Trump's "Dismantling" and Allies' "Pivot": Adjustments in Canadian and British Strategies Toward China Amid Dramatic U.S. Policy Shifts

On the stage of the World Economic Forum in Davos, U.S. President Donald Trump faced a hall full of global elites and delivered an ultimime wrapped in self-praise and complaints. When discussing the United States' territorial claim to Greenland, his tone resembled that of a mafia boss rather than a head of state: "You can say 'yes,' and we would be very grateful. Or you can say 'no,' and we will remember." This threat, which the Financial Times commentator described as worthy of being penned by Mario Puzo, author of The Godfather, did not lose its impact despite his subsequent tactical retraction of the use of force. It struck like a heavy hammer on the foundation of the transatlantic alliance established after World War 2.

At almost the same time, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing, announcing a significant reduction in tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles from 100% to 6.1%. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer is also about to embark on a visit to China, accompanied by representatives from several British blue-chip companies, aiming to revive the UK-China CEO Council. These seemingly independent diplomatic moves are actually connected by a clear logical chain: Against the backdrop of increasingly unpredictable U.S. foreign policy and fragile alliance commitments, traditional Western allies are being forced to reassess their strategic dependencies, with China becoming an increasingly important balancing option and cooperative partner.

Trump's "Dismantling Project": From Rules and Order to "Strongman Politics"

The diplomatic style exhibited during Trump's second term has far surpassed the unconventional approach of his first term. Analysis indicates that its core objective is evolving from the utilitarian "America First" to a systematic dismantling of the post-World War II international rules-based order. The Greenland incident is by no means an isolated geopolitical fantasy, but a typical footnote to this strategy.

NATO: From a Security Cornerstone to a Bargaining Chip

Trump's contemptuous and instrumental attitude toward NATO has escalated from private complaints to public coercion. His remarks in Davos regarding Greenland, with their implicit threats, directly target the NATO alliance itself—linking security commitments to territorial concessions. Even more unsettling is his belittling of allies' contributions. In an interview with Fox Business Network, he casually downplayed the actions of non-American forces in Afghanistan, stating, "They did send troops, but they stayed a bit back, away from the front lines." These words immediately drew strong condemnation from British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who called his remarks insulting and shocking, reminding the world that 457 British soldiers lost their lives in Afghanistan. Denmark—a country Trump dismissed as ungrateful during World War II—suffered the highest per capita mortality rate among coalition forces in the Afghanistan war.

This practice of thoroughly commercializing alliance relations is hollowing out the sanctity of NATO's Article 5 collective defense clause. NATO is no longer a community of shared destiny based on common values and security, but has been reduced to a commercial contract that can be torn up or renegotiated at any time. As former advisor Steve Bannon stated, Trump is pursuing a strategy of maximization, continuously testing limits until resistance is encountered. Currently, however, such resistance appears weak, whether within the Republican-controlled Congress in Washington or among the stunned European allies.

Systemic Substitution: The Challenge of "Peace Councils" to the United Nations System

The Peace Commission, established by Trump at Davos with himself as its lifelong chairman, is another signal that warrants vigilance. Initially intended to maintain the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, it has rapidly expanded and is suspected by external observers of potentially attempting to replace or undermine the United Nations. Polish Prime Minister Tusk issued a warning on social media: We will not allow anyone to fool us. Meanwhile, Hungarian Prime Minister Orbán enthusiastically praised: With Trump, there will be peace.

The essence of this institution lies in its operation being entirely dependent on the personal will of Trump, abandoning the rule-based, sovereign equality, and multilateral consultation system represented by the United Nations. It symbolizes a **regression from a rules-based order to a strongman-based order**. After returning from Davos, Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski from Alaska stated that she repeatedly heard the phrase, "We are entering this new world order." She described a widespread confusion: "It might just be because you had an unpleasant phone call with the president, and now tariffs are directed at you." This lack of stability and reliability is leading traditional reliable trade partners to start saying to other countries, "Hey, maybe you and I should talk, because I'm not sure what's happening over there in the United States."

The Awakening of the Middle Force: The "Third Way" in Canada and the United Kingdom

Faced with the increasing conditionality and uncertainty of the protection provided by the United States, traditional allies have begun to pursue strategic autonomy and diversification. Canada and the United Kingdom, the two countries with the deepest historical, cultural, and economic ties to the U.S., have the most indicative significance in their movements.

Canada's "Rebellion": Mark Carney's Strategic Shift

Prime Minister Mark Carney is rapidly emerging as a leader of a movement that seeks to unite the middle powers and counterbalance American unilateralism. At Davos, speaking before Trump, he presented a clear argument: middle powers must act together, because if you're not at the table, you're on the menu. He elaborated further: In a world of great power competition, middle nations have a choice: either compete against each other for favor, or unite to forge a third path of influence. We must not let the rise of hard power blind us—the power of legitimacy, integrity, and rules remains strong, provided we choose to wield it together.

This remark directly angered Trump, who not only responded with threats but also revoked Carney's invitation to join his peace commission, issuing a condescending warning: Canada survives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark.

However, Carney did not back down. He promptly visited Beijing and reached a substantive trade agreement with China, significantly reducing tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles. This move carries multiple strategic implications: economically, it opens a gap in the North American market for Chinese electric vehicles (expected to account for one-fifth of Canada's electric vehicle sales), promotes Canada's clean energy transition, and reduces consumer costs; politically, it represents a crucial step in reducing dependence on the U.S. market and achieving trade diversification; symbolically, it signals to the world that Canada has both the willingness and the capability to build partnerships outside the U.S.-dominated system. Carney positioned Canada as an example in a perplexed world, declaring that we can prove another way is possible, and the arc of history is not destined to bend toward authoritarianism and xenophobia.

