24

Archived link

Michael Kovrig is Executive Director, StrategicEffects and Chief Executive, Kovrig Group SL, and a Canadian former diplomat.

China’s officials are sweet-talking Canadians. Its Ambassador, Wang Di, has given smiling interviews calling for the two countries to “have a correct perception of each other.” His other catchphrases include “mutual respect,” “win-win cooperation,” and “positive energy.” Appearing recently on CTV’s Question Period, he assured that current trade disputes would disappear if only Canada would drop its tariffs. Article content

After enduring several years of China’s abusive “wolf warrior” diplomacy, Canadians — particularly Foreign Affairs Minister Anita Anand, who is visiting Beijing this week — may be tempted to look for comfort in this syrupy language. But they should be wary, because while the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its envoys have altered their tone, their hostile intentions and harmful policies remain unchanged. Their goals are to enhance economic ties selectively while sowing political divisions, both among Canadians and between Canada and its allies.

When Chinese officials talk, Canadians should listen closely — and then decode the real implications of their words. Case in point: when Premier Li Qiang met Prime Minister Carney in September, he reiterated Ambassador Wang’s call for Canada to show a “correct perception of China” to “cement the political foundation for bilateral ties.”

The key phrase “correct perception” encompasses political demands rooted in decades of Communist Party discourse: never question the legitimacy of its authoritarian rule; respect “core interests” like the CCP’s entitlement to rule Hong Kong, Tibet, Xinjiang, and Taiwan; ... and stop framing the Party-state as a national security threat, systemic rival and violator of international treaties.

This is the language of diplomatic gatekeeping, not reconciliation. You want a meeting with General Secretary Xi Jinping? There’s a price. You know what you need to do.

When Ambassador Wang complains, as he did in March, of “smearing and attacking on China” about its treatment of Xinjiang, Tibet and Taiwan, and “attacking and hyping up” of its political interference, espionage, and transnational repression directed at Canadians, and goes on to protest that this harms the foundations of friendship, and indeed “hurts the feelings of the Chinese people” — he’s gaslighting Canadians for objecting to injustice, bullying and massive abuses of human rights.

This is rhetorical entrapment, not friendship based on mutual understanding. It’s an attempt to redefine the baseline of the relationship so that criticism is betrayal and the price of cooperation is silence and acquiescence.

Chinese diplomats routinely deploy such coded language. Their well-rehearsed calls for “pragmatic cooperation” and “seeking common ground while maintaining differences” are not a proposal to politely disagree. They mean Canadians should ignore differences on values and national security concerns and prioritize business deals and market access, further entrapping Canada in economic dependency and elite complicity.

When Ambassador Wang says our two countries have “no fundamental conflicts of interest,” he’s insisting we forget about China’s decisive enabling of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, support for Iran and North Korea, and adversarial behaviour toward other democracies.

Negotiating tip: when Chinese officials declare that two sides “need each other,” it usually signals that the CCP needs something. This year, it’s market access to dump its overproduction of electric vehicles, aluminum and steel.

These nuggets of Party-speak are also being dispensed to audiences in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and European countries. By portraying China’s government as a responsible pillar of international order and blaming all problems on Washington, Chinese officials hope to benefit from America’s belligerent turn and lull other countries into complacency about their own drive for geopolitical primacy.

The message is that partnership with China requires accepting your place in a Beijing-centric global hierarchy. Unmentioned is that much of Donald Trump’s ire with the global trading system stems from the massive distortions forced upon it by China’s mercantilist, state-guided economic policies. Those same distortions are behind its dispute with Canada.

In his Oct. 12 CTV interview, Ambassador Wang even redeployed the old Chinese proverb, “the one who tied the knot should be the one who unties it,” to argue that “China is not the one to blame.” In his narrative, Canada is the wrongdoer because it imposed tariffs and hurt China’s producers, and Beijing is fairly and righteously defending itself by blocking canola and other agri-food.

It’s more diplomatic gaslighting: invert blame, pose as the aggrieved party, and hold out the prospect of reconciliation. In reality, Canada’s tariffs are a necessary alignment with Washington to preserve an integrated automotive industry and foster nascent domestic EV production. They’re also more than justified by the need to counteract industrial policies that may add up to a staggering four per cent of China’s GDP, have warped its economy and are now engineering its overwhelming dominance in advanced technologies and global manufacturing supply chains. The CCP has tied all of us in this knot.

As Anita Anand takes her first trip to China as foreign minister, her interlocutors may try to sell her another Chinese proverb: “get on the train first, buy the ticket later.” We can have immediate pain relief if Ottawa drops tariffs, while the hidden costs to the country’s manufacturing base and sovereignty pile up slowly during other politicians’ watches. Don’t be surprised if the Chinese then come back looking for more concessions.

If Beijing really wants to repair the relationship, it should begin by untangling its own knots: stop using coercion, exporting economic distortions, interfering in Canada’s politics and society, helping Russia kill Ukrainians, and demanding ideological and systemic acquiescence.

Since China is unlikely to do any of those things, what should Canadians do? Don’t get stuck in the syrup. Decode the slogans. Remember that the CCP’s charm can turn to menace in a heartbeat. Don’t relinquish leverage. Increase efforts to articulate our own core values, strengthen our sovereignty, and diversify and deepen relations with more reliable partners. Only then can we maintain our freedom to form our own “correct” perceptions.

top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Years after the noise died down, it turned out Kovrig was indeed our agent. He used Spavor as an information source without his knowledge.

