this post was submitted on 28 Aug 2026
157 points (87.2% liked)

Canada

12327 readers
706 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 Sports

Baseball

Basketball

Curling

Hockey

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


🌐 Other Relevant Communities


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

For all of the confusion about where the Ottawa-Washington meltdown will lead, one thing seems certain. The big winners of this diplomatic collapse will be China and other repressive dictatorships eager to become our new “strategic” partners and further undermine the world’s stabilizing democracy bloc.

Opinion piece by Charles Burton, former diplomat at Canada’s embassy in Beijing, senior fellow at Sinopsis.cz, a China-focused think tank based in Prague, Czech Republic. He is and author of 'The Beaver and the Dragon: How China Out-Manoeuvred Canada’s Diplomacy, Security and Sovereignty'.

Archived link

...

Beijing in particular wants to inherit Canada’s economic dependence. Establishing such a broader North American beachhead will only further President Xi Jinping’s resolute goal of displacing the U.S. as a global hegemon, and cementing a China-dominated world order whose very foundation is the rejection of democratic freedoms and human rights.

...

If Canada ever reaches a point where attacks on our economy put families’ livelihoods at stake, then standing firm on our moral principles will give way to tolerating – or at least ignoring – human rights abuses in exchange for restoring Canadian prosperity through trade and investment with the likes of Qatar, Saudi Arabia and China. As someone who has been sanctioned by both Beijing and Moscow for standing up for Canadian democratic and civil values in global affairs, this prospect is deeply troubling.

...

When Mr. Xi makes a landmark trip to North America next month, it is expected he will add a Canadian stop, the first time in 16 years a Chinese head of state has visited this country. And this at a time when there have been calls for Ottawa to scrap restrictions on importing Chinese-made EVs, to locate Chinese auto factories here, and to even encourage Canadians to buy “Great Wall wine” instead of Californian.

In contrast to the belligerent threats that Canadians have been conditioned to expect from Washington, the Chinese President will project dignity and a tone of respect and goodwill toward Prime Minister Mark Carney and his Canadian business associates, who will be offering a warm welcome to the Chinese delegation.

But like Howitt’s “Spider and the Fly,” in which a cunning spider uses seduction and manipulation to lure a fly into its web, Canada should be wary of those who wield flattery and charm to disguise other intentions. Rushing to embrace China’s expansionist and calculating totalitarian regime will never work out well for Canada’s overall interest.

In the current hostile landscape, Canada could find itself deeply regretting coming out of an American frying pan into a Chinese fire.

...

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This is pure demonic nazi Canadian establishment platformed propaganda for the purpose of enslaving and oppressing Canadians, and their minds, into the only permissible negotation alternative: Begging only the US for survival. Demonic propaganda of the last 20-75 years must frame your political allegiances. There is no direct US threat, and no future direct US threat, that should ever move you from ultimate devotion to overarching US demonic naziism. No participation by Canada in any future multipolar global order, but especially not permitting Canadians to reconsider nazi US/Israel supremacy as "Canadian values".

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Begging only the US for survival.

Canada can't move it's borders. They do business with the US because of proximity far more than policy.

And as the US is a globe-striding superpower with a centuries long reputation for bullying allies and enemies alike, that means making some hard choices.

No participation by Canada in any future multipolar global order, but especially not permitting Canadians to reconsider nazi US/Israel supremacy as “Canadian values”.

Israel exists in it's current state precisely because American fascists sponsor it's worst residents for high office. Practically the definition of a kakocracy. If you're not an ultra-nationalist with a thirst for eugenics, you're not invited to the Knesset.

Of course, Canada has the same problem. It's Parliament is also stacked full of American aligned oligarchs and fascists, to the point where they gave one of the last living Nazis a standing ovation not three years ago.

Until you can purge yourself of fossil fuel plutocrats and evangelical white supremacists, I'm not sure how you decouple from the United States, much less the global petro-cartels.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

centuries long reputation for bullying allies and enemies alike, that means making some hard choices.

