English translation is below:

大家好，歡迎收看這期的公子時評，我是公子沈。這個節目最近講國際關係講得有點多，我們回到中國內政話題，說說最近的事。其實在我們做節目的同一時間，中國重慶爆發了大規模抗議活動；等到我們錄節目的時候，已經遭到中國警方鎮壓，而且還在持續進行。

這件事情，還是要從6月7號講起。在重慶兩江新區的大師壩，一棟普通居民樓裡，幾個動物救助志工在樓道里發現一隻兩個月大的虎斑幼犬。而且牠傷得很重，後來給牠取名叫東東，送到寵物醫院後，獸醫的診斷單讓很多人不忍心往下看：牠滿口牙齒都被人磨平了。尾巴和肛門周圍也都被利器整個剪掉，前後肢多處骨折，還有大面積肺出血、左眼充血和頭部腫脹，東東雖然暫時保住了命。但到目前為止，牠還沒辦法正常進食。

Read more

中文版在下方

Readers who follow me on X will know that I have been blocked by Mao Ning, a spokeswoman for China’s foreign ministry. The provocation was modest. She had posted a video of a People’s Liberation Army honour guard stepping around an elderly woman in a wheelchair and her family, captioned “the people’s army makes way for the people.”

I asked the obvious question: how could they not make way for some people and a wheelchair with a person in it, march straight over them? I added that when an official has to dress up such a scene as propaganda, in a foreign language and on a foreign platform, you can be confident it is not an ordinary day back home. She blocked me.

That turned out to be a favour. My following grew, which proved useful a few days later when I began posting about June 4th. The thirty-seventh anniversary was trending, with more than 180,000 posts, and I was glad to find myself at the top of them.

Raising the alarm about the Communist regime is the least one can do for the people who died in 1989. Mao Ning and her team had not grasped that parading the PLA at such a sensitive moment could only rebound on them. For a week afterwards her replies were filled with the same reminder: the army’s real talent has been for turning its guns on Chinese citizens.

Lucky for me, blocking is all she can do. Were I in China, the police would already have knocked on my door and taken me away. The censorship around this anniversary has been the heaviest I can remember. Every reference is scrubbed, down to the number 64 itself.

On WeChat, friends trying to split a dinner bill into payments of 64 yuan found the transactions quietly refused. In Hong Kong woman was arrested for holding up six fingers and then four; another was detained for wearing a shirt printed with the official slogan “socialism with Chinese characteristics,” because the police understood he meant it as a joke.

Why is the party so frightened of a date? Because it knows it holds power without a mandate. No Chinese voter ever put it in office. It governs through censorship, propaganda and, when those fail, force. Its apologists like to claim that the Tiananmen protests were never peaceful, that they were a CIA-funded colour revolution.

Yet a government that had truly defeated a foreign plot would say so loudly. It would teach the episode in schools, mark the victory each year and let people argue about it freely. China does none of this. The very fact that the word “Tiananmen” still cannot be spoken, decades on, gives the lie to the story.

History does not cooperate with the conspiracy either. The 1980s were the warmest years in the relationship between Washington and Beijing. America backed Deng Xiaoping’s opening and was beginning to profit from it. A stable China under a friendly government suited American interests; the last thing Washington wanted was bloodshed in the square, but nor did it want the government toppled and the country plunged into uncertainty.

That is why trade resumed so quickly after the killings. To call June 4th a foreign plot to overthrow the state is not merely illogical. It is a claim the Chinese government itself has never endorsed. It survives only as a line for those who wish to excuse the dead.

We should insist on remembering Beijing, and the many other cities where blood was shed, for one plain reason: the regime has not changed. It is the same party-state, and a party-state will always place the party first and sacrifice anything to keep it there. The structure exists to guard its own grip at any cost.

We have watched it do so ever since: the persecution of Falun Gong, the mass arrest of human-rights lawyers, the camps built for Uyghurs, the cultural genocide of Tibetans and Mongolians, the jailing of Christian leaders, the dismantling of Hong Kong’s freedoms, the cruelties of zero-covid, and a campaign of transnational repression that now reaches dissidents far beyond its borders.

To commemorate Tiananmen is to honour those who paid the highest price, and it is also a warning. What happened in 1989 still threatens every Chinese who longs for freedom, and it threatens the peace of the wider world.

June 5, 2026

originally published on Times Now: https://www.timesnownews.com/opinion/world/why-china-still-cannot-say-tiananmen-article-154470751

譯文：

關注我在 X（前 Twitter）的讀者可能知道，我已經被中國外交部發言人毛寧封鎖了。事情的起因其實相當簡單。她發布了一段中國人民解放軍儀仗隊的影片，畫面中儀仗隊繞過了一位坐在輪椅上的老太太及其家人，並配文寫道：「人民軍隊給人民讓路」。

我提出了一個再明顯不過的問題：難道他們還能不讓路嗎？難道要直接從輪椅和行人身上踩過去不成？

我接著補充說，當一位官方發言人必須把這樣的場景包裝成宣傳素材，而且還是用外語、在海外社交平台上發布時，你大概就可以確定，國內此刻一定不是什麼平常日子。

於是，她把我封鎖了。

結果看來，這反而幫了我一個忙。我的追蹤人數因此增加了不少，而幾天之後，當我開始發表有關六四的內容時，這些新增的關注者派上了用場。六四三十七週年在 X 上成為熱門話題，相關貼文超過十八萬篇，而我很高興自己的內容能夠出現在討論熱度最高的位置之一。

對於那些在1989年失去生命的人而言，提醒世人警惕這個共產主義政權，大概已經是我們至少能做到的事情。毛寧和她的團隊顯然沒有意識到，在如此敏感的時刻高調展示解放軍，只會產生反效果。在接下來的一週裡，她的留言區幾乎被同樣的提醒洗版：

解放軍真正擅長的事情，是把槍口對準中國人民。

幸運的是，對我而言，她能做的只有封鎖而已。如果我身在中國，警察恐怕早已敲響我的家門，把我帶走了。

今年圍繞六四週年的審查力度，是我記憶中最嚴厲的一次。任何相關內容都被清除，甚至連「64」這個數字本身都成了禁忌。

在微信上，有朋友試圖把聚餐費拆分成64元付款，結果交易被悄悄拒絕。在香港，一名女子因為先比出六根手指、再比出四根手指而遭到逮捕；另一人則因為穿著印有官方口號「中國特色社會主義」的T恤而被拘留，因為警方知道他是在諷刺。

為什麼中共如此害怕一個日期？因為它知道自己掌握權力，卻沒有來自人民的授權。

沒有任何中國選民曾經透過自由選舉把共產黨送上執政位置。它依靠審查、宣傳，以及在前兩者失效時的武力來維持統治。

中共的辯護者經常聲稱，天安門運動從來不是和平抗議，而是一場由中央情報局（CIA）資助的「顏色革命」。

然而，如果一個政府真的成功粉碎了一場外國勢力策動的陰謀，它理應大張旗鼓地宣揚這項勝利。它會把這段歷史寫進教科書，每年舉辦紀念活動，並允許人民自由討論和爭辯。

但中國什麼都沒有做。恰恰相反，三十多年過去了，「天安門」這個詞依然無法被公開談論。僅僅這個事實本身，就足以推翻官方的那套說法。

歷史事實同樣不支持這種陰謀論。

1980年代其實是華盛頓與北京關係最友好的時期。美國支持鄧小平的改革開放，也開始從中獲益。一個由友好政府統治、穩定發展的中國，符合美國的利益。華盛頓當然不希望看到天安門廣場流血，但同樣也不希望中國政府被推翻、整個國家陷入動盪與不確定之中。這也是為什麼在鎮壓發生之後不久，美中貿易便迅速恢復。

因此，把六四描述成一場外國勢力顛覆國家的陰謀，不僅缺乏邏輯，甚至連中國政府自己都從未正式背書過這種說法。

這種說法之所以至今仍然存在，只不過是某些人用來為六四鎮壓開脫、替死難者被殺尋找藉口的宣傳話術。

我們必須堅持記住北京，也必須記住當年許多同樣流血的中國城市，原因其實很簡單：這個政權從未改變。

它依然是同一個黨國體制，而黨國體制永遠會把黨的利益放在第一位，並願意犧牲一切來維持統治。整個制度存在的目的，就是不惜任何代價守護自身的權力。

而在此後的數十年間，我們也一次又一次看見它這麼做：

對法輪功的迫害；對人權律師的大規模抓捕；為維吾爾人建立拘禁營；對藏族與蒙古族文化的系統性摧毀；對基督教領袖的監禁；對香港自由的瓦解；清零政策期間的種種殘酷措施；以及如今已延伸至海外、針對異議人士的跨國鎮壓行動。

紀念天安門，不只是為了向那些付出最高代價的人致敬。它同時也是一種警告：1989年發生的事情，至今仍然威脅著每一位渴望自由的中國人；而它所代表的威脅，也同樣關係到整個世界的和平與未來。

2026年6月5日

大家好，歡迎收看這期的公子時評，我是公子沈。就在前幾天，全球最重要的安全論壇——新加坡香格里拉對話正在進行。日本防衛大臣小泉進次郎在台上演講，回應了中國外交部五月所拋出的一個說法，也就是指控日本強化防衛能力是「新型軍國主義」，中國還呼籲亞太各國聯手抵制。

Hello everyone, welcome to this episode of Mr. Shen’s Commentary. I’m Mr. Shen. Just a few days ago, the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore — one of the world’s most important security forums — was taking place. Japan’s Defence Minister Shinjiro Koizumi delivered a speech there, responding to a claim put forward by China’s Foreign Ministry in May — namely, the accusation that Japan’s strengthening of its defence capabilities amounts to “new militarism,” with China also calling on Asia-Pacific countries to jointly resist it.

Read more

中文版在本頁下方

Q: Michael, thank you for your time today. Let’s dive right into it. You’ve just returned from Taipei, where you met President Lai. A trip you made after China’s ambassador publicly warned Canadian MPs to stay away. Why was it important to you to go anyway and to go now?

A: Well, it was important to go for two reasons. As you know, Taiwan is a democracy on the front lines of authoritarian threats from an authoritarian state. And I think it’s important for democracies like Canada to show solidarity with those democracies.

We show our solidarity with Ukraine. Taiwan is in some ways, no different. It’s another democracy facing threats from a different authoritarian state. And so I think it’s important to show solidarity. The second reason?

That it was important to go is because of the PRC ambassador’s recent comments that Canadian MPs no longer travel to Taiwan, despite longstanding practice of the last five decades where MPs from all parties have traveled to Taiwan to foster bilateral relations. The ambassador also made another outrageous comment.

He indicated that he warned against Royal Canadian Navy warships from transiting through international straits, such as the Taiwan Strait, and said that Canadian warships should no longer transit through the Taiwan Strait. even though it’s an international strait, and even though they’ve done so a dozen times in the last several years.

Q: So you bought the tickets right after he made that comment?

A: Yeah, I think it’s important. I made the decision. That action speaks louder than words, and that sovereignty is not just something that you proclaim, it’s something you have to exercise.

This is why our Navy warships transit through international waters to maintain global commerce and open shipping lanes. It’s why MPs travel abroad for bilateral visits. So I decided to not just assert our sovereignty by issuing a statement, but also to exercise it by visiting Taiwan.

Q: He is probably going to regret about that.

A: I agree. And I think one of the things that came out of the trip was that. It prompted the Government of Canada to issue a statement in support of Canadian MPs traveling to Taiwan.

And it’s also prompted MPs like Judy Sgro to make it clear that they are also planning to go to Taiwan in the near future. So I think those were the things that came out of the trip that I was happy to see.

Q: In 2021, you were sanctioned by Beijing. And you later learned that the Chinese government had targeted your relatives in Hong Kong because of your work in Parliament. What was it like to discover that? And what did it teach you about how the Chinese state views people of Chinese descent and also any Canadian who’s critical of China?

A: As you pointed out, Beijing sanctioned me for not anything that I did. They’re ostensibly their reason for sanctioning me was because of some actions the Government of Canada took.

Earlier in March of 2021. And so they sanctioned me for decisions that the Government of Canada made. And subsequent to that, as you pointed out, one of their diplomats here was clandestinely collecting information on me and my family to submit.

Not to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, but to their secret police, to the Ministry of State Security. And that was for potential future targeting of family that I have in China. So my feeling is that this has exposed.

What is a broad practice of Beijing in democracies, where they use transnational repression, coercive tactics, clandestine tactics to try to intimidate citizens of those democracies? Into silence? I’ve got the fortunate position of being an elected member of Parliament.

Where I can raise these issues. But there are so many members of the community that suffer in silence because they don’t have a voice. Their cases are not publicly known, and yet they’re subject to this transnational repression.

So I feel a responsibility, a duty to make this kind of repression public, to be a voice for the voiceless.

Q: You’ve described Taiwan as a democracy at the front lines of threats from authoritarian states. You just said that. You said it before. What did you see on the ground in Taiwan that during the trip, that you wish more Canadians could see for themselves?

A: What I saw was a prosperous society that protects civil liberties and rights. That also respects the rule of law and has an independent judicial system and a society that is democratic in nature. where power has changed between two different parties, where the president and office changes through democratic elections. That’s what I saw.

And what that, I think, is really revealing is that. These basic principles of our democracy, of democratic institutions and elections, of freedoms and liberties and civil rights, of the rule of law and independent judicial systems.

Is not just for the democracies of North America and Western Europe. That these are universal principles that the people around the world can aspire to. and the Taiwanese have, and I think have shown tremendous gains over the last several decades. In fact, if you look at Taiwan’s emergence.

As a full-fledged democracy, over the last two, three decades, it’s not only become a full-fledged democracy, it’s also skyrocketed in per capita GDP and prosperity. Its per capita GDP now is higher than ours in Canada. which I think is a testament to these underlying principles.

Q: In Janurary, two Liberal MPs cut their Taiwan visit short on government advice to so-called avoid confusion with Canada’s foreign policy. and you did the opposite. What is at stake when Canada’s government and its parliament send the world two different signals on Taiwan?

A: I think that was an unfortunate incident. I think it signaled the wrong message, both to Taiwan and to Beijing. I think it signaled that the Canadian government was willing to acquiesce to Beijing’s demands on Taiwan.

And I don’t think we should be doing that. I think what’s really important in the Indo-Pacific region is to maintain peace and stability. And I think we maintain peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait. By making it clear to Beijing that there will be a price paid.

For any unilateral action taken by Beijing against Taipei. And so I think in that context, it’s really important that we assure that high price. And that high price is assured through parliamentary visits from democracies’ elected representatives to their counterparts in Taiwan.

It’s assured through freedom of navigation operations that are conducted by various democracies’ navies through the Taiwan Strait. It’s assured by a myriad of other daily and monthly and yearly activities that take place.

Between the democracies of the West and Taiwan. And so I think it’s incredibly important to maintain that pace and tempo of those relations. In order to assure that high price and to make it clear to Beijing.

That there will be a very high price to be paid if any unilateral action is taken against Taipei.

Q: It seems a wrong signal that Canada is willing to give up its principle just for some agriculture purchase. That’s really dangerous.

A: Yeah, I think there’s two lessons to be taken from recent conflicts. The most recent one is what happens when a major global shipping lane is closed. The Strait of Hormuz has been closed now for several months, and it has disrupted global energy markets.

If the Strait of Taiwan were ever to be closed because of some unilateral action by Beijing, it would have a massive impact on trade and investment here in Canada and across North America and Europe. So we have to make sure that that doesn’t happen.

The other conflict that has broken out in recent years, that demonstrates why we have to maintain a very high price against. Any unilateral action by Beijing is Russia’s war against Ukraine. Russia took unilateral action to invade Ukraine just over four years ago. And in the blink of an eye.

Tens of billions of dollars of investment and trade evaporated. And the disruption to global trade has been enormous. And the disruption continues to this day. Over four years later, because of Russia’s war in Ukraine. So the impact of disruption by the PRC against Taiwan?

Would be many fold greater because China is a much, much bigger part of the global economy compared to Russia. which is why we have to work with democracies like Japan, like the Philippines.

Like Taiwan, to ensure that we maintain peace and security in the region. And that begins by not acquiescing to Beijing’s demands about changing the way we have done things for many decades in the region.

Q: So the last question is also about China and Taiwan. And if you could put several specific actions on Prime Minister’s desk tomorrow to strengthen Canada’s relationship with Taiwan and also to deal with China, what would that be?

A: Well, the first thing I think the government should do is sign the Canada-Taiwan trade arrangement. That trade agreement or arrangement was negotiated over a year ago.

