The following is the text of a speech given Wednesday by former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney as he accepted the James A. Baker III Prize for Excellence in Leadership at the Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University, in Houston.
Former prime minister Brian Mulroney speaks at a conference put on by the University of Ottawa Professional Development Institute and the Canada School of Public Service in Ottawa on Tuesday, March 5, 2019.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
After one has spent considerable time in a leadership role at the G7, NATO, the United Nations and countless bilateral heads of government meetings, you get to know all the players and key aides.
For the nine years that I served as Prime Minister of Canada, my contemporaries were genuinely great leaders like Presidents Reagan and Bush, Prime Ministers Thatcher and Nakasone, Presidents Gorbachev, Mitterrand, Mandela and Chancellor Kohl.
The President of the United States was always the most powerful man in the room and the world. And sitting next to him was the second most powerful – James Baker III.
Whether he was Chief of Staff to the President, Secretary of the Treasury or Secretary of State, every other head of government in the world knew that, when dealing with Mr. Baker, it was as if one were speaking to the President himself, so close was their friendship and loyalty and so strong was their mutual trust and commitment.
That is why Jim Baker played such an influential role in American public life for so long. And that is why 50 or 100 years from now the principal international responsibility of the Prime Minister of Canada will be precisely what it is today: the leadership and management of our relationship with the United States.
This special relationship of two great nations is based on shared fundamental values – liberty and democracy – and we did not hesitate to defend them from attack. There are reminders of that from the trenches of one war to the beaches of the next, places inscribed in the history of valour, where Canadians and Americans have fought together, where Canadians and Americans have died together in the defence of freedom.
The handling of this relationship – so indispensable to our economic well-being and national security – requires skill, sensitivity and an awareness of the nuances of opinion and power in the White House, the Congress, media and interest groups. In other words our Prime Ministers must understand the special responsibility the U.S. bears in this new international order.
No prime minister expressed this better than Lester B. Pearson who wrote in his memoirs: “We should exhibit a sympathetic understanding of the heavy burden of international responsibility borne by the United States, not of her own imperial choosing but caused in part by the unavoidable withdrawal of other states from certain of these responsibilities, or, if you prefer, from imperial power and privilege. Above all, as American difficulties increase, we should resist any temptation to become smug and superior: ‘You are bigger but we are better’. Our own experience, as we wrestle with our own problems, gives us no ground for any such conviction.”
There is a line from Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure that is instructive in this matter:
"O, it is excellent to have a giant's strength, but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant."
And that is precisely where a Prime Minister of Canada can play his most important and constructive international role. Having established a relationship of friendship, trust and mutual respect with the President, he is uniquely situated and qualified, through ongoing private dialogue, to influence decisions that ensure that America’s power is not used as “a giant.”
My experience has been that when presidents and their key advisers listen carefully to Canadian prime ministers, there are beneficial impacts on policies, making them more thoughtful and more respectful of the sensitivities and needs of the international community and its multilateral institutions.
If in the business world today, cash is king, in the world of the Canada-U.S. relationship, access is worth its weight in gold. It is a privilege that Canada should never squander or surrender because of the magnificent benefits it can bring to our country in the pursuit of our objectives and to the world which the U.S. leads and in which Canada must continue to play a constructive and influential role.
The impact of significant public policy decisions is often unclear in the early years. It sometimes takes a considerable period – frequently decades – before the full consequences of an important initiative become apparent.
As Reinhold Niebuhr reminded us: “Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime; therefore we must be saved by hope. Nothing fine or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any immediate context of history; therefore, we must be saved by faith.”
It is in this perspective that great and controversial questions of public policy must be considered.
Time is the ally of leaders who placed the defence of principle ahead of the pursuit of popularity. And history has little time for the marginal roles played by the carpers and complainers and less for their opinions. History tends to focus on the builders, the deciders, the leaders – in education, health care, science, business, the arts as well as politics – because they are the men and women whose contributions have shaped the destiny of their nations.
Like other privileged countries, the U.S. is often extremely resistant to change. Deep and important structural changes are indispensable, however, to maintain a growing economy and ensure the flourishing of peace and liberty, and they can only be brought about by a firm expression of political will.
