China's audacious ploy to woo former US allies
'Faced with the US's unilateral bullying, Canada has not backed down,' a suited official declared. 'Instead, Canada is standing on the right side of history, on the right side of international fairness and justice.'
What was different was that the speaker was no Canadian politician, but instead Wang Di, China's ambassador to Ottawa. It is the nicest thing any Chinese official has said about Canada in years. It is also an abrupt volte-face that underscores China's determination to capitalise on the White House's alienation of America's traditional allies.
Canada is not alone. Britain is also being love-bombed by Beijing. This Wednesday, Wang Yi, the Chinese foreign minister, telephoned David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, to say they were willing to 'eliminate all distractions' in its relationship with the UK so the two could stand up to Trump's 'rampant unilateral bullying'.
The same day, Japan's Kyodo news agency reported that Li Qiang, China's premier, had sent a letter to Shigeru Ishiba, Japan's prime minister, calling for a coordinated response to American tariffs.
From Canada to Cambodia, Chinese officials have been on a charm offensive. Their message is a simple one: While Donald Trump's America tries to dismantle the global trade system, China can still be relied on to play by the rules. Join Xi Jinping in his mission to save globalisation, they suggest, and your country and China can prosper together – and be shielded from Trump's next bout of vindictiveness.
'China doesn't have alliances in the way we think of them,' said Charles Parton, a distinguished fellow at the think tank Council on Geostrategy who spent 22 years working on China as a British diplomat. 'But if you are talking about forming blocs, then yes, they are clearly trying to pose as the champion of the way international law should work.'
Not that China is a paragon in this regard, says Parton, given accusations that it abuses World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, is flexing its muscles territorially in the South China Sea, and allegedly committing human rights abuses against Uyghurs in Xinjiang province. 'It is quite rich, really,' he notes.
Yet Beijing's charm offensive has already created some previously unthinkable, headline-grabbing moments. On March 30, the trade ministers of China, South Korea and Japan met for the first time in five years. A picture of the trio holding hands in a collective gesture of defiance made the front pages across East Asia. The Telegraph's Ambrose Evans-Pritchard called it 'one of the most striking economic defeats suffered by America' that he had ever witnessed.
Since then, Xi Jinping himself has led the charge in Southeast Asia. Earlier this month, he visited Malaysia, Vietnam and Cambodia, all tentative American allies who were hit hard by Trump's tariffs (before he announced a 90-day pause). It is an audacious gambit. And there are signs that China may be overreaching in its effort to lead a vanguard of free-traders against Donald Trump's protectionist America. After the trade ministers' meeting in Seoul, for example, Chinese state media said the three had jointly agreed to respond to US tariffs. South Korea called that an exaggeration. Japan said there had been no such discussion.
In a similar vein, the Foreign Office said Lammy's call with Yi covered the war in Ukraine and China's denial of entry to Hong Kong for Liberal Democrat MP Wera Hobhouse, but would not confirm whether Trump or tariffs were mentioned. 'We will continue to take a calm and steady approach on international trade, to protect the UK's interests,' a Foreign Office spokesperson said.
Still, China's overtures towards Canada are astonishingly bold. After all, relations between Ottawa and Beijing have been in the deep freeze since 2018, when Canadian police (acting on a US warrant) arrested Meng Wanzhou, a senior Huawei executive. That same year, China arrested two Canadian citizens, Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, in what Canada called a blatant act of hostage diplomacy (the two were released in 2021).
Since then, the two countries have been locked in a death spiral of diplomatic expulsions, retaliatory tariffs, and allegations of meddling in one another's affairs. The most recent clash came just last month, when it emerged China had executed four Canadian-Chinese dual citizens on drug charges. Quarrels like that do not usually go away overnight.
There are three big obstacles to Xi Jinping capitalising on Donald Trump's alienation of his trade allies, said one Taiwanese China watcher: it has a large surplus of goods that could overwhelm other countries' markets; a poor record of abiding by the spirit of free trade rules; and, at least so far, has little to put on the table to convince other countries to side with it over America.
'The UK, Brazil, India – all of these countries are already not very happy about China's trade practices. Even Japan and South Korea have serious complaints,' said Parton.
'In the short term, the Americans are taking a bashing. But it would be pretty premature to say China is the more reliable partner.'
Consequently, China's message to some potential partners has been less carrot and more stick. In Vietnam and Cambodia, for example, Xi Jinping issued a warning not to put Chinese interests 'on the table as chips with the United States' after both countries said they would crack down on Chinese companies using them as re-export routes.
'I also know that there's some discussion in Taiwan, maybe Japan as well, about building a trading bloc without the US. But the question is, how possible is it when the US is their biggest market? Would China be included, or actually is this a non-China, non-US trading bloc here we are seeing?' said the Taiwanese source, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive trade talks.
'But on the non-economic, geopolitical side, I think it's a great opportunity for China to boost its influence. Even with the closest US allies and partners, relations are warming,' the source added.
Japan and South Korea are showing a willingness to make gestures, if not to capitulate entirely to Chinese demands.