The negotiations concluded over a year ago, some 15 months ago. It’s ready for both parties to sign. And I think the government should get on with it and sign that agreement. So we can broaden and deepen trade and investment between Canada and Taiwan. I think the other thing the government should do.

Is try to increase trade with Taiwan by investing in trade missions and trade commissioner services to increase two-way trade and investment between Canada and Taiwan. We have a significant trade deficit with Taiwan. And I think we can do a better job of facilitating trade flows between Canada and Taiwan.

Q: I want to add one more question for my friends in Falun Gong. They just experienced a bomb threat in Toronto. Also, National Arts Center canceled their show, which is going on for 18 years, two decades.

What’s your view on that? What Canada should do about it?

A: I don’t know exactly who’s behind these bomb threats. But it is consistent with the tactics that the PRC has used in transnational repression, in disrupting diaspora communities.

So, I think the government of Canada needs to treat seriously this threat of foreign interference, which the Prime Minister himself only 15 months ago said was the greatest threat to the security of Canada. I think the government needs to treat this threat more seriously.

It needs to implement the Foreign Influence Transparency Registry, a system that Parliament adopted into law almost two years ago, but has yet to be fully stood up. The government needs to clearly communicate to their counterparts in Beijing that there are guardrails to the relationship.

That, yes, we will have trade and investment between Canada and the People’s Republic of China, and we will have relations in other domains as well. but here are the guardrails. And one of the guardrails is that you cannot interfere.

Using transnational repression, using clandestine, coercive, and corrupting tactics against our citizens here on Canadian soil. And I think the government needs to make that clearly known to their counterparts in Beijing.

And needs to call it out publicly when it happens here in Canada. I remember I talked to you about the implementation of this law back before the general election, but now it seems that there’s no progress. Well, it seems the government is dragging its feet.

On the implementation of the registry. They have selected an individual to be the commissioner, which is a good sign. but the registry has yet to be fully implemented and put into effect. And so my hope is that that’s going to happen.

In the next several weeks. I would be very disappointed if the government doesn’t get this up and running this summer. Because that will have been two years since the law came into effect.

And in my view, that’s more than enough time for the government to get this registry up and running. I think that’s a critically important tool for the government to counter Beijing’s foreign interference, and here’s why.

In the INSACOP report, which is the report of a committee of parliamentarians that was produced a couple of years ago, they highlighted how intelligence has identified the United Front Work Department.

As a major source of foreign interference. The United Front Work Department has a budget of some two and a half billion dollars. U.S. which is a larger budget than the PRC’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

They estimated in the INSACOP report that about a quarter of that budget is allocated for money. That is to be spread amongst Chinese diaspora groups in Western democracies.

So that would be roughly 650, almost 700 million U.S. dollars, which would be almost a billion Canadian dollars. And I don’t think it’s a stretch to guess that about a tenth of that could be coming to Canada.

Which would mean about $100 million a year is being spent by the United Front Work Department here in Canada in influence operations. much of it of a corrupt nature. And so bringing that flow of money to light.

Making that transparent, shedding a light on it, I think will go a long way to countering some of Beijing’s malevolent foreign interference operations here on Canadian soil.

Q: When I target those United Front organizations in Toronto, in Canada, and they say, I’m a traitor to China because I grew up in China. And they also play the race card.

A: You’ve pointed out something really important. The PRC likes to weaponize disinformation against members of the Chinese community that speak up. And they do so by laying out the accusations that you’ve just outlined of racism.

Of anti-Chinese racism, anti-Chinese fomenting, anti-Chinese sentiment, xenophobia. This is a well-known tactic of the PRC that they use against people.

Who are raising legitimate questions about human rights, about civil liberties, about transnational repression. So I think the broader public needs to know that, because it’s a deliberate tactic that they use.

To try to suppress the voices of minorities abroad. And we have to be careful not to parrot that. We have to be careful. China is an ancient civilization, and it has contributed much to humanity.

Over many, many millennia. And it’s something that everyone can be very proud of. But at the same time, we have to differentiate between the Chinese people and its civilization and its culture.

And the government of the People’s Republic of China. The Chinese Communist Party, which often have been a malevolent force here in Western democracies.

Q: Michael, thank you so much for your time.

A: Thank you.

譯文：

問：Michael，感謝您今天接受訪問。我們直接進入正題。您剛剛結束台北之行，並與賴清德總統會面。而這趟訪問是在中國駐加拿大大使公開警告加拿大國會議員不要前往台灣之後進行的。為什麼您認為仍然有必要去，而且是在這個時候去？

答：我認為此行重要有兩個原因。

首先，正如大家所知道的，台灣是一個民主國家，正處於來自威權政權威脅的最前線。我認為像加拿大這樣的民主國家，有必要向其他民主國家展現團結與支持。

我們支持烏克蘭，而台灣在某種程度上並沒有什麼不同。它同樣是一個面臨威權國家威脅的民主社會。因此，我認為展現團結十分重要。

第二個原因則與中國駐加拿大大使最近的言論有關。

他表示加拿大國會議員不應再前往台灣，儘管過去五十年來，來自各黨派的加拿大國會議員一直都會訪問台灣，以促進雙邊關係。

此外，他還發表了另一項令人難以接受的言論。

他警告加拿大皇家海軍軍艦不要通過台灣海峽等國際水域，並表示加拿大軍艦不應再航行於台灣海峽。

然而，台灣海峽是國際水域，而且加拿大軍艦在過去幾年中已經十多次通過該海峽。

問：所以他發表那番言論後，您立刻就決定買機票了？

答：是的。

我認為行動比言語更有力量。主權不只是嘴上宣示的東西，而是必須實際行使的權利。

這也是為什麼加拿大海軍會航行於國際水域，以維護全球貿易與開放航道。

這也是為什麼國會議員會出訪其他國家進行雙邊交流。

因此，我決定不只是透過發表聲明來宣示加拿大的主權，而是透過親自訪問台灣來實踐這項主權。

問：我想那位中國大使大概會後悔說出那番話。

答：我同意。

我認為這次訪問帶來的一項結果就是，它促使加拿大政府公開發表聲明，支持加拿大國會議員前往台灣訪問。

同時，也促使像 Judy Sgro 這樣的國會議員公開表示，她們也計畫在不久的將來訪問台灣。

所以我很高興看到這些結果。

問：2021年，北京對您實施制裁。後來您又得知，中國政府因為您在國會中的工作而針對您在香港的親屬。當您得知這件事時，是什麼感受？這又讓您了解到中國政府如何看待華裔人士，以及那些批評中國的加拿大人？

答：正如您所提到的，北京對我實施制裁。

事實上，並不是因為我做了什麼事。

他們名義上制裁我的理由，是因為加拿大政府在2021年3月所做出的一些決定。

換句話說，他們因加拿大政府的決策而制裁我。

之後，正如您所說，我們又發現，一名中國外交官在加拿大秘密蒐集有關我和我家人的資訊。

而這些資訊並不是提交給中國外交部，而是提交給中國的秘密警察機構——中國國家安全部。

其目的，是為了未來可能針對我在中國的家人採取行動。

我認為，這件事揭露了北京在民主國家中的一種普遍做法。

那就是利用跨國鎮壓、脅迫手段以及秘密行動，來恐嚇民主國家的公民，迫使他們噤聲。

我很幸運，因為我是民選國會議員。

我可以公開提出這些問題。

但還有許多社區成員只能默默承受這些壓力。

他們沒有發聲的平台，他們的案例不為外界所知，但卻同樣遭受跨國鎮壓。

因此，我認為自己有責任把這類鎮壓行為公開化，成為那些無法發聲者的聲音。

問：您曾多次形容台灣是站在威權威脅最前線的民主國家。這次訪台期間，您親眼看到了什麼，是您希望更多加拿大人能親自看到的？

答：我看到的是一個繁榮的社會。

一個保障公民自由與基本權利的社會。

一個尊重法治、擁有獨立司法體系的社會。

一個真正民主的社會。

在這個社會裡，政權曾經在不同政黨之間和平輪替。

總統透過民主選舉產生並完成權力交接。

這就是我所看到的台灣。

而我認為這充分說明了一件事：

民主制度、民主選舉、公民自由、人權保障、法治以及獨立司法體系，並不只是北美與西歐民主國家的專利。

這些是普世價值。

全世界人民都可以追求並實踐這些價值。

而台灣人民正是如此。

而且在過去數十年間取得了令人矚目的成就。

事實上，如果觀察台灣在過去二、三十年間發展成為成熟民主國家的歷程，就會發現：

台灣不僅成功建立了完整的民主制度，同時也實現了經濟的快速成長與繁榮。

如今台灣的人均GDP甚至已經超過加拿大。

我認為這正是這些基本民主原則所帶來成果的最佳證明。

問：今年一月，兩位自由黨國會議員在政府建議下提前結束訪台行程，理由是要避免與加拿大外交政策產生所謂的「混淆」。而您卻做出了完全相反的選擇。當加拿大政府與國會向世界傳遞出兩種不同訊號時，究竟有什麼利害關係？

答：我認為那是一件令人遺憾的事件。

我認為它向台灣和北京都傳遞了錯誤的訊號。

它讓人感覺加拿大政府願意向北京在台灣問題上的要求讓步。

而我認為我們不應該這樣做。

我認為，在印太地區真正重要的是維持和平與穩定。

而維持台灣海峽和平穩定的方法，就是讓北京明白，若對台北採取任何單方面行動，將必須付出代價。

因此，在這樣的背景下，確保這個代價足夠高至關重要。

而這種代價，是透過民主國家的民選代表持續訪問台灣、與台灣對口官員保持交流所建立的。

是透過各民主國家海軍在台灣海峽進行自由航行行動所建立的。

也是透過西方民主國家與台灣之間每天、每月、每年持續進行的各種交流與合作所建立的。

因此，我認為維持這些交流與互動的頻率和強度至關重要。

唯有如此，才能讓北京清楚知道，如果對台北採取任何單方面行動，將會付出極其高昂的代價。

問：這似乎傳遞出一個錯誤訊號，好像加拿大願意為了購買一些農產品，就放棄自己的原則。這其實非常危險。

答：是的。

我認為近期的國際衝突給了我們兩個重要教訓。

最近的一個例子，是當一條全球重要航運通道被封鎖時會發生什麼。

荷莫茲海峽（Strait of Hormuz）已經封閉數月，並對全球能源市場造成嚴重衝擊。

如果有一天台灣海峽因北京的單方面行動而被封鎖，對加拿大、北美以及歐洲的貿易與投資都將造成巨大影響。

因此，我們必須確保這種情況不會發生。

另一場近年爆發的衝突，則說明了為什麼我們必須對任何單方面行動維持高度嚇阻。

那就是俄羅斯對烏克蘭的戰爭。

四年多前，俄羅斯單方面入侵烏克蘭。

一夕之間，數百億美元的投資與貿易蒸發殆盡。

全球貿易遭受巨大衝擊。

而直到今天，四年多過去了，這種衝擊仍然持續存在。

如果中國對台灣採取類似行動，其造成的後果將遠遠超過俄烏戰爭。

因為中國在全球經濟中的地位遠遠大於俄羅斯。

正因如此，我們必須與日本、菲律賓、台灣等民主夥伴合作。

共同確保印太地區的和平與安全。

而這一切的起點，就是不要向北京要求改變過去數十年來既有做法的壓力屈服。

問：最後一個問題同樣與中國和台灣有關。如果明天您可以把幾項具體政策建議直接放到總理辦公桌上，以強化加拿大與台灣的關係，同時更有效應對中國，您會提出哪些建議？

答：首先，我認為加拿大政府應該簽署加拿大與台灣之間的貿易協議安排。

這項協議其實早在一年多以前就已經完成談判。

談判大約在十五個月前便已結束。

現在雙方只差正式簽署。

我認為政府應該立即完成簽署。

如此一來，我們才能進一步深化加拿大與台灣之間的貿易與投資關係。

另一件我認為政府應該做的事，是透過更多貿易代表團與貿易專員服務來增加與台灣的經貿往來。

目前加拿大對台灣存在相當大的貿易逆差。

我認為我們可以做得更好，協助促進加拿大與台灣之間雙向貿易與投資的流動。

問：我想替法輪功朋友再補充一個問題。

最近他們在多倫多遭遇炸彈威脅。此外，渥太華國家藝術中心（National Arts Centre）也取消了神韻藝術團已經持續十八年的演出合作。

您如何看待這些事件？加拿大應該如何應對？

答：我不知道這些炸彈威脅究竟是誰所為。

但這確實符合中國政府過去在跨國鎮壓行動中所使用的手法，包括干擾海外僑民社群。

因此，我認為加拿大政府必須嚴肅看待外國干預的威脅。

就在十五個月前，加拿大總理本人還曾表示，外國干預是加拿大國家安全面臨的最大威脅。

我認為政府必須更加認真地處理這項威脅。

政府必須落實《外國影響力透明登記制度》（Foreign Influence Transparency Registry）。

這項制度是國會近兩年前通過立法建立的，但至今仍未完全投入運作。

加拿大政府也必須清楚向北京傳達，雙方關係存在不可逾越的紅線。

是的，我們會與中華人民共和國保持貿易與投資往來。

我們也會在其他領域維持關係。

但必須有明確的界線。

其中一條界線就是：

你們不能透過跨國鎮壓、秘密行動、脅迫手段以及腐蝕性影響力行動，在加拿大領土上針對加拿大公民。

我認為加拿大政府必須明確向北京表達這一點。

而且當這類事情在加拿大發生時，也必須公開點名譴責。

問：我記得在上一次聯邦大選之前，我就曾和您談過這項法律的落實問題。但現在看起來似乎沒有任何進展。

答：看起來政府確實一直在拖延這項登記制度的落實。

他們已經選定了一位專員（Commissioner）來負責這項制度，這是一個正面的訊號。

但整個登記制度至今仍未完全建立並正式啟用。

因此，我希望未來幾個星期內能夠看到進展。

如果政府今年夏天仍然無法讓這套制度正式運作，我會感到非常失望。

因為從法律正式通過至今，已經過了將近兩年時間。

在我看來，這已經綽綽有餘，足以讓政府完成所有準備工作並啟動制度。

我認為這是加拿大對抗北京外國干預行動的一項極其重要的工具。

原因如下：

在國會議員國家安全與情報委員會（NSICOP）幾年前發布的報告中，加拿大情報機構指出，中共中央統一戰線工作部（United Front Work Department）是外國干預的重要來源之一。

統戰部的年度預算大約高達25億美元。

這甚至超過了中國外交部的預算。

報告估計，其中約有四分之一的資金被用於向西方民主國家的華人社群組織提供資源與資金。

換句話說，大約有6.5億至7億美元被用於這類活動。

若換算成加元，接近10億加元。

而我認為，推測其中十分之一流向加拿大，並不是一件離譜的事情。

這意味著統戰部每年可能在加拿大投入約1億加元，從事各種影響力行動。

其中許多活動具有腐蝕性質。

因此，將這些資金流向公開化。

讓公眾知道資金從哪裡來。

讓這些活動暴露在陽光之下。

我認為這將對遏制北京在加拿大境內的惡意外國干預行動產生重大作用。

問：當我在多倫多、在加拿大揭露那些統戰組織時，他們常常指控我是中國的叛徒，因為我在中國長大。他們也經常打出種族牌。

答：您提到了一個非常重要的問題。

中國政府非常喜歡利用假訊息與抹黑手段，攻擊那些敢於發聲的華人。

而他們最常用的手法之一，就是您剛才提到的那些指控：

說對方是種族主義者。

說對方散播反華情緒。

說對方仇視中國人。

說對方排外。

這些都是中國政府眾所周知的宣傳與攻擊手段。

他們利用這些指控，去打擊那些對人權問題、公民自由問題以及跨國鎮壓問題提出合理質疑的人。

因此，我認為加拿大社會大眾必須了解這一點。

因為這是一種刻意設計的策略。

目的是壓制海外少數族群中的不同聲音。

而我們必須小心，不要不自覺地重複或附和這種宣傳話術。

我們必須清楚區分不同的概念。

中國是一個擁有悠久歷史的文明古國。

數千年來，中華文明對人類社會作出了巨大貢獻。

這是值得所有人感到自豪的事情。

但同時，我們也必須區分：

中國人民、

中華文明、

中國文化，

以及中華人民共和國政府之間的差別。

更具體地說，我們必須區分中國共產黨與中國人民。

因為中國共產黨在許多西方民主國家中的所作所為，往往是一股具有破壞性的力量。

而批評中國共產黨的行為，並不等於批評中國人民。

這一點非常重要。

問：Michael，非常感謝您接受今天的訪問。

答：謝謝您邀請我。

中文譯文在最下方

Q: Thank you, Senator Housakos, for taking this time. Senator, you led a Senate delegation to Taiwan just last month. What did you see there that you don’t think most Canadians understand?