But leaders must have vision and they must find the courage to fight for the policies that will give that vision life. Leaders must govern not for easy headlines in 10 days but for a better America in 10 years – and they must be ready to endure the attacks that often accompany profound or controversial change, while they await the distant and compelling sounds of a verdict that only history and a more reflective nation can render in the fullness of time.
In March of 1985, President Reagan and I agreed to consider the negotiation of a comprehensive free-trade agreement between our two countries.
Growing protectionism in Congress then was leading to growing estrangement in Canada vis-à-vis the U.S. The situation was not an encouraging one.
After a highly successful subsequent state visit to Canada, President Reagan reported to the American people in his weekend radio address: “We also discussed our current efforts to tear down barriers to commerce and establish free trade between our peoples and countries. The enthusiastic reception I received from the Canadian Parliament suggests that a free-trade agreement between Canada and the United States is an idea whose time has come. I pledged to Prime Minister Mulroney and the people in Canada that we’re going all out to make this visionary proposal of the Prime Minister a reality. We’ll do it for the prosperity and jobs it will create in both our countries; but, just as important, it will be an example to all the world that free and fair trade, and not protectionism, is the way to progress and economic advancement.”
For my part, I had to call and win a general election in 1988 on the free-trade agreement. With an economy one-tenth the size of yours, opposition was ferocious – both opposition parties, interest groups, important media leadership, etc., rode a wave of anti-Americanism saying that Canada would lose its shirt.
My response was that the campaign results would prove that there are not enough anti-Americans in Canada to elect a dogcatcher, let alone a prime minister.
My government was re-elected with another overwhelming majority in Parliament and the free-trade agreement was signed by President Reagan and myself on Jan. 1, 1989.
So what happened?
Well, before answering that question, let me state firstly that there would have been no free-trade agreement to campaign on or to fight about without Jim Baker.
After two years of effort, negotiations between our countries had hit a dead end and, in frustration, I called our negotiating team home. I then told President Reagan that he urgently needed a skilled problem solver to pull this out of the fire and we both quickly agreed that Jim Baker was the only person who fit the bill.
Jim took it on and, with World Bank and IMF meetings going on in Washington at that time and in which he also had to play a key role, found time to direct and manoeuvre his side to the conclusion of a win-win deal, a complex trade agreement, the largest in world history, within a week.
I am here tonight to tell you that this trillion-dollar agreement would never, ever have taken place without the resolve and leadership of Jim Baker.
The result?
Trade in goods and services between our two countries exploded by 300 per cent, millions of new jobs were created in both countries and the relationship grew to be the largest such bilateral arrangement between any two nations in the history of the world – almost US$2-billion a day, with trade approaching US$635-billion per year.
Canada became the market of choice for U.S. producers, purchasing more American goods and services than China, Japan and the U.K. combined.
At one point several years ago, there was more two-way trade across the Ambassador Bridge from Windsor, Ont., to Detroit, Mich., than America did with the nation of Japan. And all the while, our trade was in rough balance. In fact, in 2016 the U.S. had a US$7.7-billion surplus in its goods and services trade with Canada.
Moreover, Canada and the U.S. have developed one of the world’s largest investment relationships totalling over US$840-billion.
This was powerful confirmation of the prediction of Sir Winston Churchill in a major speech 80 years ago who described the Canada-U.S. relationship in all its glory in the following golden words: "That long frontier from the Atlantic to the Pacific oceans, guarded only by neighbourly respect and honourable obligations, is an example to every country and a pattern for the future of the world."
When President George H.W. Bush came in, the question of extending the agreement to Mexico surfaced and there was strong opposition in the USTR to including Canada in this initiative. As a direct result of Secretary Baker’s intervention, President Bush decided it should be a trilateral agreement and that is how NAFTA was born.
The foundational document remained the Canada-U.S. FTA with essential changes to accommodate the specific nature of the Mexican economy and political climate at the time.
It was also unique for another reason: It marked the first time in history that a trade agreement would exist between two mature industrialized countries, the U.S. and Canada – both G7 nations – and a developing country, Mexico.
So what has happened since?
NAFTA now constitutes – with almost 500 million people – the largest, richest and most dynamic free-trade area in the world with a combined GDP of almost $22-trillion a year. With less than 7 per cent of the world’s population, NAFTA partners last year represented 28 per cent of the world’s total GDP. Fifty-five million new jobs have been created in the NAFTA countries since the signing of the treaty in 1992, most of them in the U.S., with many jobs coming from trade and investment with your NAFTA partners, and vice versa.
