Carney's Beijing visit marks shift in Canada's strategy

Editor's note: Xu Ying is a Beijing-based international affairs commentator for CGTN. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney will pay an official visit to China from January 14 to 17 at the invitation of Chinese Premier Li Qiang, a Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson announced on Monday.

In an era marked by accelerating geopolitical fragmentation, Canada's recalibration of its foreign policy toward China reflects a deeper and more consequential shift than a mere bilateral reset. It signals a growing divergence within the Western camp itself – one driven not by ideology, but by structural realities.

As U.S. foreign policy under its President Donald Trump's second term has reverted to unilateralism, coercive diplomacy and overt power politics, traditional allies are increasingly compelled to reassess where their interests truly lie. Canada's evolving posture toward China is best understood in this broader context: not as a departure from values, but as a return to strategic autonomy.

For much of the past decade, Ottawa's China policy was constrained by an assumption long taken for granted – that alignment with the United States was both inevitable and beneficial. Differences with China were often framed as value-based and irreconcilable, while similarities with the U.S. were treated as self-evident.

This logic underpinned a period of diplomatic estrangement, during which China-Canada relations were repeatedly disrupted by external political forces, most notably the Meng Wanzhou incident. That episode, widely viewed in China as a product of U.S. extraterritorial pressure, became a symbol of the risks inherent in subordinating independent diplomacy to alliance politics.

The limits of automatic alignment

The Trump administration's second term has clarified what many allies had previously preferred to ignore: U.S. foreign policy is no longer anchored in multilateralism, predictability, or institutional restraint. From the unilateral use of military force in Venezuela to the open embrace of tariff coercion and economic intimidation, Washington has demonstrated a willingness to override allies' interests when convenient. The rhetoric of "peace through strength" has translated into a foreign policy that prioritizes dominance over cooperation and transactional gains over shared norms.

For Canada, these developments are not abstract. U.S. tariff policies, justified on national security grounds, have directly targeted Canadian industries. Longstanding trade arrangements have been subjected to sudden renegotiation or suspension. Even within the Western alliance system, economic relations have become increasingly asymmetrical, with Washington reserving maximum freedom of action for itself while demanding compliance from others.

Against this backdrop, Canada's reassessment of China is less about rapprochement than realism. Ottawa is recognizing that the costs of reflexive alignment are rising, while the benefits are diminishing. The divergence is not ideological but structural: Canada's national interests – economic stability, diversified trade and predictable international rules – are no longer consistently served by U.S. unilateralism.

Values reconsidered

For years, Canadian policymakers justified distance from China by invoking a perceived values gap, contrasting alignment with U.S. "shared values" against differences with China. Yet values, when instrumentalized for geopolitical ends, often prove malleable. As U.S. actions increasingly depart from the very principles it once championed, the moral clarity of that framework has eroded.

By contrast, China's articulation of the concept of a "community with a shared future for mankind" has found growing resonance among middle powers navigating a polarized world. For Canada, this concept does not require ideological convergence. Rather, it offers a pragmatic vision of international relations based on coexistence, mutual respect and collective problem-solving.

The shift is subtle but significant. Canada is not "choosing China over the United States." It is choosing independence over dependency, balance over bloc politics and rules over raw power.

Nowhere is this recalibration more evident than in the economic domain. Canada's experience with U.S. tariff pressure has underscored the vulnerabilities inherent in overconcentration on a single market. Economic coercion – whether in the form of tariffs, sanctions, or supply chain disruptions – has become a routine instrument of U.S. statecraft, applied not only to rivals but increasingly to allies.

China, by contrast, represents both scale and stability. The Chinese market remains one of the world's most dynamic, with demand spanning agriculture, energy, advanced manufacturing and services – sectors where Canada holds clear comparative advantages. The complementarity between the two economies is structural, not cyclical.

Recent developments illustrate this point. Expanded pipeline capacity has enabled a notable increase in Chinese imports of Canadian crude oil, offering Canadian producers diversification and resilience at a time of global energy uncertainty. Agricultural exports, long a cornerstone of bilateral trade, continue to demonstrate mutual benefit when political conditions allow.

Importantly, Canadian provincial leaders have been at the forefront of advocating a reset. Premiers from Saskatchewan, Alberta and other export-oriented regions have publicly called for stabilizing relations with China, emphasizing the livelihoods of farmers, energy workers and manufacturers. Their message is pragmatic: Economic interests should not be held hostage to geopolitical posturing driven from elsewhere.

Trade frictions and the path forward

The recent period of trade friction – marked by Canadian tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and metals, followed by China's lawful countermeasures – should be viewed not as evidence of incompatibility but as a reminder of the need for institutional discipline. Trade disputes among major economies are neither new nor unique. What matters is how they are managed.

China has consistently emphasized that differences should be resolved through dialogue and within the framework of the World Trade Organization. This approach aligns with Canada's own historical support for multilateral trade governance. A return to evidence-based, rules-consistent mechanisms would not only de-escalate tensions but also restore predictability for businesses on both sides.

Crucially, China's response has been measured rather than escalatory, signaling a continued openness to dialogue. High-level communications between Chinese and Canadian leaders have reaffirmed mutual interest in stabilizing relations, even amid disagreement.

Canada's evolving approach to China must ultimately be understood as part of a broader trend among middle powers. As great-power relationships intensify and the U.S. increasingly prioritizes unilateral advantage, countries with global economic ties are seeking room to maneuver. Strategic autonomy is becoming a practical necessity.

For Canada, strengthening ties with China is not an act of defiance but of diversification. It reflects an understanding that resilience in the 21st century depends on broad networks, not exclusive alignments. It also reflects a kind of confidence that Canada can engage China on the basis of equality, manage differences without confrontation and pursue cooperation without sacrificing sovereignty.

As Carney prepares for his visit to Beijing, the moment carries significance beyond symbolism. It represents an opportunity to place China-Canada relations back on a rational, stable footing – one grounded in mutual respect, non-interference and shared economic interests.

In a world increasingly shaped by power politics and zero-sum thinking, Canada's recalibration offers a quiet but important counterpoint. It suggests that autonomy remains possible, that middle powers need not choose sides blindly and that cooperation across systems is not a liability but an asset.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)