A: A wonderful country, a wonderful democracy, a wonderful people, an island of 24 million people who have built a wonderful economy, a wonderful society. Canadians, we’re very fortunate in some ways, because we’re isolated in the world. I always say that God has given Canada four gifts. We’re bordered by three oceans and the United States of America, one of the great free democratic states. But there’s many countries in the world that don’t have that luxury. They don’t have the luxury to be bordered next to countries that have the same values, the same principles, the same system of government. There’s many places in the world that are confronted on a daily basis by tyranny, by authoritarianism, and they have to fight on a daily basis to defend their democracy.

I had been to Taiwan before; from my other eight colleagues, it was their first trip. And I think it was eye-opening for them to see what Taiwan is all about, because it’s one thing to read about it in the newspapers, it’s another thing to visit it on the ground. And we had many meetings. We had meetings with the Ministry of Security, Foreign Affairs, Health, Environment, Agriculture. We were fortunate to have a long discussion with the Vice President, where she got to put on the table the concerns of the people in the government of Taiwan. And of course, we as parliamentarians benefited a lot by understanding the complexity of the geopolitical crisis that Taiwan is facing, being next door to what I consider the world’s most flagrant authoritarian regime.

Q: When we are talking here, the conservative MP Michael Chong is right now in Taiwan. And China seems very unhappy about that. What’s your view on that?

A: Well, look, my view is I don’t care what China is. At the end of the day, we’ve been unhappy with the behavior of Beijing towards Taiwan, towards our democracy, towards our friends and allies around the world. This is, let’s be clear here, this is a regime that engages in intellectual espionage, transnational repression of Canadians of Chinese descent that live in this country, who tell them what to think, how to vote, what to do. That’s not who we are in Canada. We’re a free society. We value our democracy. And you know what, Terence, you were born in Beijing. My parents immigrated to Canada from Greece back in the 1950s. It doesn’t matter in Canada where you come from. It’s where we go as a collectivity. But we all value our freedom, our democracy, our right to say what we want to say. And if we want to criticize our government, it’s our right to criticize. If we want to applaud and compliment decisions of our government, it’s our right to do so. What we’re doing here is having an exchange on geopolitical issues. We have the right to do it freely.

So at the end of the day, when we have a leader, a parliamentarian, elected parliamentarian from Canada, Michael Chong, that goes to Beijing with a delegation of parliamentarians, it’s not up to the Beijing regime to tell us what to do or what not to do. If we want to support Taiwan because we agree with their values, with their principles, if we want to defend democracy against authoritarianism, it’s Michael Chong’s constitutional right in this country. That’s what distinguishes Taiwan, Canada, and China. In Taiwan, in Canada, you can say what you think. You can think what you say. That’s a right that we sometimes take for granted. In Canada, not too long ago, people lost their lives fighting for that democratic right.

Q: When you talk to Canadians, especially the people who have never thought about Taiwan in their lives, how do you explain why this matters to them?

A: Many things. Like I said earlier, Canada is a little bit isolated from the world. So I was privileged enough to go now to Taiwan on two occasions and see what was going on. So I’m a little bit of a conduit. I’m able to go back to the people of my constituency in the province of Quebec, Montreal. Today, we’re in Toronto. And I firsthand can talk about how Taiwan is a great democracy, how that small little island with a small population of people with freedom and democracy and respect for international rule of law have built a wonderful economy, a world leader in semiconductors, but not just semiconductors. We all talk about semiconductors because they’re so important in today’s technological world. But Taiwan has become a leader in so many aspects. And they’ve grown that economy. And they’re becoming an important part of our supply chain here in Canada, the United States and in Europe.

And the message I have for Canadians: we have spent far too many years economically engaging with Beijing. And that relationship has brought us what? Beijing sells Canada over $60 billion a year of goods. We sell back to Beijing $30 billion. You don’t have to be a brilliant businessman to see the inequity in that relationship. Over just a decade, China has benefited by over $300 billion of a trade deficit at the expense of our Canadian economy. Furthermore, they arrest Canadian citizens with no due process. Furthermore, they have no respect for environmental policy. Furthermore, they have no standards when it comes to labor policy. Furthermore, they devalue their currency compared to what we do here in Canada, the United States and in the free Western world. Where we believe in trade being based on standards — environmental standards, labor standards, financial standards, international rule of law, justice — where you don’t charge somebody like they did with the two Michaels on trumped up charges, just in order to reciprocate legitimate charges that one of the Huawei executives were facing here in Canada and the United States.

Beijing has been a rogue authoritarian regime with one objective, and that is to grow their empire. What we want to do in Canada doesn’t matter, like I said, as a Canadian where we come from, is we want to create a just society, a free country where rights are rights, and more importantly, grow our economy. But grow it not at the expense of our environment, not at the expense of slave labor, not at the expense of taking away religious rights from people.

So when I went to Taiwan, it was refreshing to see Chinese people living in freedom and flourishing. You know what struck me? Because many years ago, I had the opportunity to visit mainland China. And what I saw when I visited Taiwan are culturally the same people, but with a different spirit. The biggest thing I saw is the spirit in Taiwan is free, innovative, dynamic, warm and open. And happy. Ultimately, when you have all those elements as a human being, you live happy. Nothing beats freedom, innovation, right? And when I went to mainland China, I saw a boot at the throat of people. I saw insularism — when people were insular, they wouldn’t express themselves. You just sensed it was palpable, the lack of freedom in mainland China, how everything was rigid.

Q: You’ve spoken on the Senate floor about the two Michaels. You just mentioned about the election interference, about the Chinese police stations operating on Canadian soil. So when you connect those dots, what’s the picture you see?

A: Well, the picture I see is something very, very nefarious and dangerous for our Canadian government, Canadian institutions, and our Canadian people, regardless of what community they come from. But number one, I’m very concerned as a parliamentarian about our Chinese Canadian community that’s being intimidated right here on Canadian land and soil. Mainland Chinese that have fled mainland China and want to come to Canada and do their business here and they want to do it in peace. And for a variety of reasons, somehow the Chinese state considers these people their assets. They’re not assets. Canadians are Canadians. Doesn’t matter, like I said, if you have Chinese background — I’m of Greek background. Many Canadians come from all over the world. Others are French Canadian. Doesn’t matter. We all came to Canada wanting to receive the promise of Canada: freedom, democracy, opportunity.

So when we see a situation where two Canadian citizens got illegally imprisoned in the most brutal way and were held as a negotiating chip, as leverage, that is beyond unacceptable. Beyond unacceptable.

Q: You know, I have some relatives visiting me in Toronto. And when they learn I’m doing what I’m doing right now and they are really concerned, they say, you should be less critical of the Chinese government, because they fear that one day if I go back, I will be in trouble. Or maybe even here in Canada, I will be in trouble. That’s the fear they have.

A: Terrible. Can you imagine living in that state where everything you say and think will be determined by trying to please your government? What Canadian for a second would find that normal?

I’m a parliamentarian. I’m in the Senate of Canada. My job is to hold the government to account. If every time I open my mouth, I worry about upsetting Prime Minister Carney — what kind of a country do we live in? And thank God we have leaders like Prime Minister Carney. And before him, other prime ministers. I had the privilege of working under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who always said the job of a parliamentarian is to represent their people. Nobody else. And when you apply to be prime minister of Canada, you know what comes with that job is criticism. And criticism is an important part in democracy of arriving at the best possible public positions.

So I just find it unacceptable what’s going on in Beijing. It’s been going on for decades. They do not share our values. So my biggest concern, and why many say, why are you such an anti-Beijing advocate? And it’s very simple. I don’t want to be trading or dealing with a group of individuals that are not aligned on my values, my values of free enterprise. Free enterprise doesn’t mean capitalism under authoritarian control. Free enterprise means capitalism under freedom, where there’s competition, where if you manufacture product A, somebody else has the right to manufacture product A. And there’s competition to make the best product at the most competitive price. That’s free enterprise. Free enterprise and doing trade with an ally. I want to trade with an ally who cares as much about the environment as we Canadians do.

If we combine the CO2 emissions and the pollutants that come out of the United States, Canada, the EU and Australia, Beijing produces more than two times the amount of CO2 pollutants than all those economies combined. Yet, we’ve allowed Beijing to get rich by having unfettered access and open market to the richest middle class Western democratic markets — North America, EU and Australia. And I ask myself, why? Why are we doing business with a country that doesn’t respect environmental laws, doesn’t respect labor laws, doesn’t have a free and just system of justice? Why do we deal with that country? No respect for international rule of law.

And then you have little Taiwan, small little island right off the coast, which Beijing on a daily basis intimidates. And they have democracy. They have environmental policies similar to ours. They have labor laws. They have freedom of expression, respect for international rule of law. Why aren’t we dealing more with a country like that instead of being intimidated by Beijing and their various conditions? We have MPs delegations going to Taiwan and they get upset. I say that we should have Taiwan recognized by the World Health Organization. Beijing gets upset. Worry about your business. Let Taiwan worry about its business. Let Canada worry about its business. And let’s worry about aligning ourselves on public policy and values so everything can work nicely.

Q: I just want to say that if Taiwan falls — of course, we don’t want that to happen — and if Beijing achieves what it says it wants, what does that mean for Canada, for Canadian sovereignty, Canadian business, and the Canadian citizens?

A: It means terrible things. Number one, we will have a dictatorship that will become more emboldened than ever before. If that ever happens, which is the worst case scenario, it will never happen. But let’s assume — I’ll assume the question being legitimate, but it’s a terrible hypothesis. It’ll be a big blow for democracy. It’ll be a huge blow for economies of the world because today Taiwan is a key component in our supply chain in terms of semiconductor technology. That is at the core of everything we do in terms of microchips, what we produce in every sector imaginable. So the impact would be catastrophic for Canada, catastrophic for North America, catastrophic for the Western economic world. Not to mention that I think if that would happen, it brings into question the security of the whole Asia-Pacific democratic countries — South Korea, Japan, all of them. Like, if Taiwan falls, who’s next?

And I keep telling our Canadian friends, democracy is our number one asset in Canada. We have to protect it at all costs. That includes our economy, our political institutions, and our citizens and their rights. And this belief that what’s happening in the Middle East or Ukraine or Taiwan is so far away is wrong, because today it’s a distance away. But tomorrow, we’ve learned from the history of mankind that these dictatorships, they never stop. Hitler didn’t stop at Poland, right? The Soviet Union showed that they didn’t want to stop at a particular point. Expansionism is expansionism. And dictators always want to expand.

Q: You remind me of a reason that President Trump said that Taiwan is too far and is too small when he was flying back from Beijing. What’s your take on that?

A: But that’s not true. If Taiwan is too far away, what about Iran? Taiwan is not far away. Like I said, what Taiwan builds and what Taiwan trades and what Taiwan has, we have it in our cars. We have it in our cell phones. We have it in our computers. We have it in our every component imaginable, air conditioning systems in this country. Every aspect. Taiwan, not only is it everywhere, it is omnipresent in our society. What I’m saying is we need more of Taiwan in North America and we need less of Beijing.

Beijing is a tyrant. Beijing is like dealing with the mafia. They come, they give you something because they want 10 things in return. It’s not a fair relationship. And when you deal with the mafia, you never, ever survive. They will kill you and take what you have. That is the way Beijing works. Every time we’ve seen it in trade negotiations, in technological exchanges — when’s the last time that Beijing developed a piece of technology that they gave to Canada? It’s like, here, take it. Remember a company? You’re too young, Terence. But there was a company in Canada called Nortel. Nortel was the world leader in telecommunication. We know today after the fact that Beijing came in, they used espionage and other illicit forms, and they siphoned out the technology to the point where they killed the company. China engages on a daily basis in intellectual property thievery. It doesn’t matter if it’s technology and so on and so forth. We’ve seen it all over the world. It’s part of their policy. The United Front, they invest billions of dollars in places like Canada, United States, Europe in order to infiltrate our democracies in terms of institutions. Our own parliamentary systems have been infiltrated by Beijing. They’re not infiltrating us because they want to keep an eye on us. Because if you want to keep an eye on our democracies, all you got to do is read the news because we have free media. And we have now even better than free media. We have outlets like yourselves with millions of followers all over the world that are standing here and having a free conversation, like two individuals, Canadian citizens, and we’re not afraid to broach any subject matter.

So you put all those facts on the table. Canadians should be very concerned. We need to wake up. Not about the threats of China — because if Canadians are not aware today, that means they’ve been sleeping on the switch. It’s nice to go to the dollar store and to buy things made in China that are cheap, but you got to ask yourself the question, at what expense? In Canada, we have essentially exported our Canadian economy over the last 50 years to China, in exchange for what? Some cheaper goods? A trade imbalance, like I said, which is in the favor of Beijing, and the hundreds of billions of dollars. And in exchange, the thank you we get is they come to our land, they intimidate Canadian citizens, they engage in espionage, they threaten Canadian politicians when we want to deal with free democratic states. Unacceptable.

Q: You are so right. They don’t really just monitor you. They want to control you. Not only in China, they want to control people — they even want to control people around the world. And what’s even worse is Canadian entrepreneurs and companies for decades have been going to China. What’s your view on that?

A: Let’s be clear, and I’m repeating this because it’s worth repeating for your audience to know. When North American business people go to China, they go there because they want to break environmental laws they can’t break here. They want to break labor laws they can’t break here. And they think if you break all these laws and you cut all these corners, you’re going to make more profits. Maybe you will. But what they don’t understand is the government in Beijing wants the relationship to be one-sided. And when they utilize your technology, they take access of your marketplace, they’ll ask you to leave. And when they ask you to leave, your pockets are going to be more empty than what they were when you came in there to start your business.

Q: You came back from Taipei six weeks ago, and if you could put one message in front of every Canadian about Taiwan, what would that be?

A: Like I said at the outset of this interview, great people, innovative, free, creative, warm, happy, generous. They want to be part of our Western democratic incubator. Democracy is a relatively new idea. It started in my parents’ homeland in Greece thousands of years ago. And it has had peaks and valleys. And democracy is at a precarious stage. We’ve had authoritarianism and dictatorships flourish in the world and the history of mankind far more than democracy has. We’ve had instances where democracy didn’t exist in any form for centuries in this world.

So the message I have to all of us that live in free and democratic states — and if you look at the membership of the United Nations, we’re very few countries — we shouldn’t close our eyes and bury our heads in the sand and pretend dictatorships are a faraway problem. Because that problem can easily come. So the message I have for Canadians is Taiwan is free, democratic, has a system of law and justice, and it deserves our defense against any authoritarianism, because like I said, in the history of mankind, authoritarianism has proven to be like cancer. It spreads, right? If you don’t eradicate the cancer at its source, it’ll eat up your whole body. And that’s what authoritarianism is. That’s what Iran is. That’s what Beijing is. All these countries that don’t have true freedom, they intimidate the media. They intimidate their opposition like Russia, like Erdogan in Turkey does very often. And it’s funny, who does Beijing cooperate with? These are the countries they cooperate with — countries that sponsor terrorism, countries that are against democracy and against freedom. They support Cuba. They support Russia. These are the countries they support.

Q: I’m very excited to take some of the Canadian journalists to the Kinmen front line to face China. That’s going to be very exciting.

A: And hopefully Canadian journalists will expand on the miracle — I call it the economic, political miracle of Taiwan — and give the information required so Canadians can know what’s going on around the world. Being educated and knowledgeable makes you put things in perspective, both in your country and around the world.

Q: Now Taiwan is one of the top trading partners with Canada. And Taiwan is willing to sign a free trade deal with Canada and all other nations. What’s stopping Canada from doing that?

A: Well, clearly, look, I agree with Prime Minister Carney — we need to diversify our trade. We’re in the middle of a skirmish right now with our American friends and Donald Trump over tariffs and free trade and so on and so forth. But Canadians have to never forget the amount of trade we do with our best friend and ally, the United States, can never be compensated by any amount of diversification. Not with Indonesia, not with Middle Eastern countries, but certainly not with China. There’s no amount of trade with China that can create equilibrium of cutting ties with the United States of America. So Mark Carney, Prime Minister Carney and the Liberals have to get over this.

And number two, for all the reasons we highlighted in our conversation today, we need to send the message clearly to China: if you don’t align yourself with the standards that we have on freedom, on environmental issues, on labor — like all the list, I’m repeating it because it’s worth repeating — we need to cut ties with China. And we need to cut ties completely. Because ultimately, China’s always leveraging our dependency on their supply chain. And they’re always leveraging that to intimidate Canada to take certain decisions. So that’s why we haven’t signed an important trade agreement between Canada and Taiwan. And what I’m saying is our response to China and Beijing should be to cut further ties with them and to enhance ties with countries like Taiwan.