My core issue with OP is choices to help/protect Canada must be framed in the horror that it could also help China, and harm the bullying power of the master we can only be allowed to devote alignment to their maximum evil. Editorials like this, try to force the easy path of going through the stages of grief until accepting the extreme US demands/enslavement.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

the horror that it could also help China

Cutting off my own nose to spite China's face

[–] nyan@lemmy.cafe 7 points 2 days ago

China is not reliable, but it is somewhat predictable, which the US, currently, is not. (Even assuming that the US government will do the stupidest thing possible in this or any other timeline won't help you with the details, because stupidity is infinite and unfathomable.) This makes China easier to deal with. I don't think Carney is dumb enough to mistake "easier to deal with" for genuine goodwill, though, because my cat is smart enough not to make that mistake. I'm tired of seeing these articles that presuppose the government is too oblivious to know that China is dangerous and has to be handled like a lit stick of dynamite tied to a venemous snake.

[–] goodguys9@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What are we supposed to do, not defend ourselves? China isn't making annexation threats against Canada. They're terrible on human rights records, but they're less overtly dangerous to Canada than the U.S. is with sharing a border. I can't see any future where China tries to annex Canada.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago

China does influence Canadian elections, makes demands regarding our internal politics, has agents in Canada stalking and harassing Canadian citizens for political reasons; they may not be trying to claim our territory but they do not recognize our sovereign authority over it when their interests don't align with that.

I'm not arguing for USA over China, but that's a false dichotomy to begin with. We don't have to compromise.

[–] TemplaerDude@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don’t trust china but I trust the states even less right now. Pretty fucking wild thing to say but that’s where we’re at. Canada should be looking to diversify beyond those two but at the end of the day you have to trade where there is trade.

[–] group_hug@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

You don't trust a country run by somebody who bold face lies about easily verifiable truths hundreds of times every day? Who TACOs back and forth on ultimatums several times a week?

Who makes international trade agreements one year claiming them the best deal ever, then calls them terrible deals 4 years later and rips them up?

What is wrong with yo man? Are you sane?

[–] TheObviousSolution@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Funny how the base that Trump has shown constant admiration for is also reaping the maximum enjoyment and benefit from this.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (10 children)

China is better than America because they're way less likely to interfere outside its own borders (yet still do it, hence all the shit in the South China Sea, plus lets not forget Taiwan) and when they do their impact on the rest of the World is much smaller.

That is however, for now.

If things carry on in the direction they seem to be going and China replaces the US as the World's foremost imperial power (the kind of things History shows us invariably happens and is even roughly on schedule), given enough time they'll be as bad as America is now.

As somebody else mentioned when quoting (I believe) a Canadian politician, middle powers should stick together. If you look at the EU, that's basically one of its purposes, which is probably why American Administrations of either color dislike it - it use to be much easier for America to push around European nations, even the mid-sized ones.

[–] castle88@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Yes, speaking of Canada specifically, China is less of a present and proximate threat. However, we still need to go into any agreements with eyes wide open.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

China pushes everyone in their region around massively and shamelessly, actually. Taiwan and the atolls gets Western headlines, but it doesn't stop there. The US has been a lot easier to live next to, until now.

Even if we pretend China's as big of a threat to Canada, though, that just means we should play them off each other.

[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The US has been a lot easier to live next to, until now.

All of Latin America would beg to differ

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

How's Mexico been doing? Last I checked, China didn't exist the last time they had a major problem with the US, and in recent history they've voluntarily built their economy around trade with them, just like us.

If you go back to the Cold War, like you're statistically about to, well, China liked a good military intervention as well.

Now you do recent Chinese examples, because then you'll have to learn more about what China's been like to it's neighbors. Basically, think about the Meng Wanzhou period, but more and all the time.

[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Cuba and Puerto Rico say hello

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Puerto Rico is complicated, since a lot of people there are pretty glad to be able to move to America whenever. Cuba is a straight example, but one exception just proves the rule.

[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Complicated, say like, Taiwan

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

In a completely different way, but yes.

If your point is that China is awesome, why?

