Canada’s foreign policy is undergoing a quiet but profound transformation, and nowhere is this more evident than in its evolving approach to Asia. While the Carney government has been vocal about strengthening its ties with Europe—largely as a hedge against the unpredictability of the Canada-U.S. relationship—it’s the careful recalibration of ties with Asian powers like India and China that demands equal, if not more, attention.
Let’s be clear: Prime Minister Mark Carney’s decision to invite Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi to the G7 summit was no small gesture. It marked the first major thaw in what had been a frozen relationship ever since the explosive allegations in 2023 that Indian agents were involved in the assassination of Hardeep Singh Nijjar on Canadian soil. For Ottawa to now signal a willingness to move forward with New Delhi, even cautiously, is a strategic pivot that raises both hopes and eyebrows.
Carney is not reinventing the wheel here. His government is adopting a path of realism—something the Biden administration quietly modeled and the second Trump presidency has maintained. That realism involves acknowledging the ugly parts of diplomacy while pursuing what’s perceived to be in the national interest. In this case, that means finding new markets and securing trade ties in a turbulent global economy.
Foreign Minister Anita Anand’s recent Asia tour reinforced this approach. Her emphasis on taking things “one step at a time” with India underscores the government’s desire to balance diplomatic principle with economic pragmatism. But it also raises a fundamental question: How far is Canada willing to go in pursuit of market access and geopolitical leverage? And at what cost?
Nowhere is this question more pressing than in our dealings with China.
Let’s not forget that the Canada-China relationship is still reeling from the scars of the Meng Wanzhou affair and the hostage diplomacy that followed. Yet, Beijing’s latest messaging would have you believe that Canada is practically begging to rekindle the relationship. While Global Affairs Canada’s readouts remain terse and non-committal, China’s state media paints a picture of enthusiastic Canadian re-engagement.
This divergence in public tone is no accident. Beijing’s tactic is to box Canada into a corner—either Ottawa pushes back and risks further retaliation, or it plays along and appears weak to domestic critics and international allies. And let’s be honest, the Carney government’s own history of business dealings with Chinese state entities, especially Carney’s role at Brookfield, will only fuel accusations of being too cozy with Beijing.
Meanwhile, the economic consequences of recent tit-for-tat tariffs are already being felt at home. Canadian farmers and food producers are bearing the brunt of Chinese countermeasures imposed in response to Canada’s alignment with U.S. tariffs. The irony is palpable: in trying to insulate our economy from American volatility, we’ve walked into the middle of a global power struggle where we’re more pawn than player.
Trump’s administration, with its hawkish stance on China, wants Canada to follow suit—not only in trade policy but also in rhetoric. Carney appears largely aligned with this view, calling China “the biggest security threat” Canada faces. And yet, behind the scenes, the Canadian government is keeping communication lines open and diplomatic channels warm.
Is this hypocrisy or high-stakes diplomacy? Perhaps both.
This is the delicate dance Canada is trying to perform: uphold values of human rights and rule of law while securing economic interests in regions where those values are not always respected. There’s an inherent tension here, and Canadians deserve a frank discussion about what compromises might come next.
Kovrig, the former diplomat who lived through China’s coercive tactics firsthand, offered a stark warning. He called the idea of cozying up to the Chinese Communist Party a “devil’s bargain.” And he’s not wrong. Short-term economic gains could easily come at the cost of long-term sovereignty, democratic integrity, and industrial resilience.
As Ottawa revisits its Indo-Pacific Strategy—promised back in 2022 but still vague in execution—one thing is clear: foreign policy cannot be divorced from domestic interest. But neither should it sacrifice principle for profit. The Carney government must be transparent about the strategic trade-offs it’s making, especially as it courts influence in a region dominated by authoritarian giants.
The stakes are high. Missteps in Asia could isolate Canada not just from its allies, but from its own values. As Ottawa charts its course, it would do well to remember: in foreign policy, pragmatism is essential, but so is integrity.
And right now, Canada is walking a razor’s edge between the two.
