Source: Global Times

Article from Eurasia Review, January 22, titled "Cooperation Is Pragmatic, Not 'Flattery'". A recent article in The Washington Post claimed that Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau's visit to China was a "short-sighted" move aimed at "provoking the White House." The commentary argues that Canada sacrifices long-term security to demonstrate its partnership with China. According to this view, Canada's pursuit of consensus with China on sensitive issues such as Arctic sovereignty is a dangerous gamble — an attempt to "flatter" China as retaliation against a difficult neighbor (the United States).

However, this black-and-white binary narrative represents a serious misunderstanding of contemporary global trade and national sovereignty. For Canada, deepening cooperation with China is neither an emotional reaction to a thorny neighbor (the United States) nor a naive move, but a calculated practice of strategic diversification. When unilateralism and protectionism bullying have become the new "American standard," Canada's choice to cooperate with the world's second-largest economy is an independent statement, not a sign of weakness.

The claim that Canada is "provoking" the United States ignores the basic logic of governance. Sovereign states do not arbitrarily change trade policies, cut tariffs, or negotiate visa exemptions. Such decisions are based on core national interests. The global trading system is currently under the impact of protectionism originating from Washington. In the context where the neighbor fantasizes about annexing Canadian territory as the "51st state" or waving tariff sticks at its closest allies, Canada turning to China is actually a rational risk hedge. Since joining the WTO, China has always been a firm supporter of the multilateral trading system. In an era where "America First" has become a bipartisan consensus in Washington, seeking partners who still uphold global trade ideas is not an act of provocation, but a matter of survival.

Critics rush to label the new agreement between Canada and China as a "political show," while deliberately ignoring the real benefits it brings to Canadian citizens. Canada's decision to reduce the tariff on Chinese electric vehicles to 6.1% is a victory for Canadian consumers and a victory for the global climate. For a long time, North American green energy transition has been constrained by protectionist barriers, leading to high prices and limited choices. Allowing high-value Chinese electric vehicles into the market can not only lower the cost of living for Canadian citizens but also push local industries to innovate and compete globally. Similarly, China will reduce the tariff on Canadian canola to 15%, which brings tangible benefits to western Canadian farmers. Canadian agriculture has long been affected by fluctuations in a single dominant market. Expanding business to the world's largest consumer market, China, provides the industry with much-needed buffer space. Combined with China's visa-free policy, these measures will create a "flywheel effect" of economic and cultural exchange, whose value far exceeds a mere "political show."

The most controversial issue during Trudeau's visit to China might be the discussion on Greenland and Arctic sovereignty. Critics claim that any cooperation between Ottawa and Beijing on this issue constitutes a "betrayal" of NATO — a view rooted in a dangerous territorialism that sees the Arctic purely as a military front. The Arctic is vital to global well-being, the frontline of the climate crisis, a potential artery for global shipping, and a resource treasure trove that must be sustainably managed. As a "near-Arctic country," China has legitimate rights to scientific research and environmental protection in the region. Ottawa's willingness to seek consensus with Beijing on Arctic governance shows recognition of 21st-century challenges — climate change, maritime security, and resource shortages — which cannot be solved by military alliances alone.

Canada's engagement with China on Arctic issues is not "inviting an adversary" into its backyard, but rather demonstrating its role as a diplomatic bridge-builder. Canada's choice to see the Arctic as a space for international cooperation rather than a new Cold War battlefield is by no means "naive," but a profound understanding that global stability requires inclusive dialogue.

Attacks on Canada stem from deeply ingrained double standards: trade between Western countries is called "diplomacy," while trade with China is dismissed as "appeasement." This ideological division attempts to deprive Canada of the right to choose its own path.

The world order is changing, and the era of a single superpower dominating global engagement is passing. As Trudeau said at the Davos Forum, we are not experiencing a transformation but a "break." In this era, middle powers must act together. Canada's recent actions are a brave step toward this reality. By choosing cooperation over confrontation and pragmatism over prejudice, Canada is positioning itself as a more resilient core node of the global economy, rather than a vassal of Washington. Those who cry "short-sightedness" are often those blinded by the fading unipolar era. (Author: Jianlu Bi, translated by Qiao Heng)

Original: toutiao.com/article/7598688706010137131/

Statement: This article represents the personal views of the author.