中新網評：加拿大攪水印太，“清醒的頭腦”首先得學會獨立思考

中新網北京12月1日電 (蔣鯉)加拿大政府近日發佈了一份山寨美國版“印太戰略”，聲稱“在存在深刻分歧的領域，我們將挑戰中國”。

這份26頁的戰略文件，不僅大肆對中國攻擊抹黑，渲染所謂“中國威脅”，更在涉台、涉疆、涉港、人權等問題上粗暴干涉中國內政。

之前，美國推行所謂“印太戰略”，美其名曰要和盟友一起打造自由開放、聯通、繁榮、安全、有韌性的“印太”地區，真正目的則是遏制中國，維護其在該地區的霸權，充斥着冷戰思維。

同樣，加拿大這份“印太戰略”也充斥着地緣政治色彩和意識形態偏見，和美國版“印太戰略”如出一轍。不難看出，這份文件是在為美國搖旗吶喊，凸顯了其跟隨美國遏制和圍堵中國的意圖。

但近年來，加拿大與印太地區國家經貿合作進展寥寥，有限的投入使其外交方面在該地區更難以形成影響，妄圖通過“印太戰略”增強自己在該地區的話語權，甚至“遏制中國”，顯得自不量力。

俄羅斯科學院美國和加拿大研究所首席研究員葉蓮娜·科姆科娃表示，加拿大並非亞太地區的深度軍事政治參與者，至少目前還不是。它的所謂新戰略首先是為了完成美國的政治使命。

2021年12月，美國駐加拿大大使大衞·科恩剛剛上任就表態稱，美國希望加拿大有一個明確的亞太地區戰略，並確定中國在其中的位置。如今，加版“印太戰略”剛發佈，美國駐加大使科恩就在第一時間發聲明表示“滿意”，印證了該國外交戰略對美國的從屬地位。

此前，美國總統拜登在所謂“印太地區”推出美日印澳“四方安全對話”、美英澳AUKUS三邊安全協議等，而加拿大作為“五眼聯盟”成員卻被排除在外。

為了不被美國等盟友邊緣化，加拿大通過“印太戰略”向美國發出信號，表明它仍然是美國在包括政治、經濟等所有領域對抗中國的盟友。然而，即便美國也無法徹底和中國脱鈎，但加拿大卻急於向美國“送人頭”，恐怕難以得到好處。

加拿大廣播公司(CBC)的報道稱，該戰略使用了一些“令人驚訝的直白語言”，加拿大政府需要對中國在遠東和其他地區的目標保持“清醒的頭腦”。

中加之間既沒有重大利害衝突，也沒有地緣政治矛盾，將中國視作威脅可謂荒唐。中加雙方需要對話，而非對抗。

如果加拿大政府真要對中國保持“清醒的頭腦”，就要獨立思考，不被美國意志左右，在對外戰略上爭取更多的自主權。秉持冷戰思維、挑動集團政治和陣營對抗的做法不得人心，也勢必會傷及自身利益。

Canada needs independent thinking before imitating U.S. intervention in Indo-Pacific

By John Lee

(ECNS) -- The Canadian government released an Indo-Pacific Strategy imitating the U.S. in which the country stated that “In areas of profound disagreement, we will challenge China.”

The Canadian government slandered China, propagated “the China threat”, and interfered in China’s internal affairs on issues like Taiwan, Xinjiang, Hong Kong, and human rights in this 26-page document.

Like the U.S.’ Indo-Pacific Strategy, which claims to build an “open, connected, prosperous, resilient, and secure Indo-Pacific region” but in fact targets China and tries to maintain hegemony in this region, the Canadian edition is also fraught with geopolitical implications and ideological prejudice. It shows Canada is determined to stand with the U.S. to contain China.

However, Canada has made little progress in economic and trade cooperation with the countries in the so-called Indo-Pacific region in recent years and less efforts to maintain diplomatic relations with regional countries, making it hard to reinforce its local influence. Attempts to strengthen its voice in the region through this strategy and even to curb China seems to be overreaching.

Canada is not an experienced participant in military and political affairs in the Asia-Pacific region, at least not yet. Its so-called new strategy seeks first to accomplish the political mission of the U.S., said Elena G. Komkova, leading Researcher of the Institute for the U.S. and Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

In December 2021, U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Cohen stated that the U.S. hoped Canada would deploy a clear Asia-Pacific strategy and determine China’s position in it as he took office. After the strategy launch, Cohen issued a statement saying “welcome” to it immediately.

Previously, the U.S., Japan, India, and Australia re-launched the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, while the U.S., Britain and Australia announced a security pact dubbed “AUKUS”. Canada, a member of the Five Eyes alliance, was excluded from these security partnerships.

Therefore, to avoid marginalization by the U.S. and other allies, it issued the strategy to tell the U.S. it is still reliable in politics, economy, and other fields to resist China. However, even the U.S. can hardly decouple with China. Will an obsequious strategy help the Canadian government gain what it wants?

Using some surprisingly blunt language, the strategy says the Canadian government needs to be “clear-eyed” about China’s objectives in the Far East and elsewhere, said a CBC report.

There is no major interest conflicts or geopolitical contradiction between China and Canada so it is absurd to regard China as a threat. Both sides need dialogue, not confrontation.

If the Canadian government really wants to be “clear-eyed” about China, it must think independently and get rid of the will of the U.S. to strive for more independence in foreign strategies.

Adhering to the Cold War mentality and inciting bloc politics or camp confrontation is unpopular, and is bound to hurt its own interests.