I usually don’t continue to think about a blog I have posted, but I have been thinking about my previous one, in which I concluded I would boycott travel to the U.S.  Part of the impetus was recent events. The day after I posted, Trump called off his threats of invading Greenland and imposing tariffs on the European nations that sent a military presence there. On the other hand, Prime Minister Carney’s high-profile speech at Davos has evoked anger towards Canada from the Trump Administration.

I was also thinking of instances in the past when I visited countries whose governments were widely held in ill-repute and even were the target of boycott movements. As my title asks, were my choices then consistent with my choice now?

Personal Diplomacy in Undemocratic Countries

In my mid-thirties, I visited three countries with questionable governments. I went to South Africa in 1984, invited by a Canadian colleague who was working for a government-supported transportation research agency. I was curious about the apartheid regime. As discussed in a previous post, I stayed a month, travelled widely, and spoke to a wide range of people. I left disgusted by the regime and held out little hope for change. If someone then had predicted a peaceful transition to majority rule within a decade, I would have told them they were delusional.

In Germany for a conference in 1983, I visited a friend in West Berlin for a weekend. On Sunday, he took me through Checkpoint Charlie into East Berlin. The starkest contrast was between streets and parks full of people enjoying themselves on Saturday in West Berlin and the deserted streets, squares, and plazas (especially Potsdamer Platz) in East Berlin. In many other ways, it was clear this was a police state, and one day there was more than enough for me.

I went to the People’s Republic of China in 1984 and again in 1986. The Canadian International Development Agency sponsored a partnership program between Canadian and Chinese management schools, and I was the guest of Nankai University in Tianjin. The students were inexperienced with free market institutions, but eager to learn. When I visited in November 1984 it was unseasonably cold. Here is a photo of me teaching in a chilly classroom.

And here I am in Tienanmen Square.

Reflecting on my decision to visit these three countries, despite my opposition to their governments’ policies, I was trying to learn from their people, share with them my life experience as a Canadian and, when possible, my expertise in management and economics.

Choosing to Boycott the U.S.

Prime Minister Carney’s Davos speech was a closely reasoned analysis of the impact, particularly on middle powers, of a sea-change in international relations characterized by the desire of hegemonic nations ruthlessly to monetize and exploit their advantages. Carney did not refer to the U.S. explicitly, but he was referring to any and all regional hegemonic powers. I noticed, though few commentators mentioned it, that Carney’s speech drew on economic concepts such as public goods, economies of scale, and game theory.

The reaction to Carney’s speech and Canada’s sectoral trade agreement with China by Trump and Bessent (apparently his point person for Canada) proved Carney’s point: threats of economic disruption (100 percent tariffs if Canada negotiates a wider agreement with China) and interference to support the “leave” side in a likely Alberta referendum on separation, not to mention name-calling (ingrate and “Governor”). This is not the behaviour of an ally or a partner. The National Security Strategy provides the bigger picture: dominance of the western hemisphere enforced with an iron fist.

If this isn’t enough to justify a Canadian travel boycott of the U.S., add to the picture the Trump Administration’s attack on the civil liberties of citizens and non-citizens who are in the U.S. As I’ve discussed in the previous blog, my criticism of the Trump Administration, if noticed by a BCP agent, would be sufficient grounds to prevent me from entering the U.S. I do not intend to travel to the U.S. during the Trump Administration. The 55^th reunion for my class at Harvard is in June, and I know I will regret missing it.

The U.S. Choosing Isolation

The big picture is that the U.S. government is choosing to isolate itself through its transactional and exploitative approach to trade and its race towards authoritarianism. The rest of the world is turning away and making other arrangements. Hence the recent trade deal between the E.U. and India, and the set of trade deals Canada is pursuing, of which the China deal is the first. A travel boycott is a personal replication of a national policy.

I hope the result of this collective action, both by nations and individuals, is that Americans will realize that, under Trump, their nation and society are becoming isolated and weaker. I hope they will remember that their alliances and soft power were a source of strength. And I hope they will remember this when choosing Trump’s successor in 2028.