Xi Jinping's visit to Vietnam, a country that has increasingly aligned itself with the United States in order to balance the threat from Beijing, is particularly significant.
The news that EU leaders will visit Beijing in July for a summit with Xi Jinping is being taken as a sign of a warming of ties with Europe too.
'Definitely there are openings,' says Ben Bland, the director of the Asia Pacific programme at think tank Chatham House. 'Certain countries have reopened lines of dialogue. Because of the unpredictability of the Trump administration, they want their own lines to Beijing.
'And China is more predictable. Whether people like what it's doing is a different question. For China's neighbours, there is no future in Asia without a close relationship with China.'
None of that makes trade tensions and territorial disputes vanish into thin air, however. So while Trump has created obvious opportunities for the Chinese Communist Party, it is hardly an open goal.
'They are all hedging,' said the source in Taipei. 'Biden spoke about American-led multilateralism. [Now] under America First, there's nothing multilateral: It's just America tells you what to do, and maybe that's not in your interest. So you have to align with your own interests to manage who else you can get along with to minimise the damage.'
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Court Lets Trump Block Billions of Dollars in Foreign Aid
(Bloomberg) -- The Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds approved by Congress for this year, a US appeals court ruled. Sunseeking Germans Face Swiss Backlash Over Alpine Holiday Congestion To Head Off Severe Storm Surges, Nova Scotia Invests in 'Living Shorelines' New York Warns of $34 Billion Budget Hole, Biggest Since 2009 Crisis Five Years After Black Lives Matter, Brussels' Colonial Statues Remain For Homeless Cyclists, Bikes Bring an Escape From the Streets In a 2-1 decision on Wednesday, the appellate panel reversed a Washington federal judge who found that US officials were violating the Constitution's separation of powers principles by failing to authorize the money to be paid in line with what the legislative branch directed. The ruling is a significant win for President Donald Trump's efforts to dissolve the US Agency for International Development and broadly withhold funding from programs that have fallen out of favor with his administration, regardless of how Congress exercised its authority over spending. Trump's critics have assailed what they've described as a far-reaching power grab by the executive branch. The nonprofits and business that sued could ask all of the active judges on the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit to reconsider the three-member panel's decision. If the panel's decision stands, it wasn't immediately clear how much it would affect other lawsuits contesting a range of Trump administration funding freezes and cuts besides foreign aid. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote in the majority opinion that the challengers lacked valid legal grounds to sue over the Trump administration's decision to withhold the funds, also known as impoundment. The US Comptroller General — who leads an accountability arm of Congress — could sue under a specific law related to impoundment decisions, Henderson wrote, but the challengers couldn't bring a 'freestanding' constitutional claim or claim violations of a different law related to agency actions. Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, was joined by Judge Greg Katsas, a Trump appointee. The court didn't reach the core question of whether the administration's unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is constitutional. Judge Florence Pan, nominated by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her colleagues had turned 'a blind eye to the 'serious implications' of this case for the rule of law and the very structure of our government.' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement that the appeals court 'has affirmed what we already knew – President Trump has the executive authority to execute his own foreign policy, which includes ensuring that all foreign assistance aligns with the America First agenda.' A lead attorney for the grant recipients did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The two consolidated cases before the appeals court only deal with money that Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year, which ends on Sept. 30. Grantees are poised to lose access to funds if they haven't yet been approved to be spent by federal officials — a precursor to actual payouts — or unless a court order is in place. The administration lost one of its few battles before the US Supreme Court earlier this year in the foreign aid fight. In March, a majority of justices refused to immediately stop US District Judge Amir Ali's injunction taking effect while the legal fight went forward. Since then, however, the challengers have filed complaints with Ali that the administration is failing to obligate or pay out the funds. They've rebuffed the government's position that the delay is part of a legitimate effort to 'evaluate the appropriate next steps' and accused officials of angling to use a novel tactic to go around Congress in order to cut appropriated money. The Trump administration has dramatically scaled back the US government's humanitarian work overseas, slashing spending and personnel and merging the USAID into the State Department. The challengers say the foreign aid freeze has created a global crisis, and that the money is critical for malaria prevention, to address child malnutrition and provide postnatal care for newborns. The groups argued that the president and agency leaders couldn't defy Congress' spending mandates and didn't have discretion to decide that only some, let alone none, of the money appropriated by lawmakers should be paid. The president can ask Congress to withdraw appropriations but can't do it on his own, the challengers argued. The Justice Department argued Ali's order was an 'improper judicial intrusion into