Carney’s Beijing Visit Echoes Whitlam’s China Pivot
PM Carney’s visit to Beijing replicated for Canada what Gough Whitlam’s 1971 trip to China sought to achieve for Australia: a fundamental reshaping of the bedrock dependence on the United States for both national security and economic prosperity, by embracing emerging geopolitical realities.
Canadian Prime Minister Carney’s journey to Beijing last week evokes the then-Opposition Leader, Gough Whitlam’s audacious visit to Beijing in July 1971.
26 years after Chifley-Curtin laid the groundwork for a decisive tilt from Britain to the United States for Australian security, Whitlam’s defence for initiating contact with the People’s Republic of China shocked Western Chancelleries.
Whitlam argued that recognition and engagement should be based on geopolitical reality, not ideological preference. He saw it as a measure of independent Australian foreign policy posture, less driven by automatic alignment with “great and powerful friends” and Cold War reflexes, and more by Australia’s step toward greater independence in its foreign policy grounded in its regional interests.
Whitlam framed his policy as a “rational stabilising” move, not an ideological concession.
Carney’s visit has unfolded against the backdrop of Mr Trump’s slew of calls for absorbing Canada as America’s 51st state amid disruptive US economic measures.
It marks a stunning reversal from the era of former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, when Canada-China ties collapsed following the 2018 extradition spat involving a senior Huawei executive.
Two strands stand out in Carney’s Beijing statements.
First, he openly acknowledged that the New World Order is a reality, implying that the upended Rules-based Order nurtured by the United States since 1945 has created “new global realities”.
TV footage captured banker Carney’s actorly precision in mouthing the last three words in telling Premier Li Qiang that their strengthening relationship “sets us up well for the New-World-Order”.
Second, Carney’s overtures to Xi Jinping signal a pivot to a new strategic direction for a nation long considered Washington’s closest partner. “I am extremely pleased that we are moving ahead with our new strategic partnership”, he told Xi.
Canada’s new strategic partnership with China mirrors those of France, Germany and the UK in form, but carries greater implications for the future of the NATO alliance. Its foreign policy has long been inextricably entwined with its southern neighbour; Carney’s turn thus marks a sharper, more telling divergence from Washington than that of the Europeans.
This is as striking as Australia’s 1972 recognition of China under Whitlam – predating US/PRC ties by seven years – when he contended that Australia had a “new opportunity for sane relations with China.”
Of course, whatever the shape of the new emerging World Order, both Canada and Australia will continue to rely on the United States for security in the foreseeable future.
But as Carny observed, the “security landscape continues to change”, adding that the multilateral system has been eroded, and the architecture of its replacement remains unknown. Crucially, therefore, the value of the American crutch may weaken if perceived threats from China diminish.
The emerging international realities that Australia and Canada face are uncannily similar: the need for American security cover alongside the necessity of loosening American reins on their foreign and economic policies.
Carney’s Beijing thaw heralds a dilution of Canada’s junior partner status. Whitlam also did this, with limited success, but alliances with the US today are on wobbly ground, as never before in the post-War era.
Now that the US umbrella is fraying, it might be time for both countries to reevaluate the framework of their alliances with Washington.
