Can this US ally walk the fine line between Beijing and Washington?

Canada’s thaw with China is testing how far strategic flexibility can go inside a close alliance

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s January visit to China marked the most significant thaw in bilateral relations in nearly a decade, but its implications extend well beyond Ottawa and Beijing. At its core, the visit highlighted a growing challenge for US allies: how to pursue economic stability and diversification while remaining firmly anchored within the American strategic orbit. For Canada, this balancing act now sits at the center of its most important bilateral relationship – its partnership with the US.

The visit was deliberate in scope and restrained in ambition. Carney’s meetings with President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang focused on restoring functional economic ties rather than redefining the political relationship. The centerpiece was a new economic and trade cooperation roadmap that rolled back several retaliatory tariffs imposed over the past two years. Canada agreed to reduce tariffs on a limited volume of Chinese electric vehicles, while China sharply lowered duties on Canadian canola and lifted restrictions on other agricultural exports, including seafood and legumes.

For Ottawa, the benefits were immediate and concrete. The easing of Chinese trade barriers provided relief to Canadian farmers and exporters who had borne the cost of geopolitical spillover. Agriculture remains one of Canada’s most politically sensitive export sectors, and access to the Chinese market is difficult to replace in scale or profitability. Additional agreements on food safety, energy cooperation, forestry, and law enforcement restored institutional dialogue that had been frozen since the late 2010s. China’s decision to grant visa-free travel to Canadian citizens further signaled an intent to normalize exchanges at the societal level. Importantly, none of these outcomes required Canada to abandon its security commitments or dilute its core policy positions.

Domestic political considerations also played a role. Carney’s government has faced mounting pressure from provincial leaders, exporters, and business associations to stabilize relations with China amid slowing global growth and persistent supply-chain uncertainty. The visit allowed Ottawa to demonstrate economic stewardship without making ideological concessions. By framing engagement as technical and transactional, the government insulated itself from accusations of strategic drift while addressing pressing economic concerns.

Read more

Yet the timing of the visit inevitably placed it in a broader geopolitical context shaped by the second Trump administration’s approach to allies and rivals alike. Washington’s current strategy emphasizes economic leverage, industrial protection, and transactional diplomacy, including toward close partners. This posture has reinforced US strategic weight but has also encouraged allies to think more actively about economic risk management and trade diversification. The expectation is not blind alignment, but strategic compatibility.

Canada’s experience over the past two years illustrates this dynamic. Ottawa initially aligned closely with US trade measures targeting Chinese industries, particularly in electric vehicles and advanced manufacturing. The resulting Chinese retaliation, focused on agriculture, exposed Canada’s vulnerability as a mid-sized, trade-dependent economy. The China visit was therefore less a geopolitical pivot than a corrective measure – an effort to stabilize a critical export relationship while avoiding deeper entanglement in great-power trade escalation.

This approach, however, introduces new considerations for Canada-US relations. While Washington has not publicly opposed Canada’s engagement with Beijing, US officials have expressed concern about trade coherence and supply-chain integrity among allies. From the American perspective, uneven tariff regimes risk creating arbitrage opportunities and weakening collective leverage in negotiations with China. These concerns are particularly salient within the framework of USMCA (US-Mexico-Canada Agreement), where regulatory alignment and fair competition remain central pillars.

President Donald Trump’s response captured this tension. Acknowledging Canada’s sovereign right to pursue its own trade arrangements, Trump stopped short of criticism, reflecting an administration that values allied strength but resists rigid coordination mechanisms. This stance leaves room for maneuver, but it also places greater responsibility on Ottawa to manage perceptions and prevent economic divergence from spilling into political friction. For Canada, maintaining trust with Washington now requires active communication and policy transparency.

The broader context is an international system no longer governed by a single set of rules or assumptions. The post-Cold War framework of deep economic interdependence combined with strategic alignment has given way to a more segmented order, where competition and cooperation coexist uneasily. In this environment, even the closest US allies are recalibrating how they engage with China – not to challenge Washington, but to protect national interests within existing margins.

Read more

China-Canada relations themselves underscore the limits of any reset. Diplomatic ties established in 1970 have weathered cycles of engagement and tension, most recently during the Huawei-related crisis and subsequent diplomatic freeze. Deep disagreements persist over security, political values, and foreign interference. Carney’s visit did not resolve these issues, nor was it intended to. Instead, it reflected a shared interest in preventing economic disputes from defining the entire relationship.

For the United States, Canada’s move serves as a reminder that alliance management in an era of strategic competition requires flexibility. Expecting uniform economic policies across diverse allied economies may prove unrealistic, particularly when national political and sectoral pressures are involved. At the same time, Washington retains significant leverage through market access, security cooperation, intelligence sharing, and institutional frameworks such as USMCA and NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command).

For Canada, the implications are equally clear. Greater engagement with China may reduce short-term trade risk, but it also increases the importance of careful calibration with the US. Ottawa will need to reassure Washington that its China policy does not create vulnerabilities, undercut shared objectives, or weaken North American competitiveness. The durability of the Canada-US partnership depends not on identical policies, but on sustained confidence that strategic interests remain fundamentally aligned.

In that sense, the China-Canada thaw is less a turning point than a test. It tests Canada’s ability to navigate multipolar economics without eroding its most vital alliance. It tests Washington’s willingness to accommodate allied flexibility while pursuing its own assertive trade agenda. And it tests whether long-standing partnerships can adapt to a world where economic pragmatism increasingly shapes geopolitical choices.

The outcome of this test will not be decided in Beijing, but in how Ottawa and Washington manage the consequences together.