Mark Carney’s Oval Office talks were a blueprint for the UK on how to handle Trump

It is a measure of how greatly the return of Donald Trump to the White House has transformed the global diplomatic landscape that any national leader’s first meeting with the US president is now judged less by what was, or was intended to be, achieved than by how he or she did. By which is meant, how far the honoured visitor managed to hold their own at what has become a rite of initiation, sitting down in the Oval Office for half an hour of shouted media questions, moderated – if at all – by the president himself.

The risks are high because Trump, as host, practised performer and dominant character, has the upper hand – and because practically everyone, whether participant or spectator, will have a graphic worst-case scenario in their mind’s eye of the ambush that befell Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky.

The latest Oval Office visitor, Canada’s newly elected prime minister, Mark Carney, can probably be counted as the most successful yet. This is despite his electoral victory having largely rested on his defence of Canada’s sovereignty and fierce criticism of Donald Trump’s claims that Canada should become the 51st US state.

But Carney brought several advantages to his dealings with Trump. English is his first language. Although a political novice, he comes to office with considerable international experience in business and banking – worlds that Trump regards as his natural habitat.

Temperamentally, Carney combines a smooth diplomatic manner with a determination to stand his ground. Some awkward body language on his part betrayed how his Oval Office initiation tested his patience, as he struggled to get a word in edgeways. When he did speak, though, he got his point across that Canada’s status as an independent country was non-negotiable. “Never say never,” said Trump. “Never,” was Carney’s response.

Carney had other advantages, too. Trump likes a winner, and he was in an unusually genial mood, showering compliments on Carney for his victorious campaign, and joking about the contribution he, Trump, might have made. His bigger advantage was probably that he was not his predecessor, Justin Trudeau, whom Trump clearly disliked and teased as “Governor Trudeau” – an insult, incidentally, he did not try on Carney.

It was a careful, if at times tetchy, encounter in the Oval Office, but one which left Carney going into lunch and the subsequent private meetings on ostensibly more equal terms than most foreign leaders dealing with Trump for the first time. That impression was borne out when Carney later appeared to brief reporters at the British embassy, describing the discussions as “constructive” and the purpose being to “engage”, principally on the vexed question of tariffs. Talks will go on.

All in all, Carney’s approach might offer clues about how other leaders might best deal with Trump. Note first that Carney’s campaign belligerence was not held against him. No stranger to blunt language himself, is Trump someone who respects only those who stand up to him? Carney declined to flatter and suffered no penalty. One lesson might be that Trump’s bark can be worse than his bite, and that charm or a professional approach can work. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, is another who seems able to cope with Trump.

Another lesson might be that anyone dealing with Trump needs to get their priorities in order. Trump may appear cavalier in all sorts of ways, but on basic principles, he gives little quarter. His preoccupation with tariffs is nothing new; his approach may be inconsistent and, with China, additionally laden with pique, however, his underlying argument has remained the same. He rehearsed it again with Carney when he said that every huge Chinese ship turning away from the US represented a profit to the US Exchequer, because of the unequal terms – as he sees it – of their trade.

It remains to be seen whether US consumers will see it the same way, if and when the lack of Chinese imports causes shortages or higher prices, but the principle in Trump’s thinking is clear, and Carney gives every appearance of having understood. Unlike China’s Xi Jinping, Carney is open to negotiation, at least to a point, and has some cards to play. These include an element of time.

Trump is envisaging a point when the US substitutes its own produce and manufactures for what it currently imports, including from Canada. But changing that could take more years than Trump has in office. Trump might have been insisting on social media, even as Carney’s car was approaching the White House, that the US did not need imports from Canada. But once in the Oval Office, both he and Carney, in their separate ways, seemed to accept that at least some of the US president’s positions were opening gambits for talks and that flexibility was possible. Indeed, it appeared that the US had already conceded some points on the complicated issue of car parts.

All in all, Canada-US relations got off to about as propitious a start as any bilateral relationship in the time of Trump, illustrating several points that Sir Keir Starmer, among others, might usefully ponder – especially as the US seems once again to have pushed the UK’s much sought-after trade deal into the long grass. You don’t have to hector or flatter; you don’t have to suck up to Trump. You can stand your ground on basic principles, such as your own national interests.

At the same time, it helps mightily to be a proven political winner – Carney’s electoral victory was a big asset in Trump’s eyes – and to have something that Trump wants or thinks the US needs (such as, with Canada, less fentanyl, tougher border controls), and with the UK, royal invitations, higher defence spending, and maybe a golf tournament or two.

Having nice manners also helps, even if they are not always reciprocated. As does the appearance of having at least a few other options. In inviting King Charles to open Canada’s new parliament and giving his post-White House press briefing at the British embassy, Carney signalled that Canada has links, albeit more cultural than commercial, with a country other than its southern neighbour.

How far, post-Brexit, the UK has options other than closer alignment with the US, however, might be another matter. The Carney/Canada playbook for Trump’s America may be instructive on the optimum way to handle this unusual and aggravating president, but there are big policy decisions at hand that Starmer will have to make himself.