加媒:加拿大将遭历史上新的“世界主宰”碾压(图) 新闻来源: 环球邮报 于 2019-02-04 0:36:35 提示:新闻观点不代表本网立场 加媒发表评论称，美国的衰落与中国的崛起形成鲜明对比，中国将占据未来世界的主宰地位，如果加拿大不改变对待北京的方式，加拿大将遭到“碾压”。 加拿大《环球邮报》2019年2月2日刊发国际问题专栏作家曼索普（Jonathan Manthorpe）的评论文章。文章称，过去数十年来，中国已经在加拿大的政界、商界与学术界建立了影响力，北京的利益从未像今天这样遭受如此严重的挑战，中加关系将面临危机。 评论称，在中国电信业巨头华为公司首席财务官、华为创始人任正非女儿孟晚舟于2018年12月1日在温哥华被捕后，加拿大前外交官康明凯（Michael Kovrig）与商人斯帕弗（Michael Spavor）在华被捕，就是加拿大冒犯中国带来风险的最典型例证。 作者在文章中表示，反对加拿大与北京疏远。在过去两个世纪遭受西方国家的“羞辱”后，在中国国家主席习近平的领导下，中国已将自己视为复兴的、天然的、不可替代的世界超级大国。 从加拿大与中国打交道的悲哀、困难的150年历史来看，加拿大需要找到一个减少自我妄想、更有胆识与更有智慧的方式，与新时代的中国相处。如果加拿大不进行重新评估，并改变对待北京的方式，加拿大将遭到历史上新的“世界主宰”的碾压。 评论称，加拿大继续坚持过去70年以来在经济与安全事务上依赖美国的机遇，似乎越来越少，也越来越不安全。 美国总统特朗普（Donald Trump）是孤立主义的象征，这将导致美国统治地位的衰微，与其他国家的崛起形成了鲜明对比，尤其是中国。 文章称，习近平提出“一带一路”倡议，使中国在斯里兰卡、希腊等国获得了多个港口，通过广泛的铁路、公路与海空网络，将中国与世界三分之二的人口直接联系起来，遍及欧洲、中东、非洲、中亚、南亚与东南亚。今后世界将形成“条条大路通北京”，现代版的丝绸之路将成为中国投放影响力的通道。 评论称，加拿大与其他国家不得不与中国保持接触，如果加拿大希望在由中国占有统治地位的世界，继续保留自己的价值观念与生活水平，继续施展作为全球中等强国的影响力，现在与未来的渥太华政府就需要做好准备。 《环球邮报》2月1日曾发表顶级国际关系专家布蓝默（Ian Bremmer）的评论文章称，如今加拿大陷入了中美两个超级大国之间“史诗般的”斗争中，并且看不到任何明确的出路，此时取悦任何一方都将会激起另一方的愤怒。 作者认为，加拿大总理特鲁多（Justin Trudeau）高估了自己的实力，他制定的外交政策是针对当时的时代制定的，而中国已经调整了外交政策，如今北京更倾向于通过展现自己的力量给全世界留下深刻印象。 据加拿大《全国邮报》2月1日报道，加拿大一项最新民调结果显示，有过半（52%）的加拿大受访民众认为特鲁多最近在处理中加关系时表现不当，而多达92%的受访者则认为目前加拿大和中国的关系是“相当严重”或“很严重”。
国家世界历史就是在不停的 评估自己，评估对手，之后，或碾压，或合作，或明争，或暗斗，或奴役，或隐忍。。。。。 评估就会出现误差，这就跟日本统计乌龙一样，评估的误差肯定会导致政策上的挫败。 中国历史上的误判 1。国民党误判形式被驱离大陆。这是对中国文化和世界形势的严重误判 2。中国大跃进。这是对自己能力的严重误判 3。私字一闪念。这是对人性的严重误判 4。文革。极左乌托邦是对人性和物质基础和世界潮流的误判 。。。 大国崛起会不会是下一条？先不论。太难判断。 美国在全球化和世贸问题上可以说是决定性的误判 1。误判西方社会的领先程度和维持领先的潜力。 2。对东方文明的西化过于自信。轻视之。 3。将中国与印度相比，以印度的弱，以日本的小，苏联的空，来揣度中国的潜力。结果反映在世贸条款里。 4。长期的绥靖，与中国太极完推手。结果如何，一目了然。 5。误判了普世价值在中国的号召力。 6。误判了基础自造业的重要性，以为新工业革命可以继续统治世界。坐视自己的基础工业停顿疲软。这与现在对AI的盲目追求异曲同工。 7。误判了西方自身的财富能力和社会阶段，把小国单一民族行之尚可的社会主义（福利主义）推向整个西方。 8。试图利用高达上，达到统治世界的软实力，但是没想到硬实力疲软，软实力就没用了。（川朴上台足以证明） 。。。 猪年到。看看谁是猪肚子，谁是猪脑子。
Canada must reassess its approach to China – if not, we may get steamrolled by the world’s new juggernaut onathan Manthorpe is a long-time foreign correspondent and international affairs columnist whose latest book is Claws of the Panda: Beijing’s Campaign of Influence and Intimidation in Canada, from which this essay is adapted. The Chinese Communist Party must be looking at the debacle over Huawei and the arrest of chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou, and scratching its head in disbelief. After all, this is just the sort of acutely embarrassing situation the party’s 70-year campaign to embed agents of influence in Canada was meant to ensure never happened. For most of those decades, the CCP’s influence among Canada’s political, business and academic establishments has ensured that Beijing’s interests have never been seriously challenged. Now, however, we may be facing a moment of crisis in Canada-China relations. It is also a major opportunity for Canada to reaffirm its civic values and solidify global middle-power democratic alliances. Beijing’s influence among Canada’s elites has fallen foul of Canadian democracy, and the Canadian public says consistently in opinion polls that it is far more skeptical about the CCP than are national opinion-makers. The greater sagacity of the public view has been more than justified by the CCP’s response to the detention of Ms. Meng and the espionage capacities of Huawei. The taking hostage by the CCP of former Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and businessman Michael Spavor are classic examples of the risks run in dealing with a regime that does not believe in the rule of law. Despite its influence in Canada over the past 70 years, the CCP remains ignorant about how Canada works in a crisis, and the Huawei affair shows it. The CCP has been riding roughshod over Canadian values and interfering in Canadian internal affairs to a degree that sometimes amounts to a challenge to Canadians’ sovereignty within their own country. But I am not arguing that Canada should distance itself from the current regime in Beijing. As China under the leadership of President Xi Jinping and the CCP sees itself re-emerging as the world’s natural, irreplaceable superpower after two centuries of “humiliation” at the hands of Western countries, engagement with China cannot and should not be avoided. But what the often sad and difficult story of Canada’s 150 years of involvement with China tells us is that we need to find a less self-delusional, more courageous and more intelligent way of dealing with the new version of the Middle Kingdom. If Canada does not reassess