NAFTA did not just happen by accident. It was the result of the leadership and vision of four great American leaders: Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bill Clinton and Jim Baker. I was privileged to know and work closely with all four.
They knew that such instruments are much more than documents for accountants to appraise and determine which country gained a little in agriculture compared with another benefiting from automotive parts and another still from energy exports. They understood that such trade arrangements are a vital constituent part of enlightened foreign policy, not isolated variables to be picked apart and analyzed on a profit and loss basis. Such agreements succeed only when all parties benefit. And who can deny that was the case here.
When fear and anger fuel public debate, history teaches us that protectionist impulses can easily become a convenient handmaiden. But history also demonstrates in Europe, North America and throughout Asia that the best antidote to protectionism is more liberalized trade – not less – that stimulates both economic growth and stronger employment. As President Reagan said: “We should always remember, protectionism is destructionism.”
Such far-sighted and generous U.S. leadership gave the world, for example, the Marshall Plan in which colossal U.S. investments were made to resurrect a Europe defeated and destroyed after World War II. Who today would argue that this was an improvident course for the U.S. inasmuch as it has ensured the creation of a united Europe – democratic, prosperous and free from national hostilities – certainly for the first time in modern history, thereby contributing greatly to the national security of the United States and its allies.
I have always believed that the United States of America is the greatest democratic republic that God has ever placed on the face of this Earth. Canada is highly privileged to have the United States as a neighbour and friend and the U.S. should thank its lucky stars every day that it has Canada on its northern border. This is the most successful and peaceful bilateral relationship in world history and one that must be cherished and enhanced by our leadership in a manner that is thoughtful, understanding and wise.
Jim Baker did precisely that for the 12 years he held vital leadership roles in the government of the United States of America.
When Jim Baker took over the most important portfolio in the U.S. government – that of Secretary State – the world was filled with complex and explosive challenges to come.
The implosion of the USSR was handled by President Bush and Secretary Baker with enormous sensitivity and skill. The collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the reunification of Germany within NATO were successful because of that same strong American leadership.
Much has been written about the first Gulf War. Simply put, the coalition of 29 disparate nations assembled under the aegis of the United Nations – including for the first time many influential Arab countries – and led by the United States will rank with the most spectacular and successful international initiatives ever undertaken in modern history, designed to punish an aggressor, defend the cause of freedom and ensure order in a region that had seen too much of the opposite for far too long.
While President Bush was the Commander in Chief directing strategy and making decisions in the war from Washington, Jim Baker was his indispensable diplomatic right-hand man flying from capital to capital continuously around the world to ensure its flawless execution. And the icing on the cake was that they actually persuaded the allies – not Mexico – to pay for it!
How do I know this? Because I was there to see it happen.
Last Dec. 31, in a major editorial called A Changing Of The Guard, The New York Times did an extraordinary analysis of the fabled foreign-policy leaders in America of the last 50 years.
It related the accomplishments of Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, James Baker, Colin Powell, Richard Lugar, Madeleine Albright, Sam Nunn, William Perry and Lee Hamilton, giants all.
And how was Jim Baker’s contribution described? Well, like this:
“Then there is James Baker, the former treasury secretary and White House chief of staff, who, empowered by President George H.W. Bush, was arguably the best secretary of state in the modern age, playing pivotal roles in German reunification, the peaceful collapse of the Soviet Union and the 1991 Madrid peace conference that brought Israelis and Arabs into direct talks for the first time”
That one paragraph summarizes accurately the powerful leadership role played by Jim Baker in securing for America and her allies peace and prosperity around the world. As President Reagan said in his farewell address to the American people: “Not bad. Not bad.”
In his dealings with foreign leaders, Jim Baker was always direct, respectful, humorous, brilliant and tough. He knew precisely what the U.S. needed and wanted but he knew as well that his interlocutor needed to walk away with something of significance too and with his dignity fully intact. And he always did.
While pursuing U.S. objectives with strength and vigour, Jim Baker never hesitated – as the French say – to put water in his wine in order to soften the impact on or to strengthen the allies with whom he was then working.
That is why U.S. alliances around the world were powerful and unassailable and why allied leaders knew that, while Jim Baker and the presidents he served were in office, America would always have their backs because their word was true and their friendship was cast in concrete.