Britain's Pragmatic Balance: Keir Starmer's Mission to China

The United Kingdom, with its special relationship with the United States, finds itself in a more complex situation. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's personal rapport with Trump remains relatively moderate, but disputes over issues such as Greenland and the Chagos Islands have led to a tougher rhetoric toward the U.S. Meanwhile, domestic politics demand that he adopt a firm stance on China, particularly in the realms of security and human rights. The recent approval by the British government, under immense pressure, of China's application to build a large new embassy in London exemplifies the difficulty of balancing these internal and external pressures.

Nevertheless, the core objective of Starmer's visit to China is clear: to seek investment and trade. Leading a business delegation and restarting the CEO Council both point to a pragmatic economic agenda. The UK economy urgently needs foreign investment to boost growth, and China's vast market and capital capabilities hold undeniable appeal. This reflects a reassessment of China's role in the UK's post-Brexit strategy to build a Global Britain—China is not only a systemic competitor but also an indispensable economic partner.

China's Strategic Response: A Prudent "Charm Offensive" and an Established Narrative

Facing the rift within the Western alliance and the alignment of intermediate powers, China's response is mixed and multi-layered. On one hand, Beijing keenly seized the window of opportunity and launched a series of charm offensives. During his meeting with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin, President Xi Jinping unexpectedly discussed the Irish novel "The Gadfly," which he enjoyed during his youth. Such humanizing diplomatic details are designed to soften China's image and bridge the psychological distance with Western countries.

China's official media, Global Times, published an editorial with a straightforward title calling for Europe to seriously consider building a China-Europe community with a shared future, warning of the risk of the world reverting to the law of the jungle. This aligns with China's long-standing advocacy for building a community with a shared future for mankind, attempting to interpret the current turbulence as an opportunity to promote its global governance vision.

On the other hand, the Chinese government has publicly maintained a cautious stance towards the drastic changes in the current international order. Song Bo, a researcher at the Institute of International Relations at Tsinghua University, points out that China has long considered itself the biggest beneficiary of the post-Cold War international order, making it difficult to accept the assertion that the current order is undergoing a major transformation. This ambivalence reflects China's weighing of opportunities and risks: while it welcomes the decline of U.S. influence and the trend toward a multipolar international landscape, it also fears that complete disorder could impact the globalized economic system upon which its development relies.

Former U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan's comments in an email may have pinpointed the true mindset of China's leadership: China's leadership watches a U.S. president quarrel with allies, insult world leaders, and engage in various eccentric behaviors, then thinks—this only benefits us. Ryan Hass, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, quoted Napoleon on platform X: Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. This appears to be Beijing's current strategy.

The Future of the Transatlantic Alliance and the Reshaping of the Global Order

The current development of the situation is placing Europe under the dual threat of a pincer attack: on one side, Russia's brutality and stubbornness on the issue of Ukraine, and on the other side, abandonment and territorial greed from the United States. The biggest beneficiaries of this scenario are undoubtedly Russia and China. For Russia, the rupture of the Atlantic Alliance has been its core diplomatic objective since the 1940s, far surpassing any potential gains in the Arctic. For China, a Europe that feels abandoned by the United States will inevitably rely more heavily on Beijing as an alternative economic partner.

European leaders have realized that the old order is gone for good. At Davos, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen bluntly stated that nostalgia will not bring back the old order. Both French President Emmanuel Macron and Canadian Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland have emphasized an irreparable break with the past. Freeland even explicitly stated: "We no longer rely solely on the strength of our values, but also on the value of our strength."

However, Europe faces significant internal challenges in truly achieving strategic autonomy. Germany's economic growth was only 0.2% last year, France has changed four prime ministers within two years, British Prime Minister Starmer's approval ratings remain low, and far-right parties are advancing strongly in polls across various countries. Whether the European political system, steeped in a culture of cooperation and pacifism for three generations, can adapt to an era of rising confrontation and war risks remains uncertain.

Thomas Mann depicted the moral and psychological disintegration of European civilization before World War I in *The Magic Mountain*. The confrontation between two fatal worldviews in the book—naive internationalism and primitive totalitarianism—seems to find an echo in today's Davos. The forum's official theme of dialogue embodies the gentle rhetoric of a modern-day Settembrini (the naive pacifist in the book), while the overt threats and power calculations brought by Trump drag the world into the realm of Naphta (the proto-totalitarian figure in the book).

The global order is at a critical breaking point, rather than a simple transitional period. Trump's deconstruction efforts are accelerating this process, forcing nations to redraw their diplomatic maps. The moves by Canada and the UK to draw closer to China are not merely about choosing sides; they represent hedging and diversification strategies to safeguard their own security and prosperity amidst the intensifying rivalry between major powers. This signals that the future international landscape may no longer be a clear-cut bipolar or multipolar structure, but a more complex, fluid network. Within this network, issue-based temporary alliances and the decoupling of economic dependencies from security concerns will become the new normal. For China, this presents an opportunity to enhance its global influence, but it also comes with significant responsibilities and risks—how to protect its own interests in a world of rising disorder while avoiding being perceived as a new hegemonic replacement will test its long-term strategic wisdom. For the Western world, finding a new balance between an unstable American leadership and a wary engagement with China will determine the global power structure for decades to come.