Anywhere in the world where we’re dealing right now with authoritarian regimes, shame on Canada. Shame on Canada, because we should not be trading with any nation, especially a nation that has a complete surplus and a net benefit of $2 for every one that we trade for. So the biggest potential loser, if we put the squeeze on Beijing, it’s Beijing. Yes, we’re going to lose some trade because they’re going to retaliate on the $30 billion of agricultural goods that we sell to them. We sell them food — beef, pork, seafood, potash, wheat. What do they sell us for $60 billion? What do they sell us? Plastics? Some EVs? My point is, all the things they sell us, we can buy from other places. I have an idea — we can do better than that. We can start making some of those things like we used to make them back here in Canada. And you know what? They might cost a little bit more, but we’re going to create an economy that we exported 40, 50 years ago to China, and they’re benefiting at our expense.

Furthermore, and very importantly here, when it’s all said and done, you think a regime like China, who’s trying to feed 1.4 billion people, are going to afford for a long time not to buy Canadian pork, Canadian beef, Canadian seafood? My point is what we sell them is essential for survival. What they sell us, we should be making back here in Canada anyway. And keeping that $60 billion of cash flow — Canadian cash flow that goes to the pockets of the Beijing dictator — in the Canadian economy instead.

All the things being made today in Beijing, Xinjiang, in China, we used to make them here in Montreal, in Toronto, in Vancouver, in Regina. We used to make all those things — everything from clothes, to plastic goods, to you name the item, to toasters. We used to make all those things in Canada. So the Canadian economy went from being an industrial manufacturing powerhouse in the 50s, 60s, and 70s to becoming today a service-based economy. If you take away from our economy our agricultural goods, our natural resources — which we’re not exploiting to their full capacity — and you take away the service sector, we don’t make anything in Canada anymore. Canada used to be a heavily industrial manufacturing capacity country. We don’t make anything anymore. We just buy things.

The only trade agreement in the world where Canada has a surplus in trade — which basically means we sell more to them than we buy — is the United States of America. That’s why we have free healthcare. We have free healthcare, free education. There is no arguing that we have benefited immensely from that deal. But if you look at the relationship between Canada and Beijing and China, they laugh at us. They laugh at us all the way to the bank. It’s not a relationship. Relationship is give and take. I give you things, you give me things. We buy and sell things and we grow our economies together. We align. We partner up on values, on principles, on goals, objectives, rules. In the NHL, in Major League Baseball, in the NBA, there’s a reason why there are rules functioning and governing these professional leagues. Because if there weren’t rules, it would be survival of the biggest, the strongest, the biggest markets, so on and so forth. You wouldn’t have a league anymore. So there’s a rule about how they draft players to make it fair. There’s rules in terms of even revenue sharing in some leagues. There’s rules of how the game is played, both from a governance perspective and so on. Why? To create an even playing field.

And what we have in Beijing is a bunch of dictators who are using capitalism, but they’re using our free market because we’ve been stupid for 30, 40 years, to get rich at our expense, at our workers’ expense. So our workers lost their jobs. Governments lost revenue. There are some shareholders and corporations in North America that got wealthy because they had cheap labor and lax environmental rules, like we said in Beijing. It was good for a period of time. But now we’re starting to discover, wait a second — it’s not fair. It’s not just, it’s not equitable. And at the end of the exercise, Beijing is going to take those shareholders and these business people who thought they were being clever and they’re going to say, oh, we don’t recognize you anymore. The plant that you helped us build in Beijing doesn’t belong to you anymore. It belongs to us. So when that happens — and it’s been happening — we’re losers on every front.

Look at what China has done in terms of energy capacity. They created renewable energy. They’re ahead of North America. They’ve surpassed us when it comes to green technology, renewable energy. But to produce renewable energy, you need to burn coal. You need to burn fossil fuels. So while we don’t do that here in Canada, Beijing and China, they’ve been doing it, because there’s no regulations. They burn coal like there’s no tomorrow. They frack, and they pollute the environment like there’s no tomorrow. Here in Canada, we’re trying to save the world when we make for 1% of the pollution that we garner. And we’re killing our energy sector. We’re not going to produce ethical and clean oil here. We’re not going to produce coal-fired plants here — which we do in North America because we use actual environmental standards, even when we do coal production — compared to what they do in Beijing. We’re not going to do any of that. We’re going to let them do that. So they’ve surpassed us in energy capacity, both fossil fuel and coal. They’ve surpassed us in energy. Why? Because they do things we don’t do here in this country.

What do you need to be a world leader in EVs? You need cobalt, right? You need lithium. You need all kinds of minerals that need to be mined from the earth. So we have regulation and red tape in Canada preventing mining in Canada, where we prevent the growth of lithium mines and so on and so forth. We tolerate the cobalt mining that’s going on in places like the Congo using child labor. Also, China can produce EVs without respecting any of these environmental standards that I just highlighted. And then they sell it back to us Canadians. And as dummies, we sign deals to subsidize and bring their cars in here, while we know they have no religious freedom, while we know they threaten a country that respects all the things I just highlighted, like Taiwan and other geopolitical players in the Asia-Pacific.

So I’ve gone on, Terence, a lot, given a lot of information. But that is why I’ve come to the conclusion as a parliamentarian that the Canadian government has leverage on China, not the other way around. It’s not China who has leverage on us. And we have to send the message. It’s clear: you want to continue to benefit from the Canadian market and the relationship with us here in Canada? You change. And if you don’t change, there are consequences. It would be really wonderful if we had world leadership amongst democracies where we can do that in one voice, where North America, Australia, Commonwealth countries, European countries would align themselves on this message and say to China, enough is enough. We’re not going to tolerate it anymore.

Q: Thank you, Senator. It’s a real pleasure talking with you.

A: Thank you so much.

譯文：

公子沈：謝謝你，胡薩科斯參議員，接受訪問。參議員，您上個月才率領參議院代表團前往台灣。您在那裡看到了什麼，是多數加拿大人不太理解的？

胡薩科斯：一個很棒的國家，一個很棒的民主，一群很棒的人，一座擁有 2,400 萬人口的島嶼，建立了美好的經濟與美好的社會。加拿大人，我們生活在一個，其實在某些方面我們很幸運的地方，因為我們在世界上相對獨立。我總是說，上帝給了加拿大四項禮物：我們三面臨海，還有美利堅合眾國，一個偉大的自由民主國家。但世界上有很多國家沒有這種福氣，他們沒有這種奢侈，能夠與同樣價值觀的國家為鄰，擁有同樣的原則、同樣的政府體制。世界上有很多地方每天都在面對暴政，面對威權主義，必須天天奮戰來捍衛他們的民主。

我以前去過台灣，我另外八位同僚，是他們第一次去。我想，這趟行程讓他們大開眼界，真正看見台灣是怎麼一回事，因為光是從報紙上讀到，和親自到當地去看，感受是完全不同的。而且我們開了很多會，和國安部、外交部、衛福部、環境部、農業部都開了會。我們很幸運，還和副總統進行了長時間的對談，她得以把台灣政府和人民所關切的問題攤開來談。

公子沈：我們現在在這裡談話的同時，保守黨國會議員莊文浩此刻就在台灣。而中國似乎對此非常不滿，你怎麼看？

胡薩科斯：嗯，我的看法是，我不在乎中國是什麼。歸根結底，我們一直對北京對待台灣的做法感到不滿，針對我們的民主，針對我們在世界各地的朋友與盟友。這一點要講清楚，這個政權從事間諜式的知識產權竊取，以及對居住在這個國家的華裔加拿大人進行跨國鎮壓，叫他們該想什麼、怎麼投票、該做什麼。這不是加拿大的為人處世之道。我們是自由社會，我們重視我們的民主。

而且你知道嗎，公子沈，你是北京出生的，我父母在1950年代從希臘移民到加拿大。在加拿大，你從哪裡來並不重要，重要的是我們作為整體要往哪裡去。我們都重視自由、民主，以及說出自己想說的話的權利。如果我們想批評政府，那是我們批評的權利；如果我們想讚賞或肯定政府的決策，那也是我們的權利。我們現在是在就地緣政治議題進行交流，我們有權自由地這麼做。

所以歸根結底，當我們有一位領袖、一位加拿大民選國會議員莊文浩，帶著一個國會議員代表團前往北京時，北京政權沒有資格告訴我們該做什麼或不該做什麼。如果我們想因為認同台灣的價值與原則而支持台灣，如果我們想捍衛民主、對抗威權，那都是莊文浩在這個國家裡的憲法權利。這就是台灣、加拿大和中國之間的差別。在台灣、在加拿大，你可以說出你的想法，你可以如實表達你的想法。這是我們有時會視為理所當然的權利。在加拿大，直到不久前，還有人為了這項民主權利而失去生命。

公子沈：當你跟加拿大人，尤其是那些一輩子從沒想過台灣的人聊天時，你怎麼向他們解釋這件事為什麼重要？

胡薩科斯：很多事情。就像我剛才說的，加拿大跟世界有點脫節。所以我很榮幸兩次前往台灣，親眼看到那裡的情況，我多少算是一個橋樑。我能回到我在魁北克省蒙特婁的選區民眾面前，今天我們也在多倫多，而我可以親口談論台灣是一個多麼棒的民主國家，那座擁有少數人口、自由與民主的島嶼，以及對國際法治的尊重，如何建立起一個美好的經濟。不只是半導體，更是半導體的世界領導者。我們都在談半導體，因為它們在今天的科技世界太重要了。但台灣已經在許多方面成為領導者，而且他們也發展壯大了那個經濟。他們正成為我們加拿大、美國和歐洲供應鏈的重要一環。

我要對加拿大人說的是，我們花了太多年在經濟上與北京往來，而這段關係帶給我們什麼？北京每年向加拿大出口超過 600 億美元的商品，我們回賣給北京的只有 300 億美元。不用是精明的商人，也看得出這段關係有多不對等。短短十年間，中國就從中獲利超過 3,000 億美元，代價卻是我們加拿大的經濟承受了龐大貿易逆差。此外，他們在沒有正當法律程序下逮捕加拿大公民；他們完全不尊重環境政策；他們在勞工政策上毫無標準；他們的貨幣刻意貶值，相較於我們在加拿大、美國以及自由的西方世界所做的。我們相信貿易應該建立在標準之上，環境標準、勞工標準、金融標準，國際法治、司法公正，不會像他們對兩位麥可所做的那樣，以莫須有的罪名指控他們，只是為了報復華為其中一名高層在加拿大和美國所面臨的正當指控。

北京一直是一個無賴的威權政權，唯一的目標，就是擴張他們的帝國。我剛才說了，在加拿大我們想做什麼並不重要，身為加拿大人，我們的出發點是想建立一個公義的社會，一個自由的國家，權利就是權利，容不得打折，而且更重要的是，要讓我們的經濟成長。但不能以犧牲我們的環境為代價，也不能以奴工為代價，更不能以剝奪人們的宗教權利為代價。

所以我去台灣的時候，真的很振奮，看到中國人生活在自由中、蓬勃發展。你知道是什麼讓我印象深刻嗎？因為很多年前，我有機會去過中國大陸，而我在台灣看到的是，文化上同樣是這些人，但有著不同的精神。我看到最大的不同是，台灣的精神是自由的，有創新力、充滿活力、溫暖而開放，而且快樂。最終結果就是，當你身為人具備了這些元素，就會活得快樂。沒有什麼比自由、創新更重要，對吧？而當我去到中國大陸時，我看到的是一隻腳踩在人民的喉嚨上。我看到的是封閉主義，當人們很封閉時，他們就不會表達自己。你只要感受一下，就能真切感受到中國大陸缺乏自由，一切都多麼僵硬。

公子沈：你在參議院發言時談過兩名麥可的事，你剛才提到選舉干預，以及在加拿大境內運作的中國警察站。那麼，把這些線索串起來，你看到的是什麼樣的局面？

胡薩科斯：嗯，我看到的是非常非常險惡而危險的事情，對我們的加拿大政府、加拿大機構，以及加拿大人民都是如此，不論他們來自哪個社群，都一樣。華裔加拿大社群在加拿大的土地上、在這片國土上遭到恐嚇。從中國大陸逃離、想來加拿大，在這裡做自己的事，而且希望平靜地做的人，基於各種原因，中國政府卻不知為何把這些人視為他們的資產。他們不是資產，加拿大人就是加拿大人。就像我說的，不管你是不是有華裔背景，我是希臘裔，許多加拿大人是世界羨慕的對象，也有些人是法裔加拿大人，這都不重要。我們來到加拿大，都是想享有加拿大的承諾，也就是自由、民主與機會。

所以當我們看到兩位加拿大公民被以最殘酷的方式非法監禁，還被當成談判籌碼、施壓工具，那簡直是不可接受，完全不可接受。

公子沈：你知道嗎，我有些親戚來多倫多看我，當他們知道我現在在做的事，而且非常擔心時，他們說，你應該少批評中國政府，因為他們擔心有一天如果我回去，會有麻煩，或者甚至在加拿大這裡，我也會有麻煩。他們會有這樣的恐懼。

胡薩科斯：太可怕了。你能想像活在那樣的狀態下嗎，就是你說的、想的每一句話，都得先想著怎麼討好你的政府？有哪個加拿大人會有一秒鐘覺得那很正常？

我是議會成員，我是加拿大參議員，我的工作就是監督政府。如果我每次開口，都擔心會不會惹惱卡尼總理，那我們到底生活在一個什麼樣的國家？當然，我們有卡尼總理這樣的領袖，真是感恩。在他之前，也有其他總理。我很榮幸曾在史蒂芬‧哈珀總理手下共事，他一直說，議員的工作就是代表自己的人民，只有這樣。當你申請成為加拿大總理時，你就要知道，這份工作伴隨著批評，而批評是民主中形成最佳公共立場的重要一環。所以我實在無法接受北京正在發生的事，這種情況已經持續幾十年了，他們和我們的價值觀不同。

所以我最大的擔憂，也是很多人說，你為什麼這麼反對北京？答案很簡單。我不想和一群個人做生意或往來，他們和我的價值觀不一致，我的價值觀是自由企業。自由企業不代表在威權控制下的資本主義。自由企業是建立在自由之下的資本主義，在你生產產品A的地方，別人也有權利生產產品A，而且大家競爭，看誰能以最有競爭力的價格做出最好的產品，這就是自由企業，以及和盟友做貿易。我想和一個盟友做貿易，因為他們和我們加拿大人一樣重視環境。

如果我們把二氧化碳排放量加總，以及美國排放出的汙染物，加拿大、歐盟和澳洲，北京排放的二氧化碳汙染物超過這些所有經濟體總和的兩倍以上。然而，我們卻讓北京致富，靠著毫無限制地取得並開放進入全球最富裕的西方民主市場中產階級市場，也就是北美、歐盟和澳洲。我不禁問自己，為什麼？為什麼我們要和一個不尊重環境法規、不尊重勞工法規、也沒有自由公正司法制度的國家做生意？我們為什麼還要和那個完全不尊重國際法治的國家往來？

然後你看台灣這個小地方，就在沿海旁邊的一個小島，北京每天都在恫嚇它。但他們有民主，他們的環保政策和我們相近，他們有勞工法規，他們有言論自由，也尊重國際法治。為什麼我們不更多地跟這樣的國家往來，而不是被北京及其各種條件所威嚇？我們派國會議員代表團去台灣，他們還發火。我說我們應該讓台灣獲得世界衛生組織的承認，北京就不高興了。管好你們自己的事，讓台灣管台灣自己的事，讓加拿大管加拿大自己的事。而我們應該致力於在公共政策和價值觀上保持一致，這樣一切才能順利運作。

公子沈：我只想說，如果台灣淪陷——當然，我們不希望這種事發生——而如果北京達成它所說想達成的目標，這對加拿大代表什麼，對加拿大主權、加拿大企業，以及加拿大公民又代表什麼？

胡薩科斯：那會很糟糕。第一，我們會面對一個獨裁政權，而且會變得比以往更加肆無忌憚。如果那真的發生，這是最壞的情況，但那永遠不會發生。不過我先把這個問題當成合理的來假設，這會對民主造成重大打擊，也會對全球經濟造成巨大打擊，因為今天台灣是我們供應鏈中的關鍵環節，尤其是在半導體技術方面，這正是我們在微晶片以及各種你能想到的產業生產中一切的核心。所以，這對加拿大的衝擊將是災難性的，對北美也是災難性的，對西方經濟世界更是災難性的。更不用說，我認為如果真的發生，那也會讓整個亞太民主國家的安全受到質疑，包括南韓、日本，所有國家。如果台灣倒下了，下一個會是誰？

