By Stephen Nagy for Inside Policy

For several decades, China has pursued a sophisticated campaign to fracture the world’s most integrated defense partnership—that between Canada and the United States.

Beijing’s strategy goes beyond typical diplomatic pressure: it systematically exploits every Canada-US disagreement, transforming routine alliance friction into seemingly irreconcilable divisions. This has become a degree of magnitude easier under US President Donald Trump, with his mercurial policy shifts towards Ottawa. The revelations about Chinese interference in Canadian elections from the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections (SITE) Task Force – a body comprised of Canadian government and security officials which monitors elections threats – illuminate only one dimension of this comprehensive assault on North American solidarity.

Beijing’s strategic logic is to divide and conquer. By portraying Canada as sacrificing sovereignty for American interests while simultaneously painting legitimate Canadian security concerns as US-driven paranoia, Beijing paralyzes Ottawa’s decision-making and undermines continental defense cooperation.

The 2018 arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou crystallized China’s approach. When Canada honored its extradition treaty with the US by detaining Meng at the Vancouver airport, Beijing immediately framed this routine legal cooperation as evidence of Canadian subservience. Chinese state media didn’t simply criticize the arrest, they specifically portrayed Canada as “a pathetic clown” and “running dog of the US.”

Within nine days, China retaliated by detaining Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, holding them for 1,019 days. But Beijing’s messaging revealed its true objective. Chinese diplomats repeatedly demanded Canada “correct its mistake” by defying the U.S. extradition request. Ambassador Lu Shaye explicitly stated Canada could resolve the crisis by demonstrating “independence” from Washington.

The economic pressure followed the same pattern. China banned canola imports from two major Canadian companies in March 2019, citing “pests” but Chinese officials privately linked the ban to the Meng case. When targeting Canadian meat exports, Beijing’s timing again coincided with moments of US-Canada cooperation on Huawei restrictions.

China’s wedge strategy extends beyond retaliation to proactive exploitation of bilateral tensions. During the Keystone XL pipeline disputes, Chinese state media amplified Canadian grievances while offering Beijing as an “alternative partner” for energy exports. When the Biden administration cancelled the pipeline in 2021, Chinese diplomats and media immediately highlighted American “betrayal” of Canadian interests.

Similarly, during US-Canada disputes over softwood lumber tariffs and Buy American provisions, Chinese officials consistently present themselves as more reliable economic partners. The message is always the same: American protectionism harms Canadian workers, while China offers stable market access conveniently omitting Beijing’s own coercive trade practices.

On defense, China exploits Canadian concerns about Arctic sovereignty vis-à-vis the United States. When Washington challenges Canada’s claims over the Northwest Passage, Chinese media amplify these disagreements while positioning Beijing as respecting Canadian Arctic sovereignty – even as China declares itself a “near-Arctic state” and seeks military access to the region.

Recent intelligence revelations confirm China’s systematic attempts to influence Canadian politics specifically to create US-Canada friction. According to CSIS documents, Chinese intelligence assessed that a Liberal minority government would be less likely to follow Washington’s harder line on China. Beijing’s interference operations during the 2019 and 2021 elections specifically targeted Conservative candidates perceived as pro-American on China policy.

The Chinese United Front Work Department cultivates Canadian political and business figures through seemingly innocent organizations. A 2020 National Security and Intelligence Committee report found these groups specifically encouraged narratives about American “bullying” of Canada and promoted “made-in-Canada” foreign policies that coincidentally aligned with Chinese interests.

Chinese diplomats regularly exploit Canadian media to amplify anti-American sentiments. During USMCA negotiations, Chinese officials gave exclusive interviews to Canadian outlets sympathizing with “American strong-arm tactics.” When Canada considered banning Huawei from 5G networks, Chinese embassy officials published op-eds in Canadian newspapers warning against following “US tech hegemony.”

China’s wedge strategy carries profound implications for NORAD and continental defense. By creating friction between Ottawa and Washington, Beijing undermines the trust essential for integrated aerospace warning and maritime domain awareness. Chinese military academics have explicitly written about exploiting contradictions in US-Canada defense relations to complicate American force projection.

The stakes are rising as Arctic ice melts. China’s 2018 Arctic strategy specifically mentions differences between Arctic states as creating opportunities for Chinese involvement. Every US-Canada disagreement over Arctic waters provides Beijing openings to position itself as a stakeholder in North American approaches.

Canada and the United States must recognize that their occasional disagreements, normal in any alliance, are systematically weaponized by Beijing. In light of this, at least four responses are essential.

First, Canada and the United States should establish a joint commission on foreign interference that specifically monitors and publicly exposes attempts to exploit bilateral tensions. When China amplifies US-Canada disagreements, coordinated responses can demonstrate alliance resilience rather than division.

Second, create alliance resilience mechanisms that automatically trigger consultations when third parties attempt to exploit bilateral disputes. The Two Michaels crisis revealed how Beijing uses hostage-taking to pressure alliance relationships. A joint response protocol could reduce such leverage.

Third, strengthen Track II dialogues between Canadian and American civil society, business, and academic communities. These networks can maintain relationship continuity even during governmental tensions, reducing Beijing’s ability to exploit temporary political friction.

Fourth, develop coordinated strategic communications that acknowledge legitimate bilateral differences while emphasizing shared values and interests. Honest discussion of disagreements, paired with clear statements about alliance solidarity, can inoculate against external manipulation.

