Whatever we may think of Donald Trump, he's playing his cards well. The talks appear to be landing, and he is, as they say, sitting pretty. Mexico has made big concessions on cars; and Canada looks ready to move on dairy. As for the process, it's been classic Trump: divide and conquer.Still, if Canada's hand has been forced, the emerging deal is a pretty good one. Mexico's new rules on auto production will be good for us; the five-year sunset clause is gone; and dispute resolution should survive. We will lose on dairy, but lots of Canadians will count that too as a win.The real casualty in this process has been diplomacy. And that may be irreparable.Critics – especially Conservatives – blame Justin Trudeau. In this view, the road has been needlessly long and difficult, partly because of his gullibility and partly because of his lack of tact.Brian Lilley, for example, scolds Trudeau for teaming up with the Mexicans: “Trudeau turned down offers of a bilateral deal” and instead decided to “stand with Mexico,” he fumes. Meredith Lilly reprimands him for “ragging the puck on negotiations” and, as a result, putting us in the “penalty box.”There's even a view that Canada's efforts to lobby Congress and state legislators was bush league because it upset the Trump administration. Apparently, the government should have sat on its hands.Let's put these claims in context. First, the Americans simply shut us out of the last round of talks, allegedly because they focused on US-Mexico concerns.In fact, they proceeded to negotiate with the Mexicans on a range of three-way issues, including dispute resolution and the sunset clause, both key Canadian concerns.Then last Monday, Trump held a press conference in the Oval Office to announce a US-Mexico deal to the world – and to tell Canada either to get onside or get left behind.He concluded by threatening our auto industry with killer tariffs if we didn't play ball; and, for good measure, he gave us three days to arrive at an agreement.Blaming Trudeau for this kind of gunboat diplomacy is just fanciful. Trump is certainly capable of petty reprisals and I suspect he enjoyed sticking it to Trudeau, but there is something much bigger at work here and if we want to understand it, we need to dig deeper.Historically, international relations have been divided into two basic approaches: interest-based and rules-based.The interest-based approach is deeply Darwinian. In this view, countries have interests and they will do what they must to advance them. Weaker powers who seek to get along with stronger ones should find ways to align with their interests.However, weak countries can also find strength in numbers. Sometimes they can band together and create the collective strength they need to force a stronger power to yield and agree to some rules. That's how the barons got King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215 and established the Rule of Law.Establishing rules makes everyone's behaviour more predictable, so countries big and small can plan and make deals. If the rules are good ones, this can lead to prosperity. That's the rationale behind NAFTA.There is no question where Donald Trump stands on these two views. He's a Darwinian's Darwinian – the guy who now holds the biggest stick and is thrilled about it.That's also why he wants to kill the dispute resolution panel in Chapter 19. It is the beating heart of NAFTA's rules-based approach. It is there to prevent the Americans from throwing their weight around and he wants to end that – once and for all.As for Trudeau's alleged gullibility, last year when he refused to negotiate without the Mexicans, he wasn't just playing the tough guy. He was defending the rules-based spirit of the agreement. It was both the right and the strategic thing to do.Sadly, when the tables were turned, the Mexicans were unwilling to do the same. Perhaps when push came to shove, Canada too would have caved. And that may be the biggest lesson here: rules-based agreements have their limits and on NAFTA, Trump has shown how to push us beyond them.So, the bad news is that the success of the process is also its biggest failure: it sends a clear message that bullying works – not because Canada is weak, but because America's size and wealth give it a huge advantage. And Trump is more than willing to use it against us.Where does this leave Canada on a long list of other issues, such as NATO, climate change, or human rights? These are – or at least should be – Canadian priorities. If Trump were an aberration – an electoral accident – perhaps we could just wait him out. Unfortunately, this looks unlikely.Stephen Harper recently warned that the “America First” approach will outlive Donald Trump – possibly by a long time. He is likely right.During the Cold War and for a period after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, America found multilateral alliances like NATO, the WTO, and the United Nations very valuable. It needed them to carry out its role as Leader of the Free World.There are serious questions whether or how far this arrangement still holds. Or what the future looks like. Perhaps this experience with NAFTA will finally focus some attention on what comes next.Dr. Don Lenihan is an internationally recognized expert on public engagement and Open Government. He is currently advising The Ottawa Hospital on an engagement plan to develop its new Civic Campus – a $2 billion, 10-year project. He also co-chairs the Open Government Partnership's Practice Group on Open Dialogue and Deliberation. Don can be reached at: [email protected] or follow him on Twitter at: @DonLenihan