我一直告訴我們加拿大的朋友，民主是加拿大最重要的資產，我們必須不惜一切代價保護它，這包括我們的經濟、政治制度，以及我們的公民和他們的權利。而且這種認為中東、烏克蘭或台灣發生的事離我們很遠的想法是錯的，因為今天它看起來還是遠在天邊，但到了明天，我們從人類歷史學到，這些獨裁政權從不會停手。希特勒不只停在波蘭，對吧？蘇聯也顯示他們不想停在某個特定的點上。擴張主義就是擴張主義，而獨裁者總是想要擴張。

你讓我想到川普總統說過的一個理由，他說台灣太遠、也太小了，那是在他從北京飛回來的時候。但那不是真的。如果台灣離得太遠，那伊朗呢？台灣一點也不遠。我剛才說過，台灣生產的、貿易的以及台灣擁有的東西，我們的車上都有，我們的手機裡都有，我們的電腦裡都有，我們每一個你能想到的零組件裡都有，這個國家的空調系統裡都有。台灣不只是無處不在，而且在我們的社會裡隨處可見，我想說的是，我們北美需要更多台灣，而且我們需要更少北京。

北京是個暴君。跟北京打交道就像在跟黑手黨周旋，他們上門，給你一點東西，因為他們想要你回報十樣東西，這根本不是公平的關係。而當你和黑幫打交道時，你從來、從來都不會全身而退，他們會殺了你，再奪走你的一切。北京就是這樣行事的。每次我們在貿易談判中、在技術交流中都看到這種情況，北京上一次開發並把某項技術給加拿大是什麼時候？還記得有一家企業嗎？加拿大曾有一家叫 Nortel 的公司，Nortel 曾是電信業的全球領導者。我們今天事後才知道，北京介入了，他們透過間諜活動以及其他非法手段，就把技術慢慢掏空，最後甚至把那家公司搞垮了。

中國每天都在從事智慧財產盜竊，不管是科技還是其他領域，這種事我們在全世界都看過，這就是他們政策的一部分。統一戰線每年投入數十億美元，在加拿大、美國、歐洲這些地方，目的就是滲透我們的民主制度，尤其是各種機構。我們自己的國會體系也已經被北京滲透了。他們不是在滲透我們因為他們想盯著我們，因為如果你想監看我們的民主，你只要讀新聞就行了，因為我們有自由媒體。而且我們現在甚至有比自由媒體更好的東西，我們有像你們這樣的媒體，在全世界擁有數百萬追隨者，能夠站在這裡自由對談，像我們兩個人一樣，都是加拿大公民，我們不害怕談任何主題。

所以把這些事實都攤在桌上。加拿大人真的應該非常警惕，我們需要醒過來，不是只擔心中國的威脅，因為如果加拿大人今天還沒有意識到，那表示他們早就睡死過去了。去一趟平價商店固然不錯，買些中國製的便宜貨，但你得問自己一個問題，代價是什麼？在加拿大，我們等於是把過去50年來的加拿大經濟拱手外包給中國，換來了什麼？一些更便宜的商品？就像我剛才說的，貿易失衡而且是偏向北京的，金額高達數千億加幣。而作為回報，我們得到的「謝謝」是他們跑來我們的土地上，恐嚇加拿大公民，從事間諜活動，威脅加拿大政客，而我們只是想和自由民主國家打交道。這不能接受。

公子沈：你說得太對了。他們不只是監控你而已，他們想控制你，不只是在中國，他們想控制人民，他們甚至想控制全世界的人。

胡薩科斯：更糟的是，加拿大企業家和公司幾十年來一直前往中國，因為他們去那裡。我先說清楚，我再重申一次，因為這值得再三強調，讓你的聽眾知道。當北美商人去中國時，他們去那裡是因為他們想破壞在這裡不能違反的環境法規，想違反在這裡不能違反的勞工法，而且他們以為，只要你違反這些法律，抄這些捷徑，你就會賺得更多，也許會。但他們不明白的是，北京政府想要這段關係是單向的，而當他們利用你的技術、取得你市場的進入權之後，他們就會要你離開，而當他們要你離開時，你的口袋會比你進去時更加空空如也，比來創業時還要少。

公子沈：你六週前才從臺北回來，如果你能向每一位加拿大人傳達一個關於台灣的訊息，那會是什麼？

胡薩科斯：就像我在這段訪談一開始說的，那裡的人很好，創新、自由、富有創意，溫暖、快樂、慷慨。他們想成為我們西方民主的孵化器的一部分。民主是一個相對新的概念，它起源於我父母的故鄉希臘，在數千年前，而且它經歷過高峰，也有低谷。而民主正處於一個岌岌可危的階段。我們見過威權主義和獨裁政權在世界上以及人類歷史中蓬勃發展，遠比民主更甚。我們也見過一些情況，民主在這個世界上有好幾個世紀都不存在任何形式。

所以我要傳達給我們所有人的訊息是，那些生活在自由民主國家的人，如果你看看聯合國的會員組成，我們其實是很少數的國家。我們不應該閉上眼睛、掩耳盜鈴，假裝獨裁政權是個遙遠的問題，因為那個問題很容易就會逼近。所以我要給加拿大人的訊息是，台灣自由、民主，有法律制度和司法，而且它值得我們保衛，免受任何威權主義侵害，因為我剛才說過，在人類歷史上，威權主義就像癌症一樣，已被證明是如此。它會擴散，對吧？如果你不在源頭把癌症根除，它就會把你的整個身體吞噬掉。

伊朗就是這樣，北京就是這樣。所有那些沒有真正自由的國家，它們會恐嚇媒體，就像土耳其的艾爾多安經常做的那樣。有意思的是，北京到底跟誰合作？它們合作的就是這些國家，那些支持恐怖主義的國家，以及反自由的國家，他們支持古巴，他們支持俄羅斯。

公子沈：我很期待帶一些加拿大記者去親眼看看對抗中國的金門前線，那一定會非常精彩。

胡薩科斯：我也希望加拿大媒體能進一步瞭解我稱之為奇蹟的台灣的經濟、政治奇蹟，並提供所需資訊，讓加拿大人知道世界各地正在發生什麼。受過教育、具備知識，會讓你更能客觀看待事情，不論是在自己的國家，還是在全世界。

公子沈：如今台灣是加拿大主要的貿易伙伴之一，而且台灣也願意與加拿大簽署自由貿易協定，以及與其他所有國家簽署。那加拿大為什麼不這麼做？

胡薩科斯：嗯，很明顯，聽著，我同意卡尼總理的看法，我們需要使貿易多元化。我們現在正處於一場小衝突之中，與我們的美國朋友和唐納‧川普在關稅以及自由貿易等等問題上有些摩擦。但加拿大人絕不能忘記，我們和最好的朋友、盟友也就是美國之間的貿易量，是不可能被任何程度的多元化所取代的，不是靠印尼，也不是靠中東國家，更不是靠中國。無論和中國有多少貿易，都無法達到平衡，來抵消與美利堅合眾國切斷關係的影響。所以馬克‧卡尼（卡尼總理）和自由黨都必須接受這一點。

第二，基於我們今天談到的所有原因，我們必須清楚向中國傳達訊息，如果你不符合這些標準，在自由方面、在環保議題上、在勞工方面，這一長串標準，因為這值得一再強調，我們必須和中國切斷關係，而且我們必須徹底切斷。因為說到底，中國一直在利用我們對他們供應鏈的依賴，而且他們總是利用這一點來恐嚇加拿大作出某些決定。所以我們才沒有簽署加拿大和台灣之間一項重要的貿易協議。我想說的是，我們對中國、對北京的回應應該是進一步切斷與他們的聯繫，並加強與台灣等國家的關係。在世界任何地方，只要我們現在還在跟威權政權打交道，加拿大該感到羞愧。加拿大該感到羞愧，因為我們不該和某個國家做生意，尤其是那種貿易完全順差的國家，而且我們每交易1元，他們就淨賺2元。

所以，如果我們對北京施壓，最大的可能輸家就是北京。是的，我們會失去一些貿易，因為他們會對我們賣給他們的300億美元農產品進行報復，那些牛肉、豬肉、海鮮、鉀肥、小麥。他們用600億美元賣給我們什麼？塑膠？一些電動車？他們賣給我們的所有東西，我們都可以從別的地方買到。我們可以做得比那更好，我們可以開始自己生產其中一些東西，就像以前在加拿大本地製造一樣。而且你知道嗎？它們可能會貴一點，但我們會打造一個經濟體，把 40、50 年前我們外銷到中國的產業反過來讓他們在佔我們便宜。而且，更重要的是，等到一切塵埃落定之後，你覺得像中國這樣的政權，一個試圖養活 14 億人口的政權，能夠長期承受不買加拿大豬肉、加拿大牛肉、加拿大海鮮嗎？我們賣給他們的是生存所必需的東西，而他們賣給我們的，本來就該在加拿大這裡自己生產。我們要把那 600 億美元的現金流留住，加拿大的現金流不要流進北京獨裁者的口袋，而是留在加拿大經濟裡。

今天在北京製造的所有東西，在新疆、在中國製造的，以前我們都在蒙特婁、在多倫多、溫哥華、雷吉納製造。那些東西我們以前全都會做，從衣服，到塑膠用品，不管你說的是哪一項，還是烤麵包機，我們以前在加拿大就能製造這些東西。所以加拿大經濟從一個工業製造強國，在50、60、70年代，變成了今天以服務業為主的經濟。如果你把我們經濟中的農產品、天然資源，而我們其實還沒有充分開發這些資源，再加上服務業也被拿走，加拿大現在就什麼都不生產了。加拿大過去曾經是一個高度工業化的製造能力強國，我們什麼都不再生產了，我們只會買東西。

全球唯一加拿大在貿易上有順差的協議，也就是說我們賣給他們的比向他們買的多，就是美國。這就是為什麼我們有免費醫療保健和免費教育，毫無爭議，我們從那個協議中受益匪淺。但如果你看加拿大和北京、和中國之間的關係，他們在嘲笑我們，他們笑著把我們當提款機，他們一路笑我們到銀行。那不叫關係，關係是有來有往，我給你一些東西，你也給我一些東西，我們買賣東西，一起壯大彼此的經濟，我們彼此協調，我們在價值、原則、目標、規則上建立夥伴關係。

在 NHL、在美國職棒大聯盟、在 NBA 中，那些規則之所以能運作，並且管理這些職業聯盟，是有原因的。因為如果沒有規則，那就是大者恒大，最強的、最大的市場說了算，那就不再有聯盟了。所以球員選秀有一套規則來確保公平，還有一些規則是關於某些聯盟的收益分配，比賽怎麼進行也有規則，從治理角度來說也是如此，為什麼？為了創造公平的競爭環境。

我們在北京看到的是一群獨裁者在利用資本主義，但他們是在利用我們的自由市場，因為過去30、40年我們太愚蠢了，讓他們榨取我們的財富，犧牲我們的勞工。所以我們的勞工失去了工作，政府也少了稅收。有些股東以及北美的企業，因為有廉價勞工而致富，還有環保規範的放寬，就像我們在北京說的，那段時間是有好處的。但現在我們開始發現，等等，這不公平，這不只是這樣，這不平等。而在整個過程結束時，北京會把那些股東和這些生意人，他們自以為很聰明，說喔，我們不再承認你了，你幫我們在北京建的工廠不再屬於你了，它屬於我們。所以當這種情況發生時，而且一直都在發生，我們在各方面都是輸家。

看看中國在能源產能方面做了什麼。他們打造了再生能源，他們已經領先北美，在綠色科技方面以及再生能源方面。但要生產再生能源，你得燒煤，你得燃燒化石燃料。所以當我們在加拿大不這麼做時，北京和中國卻一直在做，因為他們沒有任何規範，他們燒煤燒得像沒有明天一樣，他們水力壓裂，他們汙染環境也像沒有明天一樣。在加拿大，我們努力拯救世界，卻只製造全球1%的汙染，而我們正在扼殺自己的能源產業。道德又乾淨的石油，我們不會在這裡建燃煤電廠，但北美會這麼做，因為我們採用真正的環境標準，即使我們進行煤炭生產，也和北京的做法不同。我們不會做那些事，所以他們已經超越了我們，在能源產能上，不論是化石燃料、煤炭，他們在能源方面已經超越了我們，為什麼？因為他們會做我們在這個國家不做的事。

要成為電動車的世界領導者，你需要什麼？你需要鈷，你需要鋰，你需要各種礦物，而這些礦物需要從地底下開採出來。所以，加拿大有繁文縟節和官僚管制在阻止加拿大境內的採礦，我們也阻止鋰礦的發展，諸如此類。我們容忍鈷礦開採發生在剛果等地，而且還使用童工。此外，中國可以生產電動車，不尊重環境標準，就是我剛才強調的那些，然後他們再把產品賣回給我們加拿大人。而我們像笨蛋一樣，簽下協議去補貼，把他們的車子引進到這裡，明明知道他們沒有宗教自由，明明知道他們威脅一個尊重我剛才提到的所有事情的國家，像台灣以及其他亞太地區的地緣政治參與者。

所以，公子沈，我已經講了很多，也提供了很多資訊。但這就是我得出結論的原因，作為一名國會議員，加拿大政府對中國是有籌碼的，而不是反過來，不是中國對我們有籌碼。而且我們必須傳達這個訊息，很清楚地說，你們想繼續受益於加拿大市場以及我們在加拿大這裡的關係嗎？你們就得改變。如果你們不改變，就會有後果。如果我們能在全球領導方面，由民主國家攜手做到這一點，讓北美、澳洲、英聯邦國家、歐洲國家都能結合起來，對中國說，夠了，已經夠了，我們不會再容忍下去了。

公子沈：謝謝您，參議員，很高興能和您交談。

胡薩科斯：非常感謝。

Please see the English version below.

大家好，歡迎收看這期的公子視頻，我是公子沈。我們節目又回來了，我剛剛在加拿大的渥太華進行一些採訪，現在我們回來正式來講這期的節目。

那最近呢，有一件事情值得聊一聊，就是特別有戲劇性、特別有意思的林志玲事件，不停的反轉再反轉。由於我在外邊出差，沒有特別關注，回來之後看到，我覺得還是有意義跟大家再復盤一下。

Read more

Please see the English version below.

大家好，我現在人在渥太華，加拿大的首都。

今天下午，中國外交部長王毅抵達加拿大展開訪問。不過截至目前為止，我既沒有在機場見到他的身影，也沒有去機場迎接他。

據了解，王毅今天前往加拿大外交部期間，現場已有多個團體到場抗議，包括法輪功學員、維吾爾人、藏人、香港人以及中國民主運動人士等。明天早上，他還將在國會山與加拿大總理卡尼會面，我也會到現場觀察相關情況。

不過，我這次來渥太華並不是專程為了王毅，而是原本就有其他工作安排，只是剛好碰上他的訪問行程。

談到王毅訪加，我不禁想起十年前那場著名的記者會。我也在社交媒體上重新分享了當年的片段。當時，一位任職於渥太華政治媒體 iPolitics 的記者提出了涉及中國人權的問題，結果王毅當場情緒激動地反擊記者。

後來，那段發言不但在西方媒體廣泛流傳，甚至在中國網路上也成了知名迷因。許多中國網民至今仍記得那句：「你了解中國嗎？你去過中國嗎？」

有趣的是，當年那個問題其實並不是問王毅，而是問當時在場的加拿大外長。但王毅主動接過話題，以強烈情緒回應，最終反而讓自己成為外界嘲諷的對象。

或許正因如此，這一次王毅顯然學乖了。

據我目前了解，他此行不會舉行公開記者會。即使真的安排媒體活動，恐怕也不會開放自由提問，更不可能讓記者提出尖銳問題。畢竟十年前的教訓，至今仍然令人印象深刻。

從目前公開的資訊來看，王毅此行的行程也相當低調。具體抵達時間、路線安排、公開活動細節都十分有限。據報導，明天卡尼可能會安排與王毅一同進行戶外活動，但相關資訊同樣沒有對外公開。

這與十年前形成鮮明對比。當年的王毅還願意站在鎂光燈下與媒體交鋒，而今天的王毅似乎更傾向於避免任何不可控的公開場合。

原因其實不難理解。

Read more

中文版在最下方

The decision, and the question beneath it

On July 29, 2025, CBC News reported that Ottawa's National Arts Centre would not host Shen Yun in 2026, ending a nearly two-decade relationship between the federal Crown corporation and the New York–based classical Chinese dance company.

At first glance, the decision looked like a dispute over venue rental, box-office rules, audience management, and allegations surrounding Shen Yun's internal practices. The NAC has insisted its artistic programming and rental decisions are made independently and "without external influence."

