加拿大政府近日發(fā)布了一份山寨美國(guó)版“印太戰(zhàn)略”，聲稱(chēng)“在存在深刻分歧的領(lǐng)域，我們將挑戰(zhàn)中國(guó)”。

　　這份26頁(yè)的戰(zhàn)略文件，不僅大肆對(duì)中國(guó)攻擊抹黑，渲染所謂“中國(guó)威脅”，更在涉臺(tái)、涉疆、涉港、人權(quán)等問(wèn)題上粗暴干涉中國(guó)內(nèi)政。

　　之前，美國(guó)推行所謂“印太戰(zhàn)略”，美其名曰要和盟友一起打造自由開(kāi)放、聯(lián)通、繁榮、安全、有韌性的“印太”地區(qū)，真正目的則是遏制中國(guó)，維護(hù)其在該地區(qū)的霸權(quán)，充斥著冷戰(zhàn)思維。

　　同樣，加拿大這份“印太戰(zhàn)略”也充斥著地緣政治色彩和意識(shí)形態(tài)偏見(jiàn)，和美國(guó)版“印太戰(zhàn)略”如出一轍。不難看出，這份文件是在為美國(guó)搖旗吶喊，凸顯了其跟隨美國(guó)遏制和圍堵中國(guó)的意圖。

　　但近年來(lái)，加拿大與印太地區(qū)國(guó)家經(jīng)貿(mào)合作進(jìn)展寥寥，有限的投入使其外交方面在該地區(qū)更難以形成影響，妄圖通過(guò)“印太戰(zhàn)略”增強(qiáng)自己在該地區(qū)的話(huà)語(yǔ)權(quán)，甚至“遏制中國(guó)”，顯得自不量力。

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

　　2021年12月，美國(guó)駐加拿大大使大衛(wèi)·科恩剛剛上任就表態(tài)稱(chēng)，美國(guó)希望加拿大有一個(gè)明確的亞太地區(qū)戰(zhàn)略，并確定中國(guó)在其中的位置。如今，加版“印太戰(zhàn)略”剛發(fā)布，美國(guó)駐加大使科恩就在第一時(shí)間發(fā)聲明表示“滿(mǎn)意”，印證了該國(guó)外交戰(zhàn)略對(duì)美國(guó)的從屬地位。

　　此前，美國(guó)總統(tǒng)拜登在所謂“印太地區(qū)”推出美日印澳“四方安全對(duì)話(huà)”、美英澳AUKUS三邊安全協(xié)議等，而加拿大作為“五眼聯(lián)盟”成員卻被排除在外。

　　為了不被美國(guó)等盟友邊緣化，加拿大通過(guò)“印太戰(zhàn)略”向美國(guó)發(fā)出信號(hào)，表明它仍然是美國(guó)在包括政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)等所有領(lǐng)域?qū)怪袊?guó)的盟友。然而，即便美國(guó)也無(wú)法徹底和中國(guó)脫鉤，但加拿大卻急于向美國(guó)“送人頭”，恐怕難以得到好處。

　　加拿大廣播公司(CBC)的報(bào)道稱(chēng)，該戰(zhàn)略使用了一些“令人驚訝的直白語(yǔ)言”，加拿大政府需要對(duì)中國(guó)在遠(yuǎn)東和其他地區(qū)的目標(biāo)保持“清醒的頭腦”。

　　中加之間既沒(méi)有重大利害沖突，也沒(méi)有地緣政治矛盾，將中國(guó)視作威脅可謂荒唐。中加雙方需要對(duì)話(huà)，而非對(duì)抗。

　　如果加拿大政府真要對(duì)中國(guó)保持“清醒的頭腦”，就要獨(dú)立思考，不被美國(guó)意志左右，在對(duì)外戰(zhàn)略上爭(zhēng)取更多的自主權(quán)。秉持冷戰(zhàn)思維、挑動(dòng)集團(tuán)政治和陣營(yíng)對(duì)抗的做法不得人心，也勢(shì)必會(huì)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.