[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

No, that your defense of the US as if they're better is really sad.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 hours ago

Well, that's better. There's degrees of suck, though.

[–] Witchfire@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

As somebody else mentioned when quoting (I believe) a Canadian politician, middle powers should stick together.

I guess the Canadian PM is, technically, a Canadian politician 😂

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] DrStanleyGoodspeed@lemmy.zip 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yup this plays right into our adversary’s arms. This type of diplomacy is impossible to defend. Really renaming Lake Ontario?! Wtf man. What are you doing??? This is not helping America or you for that matter. Unnecessary self-inflicted wound.

[–] BillyTheKid2@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 days ago (8 children)

I don't think he cares about helping America

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] minorkeys@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Dictators love conflict because it's the antithesis of alliances, which they are incapable of having, and its also their biggest weakness.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Dictators rely heavily on alliances, as they often lack the domestic support necessary to govern independently.

The Banana Republics of Latin America, the Middle Eastern monarchies / oligarchies, and the East Asian military juntas have all required extensive outside aid from wealthy colonial powers to hang on.

When a dictatorship loses foreign sponsorship - such as the Batista Regime in Cuba or the Mubarak 30-year long "Presidency" in Egypt or the Assad government in Syria - they can collapse rapidly if they don't secure new sponsorship.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago) (1 children)

There's a problem with that idea: who, then, was sponsoring the USSR?

Assad relied on Russia for military goods. North Korea depends on China for what little trade they have. When it comes to domestic support, though, "managing" that is a dictatorship's whole job; nobody can do it for them.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

who, then, was sponsoring the USSR?

During WW2, it was the Americans, as a hedge against their colonial rivals in Germany.

The US also initially backed the Castro Revolution in Cuba, in order to rein in Batista's Peronist style dictatorship.

And the US backed the Vietnamese and Chinese Communists against the Japanese.

Foreign alliances are critical for all of these movements to take off, just as they are critical for domestic dictatorships to stay in power.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

I don't think anyone supported the reds during the revolution, and after WWII, obviously the Soviets were head of their own sphere. During WWII they were correctly identified as an ally against the Nazis, but it's hardly fair to extend that to the whole Soviet period.

Plus, if you go back a bit further in time, there were no democracies to sponsor anyone. And there were regimes, like Easter Island, that were totally isolated from the rest of the planet, but still existed.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t think anyone supported the reds during the revolution

The Germans smuggled Lenin back into Russia specifically to foment a domestic revolt, at the tail end of WW1. Mao was relatively tight with Chang Kai-shek during the Japanese occupation of Beijing and Korea, getting the knock-on benefit of western aid, as far back as the Coolidge Administration.

Plus, if you go back a bit further in time, there were no democracies to sponsor anyone.

Go back far enough and you won't have any notable democratic national governments. But democracy as an organizing principle has been around since the Stone Age. The reason you saw democracy take off in the English Colonies was because it was central to organizing the early colonial townships and pre-revolutionary states. That stems, in part, thanks to the Protestant Revolution in Europe forcing break-away communities to negotiate a governance in opposition to the existing aristocracy. But it's also the natural consequence of seafaring peoples operating in the field for months or years at a time.

Pirates were incredibly democratic, as a matter of social necessity. Puritans and other religious refugees were partial to it, resulting in the constant splintering and reorganizing of early colonial communities. And First Nations Tribes that hadn't been gobbled up by one of the Messo-American empires tended towards social democracy. And that's just in North America during the 15th and 16th centuries.

Imperial powers would exploit these organizations and be exploited in turn, giving birth to the French And Indian Wars. Just one of the conflicts between the native kingdoms, the early revolutionaries, and the colonial powers.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

The Germans smuggled Lenin back into Russia specifically to foment a domestic revolt, at the tail end of WW1.

And I guess they didn't expect it to so fully work, because then they fought against them, as well.

Go back far enough and you won’t have any notable democratic national governments. But democracy as an organizing principle has been around since the Stone Age.