But two sets of documents now sit against that statement. The first is a 31-page release of the NAC's own records, obtained under the Access to Information Act (file ATI 2025-26 001, Part 1), covering the NAC's communications with the Chinese government. The second is a December 16, 2025 submission by the Falun Dafa Association of Ottawa, which compiles the documented record of how Chinese diplomatic missions pressure theatres that host Shen Yun. Read together, they show that the NAC was making its Shen Yun decision inside a climate of sustained foreign-state cultivation — and that this kind of cultivation, where Shen Yun is concerned, has a well-established and sometimes adjudicated track record.

One detail sharpens the timing. China's ambassador to Canada, Wang Di, arrived in Ottawa on May 24, 2024, and formally assumed his post on July 5, 2024. Barely six weeks later, on August 21, 2024, he was sitting across from the NAC's CEO. The access-to-information file records no earlier in-person meeting between NAC senior leadership and the Chinese Embassy: the new ambassador made the NAC an early priority of his posting, at the very moment the institution was beginning to weigh the future of the performing group Beijing most wants kept off Western stages. New ambassadors do meet many organizations early on — but the speed of this particular outreach, the absence of any prior face-to-face contact, and the sustained cultivation that followed are, together, part of what makes the episode worth scrutiny.

The central question is not whether Shen Yun is controversial. It clearly is. The question is whether a federal cultural institution, courted this persistently by a foreign government with a documented history of targeting exactly this performer, can credibly claim its decision was made on the merits alone.

Shen Yun is not an ordinary dance company. Closely associated with Falun Gong — the spiritual practice banned in China in 1999 — the group has been a standing target of the Chinese Communist Party, which has sought to discredit it internationally and pressure venues that host it.

The reason embassy contact matters here is that, with Shen Yun, embassy contact is not a neutral baseline. There is a documented modus operandi.

The Falun Dafa Information Center (FDIC), which has tracked the campaign, describes it as the most aggressive effort of artistic censorship documented to date. By the FDIC's count, there have been more than 260 incidents targeting Shen Yun worldwide since 2006, driven since 2022 by at least five CCP directives; the FDIC's January 2024 report, Diplomatic Disruptions and Disinformation: Beijing's Global Drive to Stop Shen Yun, states that CCP central authorities have deemed suppressing Shen Yun "an important part of the … struggle against Falun Gong." These figures come from an advocacy organization aligned with Falun Gong and should be read as its own tracking — but the underlying pattern is corroborated by independent records.

Crucially, that report finds Chinese diplomats were directly involved in 81 of 135 documented interference incidents against Shen Yun — typically by contacting theatre managers or officials, in person or in writing, to spread falsehoods and signal economic reprisals. The mechanism is the same one Chen Yonglin, a First Secretary who defected from the Chinese Consulate in Sydney, described in 2005 testimony: overseas missions run a formalized "war against Falun Gong" through specialized groups operating as branches of the extrajudicial "610 Office."

The case record bears this out. In Spain in 2019, the Chinese ambassador visited Madrid's Royal Theatre and pressured management to cancel a sold-out Shen Yun performance, urging the venue to prioritize "politics" over "economic income" — pressure later confirmed by a recorded phone call. In the United States in 2009, the Chinese consulate in Houston sent a 13-page letter to a Little Rock, Arkansas venue demanding that a Shen Yun rental be refused; that theatre resisted, saying publicly it would do "what we think is the right thing" regardless of "pressure or threats."

Canada is not an exception. In 2010, after Shen Yun performed at the NAC itself, a tour-bus tire was found deliberately slashed en route to Montreal — part of a series of such attacks that risked a high-speed blowout. In 2008, the Chinese Consulate in Calgary pressured Travel Alberta into dropping a planned Shen Yun sponsorship; in 2010, a consulate-linked individual in Winnipeg warned a business owner against quietly sponsoring the Shen Yun program book; and forged, threatening emails impersonating Falun Gong practitioners were sent to the Jubilee Auditoriums in Calgary and Edmonton. More recently, hoax bomb and mass-shooting threats against Shen Yun's 2024 and 2025 tours in Mississauga, Kitchener, Montreal and Vancouver are under RCMP investigation; a Taiwanese task force reportedly traced similar threats to a Huawei research institute in Xi'an.

The targeting of Falun Gong itself by Chinese missions in Canada is, in places, a matter of official findings rather than advocacy claims. In 2005, the Edmonton Police Service's Hate Crime Unit concluded that two staff of the Calgary consulate had breached the Criminal Code's prohibition on wilfully promoting hatred by distributing anti–Falun Gong materials at the University of Alberta. In 2006, the CRTC found that terminology used by the regime's CCTV-4 broadcaster constituted abusive comment likely to expose Falun Gong to hatred. And the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, in rulings between 2006 and 2011, confirmed Falun Gong as a protected creed after a Chinese Embassy diplomat pressured a Chinese seniors' association in Ottawa to expel an elderly member for her practice.

This is the backdrop. When the embassy of this particular state cultivates the leadership of a venue weighing this particular performer, "ordinary cultural diplomacy" is not the correct frame of reference.

Inside the NAC: a decision its own staff understood as political

CBC's reporting showed that NAC staff debated the Shen Yun question for months.

In January 2025, NAC Executive Producer Heather Gibson recommended to CEO Christopher Deacon and communications executive Annabelle Cloutier that the NAC not continue with Shen Yun in 2026, citing repeated problems with contractual terms and "unspecified allegations" about the organization. Deacon initially framed it as a programming decision within Gibson's discretion. Gibson pushed back, warning she would not be the only one left dealing with the consequences — media attention, phone campaigns, meeting requests to the CEO's office — and noting that in the past, when staff made decisions about Shen Yun, the CEO had eventually overridden them. By her own account, staff-level decisions on this file did not necessarily stand.

Political pressure, from both directions

Liberal MP Judy Sgro contacted the NAC, after being approached by the Falun Dafa Association of Canada, asking for a full explanation of why Shen Yun could not secure 2026 dates. Conservative MP Garnett Genuis wrote to Deacon warning that recent CCP efforts to repress Shen Yun were "extremely concerning." The documented political pressure to host Shen Yun came from Canadian elected officials, on the record. The question this report examines is whether a quieter, opposite pressure also existed — and where it came from.

The 2025 complaints

The NAC's internal complaints sharpened after Shen Yun's 2025 run. On April 28, 2025, Gibson solicited formal comments. Supervisor Myriam Lamontagne said Shen Yun had installed its own box-office booth — which she called a breach of contract — and that staff were rebuffed when they asked it closed; she also alleged Shen Yun photographed patrons without consent and that a manager asked for a patron with disabilities to be removed mid-performance. Senior manager Robyn Gilchrist warned such incidents could expose the NAC to human-rights complaints.

Shen Yun's local organizer, Grace Wollensak, disputed the account: she said it was the NAC that removed wheelchair users after disruptions, denied any photography of patrons, and said the group was on heightened alert because of "dozens" of threats. These disputes are real and unresolved — but they are the surface. The deeper layer is in the NAC's own correspondence with the Chinese Embassy.

The paper trail: what the access-to-information release shows

What the release shows is not a directive. It is something subtler: the texture of a relationship.

The 2023 overture

The earliest document is a February 22, 2023 email to Annabelle Cloutier from a self-described embassy "staffer for cultural affairs." Its purpose is explicit: with COVID measures lifted, the embassy expected to "resume its cooperation with NAC and to bring Chinese theaters and performances back to NAC," and the minister-counsellor for cultural affairs wanted a meeting "whereby discussions will kick off." Cloutier retrieved the email from her spam folder, forwarded it to managing director Nelson McDougall and CEO Christopher Deacon, and wrote: "Probably needs a call rather than email exchange."

From the outset, two things are established: the embassy's objective in engaging the NAC was stage access for China-approved performances, and the contact went straight to the top.

National Day, and the rhythm of invitations

In September 2023, the embassy invited Deacon and McDougall to its "China Day Reception," marking the 74th anniversary of the founding of the PRC, hosted by then-ambassador Cong Peiwu. Deacon's office sent regrets, citing a scheduling conflict — a genuine point in the NAC's favour. But a reception for a foreign state's national day is a political occasion, and the embassy's phrasing — "again host its China Day Reception" — indicates a recurring fixture in an established relationship.

2024: a new ambassador, and "the advice received"

The relationship intensified with the arrival of Ambassador Wang Di in mid-2024. On June 14, 2024, the embassy invited Deacon both to Wang Di's welcome reception and to receive a personal visit from the new ambassador. Deacon told Cloutier on June 17 that Wang Di had "indicated his interest in paying me a visit at the NAC."

Then comes the most significant line in the release. On July 12, 2024, forwarding the embassy's follow-up to executive assistant Diane Lemire, Deacon wrote: "The advice received is that i should meet the Ambassador. Can you find a time - Nelson should join the meeting."

"The advice received." By his own account, Deacon's decision to host the Chinese ambassador was not simply his own — he was acting on advice, from a source the documents do not name. It may have been routine protocol guidance; it may have been something else. The NAC has not explained it. A Crown-corporation CEO describing a meeting with an authoritarian state's ambassador as something he was advised to do, by an unstated adviser, is exactly the kind of detail an institution claiming full independence should be able to account for. One further detail: the embassy's email in that chain was copied to an address at chinaculture.org, a portal within China's state cultural apparatus.

An invitation to a People's Liberation Army ceremony

The same exchange raised a second event. The embassy issued formal invitations to Deacon and Lemire, by name, to the ceremony marking the "97th Anniversary of the Chinese People's Liberation Army" on July 30, 2024 — co-hosted by Wang Di and "Defense Attaché Senior Colonel LI Yao," with a dress code of "Uniform with Ribbons or Business Attire." The chief executive of Canada's federal performing-arts institution was personally invited to a celebration of a foreign military — the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party. Whether or not it was accepted, the invitation reframes the relationship: it extended to the political and military calendar of the party-state.

The August 2024 visit, in the embassy's own words

Ambassador Wang Di's visit to the NAC went ahead on August 21, 2024. The logistics in the emails are telling: Deacon personally gave the ambassador a 30-minute tour, followed by a meeting in his office; NAC staff reserved a parking spot for the ambassador's car; an embassy staffer thanked Lemire for "making that meeting happen." The embassy had also made a "social media request," and on August 15 Lemire confirmed Deacon "is fine with picture taking and media post."

What the NAC authorized the embassy to publish is now on the record. The Chinese Embassy's own website published a readout of the meeting, noting China's interest in deeper cooperation and quoting NAC President Christopher Deacon as expressing interest in "strengthen[ing] exchanges and cooperation in the field of culture and art with the Chinese side." Embassy readouts are not neutral, and they can shade a guest's words. But the NAC has not disputed the account — and it is entirely consistent with the rest of the documentary record. An institution that says it makes decisions "without external influence" has a CEO quoted, on the foreign government's own platform, seeking closer cultural cooperation with that government.

Dinners at the ambassador's residence

The hospitality did not end at the NAC's doors. On August 26, 2024, the ambassador's "Protocol Officer" invited Deacon to dinner at the embassy's official residence, adding that "President Deacon's families, friends and colleagues are also highly welcome." The dinner was scheduled for October 15, 2024, and expanded to include McDougall and his wife. According to the Falun Dafa Association of Ottawa's submission, both Deacon and McDougall accepted. A private dinner for two senior executives and their spouses, at the official residence of an authoritarian state's ambassador, is hospitality of a personal kind — and the NAC's leadership took it.

A propaganda film, and a gift

In late November 2024, the embassy invited Deacon as a guest of honour to the opening of a "Chinese Film Festival," featuring the documentary Crafting Civilization: Beijing Central Axis. The invitation's own credits identify the bodies behind that film: the National Cultural Heritage Administration; China International Communications Group (中国外文局), a principal external-propaganda organization of the Chinese party-state; the Publicity Department of the Communist Party's Beijing Municipal Committee (北京市委宣传部); and state broadcaster CCTV. This was not arm's-length art. Then, in December 2024, the embassy delivered "the ambassador's Christmas card and a gift" to Deacon, left at the NAC's reception desk — months after an embassy staffer had written that "no gift exchange is anticipated."

2025: "bringing art groups from China to NAC"

The final documents, from April 2025, fall in the same season the NAC was assembling its case against Shen Yun. On April 30, the embassy wrote that a new cultural counsellor — named in the NAC's own subject line as "counselor Pan" — wished to visit Deacon and McDougall, together with the chairman of an organization called the Canada-China Cultural Development Association, to "discuss with you the potential possibility of bringing art groups from China to NAC in the years to come." The email characterized the whole relationship in the embassy's own words: "During your tenure, we together have initiated a series of exchange and mutual visit programs between our two countries."

That sentence closes the loop. This was not a string of unconnected courtesies but an ongoing, named program built up over Deacon's tenure — and its concrete 2025 ask was to put China-approved performing groups onto the NAC's stage. Deacon's reply was not a refusal: "Could we perhaps push this to after the tour?"

A timeline

Set against the NAC's internal Shen Yun deliberations, the chronology is this:

• February 2023 — The embassy approaches NAC management, stating it expects to "bring Chinese theaters and performances back to NAC."

• September 2023 — Deacon and McDougall are invited to the embassy's China Day Reception (74th PRC anniversary); Deacon's office sends regrets.

• June 2024 — The embassy invites Deacon to the welcome reception for new Ambassador Wang Di and requests a visit from him.

• July 12, 2024 — Deacon writes internally: "The advice received is that i should meet the Ambassador."

• July 2024 — Deacon and Lemire are invited, by name, to a People's Liberation Army anniversary ceremony.

• August 21, 2024 — Wang Di visits the NAC; Deacon gives a personal tour, and authorizes the embassy to publicize the meeting. The embassy later quotes Deacon seeking closer cultural cooperation "with the Chinese side."

• October 15, 2024 — Deacon and McDougall (with spouses) attend a private dinner at the ambassador's residence.

• November–December 2024 — Deacon is invited to a film festival featuring a CCP propaganda-organ documentary; the ambassador sends Deacon a Christmas gift.

• January 2025 — NAC executive Heather Gibson recommends dropping Shen Yun for 2026.

• April 2025 — The embassy's new cultural counsellor seeks a meeting to discuss "bringing art groups from China to NAC."

• April 28, 2025 — Gibson solicits formal internal comments building the case against Shen Yun.

• July 29, 2025 — CBC reports that the NAC will not host Shen Yun in 2026.

For roughly two and a half years, two processes ran side by side inside one institution: the embassy steadily cultivated NAC leadership and pressed for stage access, while the NAC moved step by step toward removing Beijing's most-targeted performing group from that same stage. The documents do not prove the two processes touched. They prove the two processes coexisted.

The boardroom

The cultivation captured in the emails occurred at an institution whose senior governance is unusually exposed to China-facing networks.

Board chair Guy Pratte is Senior Counsel at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP, among Canada's most China-connected law firms — a 40-plus-person China practice, a Beijing representative office, and advisory work for Chinese investors in sensitive sectors including critical minerals. Senior BLG partners have served in the network of the Canada China Business Council; BLG's Calgary office hosted the CCBC's 2022 annual-meeting reception, themed on the CCP's 20th Party Congress. Pratte was appointed NAC chair in January 2023.

Vice-Chair Derral Moriyama spent 31 years at BMO Financial Group, his tenure overlapping precisely with BMO's most aggressive China expansion: the first Canadian bank licensed by Chinese regulators (2004), a role in the Bank of China's Hong Kong IPO (2006), a Shanghai branch (2008), a wholly owned mainland subsidiary (2010), and a near-20-percent stake in a trust arm of the state giant COFCO (2012). BMO's current Vice-Chair of Investment and Corporate Banking, former Liberal cabinet minister Scott Brison, is Vice-Chair of the Canada China Business Council's board.

Trustee Heather Bala Edwards has no documented direct China connection herself, but is married to N. Murray Edwards, chairman of Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. — whose Horizon oil-sands project used a Sinopec subsidiary and 132 temporary workers from China, two of whom were killed in a 2007 tank-roof collapse; of 53 health-and-safety charges, all 29 against CNRL were stayed and the Sinopec parent's were withdrawn. None of this implicates Heather Edwards personally, but it places a third trustee's household in direct commercial entanglement with a Chinese state-owned enterprise.

Ottawa Mayor Mark Sutcliffe, on the board ex officio, received a courtesy call from Ambassador Wang Di in February 2025, after which Chinese state-linked summaries described him as commending the embassy's local contribution and expressing willingness to strengthen exchanges with China. There is nothing improper in a mayor engaging diplomatically — but the institutional proximity is real.

The remaining trustees identified in public records do not appear to carry significant China-facing connections.

