China and Canada have just reached an agreement to restart the export of Chinese electric vehicles to Canada, and the threat from the United States came immediately.

According to Reuters, on the 16th, U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy warned in an interview that Canada would regret allowing Chinese electric vehicles into its market.

At the same time, U.S. Trade Representative Jamison Grier also stated that Canada's decision was "problematic." He cited the situation in the United States as an example, saying that there is a reason why the U.S. does not allow a large number of Chinese cars to be sold, aiming to protect American businesses, workers, and people from the "impact" of these Chinese cars through tariffs.

Sean Duffy made this statement at a car factory

Before Duffy and Grier threatened Canada, China and Canada had reached a new trade agreement, under which Canada canceled the previous 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles and granted an annual import quota of 49,000 Chinese electric vehicles. These vehicles would enjoy a Most Favored Nation tariff of 6.1%, and the quota would increase by a certain proportion year by year.

The statements by Duffy and Grier essentially reflect a naked logic of hegemony, meaning that the U.S. itself does not sell electric vehicles to Canada, or sells fewer and fewer, but absolutely does not allow Canada to turn to China.

The absurdity of this hegemonic logic is first reflected in Canada's decision to impose a 100% tariff on Chinese electric vehicles.

This tariff was entirely a result of former Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau blindly following the U.S. The Canadian domestic market has no major electric vehicle manufacturers, and local companies are more concentrated in the supply chain sector. The entry of Chinese electric vehicles into the Canadian market could not possibly pose a "threat" to Canada's domestic industry.

Imposing the tariff was purely to comply with Biden's anti-China policy

Therefore, the tariff imposed by Trudeau at that time was purely to comply with the Biden administration's "decoupling" strategy, sacrificing the interests of the Canadian consumers to cater to the U.S. hegemonic demands.

The consequence was that Canada failed to protect any substantial domestic industry, but instead faced Chinese countermeasures against Canadian canola, causing unnecessary losses for Canadian farmers due to Trudeau's blind pro-American policies. It was only after the current Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, took office that this blind following logic was corrected.

However, a more ironic point is that the U.S. itself is Canada's largest traditional supplier of electric vehicles, and Canada has always been the top export market for U.S. electric vehicles.

But Trump did not support the development of the electric vehicle industry. His tariff policies severely disrupted the automotive supply chain, leading to a reduction of about 30% to 50% in U.S. electric vehicle exports to Canada in 2025, creating a clear supply gap.

U.S. exports decreased, yet they don't allow Canada to import Chinese cars

Therefore, when Kaner canceled the tariff and restarted the export of Chinese electric vehicles, it was a practical and wise choice. This move can effectively fill the market gap and promote trade diversification in Canada, which is in line with Canada's national interest.

The absurdity of Duffy and Grier's threatening remarks lies here: they openly accuse Canada of filling a market gap created by the U.S. themselves, which is equivalent to requiring Canada to bear the negative spillover effects of the U.S.'s protectionist policies— even if they cannot buy or afford American cars, they are not allowed to seek alternative sources.

In history, the U.S. has done too many things like "even if you can't buy American goods, you are not allowed to buy goods from other countries." For example, in the 1980s, the U.S. artificially restricted the import of Japanese cars;

After entering the 21st century, the U.S. forced allies to ban the use of Chinese communication products, leading to significant increases in communication infrastructure costs and delays in projects in these countries, but the U.S. provided no solutions.

These historical facts clearly show that the U.S.'s hegemonic behavior has never been about "fair competition," but rather to maintain its absolute dominant position in the global supply chain, regardless of sacrificing the interests of its allies.

Original article: toutiao.com/article/7596272812581110307/

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