And we got dragged into this shit show thanks to our friends down south for whom we arrested Huawei's CFO, (a Canadian PR) on their charges (violating sanctions), which they eventually dismissed, after using her as a negotiation leverage during Trump's first trade war with China.

I distinctly remember how angry I felt at China for their unprovoked retaliation, from reading the mainstream news at the time. Yeah.

[-] Daryl@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Kovrig was an AMERICAN agent. Close and comfortable with the Democratic party through the International Crisis Group and George Soros. Spavor was cute and cuddly with the Republican party, their contact with North Korean Kim. Spavor arranged many meetings between high ranking Republicans and the Kim regime. Basketball diplomacy indeed. Rodman was a die-hard Republican agent. Both Michaels were under the guidance of the American State Department. The Chinese picked these two men very, very carefully because although they were Canadian, they both had deep connections with the American government and under the protection of the American State Department. Perfect tie-in with Meng Wanzhou who was held by the Canadian government at the request of the American government - pure karma.

[-] AGM@lemmy.ca 7 points 17 hours ago

Manufacturing consent for Canada's alignment with the US in their war against China.

[-] AlolanVulpix@lemmy.ca 10 points 20 hours ago
[-] SamuelRJankis@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 hours ago

As usual backing this person up with another example with National Post is not worth reading: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/pierre-poilievre-the-liberals-must-get-out-of-the-way-of-growth/ar-AA1OvuGh

There's been a lot of these posts recently that essentially just equate to China to doing things in their interest and is a threat Canada. Continuously circling these obvious things isn't conducive to having productive conversation.

Canada and Canadian's obviously want diversify beyond China and the US but look the context for canola. Those 2 make up 86.8% of our exports there really isn't anyway to divest away from them substantially given the current market.

https://www.canolacouncil.org/markets-stats/top-markets/

Then look a car production. I've seen no indication that Japan, Korean and Germany companies want to set up shop or increase production capacity here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automotive_manufacturers_by_production

[-] Daryl@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 hours ago

The Irony is that the National Post is strongly connected to the Republican party, but Kovirg is intimately connected to the Democratic party through his vice-presidency with the International Crisis Group, a George Soros (Democratic) funded organization. Soros loudly proclaims that America should be a socialist country, just not a Chinese socialist country. America, not China, in his eyes, should be the strongest Socialist country in the world.

[-] randomname@scribe.disroot.org 9 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

This is an op-ed by a Canadian who undoubtedly knows what he is talking about.

Addition, as a reminder:

'From hell to limbo': Michael Kovrig describes more than a thousand days as China's prisoner

[-] grey_maniac@lemmy.ca 6 points 19 hours ago

In a publication that may want to distract from the fact that America also has hostile intentions towards Canada, is much closer, and would benefit from Canada not having any alliances with large foreign powers (nasty authoritarian regime or not) that are opposed to American interests.

[-] jaemo@sh.itjust.works 8 points 19 hours ago

It sounds like the mature takeaway is to proceed cautiously with respect to our relationship to BOTH countries.

[-] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 11 points 21 hours ago

Michael Kovrig should know just how dangerous and manipulative China is. He spent almost 3 years in their penal system on trumped-up charges.

[-] Daryl@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 hours ago

He knew well in advance what the dangers were, immediately after Meng was arrested, but he chose to stay in China. He was well coached by the American State Department through his connections with the International Crisis Group, a George Soros funded organization. There is nothing 'innocent' about the entire affair. He knew the risks of what he was doing. The perfect 'Canadian' target with high-ranking American connections, fit in perfectly with Meng being held in Canada under the direction of the American government.

[-] AGM@lemmy.ca 4 points 11 hours ago

Were the charges entirely trumped up? The other Michael, Michael Spavor, accused Michael Kovrig of having taken sensitive information from him (particularly photos of military installations near the North Korean border) and intentionally passing it off to Canadian intelligence and the Five Eyes. He sued the Canadian government over it as he said that the information he shared with Michael Kovrig was not intended for those purposes and he didn't know the sensitive nature of it at the time, but Kovrig used the official channels to submit the info thereby getting Spavor wrapped up in this unwittingly while Kovrig was not an unwitting participant. The government settled with Spavor last year and paid him $7 million over it.

Settling the suit out of court keeps the details secret, but the $7 million payout also suggests there was at least something to it.

[-] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Yeah. None of this was shared at the time and the whole thing was presented as China doing "hostage diplomacy." I recall swallowing it hook, line and sinker. I was pretty shocked when The Globe and Mail reported on it years later. Now I see much more clearly how the spin doctors work to manufacture consent for various purposes.

[-] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 8 points 20 hours ago

Thanks for adding this. I was going to ignore the article because I tend to ignore most things from National Post.

But this is pretty good. I've definitely been thinking that with the current environment of trade and relationships that Trump has created that we should embrace China and stick it to the US. This article is a reminder that China is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and that we should think carefully before losing our own values by making deals with that wolf.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 5 points 19 hours ago

China has no hesitancy of kicking Canada while it's down and using unfair trade practices to negotiate better terms for their exports. They subsidize the shit out of products they want to build market share for, and dump them until the competition from local and other foreign producers (Europe especially) playing by the rules is gone.

[-] Daryl@lemmy.ca 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Sorry you have Trump confused with the Chinese.

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

Was that supposed to make sense?

this post was submitted on 15 Oct 2025
24 points (80.0% liked)

Canada

10555 readers
432 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

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


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


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 4 years ago
MODERATORS