I mean, the idea of voting, sure. And literature directly on it doesn't survive, as far as I know, but somebody definitely looked at it and said "why can't we decide everything this way?". (Obviously, there's plenty surviving on Athenian democracy, but that was voting within a very aristocratic elite)

The strong democracies that exist now came about either gradually, through a republic that allowed more and more suffrage, or by intervention from a foreign democracy (Germany, for example). And then there's all the sort-of-democracies.

It could be that there was more voting than typical in the pre-modern Anglosphere. Certainly, the ideas were around enough that the American revolutionaries decided to go the way of a republic, once they won.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

And I guess they didn’t expect it to so fully work, because then they fought against them, as well.

Might want to read up on the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk. The Soviets brokered a peace with the Central Powers mere months after taking power.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

Uhh, okay, I have to resort to Duckduckgo for the exact timelines, but members of the Central Powers definitely did fight the Soviets, and the Soviets definitely did withdraw from WWI, because that's the main issue that drove the revolution.

So, the February revolution was in March 1917, there's various stuff that happens in the year before the treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed on March 3, 1918, and then the treaty of Versailles is on the 28th of June 1919. That leaves another year and a bit where things like the German protectorate of Georgia happened. The terms of Brest-Litovsk ceded Russian control of Finland, and many of what are now the post-Soviet states, and basically the Central Powers would have liked that to be actually respected. It looks like there's a page on it.

I dunno, it's fair to say the revolution was good news for the Kaiser and friends, in light of the bigger threat of losing the war, but the USSR was still at odds with everything they represented, and they were in conflict again immediately afterwards.

Maybe the big take away is just how crazy busy the period was. This is the second time I've had to go down to months and weeks in this kind of discussion. The diplomats of Europe must have been just constantly swamped with tons of weird events.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

So, the February revolution was in March 1917, there’s various stuff that happens in the year before the treaty of Brest-Litovsk was signed on March 3, 1918

It's the October Revolution of 2017 that brough the Bolsheviks into real power. The February Revolution forced the Tsar's abdication, but failed to produce a new stable government. The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic wouldn't officially form until November of 1917. And they negotiated a ceasefire with the Central Powers in December.

I dunno, it’s fair to say the revolution was good news for the Kaiser and friends, in light of the bigger threat of losing the war, but the USSR was still at odds with everything they represented

The German Aristocracy was already hollowed out and crumbling from years of total war. And while the Germans certainly had their own domestic communist uprisings to deal with, it clearly wasn't where the country's political fortunes landed.

Maybe the big take away is just how crazy busy the period was.

A classic historical "Cool Zone of History". Very fun to read about. Maybe not so fun to live through.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, but the Bolsheviks and Trotsky were part of/shared power with the provisional government, as well (although it is itself complicated and confusing), so I went with February. If you go with the more famous October, it doesn't really change much.

I have to wonder if the waning days of Germany can tell us about modern Russia. It was the same static and attritional kind of warfare, and IIRC they kept going for like two years after they'd clearly lost.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Yeah, but the Bolsheviks and Trotsky were part of/shared power with the provisional government

Sure. In the same way the Democrats are currently sharing power with the Republicans.

[–] Rat_in_a_hat@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

Slight correction on the Assad government because it was a family that held power for well over 30 years by playing both super power sides (sort of a middle man role) rather than having single sponsorship.

The civil war definitely was a result of grievances and want for regime change but was also heavily supported by the US (Hillary Clinton's emails even have detailed plans of what would unfold if civil war broke out, and things happened exactly that way). The US wanted regime change because of Syria's alignment with Iran and Hezbollah (and therefore a threat to US and Israel).

Because of US involvement and support given to the revolutionary forces, Bashar then requested support from Russia and we know where that ended.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 16 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (11 children)

undermine the world’s stabilizing democracy bloc.

stabilizing democracy bloc

"stabilizing"

"democracy"

I'm pretty sure that... inhales

Mexico, Samoa, Hawaii, the Philippeans, Columbia, Hondurus, Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Greece, Costa Rica, Albania, Syria, Egypt, Guatemala, Iran, Indonesia, Iraq, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Congo, Guyana, Brazil, Chile, Bolivia, Angola, East Timor, Argentina, Afghanistan, Granada, Panama, Yugoslavia, Venezuela, Palestine, and Libya

...might have a few words to say about that.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yeah, articles in the Western Press are far too often anchored in a presumption treated as beyond dispute that America are the good guys, something that's only true in the portrayals of American politicians, military, intelligence operatives and police officers in the films that America itself makes.