What the documents do, and do not, show

Fairness requires stating the limits clearly. The access-to-information release contains no Beijing directive about Shen Yun, no NAC official linking the embassy relationship to the Shen Yun file, and no embassy request to drop the group. Diplomatic missions routinely invite cultural leaders to events, and the NAC did decline some invitations. Anyone claiming the release "proves" the decision was dictated from Beijing is overreading it.

But the documents — the NAC's own records — establish four things not in dispute:

First, the relationship was sustained and continuous, February 2023 to April 2025, and amounted, in the embassy's own words, to "a series of exchange and mutual visit programs."

Second, its stated purpose, repeated throughout, was access: to "bring Chinese theaters and performances back to NAC," and to discuss "bringing art groups from China to NAC in the years to come."

Third, NAC leadership engaged this relationship at the most senior level — a personal tour for the ambassador, a publicized meeting, dinners for executives and spouses at the ambassador's residence, an accepted gift — and was courted toward occasions that were not neutral: a national-day reception, a PLA anniversary, a propaganda-organ film. The NAC's CEO is on record, on the embassy's own website, seeking closer cultural cooperation "with the Chinese side."

Fourth, the relationship was asymmetric. The embassy initiated, invited, hosted, gifted and pressed; the NAC accepted, accommodated and authorized the publicity. The word "exchange" recurs in the emails; genuine reciprocity does not.

The central question

Influence does not always work through explicit instructions. It works through elite networks, professional caution, reputational risk, diplomatic normalization — and the quiet calculation that some controversies are not worth the trouble.

That is the relevance of these documents. The question is not whether the Chinese Embassy ordered the NAC to drop Shen Yun. It is whether an institution that, for two and a half years, had been hosting that embassy's ambassador, dining at his residence, accepting his gifts, and entertaining his government's standing request for stage access — while that same government runs a globally documented campaign to keep Shen Yun off Western stages — can credibly claim its decision about Shen Yun was made in a vacuum.

The NAC says it can. Its own records, and the pattern surrounding them, make that claim hard to take at face value. An institution does not need to receive an order to reach the outcome a sustained foreign cultivation campaign favours.

For years, Beijing has worked to isolate Falun Gong and portray Shen Yun as illegitimate, and the lawyer David Matas has warned that excluding Shen Yun risks turning Canadian cultural institutions into "a paving stone" in that campaign. The NAC's decision cannot be treated simply as a quarrel over box-office booths. It is a test of whether a Canadian federal cultural institution can keep its stage independent of a foreign government that has spent years trying to decide who performs on it — and the deeper one reads into the NAC's own correspondence, the harder that test becomes to pass.

If a national cultural institution in Canada’s capital, funded by the federal government, ultimately decides to exclude a particular performing arts group in the context of a prolonged campaign of influence and lobbying by a foreign government, then this is about far more than a dispute over programming decisions. It raises fundamental questions about Canada’s sovereignty, cultural independence, and the freedoms of expression and association enjoyed by its citizens.

Regardless of one’s views of Shen Yun itself, no foreign government should have the power to determine who is permitted to perform on a Canadian stage. If that line is crossed, the damage extends far beyond a single performing arts group. What is at stake are the very principles that underpin Canada as a free and democratic society.

Sources and notes

1. National Arts Centre, Access to Information release, file ATI 2025-26 001, Part 1 — communications between the NAC and the Chinese government, including the Chinese Embassy (emails of February and September 2023; June, July, August, November and December 2024; and April 2025).

2. Falun Dafa Association of Ottawa, "Appendix V — Chinese Embassy Engagement with NAC Management and Documented Suppression Efforts by the Chinese Embassy in Canada and Globally," December 16, 2025.

3. CBC News, coverage of the NAC's decision not to host Shen Yun in 2026, July 29, 2025.

4. Falun Dafa Information Center, Diplomatic Disruptions and Disinformation: Beijing's Global Drive to Stop Shen Yun, January 2024 — incident counts and the finding that Chinese diplomats were directly involved in 81 of 135 documented interference incidents. (Advocacy source; figures reflect the organization's own tracking.)

5. Falun Dafa Information Center, transnational-repression incident tracker (data tracked since late 2023).

6. Embassy of the People's Republic of China in Canada, official website readout of Ambassador Wang Di's meeting with NAC executives — ca.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/sgxw/202502/t20250228_11565466.htm.

7. Chen Yonglin, 2005 testimony on the role of Chinese diplomatic missions and the "610 Office" in overseas suppression of Falun Gong.

8. Spain (2019) — reporting on the Chinese ambassador's intervention at Madrid's Royal Theatre, including the recorded phone call (leeshailemish.com).

9. United States (2009) — Epoch Times reporting on the Chinese consulate in Houston and the Robinson Center Music Hall, Little Rock, Arkansas.

10. Canada-specific incidents — drawn from Foreign Interference & Repression of Falun Gong in Canada (Falun Dafa Association of Canada): the 2010 NAC tour-bus tire incident; the 2008 Calgary consulate / Travel Alberta case; the 2010 Winnipeg case; the Jubilee Auditoriums smear emails; and the 2024–2025 hoax threats under RCMP investigation.

11. Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, decisions of 2006 and 2011 confirming Falun Gong as a protected creed (CanLII).

12. CRTC, Public Notice 2006-166, on abusive comment against Falun Gong in CCTV-4 broadcasts.

13. Edmonton Police Service Hate Crime Unit, 2005 report on anti–Falun Gong material distributed by Calgary consulate staff.

14. Ambassador Wang Di's appointment timeline — arrival in Ottawa on May 24, 2024, per the Chinese Embassy's own website (ca.china-embassy.gov.cn) and Ambassador Wang's July 17, 2024 byline in the Hill Times; formally assumed office July 5, 2024, per standard diplomatic records.

15. NAC trustees' business and institutional affiliations — drawn from public corporate, firm and government records.

Names of embassy staff and certain third parties are withheld in the access-to-information release under the Act's personal-information exemption. Figures attributed to the Falun Dafa Information Center and the Falun Dafa Association reflect those organizations' own tracking and are identified as such; matters of official record (tribunal, CRTC and police findings) are noted separately.

譯文摘要：

中國大使館如何一步步接近加拿大國家藝術中心？神韻遭取消背後的文件紀錄

一份透過加拿大《資訊公開法》（Access to Information Act）取得的文件顯示，中國駐加拿大大使館多年來持續經營與加拿大國家藝術中心（National Arts Centre，NAC）高層的關係。而在此期間，NAC內部恰好也正在討論是否停止繼續主辦神韻藝術團演出。

這些文件與法輪大法組織整理的全球案例相互對照後，呈現出一個值得加拿大社會正視的問題：一家聯邦文化機構，在長期受到中國政府接觸和影響的情況下，是否仍能令人信服地宣稱，其有關神韻的決定完全不受外部因素影響？

一項決定，以及背後更大的疑問

2025年7月29日，CBC報導指出，渥太華國家藝術中心將不再安排神韻藝術團於2026年演出，結束雙方近二十年的合作關係。

表面上看，這似乎只是一起涉及場地租賃、票務管理、觀眾秩序以及外界對神韻內部管理質疑的商業爭議。

NAC方面則表示，其藝術節目安排與場地租賃決定均由機構獨立作出，「不受任何外部影響」。

然而，兩份如今公開的文件卻讓這一說法變得不那麼簡單。

第一份是NAC根據《資訊公開法》公開的31頁內部文件（ATI 2025-26 001, Part 1），記錄了該機構與中國政府及中國駐加拿大大使館之間的往來。

第二份則是渥太華法輪大法協會於2025年12月提交的報告，系統整理了中國外交機構多年來在世界各地打壓神韻演出的相關案例。

如果將兩份資料放在一起閱讀，可以發現：在NAC討論是否終止神韻演出的同時，中國使館也正在持續加深與NAC高層之間的關係。

文件本身並未顯示中國政府直接要求NAC取消神韻演出，但它們揭示了一個更值得關注的現象——長期且持續的政治與文化影響力運作。

神韻為何成為中共的目標？

神韻藝術團總部設於美國紐約，與法輪功團體有密切關聯。

自1999年中共開始全面鎮壓法輪功以來，神韻便成為北京長期打擊的對象。

多年來，中國政府不僅試圖在國際社會抹黑神韻，也持續向世界各地的劇院和演出機構施壓，希望阻止其登台演出。

因此，當中國使館主動接觸一家正在考慮是否續辦神韻演出的劇院時，這種互動並不能簡單被視為一般的文化外交。

因為在神韻問題上，中國外交系統本身就有明確且長期的干預紀錄。

根據法輪大法資訊中心（Falun Dafa Information Center）統計，自2006年至今，全球已記錄超過260宗針對神韻的干擾事件。

該中心於2024年發表的研究報告指出，在135宗有明確紀錄的干預事件中，有81宗直接涉及中國外交官員。

最常見的方式包括：

• 致函劇院管理層；

• 親自拜訪劇院負責人；

• 散播關於神韻的不實資訊；

• 暗示若繼續演出可能影響與中國的經貿關係；

• 透過當地親中團體施加壓力。

這種模式並非理論推測，而是有具體案例支持。

2019年，西班牙馬德里皇家劇院原定舉辦神韻演出。根據事後曝光的錄音，中國駐西班牙大使親自向劇院施壓，要求取消演出，並表示應將「政治」置於「經濟利益」之上。

2009年，美國阿肯色州小石城的一家劇院收到中國駐休士頓總領館長達13頁的信件，要求拒絕神韻租用場地。

劇院最終公開表示，不會因為外國政府的壓力而改變決定。

加拿大同樣發生過類似事件。

2008年，中國駐卡加利總領館成功施壓旅遊亞伯達（Travel Alberta），迫使其取消對神韻活動的贊助。

2010年，一名與中國領館有聯繫的人士曾警告溫尼伯一名商人，不要資助神韻節目冊。

同年，神韻在加拿大巡演期間，一輛載運演職人員的巴士輪胎遭人蓄意割破，如果在高速公路上爆胎，後果可能極為嚴重。

近年來，神韻在密西沙加、基奇納、蒙特婁和溫哥華等地的演出，更接連遭遇炸彈威脅和槍擊恐嚇，目前仍由皇家騎警調查之中。

中國新任大使上任後，NAC成為優先接觸對象

文件顯示，中國駐加拿大大使館最早於2023年2月開始主動接觸NAC。

當時，一名中國使館文化官員向NAC通訊主管Annabelle Cloutier發送郵件。

郵件內容相當直接：

疫情限制已經解除，中方希望恢復與NAC的合作，並「將中國劇團和中國演出重新帶回NAC」。

這封郵件隨即被轉發給NAC行政總裁Christopher Deacon以及管理層。

換句話說，從一開始，中國使館的目的就十分明確——爭取讓中國官方認可的演出團體重新進入加拿大國家藝術中心。

到了2024年，中國新任駐加拿大大使王鏑抵達渥太華。

根據中國使館資料，王鏑於2024年5月抵達加拿大，7月正式履新。

僅僅六週後，他便與NAC行政總裁Christopher Deacon會面。

文件顯示，2024年7月12日，Deacon在轉發使館來信時寫下一句耐人尋味的話：

「收到的建議是，我應該與這位大使會面。」

（The advice received is that I should meet the Ambassador.）

問題在於，文件並未說明這項「建議」來自何人。

可能只是正常的外交禮儀建議。

也可能來自政府或其他機構。

但對一家強調完全獨立決策的聯邦文化機構而言，這樣的措辭難免令人好奇。

更值得注意的是，同一批文件顯示，中國使館不僅邀請NAC高層參加中國國慶招待會，還曾邀請他們出席中國人民解放軍建軍97周年慶祝活動。

邀請函上明確寫著：

活動由中國駐加拿大大使王鏑及國防武官李堯大校共同主辦。

這已不再只是單純的文化交流活動，而是中國黨國體系的重要政治場合。

王鏑訪問NAC：從文化交流到私人晚宴

2024年8月21日，王鏑正式到訪加拿大國家藝術中心。

從公開文件來看，這並非一次普通的禮節性拜會。

根據郵件紀錄，NAC特別為大使車輛預留停車位，Christopher Deacon親自陪同王鏑參觀國家藝術中心約30分鐘，之後再返回辦公室舉行閉門會談。

更值得注意的是，中國使館曾要求允許拍照及在社交媒體發布相關內容。

2024年8月15日，Deacon的助理回覆表示：

「Christopher不介意拍照和發布相關內容。」

幾天後，中國駐加拿大大使館便在官網刊登了會面紀錄。

根據使館發布的新聞稿，王鏑表示希望進一步推動中加文化交流與合作，而NAC總裁Christopher Deacon則被引述表示，希望與中方「加強文化藝術領域的交流與合作」。

當然，中國官方新聞稿並非完全中立，其內容未必逐字反映當事人的原話。

但值得注意的是，NAC從未公開否認或澄清使館對此次會面的描述。

換句話說，加拿大國家藝術中心的行政總裁，確實允許中國政府利用這次會面進行公開宣傳，並被塑造成支持深化中加文化合作的合作夥伴。

大使官邸晚宴

如果說8月的會面仍可被視為正式公務往來，那麼接下來發生的事情則更具私人性質。

2024年8月26日，中國駐加拿大大使館禮賓官向Christopher Deacon發出邀請，邀請他出席於大使官邸舉辦的私人晚宴。

邀請函中特別提到：

「Deacon先生的家人、朋友及同事也非常歡迎參加。」

最終，晚宴定於2024年10月15日舉行。

除了Deacon本人之外，NAC常務董事Nelson McDougall及其妻子也受邀參加。

根據渥太華法輪大法協會後來提交的資料，Deacon與McDougall最終接受邀請並出席晚宴。

這一點之所以值得關注，不是因為加拿大文化機構主管不能參加外交場合，而是因為這種形式的接觸已經超越公開活動或正式會議。

它代表的是一種更私人、更具人際關係色彩的互動。

對於任何試圖建立影響力的外國政府而言，這類私人關係往往比正式會談更具價值。

宣傳電影與聖誕禮物

雙方關係並未止於此。

2024年11月，中國使館邀請Deacon以貴賓身份出席「中國電影節」開幕活動。

活動主打紀錄片《文明之軸：北京中軸線》。

從邀請函列出的主辦單位來看，該活動並非單純的文化放映。

參與單位包括：

• 中國國家文物局

• 中國外文局

• 北京市委宣傳部

• 中央廣播電視總台（CCTV）

這些機構都屬於中國官方宣傳體系的重要組成部分。

換句話說，這不只是藝術活動，而是帶有明顯官方宣傳背景的文化外交項目。

同年12月，中國使館又向Deacon送出聖誕賀卡及禮物。

而就在幾個月前，使館人員才曾表示「不會有任何禮品交換」。

雖然文件沒有說明禮物內容，但事實上，使館確實向NAC最高主管送出了禮品。

就在此時，NAC開始討論取消神韻

2025年1月，NAC內部正式開始討論是否終止與神韻的合作。

執行製作人Heather Gibson向行政總裁Christopher Deacon建議，不再安排神韻於2026年演出。

她列舉了多項理由，包括：

• 合約執行問題；

• 票務管理爭議；

• 關於神韻的外部指控；

• 過去合作中的摩擦。

但CBC取得的內部郵件顯示，Gibson本人認為這不僅僅是一項普通行政決定。

她曾提醒Deacon：

如果取消神韻，媒體報導、抗議活動、電話請願以及要求與CEO見面的壓力都將接踵而至。

她甚至提到，過去關於神韻的決定曾被CEO推翻，因此她不希望由自己單獨承擔政治後果。

這說明NAC內部早已意識到，神韻問題具有高度政治敏感性。

中國使館的新要求

而就在NAC內部準備整理對神韻的不滿意見時，中國使館又再次出現。

2025年4月30日，使館致函Christopher Deacon與Nelson McDougall。

信中表示，新任文化參贊希望拜訪NAC管理層。

同行者還包括加拿大中國文化發展協會負責人。

而此次會面的目的被寫得非常清楚：

討論未來幾年將中國藝術團體帶到NAC演出的可能性。

更值得注意的是，使館在郵件中特別寫道：

「在您任職期間，我們共同推動了一系列兩國之間的交流與互訪項目。」

（During your tenure, we together have initiated a series of exchange and mutual visit programs between our two countries.）