Canada faces the delicate balance of maintaining sovereign decision-making while recognizing that Beijing systematically exploits any daylight between Ottawa and Washington. This isn’t about choosing between independence and alliance. It’s about understanding how Canada’s adversaries weaponize that false choice.

The empirical evidence is clear. From the Meng affair to election interference, from trade coercion to Arctic maneuvering, China consistently pursues the same objective: transforming America from Canada’s closest ally into a source of resentment and suspicion. Every success in this strategy weakens not just bilateral ties but the entire democratic alliance system.

As the Chinese saying goes, 笑里藏刀—a dagger hidden behind a smile. While professing respect for Canadian sovereignty and offering economic partnerships, Beijing wages sophisticated political warfare designed to isolate democratic allies from each other. Recognizing this strategy is the first step toward defeating it. The strength of North American democracy lies not in the absence of disagreements but in the ability to resolve them without external exploitation. In an era of systemic rivalry, the US-Canada partnership must evolve from unconscious integration to conscious solidarity – as different nations with sovereign interests, but united in defending democratic values against authoritarian manipulation.

Stephen Nagy is a professor of politics and international studies at the International Christian University in Tokyo, and a senior fellow at the Macdonald Laurier Institute.  The tentative title for his forthcoming monograph is “Navigating U.S. China Strategic Competition: Japan as an International Adapter Middle Power.”

From LifeSiteNews

By Emily Mangiaracina

Files from State Department officials as early as the 1970s show the US government helping the family of radical leftist financier George Soros secure deals and funding.

The U.S. State Department has been working with the Soros family for at least 50 years, Mike Benz demonstrated using diplomatic cables published to Wikileaks.

Benz, a former deputy assistant secretary at the U.S. State Department, explained in a video posted to X on Sunday that he searched for the terms “Soros” and “Open Society Foundation,” which was created by Soros, in Wikileaks’ collection of diplomatic cables. His goal was to “create a comprehensive tapestry of all U.S. state department involvement with Soros and the Open Society Foundation in every country in the world.”

The former state department official, now the executive director of the Foundation for Freedom Online, wanted to document why it was said that George Soros is treated by the U.S. like an “independent entity” akin to a country.

In a 1995 piece published by The New Yorker, former U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Morton Abramowitz said of Soros, “he’s the only man in the US who has his own foreign policy — and can implement it.”

Strobe Tallbott, former deputy secretary of state, also said of the far-left financier, “It’s like working with a friendly, allied, independent entity, if not a government. We try to synchronize our approach to the former Communist countries with Germany, France, Great Britain — and with George Soros.” This he “added with a grin,” wrote Connie Bruck.

Benz reviewed key cables from State Department officials as far back as the 1970s demonstrating the U.S. government’s involvement with the Soros family in what appeared to be a quid pro quo relationship.

In one 1976 cable from former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, it was shown that the Brown & Root (now Halliburton), a CIA-linked company known for work on military installations and off-shore drilling platforms, wanted to “go all out” for the construction of a port in Santa Clara, Gabon, a country on the west coast of Africa.

It is noteworthy that Brown & Root’s co-founder Herman Brown was granted a covert security clearance for work with the CIA in 1953 “for use as a covert associate.” As of the 2000s, the company was one of George Soros’ top five holdings, Benz showed.

Referencing Brown & Root’s Manager of International Sales, Kissinger wrote, “O’Sullivan has just come from detailed discussions with Soros Associates to develop background for on-site estimates of construction timetable and costs … to be used in forthcoming talks with Gabon officials.”

Soros Associates, Benz explained, was run by George Soros’ older brother Paul Soros, now deceased. 

The cable, addressed to the U.S. Embassy in Gabon, seemed to pressure assistance for the construction of this port, noting that while the request for help with it came at a “difficult time,” “strong interest” in the project and other reasons “preclud[ed] deferral.”

Another series of messages show that the U.S. Department helped the Soros family to secure a contract for the port in Gabon.

According to one cable, the director of the Santa Clara port, named as “Damas,” “said that meetings had been held within the Government of Gabon and were continuing which should lead shortly to the elimination of all but a few offers and that Soros was in a very good position.”

Benz remarked, “Here is the head of the State Department in Gabon backchanneling with the head of the port to make sure that Paul Soros won the bid. Eliminate all of the opposition.”

Another message read, “It appears Soros Associates virtually certain to get engineering contract for Port.”

“Not only is the US State Department negotiating Soros’ deals, helping him secure the deals. They’re also backchanneling so that foreign governments can pay [S]oros so that Soros makes his appropriate profit on the deal,” remarked Benz.

“There is this favors-for-favors relationship that goes back five decades, And those are just the earliest cables we have,” he added.

The exposure of these cables has been described as an “ultra massive find” by journalist Alex Jones.

The find is massive because George Soros himself, as was admitted by Morton Abramowitz and Strobe Tallbott, has foreign policy interests independent of the U.S. and over the past decades has demonstrated influence on U.S. domestic policy in favor of an impotent justice system, internet censorship, and a wide range of left-wing causes such as abortion, euthanasia, and population control, as well as homosexual “marriage,” and transgenderism. In other words, as some commentators have put it, his impact has been to erode the moral fabric of America and weaken the country.