Mark Carney’s speech in China:
“I believe the progress we have made and the partnership sets us up well for the new world order”.
Thank you for visiting. This is a reader-supported publication but now shadow banned by the overlords. I cannot do this without your support. You can support by way of a cup of coffee:
buymeacoffee.com/ggtv or
https://ko-fi.com/globalgeopolitics
European leaders’ shifting posture toward Russia appears intertwined with broader realignments in global trade and security priorities, notably evident in Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s diplomatic outreach to the People’s Republic of China and the evolving global debate over economic dependence on the United States. Carney’s visit to Beijing in January 2026, his first since becoming Canada’s prime minister, reflects a strategic calculation that traditional reliance on the US export market, which historically accounted for roughly 70-75 per cent of Canadian exports, is no longer tenable under conditions of heightened tariff pressure and political volatility. During that visit, Canada agreed to reduce tariffs to allow up to 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles into the Canadian market while Beijing committed to lowering import barriers on Canadian agricultural goods, including canola seed, lobsters and peas, measures expected to unlock nearly $3 billion in export orders. Carney framed this arrangement as part of building “a stronger, more independent Canadian economy” and a “new strategic partnership” with China encompassing energy, clean technology and investment cooperation.
Critics both within Canada and internationally have questioned whether Carney’s China overture signals a strategic pivot rooted in pragmatic economic diversification or a deeper alignment with a rising global power that could diminish North America’s unified posture on issues such as security and democratic governance. Senior researchers like Jacob Funk Kirkegaard have cautioned that China’s market access offers may be instrumentally used to exert economic leverage, particularly in sectors like automotive manufacturing where cheap imports could undermine domestic industries, and warned that the complexity of such engagements requires transparency and strategic caution. Other analysts have argued that seeking China’s involvement to address trade imbalances and supply chain vulnerabilities risks long-term dependency on a political system whose strategic goals diverge sharply from those of Canada and its democratic partners.
The broader global context for Carney’s diplomacy is captured in commentary on the emerging trend of “de-risking from America,” a concept articulated in recent Financial Times analysis and echoed by trade diplomats. This perspective posits that the longstanding assumption of U.S. economic and security leadership is eroding under transactional policies and unpredictable tariff regimes, prompting nations not only in Europe but also in Asia and North America to seek diversified partnerships. The shift away from an exclusive focus on US-China decoupling toward a more general strategy of reducing dependency on the U.S. underpins Carney’s emphasis on doubling Canada’s non-U.S. exports and engaging with markets such as China, India and the broader Indo-Pacific region.
( He is talking about collaborating to build a digital prison)
To proponents of this strategy, engaging China economically is not inherently a globalist ambition but a pragmatic response to structural changes in global trade and geopolitics. Supporters point out that China remains the world’s second-largest economy and a major market for Canadian agricultural and energy exports, and that Canada’s pursuit of expanded links could buffer its economy against external shocks generated by tariff escalation with the United States. A Canadian government planning document underscores this framing, emphasizing resilience and diversification rather than ideological alignment.
Nevertheless, the tensions around Carney’s China engagement reveal sharp ideological divides within Canada and its allies. Critics like former US Ambassador Nikki Haley have publicly warned that Canada “cozying up to China for investment puts all of North America at serious risk,” a formulation that taps into broader concerns about strategic autonomy versus bloc conformity. Republican figures have adopted pejorative language such as referring to “Canada the great RED north,” reflecting fears that closer economic ties with China could translate into geopolitical vulnerabilities. Such rhetoric illustrates the degree to which cross-Pacific economic partnerships are being interpreted through the lens of strategic competition between democratic and authoritarian powers.
Other voices emphasise that Canada’s efforts are bounded by legal and geopolitical constraints. The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) includes provisions that limit the ability of signatories to enter certain types of deals with “non-market economies,” and deepening commercial integration with Chinese firms could, some analysts argue, trigger US restrictions on Canadian exports containing Chinese components deemed security risks. Additionally, concerns about foreign interference and national security, sparked by events such as China’s detention of Canadian citizens and documented interference in Canadian democratic processes-add layers of complexity to Ottawa’s China policy.
(Our full partnership and obligations to Article 5 stand. We stand fully behind them.”)
The juxtaposition of Europe’s tentative return to diplomatic engagement with Russia and Canada’s pursuit of deeper economic ties with China highlights a common underlying theme in current Western policy discourse: traditional alliances and economic dependencies are under stress, compelling policymakers to reassess assumptions about global order, strategic autonomy and the costs of alliance cohesion. Whether these developments represent tactical adjustments to immediate pressures or more profound realignments in geopolitical orientation remains an open question, but they collectively signal that the era of unquestioned Western integration under U.S. leadership is undergoing significant reconfiguration.
Authored By: Global GeoPolitics
Thank you for visiting. This is a reader-supported publication but now shadow banned by the overlords. I cannot do this without your support. You can support by way of a cup of coffee:
buymeacoffee.com/ggtv or
https://ko-fi.com/globalgeopolitics
