By John Q. Hosedrinker 
China’s envoy to Canada stated that China and Canada share a common view on respecting Greenland’s territorial integrity and China’s interest in playing a constructive role in the Arctic. The envoy emphasized China’s commitment to respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all nations, while experts noted a growing collaboration between China and Russia in the region, particularly in military exercises. While Beijing has shifted its focus to research, analysts point out that China’s involvement in the Arctic is also tied to dual-use technology and strategic interests, especially the Northern Sea Route. Despite this, experts suggest that China is no longer investing in the Arctic due to policy reactions from Arctic states.
Read the original article here
China’s envoy says Beijing, Ottawa ‘eye to eye’ on supporting Greenland – now that’s a statement that raises eyebrows. The whole Greenland situation is a complex geopolitical puzzle, and it seems both China and Canada, according to this envoy, share similar views on the subject. One angle to consider is the historical context, with some suggesting that the United States has, in the past, been too assertive in its dealings with Greenland, stirring a narrative that China might be stepping in to counter US influence.
This situation presents a fascinating contrast. You see, the US, with its vast economic and military power, often finds itself at odds with China on the world stage. However, it looks like both countries are seeking stability. The key is in trade partnerships and predictable strategies. The US’s actions might be viewed as the exact things they had previously feared from China.
The sentiment seems to be that a strong Canada-China relationship could be beneficial for global stability. Perhaps this indicates a shift in the global order. China may be willing to soften its stance to gain partnerships with western economies. This is, of course, a delicate dance, as China’s human rights record is far from perfect. It’s a question of whether the need for global balance outweighs these concerns.
Looking deeper, the idea of a Chinese airbase in Canada is floated, seemingly as a potential deterrent – reminiscent of the US’s Ramstein airbase in Germany. It’s a provocative notion that challenges traditional alliances and raises questions about how far nations are willing to go in the name of security and strategic maneuvering. This also brings up the point that China, for the moment, won’t make any moves that would make their claim to Taiwan look illegitimate. The US and China are in a competition of commerce and strategy.
From this perspective, it appears that China’s support of Greenland is about preventing US dominance, which is interesting when framed against the backdrop of the US potentially trying to control Greenland in the first place. The “enemy of my enemy” principle seems to be at play here. This also brings forth the point that China does not care about trade with Canada. Their goal is something else entirely.
There’s talk of China using Canada to divide the West and leverage power against the United States. The implications are significant, suggesting a strategic game where nations are used as pawns in a larger geopolitical chess match. Of course, all of this begs the question of who truly benefits. Is this an attempt to fracture Western alliances, or simply a reflection of evolving global dynamics?
Considering the historical context and the current relationships, many would suggest that, America is still a better partner for the Western world than China will ever be, because America is still a majority White, Christian country, just like the rest of the West. However, one of the arguments that suggests that Ottawa’s sovereignty is a US national security threat is something to be noted.
We also have to consider the fact that the US has had a solid grip on Greenland through trade deals, defense agreements, and NATO. The US and the EU were aligned in the idea of providing an alternative to China for those critical resources. China’s growing influence through international investment and soft power plays a role as well.
This also brings us back to the US hegemony. What if the US, the EU, and Canada became even closer, and as a result, the world changed forever? The US, in this scenario, would no longer be the top dog, and a multipolar world order would be a real possibility.
In the case of China and Canada, the emphasis is placed on the stability China provides, along with what some perceive as US overreach. The rhetoric of “America is far more dangerous than China” appears, indicating a distrust of the US and a willingness to explore alternatives. The US is being blamed for much of the world’s problems right now.
The complexities continue, with accusations of China supporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and threatening Taiwan. These issues are a significant roadblock for any potential alliance, especially with Western values at play. As a result, the natural partnership should be the EU and NATO.
The matter of whether China is truly a threat, or if the West is overstating the case is important to remember. There are valid concerns about China’s human rights record, its actions in the South China Sea, and its growing global influence. It’s a point of view that requires a deeper dive into Chinese history and geopolitical stance.
The final consideration is, of course, about where alliances should be. Despite the fact that China could be an important economic partner, the natural choice to ally with would still be the EU. When it comes down to it, China may have the economic strength, but lacks a sense of shared history and shared values.