and rework its approach to Beijing, this country may be steamrollered by the new juggernaut of history. The tectonic plates of international power are shifting, thankfully peacefully – so far. But even two years ago, the world and its prospects looked very different. There were few visible hints of the cascade into political dysfunction and isolationism that overtook the United States in November, 2016. And it still looked as though Mr. Xi would follow the collegial style of leadership adopted in China following the depredations of Mao Zedong and the bone-jarring shock of the 1989 Tiananmen Square uprising and massacre. But at the 19th Communist Party Congress in October, 2017, Mr. Xi set the stage for his own continuation in power beyond the two five-year terms that had become the norm. His personal power is now unmatched by any of his predecessors since Mao, and perhaps even further back than that. Meanwhile, Canada’s chances of continuing the past 70 years of economic and security dependency on the United States look less and less secure. Donald Trump is a symptom of the isolationism that for many Americans has always accompanied their belief in the exceptionality of American society. More important, perhaps, is that Mr. Trump is the face of one side of the widening political and social divide within the United States that is making it nearly impossible for political and administrative life to function. It is already contributing to the withering of the American imperium, and it is accentuating the contrast with the rise of other countries, especially China. In the rapidly approaching future, Canada is not going to be able to rely on Washington as an ally in regional security or a trustworthy partner in investment and commerce. More than that, the end of the Pax Americana means that the champion of the international liberal values that have characterized global discourse and institutions since the Second World War and that are at the heart of Canadian nationhood is withdrawing from the field. Story continues below advertisement When China began opening up in the 1980s, Western countries assumed that as the CCP became a stakeholder on the global stage, it would adopt the values of the established international liberal-democratic order. That is not what has happened. China has not emerged as a benign and benevolent beast. Far from it. It has all the hallmarks of a fascist regime, if one accepts the definition of fascism as being a country with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. And yet the word “fascist,” while handy and accurate, is not quite appropriate. It is too Eurocentric in its associations. Mr. Xi’s China is most like that other post-Communist dictatorship, Russia, which is sometimes described as being driven by “Mafia capitalism.” But that also falls somewhere outside the truth. Whatever the CCP does, it does with Chinese characteristics. The management and style of the economy, the internal administration, the attitudes toward neighbouring and foreign states – these all owe more to Chinese traditions than to the country’s experience of the outside world since the end of isolationism in the 1970s. The Communist Party in Beijing oversees a modernized version of a classic Chinese imperial dynasty. It is clear that the CCP’s dynastic ambitions include running a one-party state and resisting political reform with all the tools at its command. The CCP’s political legitimacy comes from massive internal repression tempered by efforts to provide a standard of living that discourages dissent. This has worked well since the era of revised Marxist economics began in the 1980s. Hundreds of millions of Chinese people have seen their standard of living improve beyond what they could have imagined. But with that improvement has come the expectation that their quality of life will continue to improve. This carries a threat for the CCP: If the party fails to continue to feed the desires it has created, it will lose the Mandate of Heaven, the historic concept of divine political legitimacy conferred on Chinese rulers only so long as they are successful. Flowing naturally from China’s economic success is a heightened sense of patriotism and nationalism. State-controlled media incessantly pushes the theme of China riding a wave of national revival, to the point of stoking xenophobia, which is fed by appeals to ancient animosities toward neighbours such as Japan. The CCP misses no opportunity to fabricate warnings that, behind a facade of democratic pacifism, Japan remains a militaristic country. Beijing also nurtures more recent suspicions that the United States and other Western countries are bent on containing China’s rise and reimposing the semicolonialism of the last half of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Ending what the CCP calls the “century of humiliation” is fostered in part by reviving a sense of superiority over neighbouring countries. These were vassal states in imperial times, and the CCP suggests they will be vassals again. Indeed, some – such as Cambodia and Laos – already are. This trumpeting of refreshed Chinese imperialism includes pursuing territorial claims over Taiwan and in the South China and East China seas. The CCP’s construction of island military bases in the South China Sea has turned one of the world’s most important routes for international trade into what amounts to a Chinese lake. Much of the CCP’s colonialism is surreptitious. In the past two decades, about one million people from China’s southwestern Yunnan province have moved over the border into northern Myanmar. They are taking advantage of the business opportunities in the city of Mandalay and the attractions of the casino towns that have sprung up in the lawless regions under the control of Myanmar’s ethnic minority warlords. For two decades or so, CCP state-owned companies and banks have been using the gargantuan profits from the export of manufactured consumer goods to acquire control of natural resources worldwide. Beijing has also been astute in offering cheap loans to governments others considered too risky. Too late, the recipients find that when they are unable to repay the loans, the CCP’s agents are ruthless in demanding assets instead. That’s how the CCP got control of the strategic Sri Lankan port of Hambantota and 60 square kilometres of land around it. Something similar happened when Greece fell on hard times and could no longer get loans from its European Union partners. Beijing stepped in to help, but the upshot is that a Chinese state-owned company owns half of Athens’s port of Piraeus. The acquisition of Greek and other European ports is part of Mr. Xi’s most lavish imperial enterprise. His multitrillion-dollar “One Belt, One Road” scheme envisages a vast rail, road, air and sea network that directly links China to two-thirds of the world’s population in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, South and Southeast Asia. All roads will lead to Beijing and will be a route for the CCP’s projection of power and influence throughout this modern version of the old Silk Road. President Xi has made it clear that he has no regard for the values of democracy and human rights that have been at the heart of the international liberal order since the end of the Second World War. He is an evangelist among developing countries for China’s model of economic advances achieved by a secure one-party state managing a close-knit family of oligarchs and state-owned enterprises. It is a model that the leaders of many developing countries find attractive, especially when contrasted with the apparent disorder and internal disruption of North Atlantic liberal-democratic culture. Mr. Xi is equally skeptical about international institutions such as the United Nations, World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and all the agencies that have flowed from them. Those institutions do not represent the values of the world that Mr. Xi wants to create. He will either bend them to his will or supplant them with new bodies more to his liking. The current CCP regime will not last forever. Dynasties never do, and the historical record in China is that they all die violently. This will likely happen to the CCP, but it’s not a good bet that it will happen anytime soon. Thus, Canada and all other countries having to engage with China while maintaining their own liberal-democratic institutions face some harsh realities. If Canada wishes to preserve its values and its standards of living based on trade in a world dominated by China, if it wishes to expand its influence as a global middle power, present and future governments in Ottawa need to prepare the ground. They need to cement political, economic social, and security ties within NATO and the G7, along with other like-minded countries. Canadian politicians need to assume a much tougher and more self-assured attitude toward Beijing than is now the case.
