Having a leader who understands the difference between immediate gain and long-term success is existentially important. This distinction is true for all leaders, but especially at the national level. Irrespective of the form of government, having a leader who, to paraphrase the poet Robert Browning, has a reach that exceeds his grasp, can be the difference between peace and war; prosperity and impecunity; calm and calamity. I am not going to discuss the current administration in Washington because even a child can see that this is a problem for them currently.

But let’s look at Canada.

PM Carney’s first official visit was not the traditional one for a new Canadian Prime Minister. He visited France and the UK. Not long afterwards, he flew to India to heal the rift created by his predecessor and began negotiations for a new trade partnership beginning with significant agreements on uranium and energy.

In January, he visited China, the first Canadian PM to do so in nearly a decade. He got agreement on the unwinding of some tariffs and a new partnership on agro-exports.

Last week, he visited Saudi Arabia, marking the first visit by a Canadian PM in 25 years.

For many Canadians, these visits may be troubling. Visiting Europe is easily understood. We share political systems and many cultural beliefs, but China, India, and Saudi Arabia do not share our beliefs, and previous governments have shunned these countries to demonstrate our “disapproval”. This “virtue signalling” has been akin to cutting one’s nose off to spite one’s face.

Last year the Australian PM, being clear in ways that only Australians seem to be able to do, made his country’s relationship with China clear: Who is Australia’s greatest trading partner? Who is Australia’s greatest strategic threat? The answer to both questions? China. He pointed out that this was no easy relationship, but one which Australia could manage. What was the Aussie PM’s message? We don’t have to agree with what they do; we just want to trade with them.

This is the key to building out Canada’s too long lackluster economy and we finally seem to have a PM who understands this concept. Countries do not need to agree with each other’s policies in order to be trading partners. We can agree to disagree and engaging with people with whom we disagree is not the same as approving of what they do.

Allow me to shift gears and move over to military theory as I head for the finish line.

There’s an excellent example of the type of leadership to which I referred at the top of this post that most readers may be unfamiliar with. It was the leadership of the Iron Chancellor, Prince Otto von Bismarck, Prime Minister of Prussia and first Chancellor of Imperial Germany. Arguably, had the demented and childish Wilhelm for whom he worked, understood his leadership, the First World War could have been averted, but Wilhelm forced him to resign in 1890, and we are familiar with the rest.

In my opinion, the single best example of Bismarck’s higher-level thinking that involved the ever-delicate civil-military relationship occurred at the end of the five-week Austro-Prussian War (Summer 1866). After Prussia’s stunning and operationally brilliant victory at Königgrätz (3 July 1866), General Helmuth von Moltke, Chief of the General Staff and probably Prussia’s most competent general, wanted to advance on Vienna and annihilate the Austrian Army in the process. Bismarck strongly opposed this idea and intervened with the king, arguing that humiliating Austria would be satisfying but unhinge Prussian efforts at unifying Germany under Prussian rule. Bismarck was able to convince Wilhelm that the building of “Greater Germany” was more important than a single military victory — however brilliant. The king acceded and ordered Moltke to halt his advance. Peace was made and within three years Austria, an erstwhile enemy, supported the creation of the German Empire under Wilhelm’s rule.

British PM Lord Palmerston said in 1848: “We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.” We may not approve of other’s conduct; that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t engage them.