When China Comes Knocking

Click “Listen Now” to hear the audio version of Insights.

HERE'S MY TAKE

China came knocking this week. America didn’t just answer—they rolled out the red carpet. “A truly great friendship” is how President Trump described his relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The Chinese responded in kind: “Achieving the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and making America great again can go hand in hand.”

We need to take care not to read too much into the diplomatic niceties that accompany such visits. Statecraft requires open communication, even between strategic foes, and engagement itself can be a sign of maturity. It’s entirely possible to compete with, protect sensitive sectors, trade and negotiate with, and ceremonially embrace China. But balancing all these is a tall order, especially amid shifts in global security and significant strains occurring between the United States and her allies, Canada in particular.

I readily acknowledge less expertise on foreign than domestic files. I understand there is plenty of nuance to qualify my take, but political decision-making requires clear-minded thinking not only about your own priorities but also about those you are dealing with. At least the language, and I fear the substance, of the Chinese visit to Washington this week provide cause for concern.

I readily admit that when it comes to China, I remain suspicious. The China of my youth were “the bad communists” who persecuted Christians, provided little space for freedom, and showed little respect for the dignity of human life, including that of their own citizens. History justified the warning: after Mao’s Communist revolution triumphed in 1949, political purges, the Cultural Revolution, and especially the catastrophic Great Leap Forward contributed to tens of millions of Chinese deaths.

Recent history has done little to change that basic perception. The degree of injustice may have changed, but the underlying ethos has not. The detention of the two Michaels, the intimidation of Chinese Canadians—including the activities associated with so-called overseas police stations—and interference in Canadian elections are not ideological speculation. These are publicly documented findings of Canadian security agencies and a federal public inquiry. At home, the Communist Party continues to tightly constrain religious, political, and civic freedoms. Its foreign policy shows an increasingly powerful China willing to use diplomatic, technological, and economic leverage to advance its interests and pressure countries that resist it.

All of which means that when, earlier this year, the present Liberal government was criticized for cozying up to China—including by President Trump, who threatened severe trade consequences to Canada—I impulsively shared the suspicion, even if there was much to quibble about in the details. My default is that when China comes knocking, be clear-minded about who is at the door before opening it.

Let’s be clear. Opening the door to China is not a new conversation. Western governments have, for the past few decades, been increasing our trade with China, many defending it with the mistaken belief that economics would usher in democracy and rights for the Chinese. On both sides of the 49th parallel, governments of all stripes have increased trade, resulting in supply chains where China has significant impact and is near essential to parts of our economies. In 2025, Canadian merchandise trade with China totalled about $125 billion; American goods traded with China exceeded $414 billion USD.

That invites the question: when we open the door, do our engagements reflect the appropriate care about who is on the other side? Both countries speak of “appropriate guardrails,” and this isn’t the place to audit those claims. Both countries need to be attentive to ensuring that political accountability ensures that behaviour matches the pious words.

It is for Americans to sort through their own authority and accountability questions. The only point I would make as a Canadian observer is that what I saw on display this week—as well as in recent years—is an American administration cozying up to China every bit as much as Canada has. They are, of course, free to do so as a sovereign country, even if, from where I sit, it seems a bit contradictory to their core principles.

President Trump showed President Xi some of America’s founding documents during the official visit. But viewing them as historic artifacts on the occasion of America’s 250th is one thing; implementing the ideals they contain in the context of a 21st-century Chinese-American relationship is quite another. At the heart of these documents are themes of limited government, constitutional authority, and the ideal that all men (Chinese as well as Americans) are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

As a Canadian, I can't help but reflect on the inconsistency of critiquing Canada for being soft on China while deepening the America-China nexus. Admittedly, it rankles when the Americans seem to suggest that Canada cannot develop a relationship with China that Washington itself maintains. Great powers sometimes struggle to remember that power and authority aren't synonyms. Having the capacity to make someone do something doesn't necessarily confer the right to make them do it.

That is among my fundamental objections to China's Communist regime. Beijing has repeatedly used economic and political power to reach beyond its proper jurisdiction, including intimidation on Canadian soil and economic coercion against smaller countries.

But principles worth having apply consistently. America's enormous economic leverage over Canada is a fact. That doesn't mean Washington has jurisdiction over Canada's relations with other countries.

A Christian understanding of political authority begins with the recognition that power is both necessary and limited. Government has real authority, but it is delegated rather than absolute, exercised by those who will themselves give account. The ability to compel does not create the moral right to compel, and the possession of greater power does not enlarge the boundaries of legitimate authority. That principle applies in Beijing, Washington, and Ottawa alike.

China will keep knocking. Prudence requires knowing who is at the door. Statecraft requires knowing how far to open it and which rooms must remain off-limits. Sovereignty means holding on to the keys. But in exercising all three is something more fundamental: power should remain subservient to authority, and all our leaders—and we collectively as nations entrusted with the keys—remain accountable for how we use both.

WHAT I’M READING

Speaking Out, Beyond the Standard “Thoughts and Prayers” Sentiments