, um, I noted in a piece that Bloomberg had yesterday, there was a professor at the University of Calgary noting that if the tariffs remain in place, Canada could lose almost 90,000 jobs. Uh, the Prime Minister, in his comments yesterday in the statement following the dissolution of this meeting, said he wasn't being cavalier about about this decision.

But I wonder if you could talk about the very real consequences for Canadians, um, of this escalating or spiraling, in fact. So Canadians, I think, understand the situation very, very well. I think Canadians recognize that we are a smaller economy, but Canadians also recognize that there are fundamental principles at stake, um, that Canada's sovereignty is at stake. And I think the Prime Minister has the entire country behind him on this one.

The other thing is, you know, the lesson of our very recent history, the lesson of 2018 and 2019, when the first time the U.S. impose tariffs, illegal and unjustified tariffs that went outside our NAFTA deal, um, is retaliation works. So in 2018, the US imposed tariffs on Canadian steel. At the time, I was Canada's, uh, foreign minister responsible for the trading relationship, and we responded with dollar for dollar retaliation.

Uh, the president threatened to destroy Canada as a result, but we went through with it. And in less than a year, the US lifted its tariffs on our steel and aluminum. And the reason for that was the tariffs. The US tariffs didn't make sense. And Canadian retaliation actually hurt. I think that that's what we're going to see happen this time too. I'm wondering I was listening to uh BBC this morning and they were floating this idea that the theory behind this.

Someone was saying they think the theory behind this is folds back to that 51st state issue that the president is actively trying to take the Canadian economy so that Canada is more willing to do exactly what you just said Canada shouldn't do capitulate, come to the table, and then get into the American fold. That seems a little farfetched to me, but I do think it's interesting that that is a narrative that is being spoken about in not ridiculous circles.

I wanted to get your take on that. And just what is the strategy here, if there is one to antagonizing our neighbor and one of our largest trading partners? Look, it is definitely not my job to speak for the Trump administration. Uh, but the president has been very clear and consistent since before he was sworn in the second time. Um, he has repeatedly said he wants Canada to be the 51st state. He has repeatedly referred to the Canadian prime minister as a governor.

He's the president of the United States. I think Canada and the world does have to take those assertions really seriously. And that's why I'm so proud of Canada for standing strong. What I would say to Americans who are listening to us is, I think you need to think very seriously as a country about whether you want to have allies. It feels to me like what we're hearing from the white House is the president wants only to have vessels.

Uh, he doesn't want to have partners. I know as a Canadian. Canada will never accept being a vassal. Uh, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, former prime minister from a different party, a conservative, uh, said shortly after President Trump was elected that Canada should be prepared to accept any amount of economic harm to retain our sovereignty. I think that's a widely held view in Canada. But what I would say to Americans is, why wouldn't you want to have partners in the world.

Why? Why is your government treating your adversaries? I would and I would name a country like China or a country like Russia more respectfully than you are treating countries like Canada, like EU, NATO partners like Denmark. Um, countries that have been your allies for a very long time. I don't think that that is in the long term interests of America and Americans. On the subject of allyship. As I mentioned, you're in Kiev.

Uh, Independence Day commemorations are tomorrow. It's the four and a half year anniversary of the conflict. Its full scale invasion as well. Um, I want to get you a read on what's been targeted lately and what that says about the state of this conflict. So we've seen Ukraine going after energy facilities in Russia, for instance, going after e-commerce facilities as well. Conversely, we've seen Russia attacking shopping malls, uh, in Ukraine in recent days here.

Um, where do you see the conflict in its current terms, as you look at kind of the broader sweep of it? And what do you make of this escalation when it comes to kind of targeting important economic, uh, important parts of the economies of both of these countries. Great question. And I do want to start by saying, I think we have to be really, really careful, always not to create some kind of a false equivalence between Ukraine and Russia.

Um, Ukraine was illegally invaded twice by Russia. Uh, Ukraine. If Russia withdrew from Ukrainian territory. Ukraine would stop the war immediately. And Russia invaded Ukraine, having recognized Ukraine's borders and having actually guaranteed those borders. Uh, in the 90s, uh, when Ukraine gave up its nuclear missiles. Uh, so we have to be really, really clear who is the aggressor, who is committing war crimes? Uh, having said that, you know, the Ukrainians have, I think, surprised a lot of people.

Maybe everyone other than the Ukrainians themselves by the effectiveness of their military campaign this year. Uh, and they've done three things that are really working. Uh, one, as you say, David, is the deep strikes inside Russia. And those strikes have been particularly targeting Russia's oil refining capacity. Um, that's important because what it means is ordinary Russians are feeling the pain of war, and it also limits Russia's war machine.

Second thing that Ukrainians have done really effectively is they'

原文超出正文长度上限，此处截断——上游还有内容，完整版见上方「原文 ↗」。