matters left to the political branches' and that the judge wrongly interfered in the 'particularly sensitive area of foreign relations.' The government also said that the Impoundment Control Act, which restricts the president from overruling Congress' spending decisions, wasn't a law that the nonprofits and business could sue to enforce. The challengers countered that Ali's order blocking the funding freeze was rooted in their constitutional separation-of-powers claim, not the impoundment law. The cases are Global Health Council v. Trump, 25-5097, and AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. US Department of State, 25-5098, US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit. (Updated with White House comment.) Bessent on Tariffs, Deficits and Embracing Trump's Economic Plan Why It's Actually a Good Time to Buy a House, According to a Zillow Economist Dubai's Housing Boom Is Stoking Fears of Another Crash The Social Media Trend Machine Is Spitting Out Weirder and Weirder Results Americans Are Getting Priced Out of Homeownership at Record Rates ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gavin Newsom Just Announced California Is Drawing New Electoral Maps In The Most Hilarious Way
Gavin Newsom has announced that California will draw new electoral maps. On Monday, he sent a letter to Donald Trump, essentially warning that unless Texas backed down, he'd be forced to redraw California's maps: "If you will not stand down, I will be forced to lead an effort to redraw the maps in California to offset the rigging of maps in red states. But if the other states call off their redistricting efforts, we will happily do the same. And American democracy will be better for it." GovPressOffice/Twitter: @GovPressOffice Related: He also started tweeting EXACTLY like him. It started with a 24-hour warning. Related: "DONALD TRUMP HAS 24 HOURS LEFT TO RESPOND TO GOVERNOR NEWSOM'S LETTER. IF HE DOES NOT STAND DOWN, THERE WILL BE A VERY IMPORTANT PRESS CONFERENCE THIS WEEK WITH A MAJOR ANNOUNCEMENT! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER." He followed that up the next day with another warning: "DONALD TRUMP, THE LOWEST POLLING PRESIDENT IN RECENT HISTORY, THIS IS YOUR SECOND-TO-LAST WARNING!!! (THE NEXT ONE IS THE LAST ONE!). STAND DOWN NOW OR CALIFORNIA WILL COUNTER-STRIKE (LEGALLY!) TO DESTROY YOUR ILLEGAL CROOKED MAPS IN RED STATES. PRESS CONFERENCE COMING — HOSTED BY AMERICA'S FAVORITE GOVERNOR, GAVIN NEWSOM. FINAL WARNING NEXT. YOU WON'T LIKE IT!!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER." Related: That evening, he issued his final warning: "FINAL WARNING DONALD TRUMP — MAYBE THE MOST IMPORTANT WARNING IN HISTORY! STOP CHEATING OR CALIFORNIA WILL REDRAW THE MAPS. AND GUESS WHO WILL ANNOUNCE IT THIS WEEK? GAVIN NEWSOM (MANY SAY THE MOST LOVED & HANDSOME GOVERNOR) AND A VERY POWERFUL TEAM. DON'T MAKE US DO IT!!! THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER." And boom, just like that, after that 24-hour deadline, he tweeted: "DONALD 'TACO' TRUMP, AS MANY CALL HIM, 'MISSED' THE DEADLINE!!! CALIFORNIA WILL NOW DRAW NEW, MORE 'BEAUTIFUL MAPS,' THEY WILL BE HISTORIC AS THEY WILL END THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY (DEMS TAKE BACK THE HOUSE!). BIG PRESS CONFERENCE THIS WEEK WITH POWERFUL DEMS AND GAVIN NEWSOM — YOUR FAVORITE GOVERNOR — THAT WILL BE DEVASTATING FOR 'MAGA.' THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER! — GN" Related: From the "MORE BEAUTIFUL MAPS" line to the multiple exclamation points to the classic THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!" I'm sorry, but he nailed it. As this person said, "If you can't beat em, join em (in their style of writing.)" Also in Internet Finds: Also in Internet Finds: Also in Internet Finds:
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court lets the White House suspend or end billions in foreign aid
WASHINGTON (AP) — A divided panel of appeals court judges ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can suspend or terminate billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funding for foreign aid. Two of three judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that grant recipients challenging the freeze did not meet the requirements for a preliminary injunction restoring the flow of money. In January, on the first day of his second term in the White House, Republican President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to freeze spending on foreign aid. After groups of grant recipients sued to challenge that order, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered the administration to release the full amount of foreign assistance that Congress had appropriated for the 2024 budget year. The appeal court's majority partially vacated Ali's order. Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas concluded that the plaintiffs did not have a valid legal basis for the court to hear their claims. The ruling was not on the merits of whether the government unconstitutionally infringed on Congress' spending powers. 'The parties also dispute the scope of the district court's remedy but we need not resolve it ... because the grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,' Henderson wrote. Judge Florence Pan, who dissented, said the Supreme Court has held 'in no uncertain terms' that the president does not have the authority to disobey laws for policy reasons. 'Yet that is what the majority enables today,' Pan wrote. 'The majority opinion thus misconstrues the separation-of-powers claim brought by the grantees, misapplies precedent, and allows Executive Branch officials to evade judicial review of constitutionally impermissible actions.' The money at issue includes nearly $4 billion for USAID to spend on global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs. Trump has portrayed the foreign aid as wasteful spending that does not align with his foreign policy goals. Henderson was nominated to the court by Republican President George H.W. Bush. Katsas was nominated by Trump. Pan was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden.