爱吱声

标题: 卡尼是个人才 [打印本页]

作者: indy 时间: 3 天前
标题: 卡尼是个人才
徐和谦

【加拿大總理卡尼達沃斯發強音：中等強國團結起來舊秩序不會回來了】

當地時間1月20日，剛剛結束訪問中國和中東行程的加拿大總理卡尼來到瑞士達沃斯，出席2026年的世界經濟論壇年會。

在美國總統特朗普抵達達沃斯並發表演說的前一天，這位因特朗普屢屢揚言欲兼並加拿大、激起加拿大民憤遂能蟬聯執政的加拿大總理，如何詮釋特朗普所帶來的變局，頗受各界關註。

演講一開篇，卡尼就告訴與會者，「今天，我將談談世界秩序的斷裂、美好故事的終結，以及殘酷現實的開端——在這個現實中，大國間的地緣政治不受任何約束。」

「但我也想告訴各位，其他國家，特別是像加拿大這樣的中等強國，並非無能為力。我們有能力構建體現我們價值觀的新秩序，諸如尊重人權、可持續發展、團結互助、國家主權與領土完整。」

卡尼說，強權國家固有其能夠強大的基礎，但是，「弱者的力量始於誠實。」

「我們每日都感受到身處大國博弈時代的現實：基於規則的秩序正在消退，強者為所欲為，弱者被迫承受。」
他說，在修昔底德的名言——「國際關系的自然法則總是自我重申」的壓力下，各國往往傾向於順應情勢、妥協求全，規避麻煩，寄望於順從換取安全，「但這行不通」。

他還引述後來成為捷克總統的作家哈維爾在《無權者的權力》一文中所舉的例子說道，各國不應再「生活在謊言之中」。因為，加拿大等國家在幾十年的「基於規則的國際秩序下」，實際上明明知道，國際規則體系的故事存在破綻──強權總在便利時自我豁免；貿易規則在執行時存在雙重標準；國際法的適用嚴苛程度，會因被告或受害者的身份而異。

「這種虛幻的體系曾發揮過積極作用，尤其是當美國霸權為全球提供公共產品──開放的海運航線、穩定的金融體系、集體安全保障以及爭端解決機製時」，但如今，如今這套交易已然失效。

卡尼重申，我們正在經歷的是一場斷裂，而不僅是過渡期而已(we are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.)。

卡尼雖然未直接點美國的名字，但仍直截地說道：大國開始將經濟上的整合作為武器，把關稅當成杠桿，金融基礎設施則淪為脅迫手段，供應鏈則被視作可供利用的脆弱點。

他說，當經濟整合本身成為國家之間從屬性關系的根源時，你便無法繼續活在「互利」的謊言中。

他回顧到，中等力量國家們曾倚仗的多邊機構——不論是世貿組織、聯合國、聯合國氣候大會——這些集體解決問題的架構——如今都已大為削弱。

因此，許多國家得出了相同的結論──必須在能源、糧食、關鍵礦產、金融和供應鏈領域發展更強的戰略自主。

「若大國連規則與價值觀的表象都拋棄了，只是為了不受阻礙地追求權力與利益，那麽『交易主義』帶來的收益將更難復製。霸權國家無法持續將這種關系給貨幣化。」

卡尼倡言說，對加拿大這類中等強國而言，問題不在於是否適應新現實——「我們必須適應」。關鍵在於：是選擇築起更高的圍墻，還是追求更宏大的目標？

他呼應芬蘭總統斯圖布提出的概念─「基於價值的現實主義(values-based realism) 」——換言之，致力於堅持原則與務實並重，在恪守核心價值時秉持原則，在認清現實時保持務實。

他稱，「我們正以清醒的頭腦開展廣泛而戰略性的接觸。我們積極應對現實世界，而非坐等理想世界的到來。」

卡尼介紹到，鑒於世界秩序的動蕩，加拿大正優先推進廣泛的接觸，以最大化自身的影響力。「我們不再僅是依靠價值觀帶來的力量，更註重力量所乘載的價值( We are no longer relying on just the strength of our values, but also on the value of our strength)」

他說，當前加拿大正在拆除國內省際貿易的聯邦壁壘，加速推進能源、人工智能、關鍵礦產、新型貿易走廊等領域萬億加元投資計劃；計劃到2030年將國防開支翻番，並通過此舉培育國內產業。

過去六個月，加拿大在四個大洲簽署了12項貿易與安全協議。近日，還與中國和卡塔爾建立了新的戰略夥伴關系，並正與印度、東盟、泰國、菲律賓、南方共同市場等談判自由貿易協定。

在近日成為焦點的北極主權問題上，卡尼說，加拿大堅定支持格陵蘭和丹麥，全力支持其決定格陵蘭未來的獨特權利。我們對《北約憲章》第五條的承諾堅定不移。

加拿大堅決反對美國就格陵蘭島問題，對歐洲有關國家征收關稅，並呼籲開展專項磋商，以實現北極地區安全與繁榮的共同目標。

他還一一介紹了加拿大在多邊貿易、關鍵礦產、人工智能等領域的結盟措施，「確保我們最終不必在霸權國家與超大規模企業之間被迫選擇，「這並非天真的多邊主義，也非依賴衰落的國際機構。而是針對具體議題，與擁有足夠共同立場、能夠協同行動的夥伴建立有效的聯盟。」

他反復重申，中等規模強國必須攜手行動，「因為，如果你不坐在餐桌之前，你就會淪為菜單上的菜品」。

卡尼說，大國可以獨行其是——它們擁有市場規模、軍事實力和製定規則的籌碼。中等國家則不然。「但若僅與霸權國家進行雙邊談判，我們便處於弱勢地位。我們只能接受對方拋出的條件，彼此競相表現得最順從」，「然而這並非主權，而是表演主權的同時接受從屬。」

他總結到：在大國博弈的世界裏，夾在中間的國家面臨選擇：要麽相互競爭如何討好大國，要麽是聯合開辟具有影響力的第三條道路。

在演講的結尾，他再次引用哈維爾的文學比喻說，中等國家若要「活在真理中」意味著什麽？

他說，這意味著直面現實，保持行動一致性，對盟友和對手的行為檢視一視同仁。「當中等強國對某種經濟脅迫提出批評，卻對另一種脅迫保持沈默時，我們不過是(如哈維爾筆下的商店店主那樣)在櫥窗裏掛著標語作秀」。「與其等待舊秩序復蘇，不如創建真正按承諾運作的機構與協議。」

卡尼斷言，舊秩序不會重現了。而我們不應為之哀悼。懷舊不是一種戰略。從裂痕中，我們可以建造更美好、更強大、更公正的事物。

卡尼用一種聲調並不誇張、語音情緒起伏不大，但仍頗有穿透力的語感呼籲到，「這是中等強國的使命——在堡壘林立的世界裏，我們損失最多；在真誠合作的世界裏，我們收獲最多。

強權者固有其權勢，但我們亦握有力量——停止假裝、直面現實、在國內積蓄實力以及攜手共進的能力」。

卡尼的演說結束後，在世界經濟論壇的主會場中，罕見出現了有部分聽眾為各國政治領導人的官式講話自發起立致敬的場面。

在隨後的問答環節中，當卡尼被問及北約的現狀問題時，他坦言，北約當前正面臨考驗。當務之急是全面強化加拿大、北歐國家、波羅的海國家、英國及其他北約夥伴，在北極地區的安全舉措，以提供更強有力的保障。這正是當前考驗所在。

面對自己剛剛結束的中國之行，和西方各界對卡尼與中國尋求建立戰略夥伴關系的不同反應，卡尼辯護道，加拿大尋求的是與中國「重新校準」關系，且雙方的關系設有明確的「護欄」。

在明確的邊界內，能源領域蘊藏著中加合作的巨大機遇——無論是清潔能源還是傳統能源，顯然還有汽車、農業、金融服務等領域，所有這些都具有互利性。所以這是互補的。

「要知道，中國是世界第二大經濟體，也是我們的第二大貿易夥伴。我們應當在這些界線內與他們建立戰略夥伴關系，而這正是我們將要做的。」

針對格陵蘭問題，卡尼也稱，盡管圍繞這一話題，討論被催化方式「確實不同尋常」，但加拿大始終恪守我所提及的原則──解決方案始於安全保障——不僅是格陵蘭島的安全，更涵蓋整個北極地區的安全。

他稱，加拿大正處於對北極安全做出重大貢獻升級的起點，規模將遠超以往。他也重申，格陵蘭人民的繁榮終需取決於當地民眾自身。

[groupid=238]龙的天空[/groupid]

作者: indy 时间: 3 天前
Canada PM 演講全文
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics ... sed-order-9.7053350

ZT:
加拿大總理：
「今天，我將談談世界秩序的破裂，一個美好故事的終結。
以及一個殘酷現實的開端：大國在在地緣政治上不受任何約束。」

Today, I'll talk about the rupture in the world order, the end of a nice story and the beginning of a brutal reality where geopolitics among the great powers is not subject to any constraints.

至於下一句關於中型國家的行動方案，沒什麼意義。
連橫還是合縱的對抗，現在有博弈論，很容易求解。

而無論是中國或是美國。對上世界上「其他」力量。
都擁有「代差」優勢。

代差優勢無可彌補。無法用「交換比」計算。
無論是美國空軍在內華達或是阿拉斯加的紅旗軍演。
或是對岸空軍在甘肅鼎新的各項演習。
都告訴這兩隻空軍，代差無可彌補。都是單方面結束戰鬥。

樂觀點想，中美不發生衝突，其他地方頂多就是小規模衝突。空軍炸一炸就結束衝突。

悲觀點想，全世界都會注意到只有一個地方可以讓中國傾國之力，動用六代機、全球最大五代機隊、全球最大重型打擊機隊、全球最大中程轟炸機隊、全球最大 AESA 水面艦隊。與美國開戰。

很多中型國家都會注意到這是一個可利用的「支點」。

作者: indy 时间: 3 天前
Overnight in Davos, Switzerland, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered what I suspect will be recorded in future history text books as an era defining speech. It is profound, accurate, and very relevant to another "Middle Power" like Australia.

Here is the full text of that speech. I urge you to read it in its entirety:

"It’s a pleasure – and a duty – to be with you at this turning point for Canada and for the world.

Today, I’ll talk about the rupture in the world order, the end of a nice story, and the beginning of a brutal reality where geopolitics among the great powers is not subject to any constraints.

But I also submit to you that other countries, particularly middle powers like Canada, are not powerless. They have the capacity to build a new order that embodies our values, like respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of states.

The power of the less powerful begins with honesty.

Every day we are reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry. That the rules-based order is fading. That the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.

This aphorism of Thucydides is presented as inevitable – the natural logic of international relations reasserting itself. And faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along. To accommodate. To avoid trouble. To hope that compliance will buy safety.

It won’t.

So, what are our options?

In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel wrote an essay called The Power of the Powerless. In it, he asked a simple question: how did the communist system sustain itself?

His answer began with a greengrocer. Every morning, this shopkeeper places a sign in his window: “Workers of the world, unite!” He does not believe it. No one believes it. But he places the sign anyway – to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along. And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persists.

Not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false.

Havel called this “living within a lie.” The system’s power comes not from its truth but from everyone’s willingness to perform as if it were true. And its fragility comes from the same source: when even one person stops performing — when the greengrocer removes his sign — the illusion begins to crack.

It is time for companies and countries to take their signs down.

For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, praised its principles, and benefited from its predictability. We could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.

We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

This fiction was useful, and American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security, and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.

So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals. And largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.

This bargain no longer works.

Let me be direct: we are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.

Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy, and geopolitics laid bare the risks of extreme global integration.

More recently, great powers began using economic integration as weapons. Tariffs as leverage. Financial infrastructure as coercion. Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.

You cannot “live within the lie” of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.

The multilateral institutions on which middle powers relied— the WTO, the UN, the COP – the architecture of collective problem solving – are greatly diminished.

As a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions. They must develop greater strategic autonomy: in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance, and supply chains.

This impulse is understandable. A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself, or defend itself has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.

But let us be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile, and less sustainable.

And there is another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretence of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from “transactionalism” become harder to replicate. Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships.

Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty. Buy insurance. Increase options. This rebuilds sovereignty – sovereignty that was once grounded in rules, but will be increasingly anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.

As I said, such classic risk management comes at a price, but that cost of strategic autonomy, of sovereignty, can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortress. Shared standards reduce fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sum.

The question for middle powers, like Canada, is not whether to adapt to this new reality. We must. The question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls – or whether we can do something more ambitious.

Canada was amongst the first to hear the wake-up call, leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture.

Canadians know that our old, comfortable assumption that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security is no longer valid.

Our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb has termed “values-based realism” – or, to put it another way, we aim to be principled and pragmatic.

Principled in our commitment to fundamental values: sovereignty and territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter, respect for human rights.

Pragmatic in recognising that progress is often incremental, that interests diverge, that not every partner shares our values. We are engaging broadly, strategically, with open eyes. We actively take on the world as it is, not wait for a world we wish to be.

Canada is calibrating our relationships so their depth reflects our values. We are prioritising broad engagement to maximise our influence, given the fluidity of the world order, the risks that this poses, and the stakes for what comes next.

We are no longer relying on just the strength of our values, but also on the value of our strength.

We are building that strength at home.

Since my government took office, we have cut taxes on incomes, capital gains and business investment, we have removed all federal barriers to interprovincial trade, and we are fast-tracking a trillion dollars of investment in energy, AI, critical minerals, new trade corridors, and beyond.

We are doubling our defence spending by 2030 and are doing so in ways that builds our domestic industries.

We are rapidly diversifying abroad. We have agreed a comprehensive strategic partnership with the European Union, including joining SAFE, Europe’s defence procurement arrangements.

We have signed twelve other trade and security deals on four continents in the last six months.

In the past few days, we have concluded new strategic partnerships with China and Qatar.

We are negotiating free trade pacts with India, ASEAN, Thailand, Philippines, Mercosur.

To help solve global problems, we are pursuing variable geometry— different coalitions for different issues, based on values and interests.

On Ukraine, we are a core member of the Coalition of the Willing and one of the largest per-capita contributors to its defence and security.

On Arctic sovereignty, we stand firmly with Greenland and Denmark and fully support their unique right to determine Greenland’s future. Our commitment to Article 5 is unwavering.

We are working with our NATO allies (including the Nordic Baltic 8) to further secure the alliance’s northern and western flanks, including through Canada’s unprecedented investments in over-the-horizon radar, submarines, aircraft, and boots on the ground. Canada strongly opposes tariffs over Greenland and calls for focused talks to achieve shared objectives of security and prosperity for the Arctic.

On plurilateral trade, we are championing efforts to build a bridge between the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the European Union, creating a new trading block of 1.5 billion people.

On critical minerals, we are forming buyer’s clubs anchored in the G7 so that the world can diversify away from concentrated supply.

On AI, we are cooperating with like-minded democracies to ensure we will not ultimately be forced to choose between hegemons and hyperscalers.

This is not naive multilateralism. Nor is it relying on diminished institutions. It is building the coalitions that work, issue by issue, with partners who share enough common ground to act together. In some cases, this will be the vast majority of nations.

And it is creating a dense web of connections across trade, investment, culture on which we can draw for future challenges and opportunities.

Middle powers must act together because if you are not at the table, you are on the menu.

Great powers can afford to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity, the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not. But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what is offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating.

This is not sovereignty. It is the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.

In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: to compete with each other for favour or to combine to create a third path with impact.

We should not allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity, and rules will remain strong — if we choose to wield it together.

Which brings me back to Havel.

What would it mean for middle powers to “live in truth”?

It means naming reality. Stop invoking the “rules-based international order” as though it still functions as advertised. Call the system what it is: a period of intensifying great power rivalry, where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as a weapon of coercion.

It means acting consistently. Apply the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticise economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.

It means building what we claim to believe in. Rather than waiting for the old order to be restored, create institutions and agreements that function as described.

And it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion. Building a strong domestic economy should always be every government’s priority. Diversification internationally is not just economic prudence; it is the material foundation for honest foreign policy. Countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.

Canada has what the world wants. We are an energy superpower. We hold vast reserves of critical minerals. We have the most educated population in the world. Our pension funds are amongst the world’s largest and most sophisticated investors. We have capital, talent, and a government with the immense fiscal capacity to act decisively.

And we have the values to which many others aspire.

Canada is a pluralistic society that works. Our public square is loud, diverse, and free. Canadians remain committed to sustainability.

We are a stable, reliable partner—in a world that is anything but—a partner that builds and values relationships for the long term.

Canada has something else: a recognition of what is happening and a determination to act accordingly.

We understand that this rupture calls for more than adaptation. It calls for honesty about the world as it is.

We are taking the sign out of the window.

The old order is not coming back. We should not mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy.

But from the fracture, we can build something better, stronger, and more just.

This is the task of the middle powers, who have the most to lose from a world of fortresses and the most to gain from a world of genuine cooperation.

The powerful have their power. But we have something too – the capacity to stop pretending, to name reality, to build our strength at home, and to act together.

That is Canada’s path. We choose it openly and confidently.

And it is a path wide open to any country willing to take it with us."

作者: 龙血树 时间: 3 天前
大家拿反省有些晚，但总比不反省好。选票国家的困境就是，关键决策转变会滞后，因为洞察者被普罗大众认知拖拽。等到普罗大众都认识到，损失已经严重。同时，实力培养也需要时间，这种迟来的政策转变，其结果就带有更多的不确定。

中国在TPP谈判被拒时代就意识到问题，习总上任就立刻进行一带一路+科技发展等布局，这才迎来十几年后的防守反击的能力。

作者: indy 时间: 3 天前

龙血树发表于 2026-1-21 08:05
大家拿反省有些晚，但总比不反省好。选票国家的困境就是，关键决策转变会滞后，因为洞察者被普罗大众认知拖 ...

早和晚都是相对而言，卡尼发出达沃斯宣言有望从一个平庸政客进化为一个伟大政治家

作者: 凡卡 时间: 3 天前
特朗普哪天丢根骨头，加拿大就会跟中国翻脸

，一秒都不带犹豫地

作者: 无言 时间: 前天 01:10
本帖最后由无言于 2026-1-22 01:16 编辑

哈哈哈！

作者: 赫然 时间: 前天 02:07
卡尼这篇演讲基本是反懂王的檄文，标志这全世界反懂王联盟一起发出的号角。
可能会是一个转折点，搞不好会成为历史书上被提及的一篇。

严格来说，这次卡尼的行动算是美国内政的延续，同时也顺应了第二世界的心声。

至于结果，就要看懂王的反击力度了。也是考验懂王能否突破美国国内的限制了。

作者: ringxiao 时间: 前天 04:41

赫然发表于 2026-1-22 02:07
卡尼这篇演讲基本是反懂王的檄文，标志这全世界反懂王联盟一起发出的号角。
可能会是一个转折点，搞不好会 ...

除了美国之外的西方阵营这些国家，总有一种想法：从我开始往上一律平等，我下面都是贱民。不愿意追求真平等，又没有实力搞纯粹的帝国主义，还不要左右逢迎，最后只能是血包。

作者: 陈比尔 时间: 前天 05:59
听其言观其行

作者: 陈比尔 时间: 前天 05:59

凡卡发表于 2026-1-21 21:45
特朗普哪天丢根骨头，加拿大就会跟中国翻脸，一秒都不带犹豫地

的确如此，但美国要丢骨头应该也是下届政府的事情。闯王自己都还没吃饱呢。

欢迎光临爱吱声 (http://www.aswetalk.net/bbs/)