Beliefs, cultures, and ideologies all blend, from a global perspective. I agree with your approach where differences are minor.
But in a world where peace and prosperity are broadly regulated by a rules based international order, sometimes you can't be friendly. Neville Chamberlain tried.
The USSR wasn't interested in being friendly during the Cold War.
I submit that apartheid in South Africa had to be vehemently opposed (and Canada was a leader in this effort), along with attempting to stop the slaughter in Rwanda.
Those who ensured Afghan boys had sore bums weekly were not deserving of our friendship, only our contempt.
And the Uighurs in China would likely also disagree with a friendly for diplomacies sake approach.
There are myriad other examples. China, for one, seems to be placing itself on a collision course by placing self-interest and a misguided read of history and their economic clout as their approach to diplomacy. It is garnering significant pushback.
So I would say, friendly where it makes sense, fair where logical, and firmness/force where necessary.
.02