Five Eyes Alliance Shows Cracks as Canada and UK Court China

Within weeks of each other, two leaders from the world's most exclusive intelligence club have sent Beijing a message: we're ready to talk business again.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer have both signaled their willingness to recalibrate their nations' relationships with China, marking a potential fracture in the Five Eyes alliance that has dominated Western intelligence cooperation since World War II.

The timing isn't coincidental. As Donald Trump returns to the White House with his trademark unpredictability and "America First" agenda, traditional allies are hedging their bets and exploring new partnerships that seemed unthinkable just months ago.

The Pragmatic Pivot

Carney's approach reflects Canada's economic reality. China remains one of Canada's largest trading partners, with bilateral trade reaching $95 billion in 2023 despite years of diplomatic tensions over issues like the detention of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, and Canada's arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou.

Starmer's calculations are similarly pragmatic. The UK, still navigating post-Brexit economic challenges, sees China's $17.7 trillion economy as too significant to ignore. British businesses have long pressed for warmer relations, arguing that ideological purity is a luxury the UK can't afford while competing with European rivals who maintain robust China trade.

Both leaders face domestic criticism for their overtures. Conservative opposition parties in both countries have accused them of abandoning human rights principles and weakening Western solidarity. Yet the economic arguments are compelling: Canada's canola farmers and Britain's financial services sector have suffered from the diplomatic freeze.

The Five Eyes Dilemma

The Five Eyes alliance – comprising the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand – has operated on the principle that intelligence sharing requires aligned strategic interests. But Trump's return introduces variables that complicate this assumption.

His previous presidency saw him criticize NATO allies for insufficient defense spending and threaten trade wars with Canada and the UK. His transactional approach to international relations has left allies questioning whether American commitments remain reliable.

Australia and New Zealand face their own China dilemmas. Australia's economy depends heavily on Chinese demand for iron ore and coal, while New Zealand's agricultural exports flow predominantly to Asian markets. The question becomes: if America pivots inward, should its allies pivot elsewhere?

Beyond Binary Thinking

The traditional Western approach has framed China relations in zero-sum terms – you're either with Beijing or against it. But middle powers like Canada and Britain are discovering that global economics doesn't respect such neat divisions.

Germany has maintained substantial China trade despite supporting Ukraine against Russia. France continues luxury goods exports to China while criticizing Beijing's human rights record. The idea that economic engagement equals strategic capitulation is being challenged by the reality of interconnected global supply chains.

This shift reflects a broader trend in international relations. As the world becomes multipolar, smaller powers are finding they can pursue relationships with multiple great powers simultaneously, rather than choosing sides in a new Cold War.