Dispute said presumption and suddenly American voters electing a president who treats Western First World nations a little closer (yet, still not as bad) to how American presidents have treated Developed and Developing nations in pretty much all continents of the World including Europe and Oceania (in the latter the small island states being the victims) isn't exactly a wild idea.

What the current American elected president is doing to Canada basically qualified as a "know unknown" before it actually happened - something like this was likely to happen, only the exactly when and with whom being the unknowns (I supposed a decade or so ago Mexico would seem more likely to be a victim of something like this than Canada)

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What Carney said about the myth of the international rules-based order is correct. There's always been winners and losers in that and what's happening now is that the US is trying to kick Canada and other countries out of the winners' circle.

The idealism of only dealing with "the good guys" has never been remotely realistic or feasible. But obviously trade is necessary for the global economy to function, so compromises will always have to be made. It's just that this idealistic illusion was maintained by sweeping US anti-democratic and destabilizing actions under the rug and pretending, as the article does, that they didn't even exist.

China does not, and likely never will get the same treatment, and frankly it's probably better to trade with a country with issues you're aware of and capable of acknowledging than one that you can pretend has no issues to feel better about trading and allying with them.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I think it's pretty clear by now that per the wishes of America's elites and even most of their electorate (who voted for somebody explicitly promising that) the only "winner" acceptable for America in an America-dominated World is America itself (which in practice means just a handful of people in America, since the common Americans aren't actually "winning" anything).

So any article framing the replacement of an American-led World order by a Chinese-led World order as being a bad thing is either ignorant as fuck or purposeful propaganda by one of the few Americans "winning" from the current setup or one of those foreigners getting some crumbs from it - i.e. somebody who makes money from being a "friend" to America and spreading the idea that American dominance is a great thing for everybody.

A fair article would be pretty neutral about it - pretty much "these other guys who don't give a shit about us are trading places" - with maybe even a "let's get this over with ASAP" slant since as the saying goes, "when the elephants fight it's the grass that suffers", and at this point the "grass" is pretty much all of us in countries other than the US and China as even Canada is now not in the inner circle with America.

load more comments (10 replies)
[–] grey_maniac@lemmy.ca 28 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The US has never been a stabilizing democracy. They have been one of the foremost instigators of destabilization for almost a century. And the research is also clear that US citizens' majority policy concerns only get addressed if they align with corporate policy concerns. So neither stabilizing, nor an actual democracy.

My knee-jerk "um actually" response aside, China's ability to strategize at long time horizons lends credence to some of his points. For long-term survival, Canada will need to build multiple independent tradepartnerships to remove any single points of failure.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] OliveBrittle@piefed.ca 24 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (4 children)

"Yeah, the person I'm married to threatens me, punishes me, insults me, and doesn't value my consent, but it's better than what the other person could be"

Literal battered woman syndrome. Look, I don't like China or want more trade with them either, but can we please stop pretending doing business with them will be worse than doing business with the U.S.? One keeps their issues much more domestic than the other? I don't see China raising world oil prices by bombing Iran, raising my cost of living with absurd tariffs, or going back on their word.

We struck a deal with them, and they removed duties for our canola, crab, peas, and lobster for us letting in their EVs, which opens us up for job creation should they bring manufacturing operations here. In turn, we were made exempt from visa requirements to travel to China. I can see the benefits of that deal because they up the income of our farmers and fishers, open up job potential, and make travelling across the world easier for us.

That is how you strike a deal. They are reliable, the U.S. is not, plain and simple. If this guy's opinion is that China wants less democracy in the world, then I'd like to point to the amount of dictators America backs and has instated. Let's stop pretending that only one pulls that crap when they both do.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›