這句話的重要性在於，它表明中國使館自己也認為，過去兩年多來與NAC之間存在一項持續推進的合作關係。

而這項合作最核心的目標之一，就是將中國官方認可的演出團體帶上NAC舞台。

面對這項請求，Deacon並未拒絕。

他的回覆是：

「或許我們可以等我結束巡演之後再安排？」

（Could we perhaps push this to after the tour?）

這意味著雙方的接觸仍在持續進行。

兩條時間線的重疊

如果把所有事件按照時間順序排列，情況就變得更加清晰：

• 2023年2月，中國使館首次提出希望恢復中國演出進入NAC。

• 2024年6月，新任大使王鏑要求拜訪NAC。

• 2024年7月，Deacon表示收到建議應與大使會面。

• 2024年8月，王鏑訪問NAC並獲得公開宣傳。

• 2024年10月，NAC兩名高層攜配偶赴大使官邸晚宴。

• 2024年11月至12月，使館邀請NAC高層參加官方電影節並贈送禮物。

• 2025年1月，NAC開始討論取消神韻。

• 2025年4月，中國使館再次要求討論引進中國演出團體。

• 2025年4月28日，NAC開始蒐集對神韻不利的正式意見。

• 2025年7月29日，NAC宣布不再主辦神韻2026年演出。

從法律角度而言，這些文件並沒有證明北京直接下令取消神韻。

但它們清楚顯示，在同一家機構內部，兩條進程同步發展：

一方面，中國使館持續與NAC高層建立關係，並推動中國官方認可的演出團體進入NAC。

另一方面，NAC則一步步朝著取消神韻演出的方向前進。

文件無法證明兩者存在直接因果關係。

但它們確實證明，這兩條路線在同一時間、同一機構內並行存在。

董事會與中國網絡：巧合，還是值得警惕的風險？

在資訊公開文件曝光後，另一個值得關注的問題浮現出來：

如果中國使館長期經營與NAC高層的關係，那麼NAC本身的治理結構是否也存在容易受到影響的環境？

作者檢視了NAC董事會成員的公開背景後發現，部分董事與加拿大對華商業圈存在不同程度的聯繫。

需要強調的是，這些聯繫本身並不代表任何不當行為，更不代表相關人士曾受到中國政府影響。但當一個機構正面臨涉及中國政府利益的敏感決策時，這些背景關係仍值得公開討論。

董事會主席 Guy Pratte

NAC董事會主席Guy Pratte是加拿大大型律師事務所BLG（Borden Ladner Gervais）的資深律師。

BLG長期是加拿大最活躍的中國業務律所之一。

公開資料顯示，該律所設有中國業務團隊，在北京設有代表處，並曾協助中國企業在加拿大投資能源、礦業及其他敏感產業。

BLG多位高級合夥人過去曾參與加中貿易理事會（Canada China Business Council）相關活動。

2022年，加中貿易理事會年度會議甚至由BLG卡加利辦公室主辦，主題正是中共二十大之後的中國發展方向。

這些事實並不意味著Pratte本人受到中國影響，但它顯示其所在機構與中國市場存在深厚聯繫。

副主席 Derral Moriyama

董事會副主席Derral Moriyama曾在蒙特利爾銀行（BMO）工作31年。

而這31年，恰好也是BMO大舉進軍中國市場的時期。

期間，BMO成為：

• 第一家獲准進入中國市場的加拿大銀行；

• 中國銀行香港上市的重要承銷商；

• 在上海設立分行；

• 成立中國全資子公司；

• 投資中國國有糧食巨頭中糧集團（COFCO）旗下金融機構。

同樣地，這並不意味Moriyama本人曾參與相關決策，但這種背景反映出其職業生涯與加拿大企業對華擴張高度重疊。

Heather Bala Edwards

另一位董事Heather Bala Edwards本人並無明顯中國背景。

然而，她的丈夫是加拿大自然資源公司（Canadian Natural Resources Limited）主席Murray Edwards。

該公司曾與中國石化（Sinopec）旗下企業合作開發亞伯達油砂項目。

這項合作曾引發加拿大社會廣泛爭議，包括中國勞工使用問題以及工地安全事故等。

作者特別指出，這並不涉及Heather Edwards本人的行為，但客觀上也構成了董事會另一條與中國國有企業產生交集的路徑。

渥太華市長 Mark Sutcliffe

作為當然董事（ex officio member），渥太華市長Mark Sutcliffe同樣出現在這個網絡中。

2025年2月，王鏑曾專程拜會Sutcliffe。

根據中國官方發布的會後新聞稿，市長對中國使館在當地社區發揮的作用表示肯定，並願意推動更多交流合作。

作者承認，市長與外國外交官會面本身十分正常。

但當中國使館同時與NAC高層、董事會相關人士以及地方政府維持接觸時，這種影響力網絡便形成了一個值得觀察的整體。

文件沒有證明什麼？又證明了什麼？

公平起見，必須清楚說明這批文件的局限性。

文件並沒有顯示：

• 北京下令NAC取消神韻；

• 中國使館直接要求NAC停止與神韻合作；

• NAC官員曾表示決策受到中國壓力；

• 中國政府與神韻事件之間存在明確指揮鏈。

然而，這些文件確實證明了四件事情。

第一，雙方關係長期且持續

從2023年2月至2025年4月，中國使館與NAC高層保持著穩定而頻繁的接觸。

而且正如使館自己所形容的那樣：

這是一系列持續進行的「交流與互訪項目」。

這不是偶然的一兩次見面。

第二，中國使館的目標始終十分明確

從第一封郵件開始，中方就反覆表達同一個目標：

讓中國官方認可的劇團和演出重新進入NAC。

2025年的郵件甚至直接提出，希望討論未來幾年把中國藝術團體帶進NAC演出的安排。

換句話說，中國使館並非單純維持外交關係，而是有具體的文化輸出目標。

第三，NAC高層高度參與其中

大使獲得CEO親自陪同參觀；

高層出席大使官邸晚宴；

接受使館贈禮；

參與中國官方色彩濃厚的文化活動；

允許中國使館公開宣傳雙方關係。

這些都發生在機構最高層級。

第四，這段關係並不對等

在全部公開文件中，可以看到：

主動提出會面的是中國使館；

發出邀請的是中國使館；

安排晚宴的是中國使館；

送禮的是中國使館；

推動文化合作的是中國使館。

而NAC更多扮演接受邀請和配合安排的一方。

因此，儘管雙方郵件中反覆使用「交流」一詞，但實際互動並不完全符合平等互惠的概念。

最核心的問題

影響力從來不一定透過命令實現。

在現代民主社會中，更常見的方式是：

透過人際網絡；

透過持續接觸；

透過建立信任；

透過塑造風險認知；

透過讓決策者逐漸相信某些爭議「不值得招惹」。

在這種情況下，一個機構未必需要收到任何指令，也可能最終做出符合某個外國政府利益的決定。

因此，真正的核心問題是：當一家聯邦文化機構在兩年半時間裡持續接待中國大使、參加其私人晚宴、接受其禮物、討論引進中國官方演出團體，而中國政府又恰恰是全球最積極打壓神韻的力量之一時，公眾是否仍然能夠毫無保留地相信，這項決定完全是在真空中作出的？

NAC的答案是肯定的，但從其自身公開的文件來看，這種談不上解釋的解釋，恐怕已難以令人完全信服。

如果一家位於加拿大首都、由聯邦政府資助的國家文化機構，最終在外國政府長期施加影響與遊說的背景下，作出排除特定藝術團體的決定，那麼這不僅是一場關於演出安排的爭議。它更涉及加拿大國家主權、文化自主，以及公民享有的表達自由與結社自由等核心價值。

無論人們對神韻演出本身抱持何種看法，任何外國政府都不應擁有決定誰能夠在加拿大舞台上演出的權力。如果這條界線被突破，受到損害的將不只是某一個藝術團體，而是加拿大作為自由民主國家的根本原則。

中文版在最下方

Trump came. Putin came. Now Shehbaz Sharif lands in Beijing. But mistaking a crowded diplomatic calendar for strategic victory misreads a China that is improvising, not commanding.

Watch the Great Hall of the People this month and you would think China has already won. Donald Trump came. Vladimir Putin came. This Saturday, Shehbaz Sharif arrives for a four-day state visit, and Tehran’s foreign minister was here only weeks ago. Every side of the Iran war seems to need a Beijing address. The official narrative, echoed by a good deal of foreign commentary, reads all this as the arrival of the indispensable power.

It is not. The pull everyone senses is really just the absence of anywhere else to go, and the grand strategy they read into it does not exist.

I have lived and worked in China for twenty-five years, and the thing outsiders most often miss is how pragmatic this country is. Pragmatic in the way most Chinese treat religion. They will believe anything and commit to nothing. That instinct, not some blueprint for world domination, is what governs Beijing’s foreign policy. China has no vision for the Middle East or Ukraine. It has a reflex. Take whatever advantage is on offer, ignore any rule that gets in the way, and put off paying for it as long as possible.

So in the Iran war China plays both sides, because both sides are available. Officially neutral, it keeps its relationship with Israel intact while quietly tolerating anti-Israel sentiment, much of it frankly antisemitic, on social media that the censors would scrub within hours if it touched the Party. Officially a peacemaker nudging a ceasefire along, it has kept Iran supplied, and Russia too. For now this works. It will not work forever, because being everyone’s address eventually means standing for nothing.

The real story is domestic, and it is not a confident one. The labour force is shrinking. The property market has not so much corrected as collapsed. Youth unemployment got bad enough that Beijing simply stopped publishing the figure, then quietly changed how it was measured. Capital is leaving the country in the hundreds of billions. What keeps Xi Jinping awake is not the Strait of Hormuz. It is whether these pressures will loosen the Party’s hold on power. Everything Beijing does abroad follows from that worry.

This is why the relationship with the United States cannot be repaired by a summit. It is the only relationship that genuinely matters to Beijing, because the market China needs and the technology it still cannot make for itself are both American. Xi used the Iran crisis to buy himself some time. He invited Trump, lowered the temperature, and conceded nothing of substance. Genuinely opening up, the way Trump keeps demanding, would mean reforms the Party is convinced would weaken its own grip on the country. So Beijing manages the rivalry. It cannot end it. The conflict with America will run on, because the cure is something China cannot afford.

For Indian readers, the Sharif visit is worth watching without the usual alarm. The “all-weather” partnership will be reaffirmed, CPEC toasted, the seventy-fifth anniversary of diplomatic ties duly celebrated. But Pakistan arrives in Beijing as a dependent, not a partner. It is useful to China precisely because it is pliable. That is not how a confident power builds an order. It is how a transactional one collects clients.

Taiwan works the same way, and here is the reading you will not get from the official side. The threats are real. The timetable is not. For Xi, Taiwan is mostly a domestic instrument, a way to keep nationalist feeling warm at home, not a war he is impatient to start. A failed invasion would do to his rule exactly what he fears most. He keeps the island tense because he is cautious, not because he is bold.

China is an anxious party-state, making it up as it goes. But in a world where globalization itself is coming apart, time is the one thing a run of short-term wins cannot buy. A crowded waiting room is not the same as a strong hand.

May 25, 2026

Originally Published in Times Now :

https://www.timesnownews.com/opinion/world/china-global-power-illusion-xi-jinping-pakistan-iran-us-rivalry-article-154381512

Subscribe now

譯文：

如果你這個月一直盯著北京人民大會堂看，可能會以為中國已經贏了。川普來了，普京來了。本週六，巴基斯坦總理謝里夫將展開為期四天的國是訪問。而就在幾週前，伊朗外長也才剛剛到訪。如今，幾乎伊朗戰爭的每一方，似乎都需要來北京一趟。

中國官方敘事，再加上不少海外評論，也因此將北京描繪成一個不可或缺的世界中心。

但事實並非如此。

外界感受到的「吸引力」，很多時候其實只是因為大家沒有更好的地方可去。而人們從中解讀出的那套「宏大戰略」，其實根本不存在。

我在中國生活與工作了二十五年。外界最容易誤判中國的一點，就是低估了這個國家的實用主義。

中國的實用主義，很像許多中國人對待宗教的方式：什麼都可以相信，但什麼都不真正投入。

真正支配北京外交政策的，並不是什麼世界霸權藍圖，而是這種本能。

中國對中東沒有真正的願景，對烏克蘭也沒有。它有的，只是一種反射式的反應：哪裡有利益就拿，哪條規則礙事就繞開，而代價則能拖多久就拖多久。

所以，在伊朗戰爭問題上，中國選擇兩邊下注，因為兩邊都還有利用價值。

北京官方口頭上保持中立，一邊維持與以色列的關係，另一邊又默許中國社交媒體上大量反以色列、甚至帶有明顯反猶色彩的言論存在。要知道，如果這些內容涉及中國共產黨本身，網路審查幾個小時內就會全部刪光。

北京官方同時又以「和平調停者」姿態出現，聲稱推動停火，但實際上，中國仍持續向伊朗供應支持，也同樣支援俄羅斯。

目前這種做法還能運作。

但它不可能永遠有效。因為當一個國家試圖成為所有人的「聯絡地址」，最終往往代表它其實沒有任何真正立場。

真正的問題，其實在中國國內，而且情況並不樂觀。

中國勞動人口正在萎縮。房地產市場與其說是調整，不如說是崩塌。青年失業率嚴重到北京一度直接停止公布數據，後來又悄悄修改統計方式。

資本正以數千億美元規模流出中國。

真正讓習近平夜不能寐的，不是荷莫茲海峽，而是這些內部壓力是否最終會動搖中共的統治。

北京今天幾乎所有外交政策，其實都圍繞著這個焦慮展開。

這也是為什麼，美中關係不可能靠一次峰會就修復。

因為對北京而言，真正重要的外部關係，其實只有美國。

中國最需要的市場仍然是美國；中國至今無法完全自主生產的核心技術，也依然掌握在美國手中。

習近平利用伊朗危機，替自己爭取了一些時間。他邀請川普訪華，降低雙方緊張氣氛，但在實質問題上幾乎沒有做出真正讓步。

而川普一直要求中國「真正開放市場」，這件事對中共來說卻極度危險。因為真正的開放，意味著改革，而中共始終相信，這些改革最終會削弱自己對國家的控制。

所以，北京現在做的，其實只是管理與美國的競爭，而不是終結它。

中美衝突還會持續下去。因為真正能解決問題的方法，恰恰是中國自己無法承受的。

對印度讀者來說，謝里夫這次訪中值得關注，但不必過度緊張。

中巴「全天候友誼」當然還會再次被高調強調，中巴經濟走廊（CPEC）也會繼續被歌頌，雙方建交七十五週年更會被隆重慶祝。

但巴基斯坦今天來到北京，更像是一個依賴者，而不是平等夥伴。

它之所以對中國有價值，恰恰是因為它容易被操控。

而一個真正自信的大國，不會靠這種方式建立國際秩序。

只有一個交易型國家，才會不斷收集「客戶」。

台灣問題其實也是同樣邏輯。

而這裡，有一個你不會從官方敘事中聽到的解讀：

中國對台灣的威脅是真實存在的，但所謂「時間表」卻未必。

對習近平而言，台灣更多是一種內部政治工具，用來維持國內民族主義情緒，而不是一場他急於發動的戰爭。

因為一旦入侵失敗，那將直接摧毀他最害怕失去的東西：自己的統治地位。

所以他讓台海保持緊張，更多是因為謹慎，而不是因為自信。

今天的中國，更像是一個充滿焦慮的黨國體制，一邊走，一邊摸索。

但在一個全球化本身都正在瓦解的世界裡，時間恰恰是短期勝利最無法真正換來的東西。

一個擠滿訪客的等候室，並不等於真正掌握全局的強勢牌局。

2026年5月25日

原文發表在Times Now :

https://www.timesnownews.com/opinion/world/china-global-power-illusion-xi-jinping-pakistan-iran-us-rivalry-article-154381512

Subscribe now

大家好，歡迎收看這期的公子時評，我是公子沈。

我在前兩期節目曾經預測，川普很有可能暫時叫停對台軍售。我不知道大家還記不記得當時我說的話，今天果然我們看到了，如我所料。

美國代理海軍部長高雄，在星期四參議院的一場聽證會上，親口確認了，美國要暫停一筆價值140億美元的對台軍售。

那他的理由是什麼呢？他說，要先確保美國自己有足夠的彈藥，要去打伊朗。

那麼這時候，全球的新聞標題都出來了：「美國暫停140億美元對台軍售」。

我看到這個，一直在阻止軍購案的台灣藍白兩黨開心了，終於不用再獨自面對各方指責了。而在中國的敘事裡邊，這更是一場外交上的勝利。這是華盛頓在戰略上的退讓，是中國的壓力起了非常大的作用。川普折服了，看，我們中國還是能讓老美聽話。

但是這時候，我們必須要清楚一個基本事實，就是這個所謂的「暫停軍售」，其實只是川普在裝樣子給中國看一看，對台美之間的關係並沒有真正影響。

Read more

歡迎來到公子沈的最新官方網站，也感謝你的訂閱。

您之所以收到這份郵件，是因為您曾經註冊過公子沈的舊官網。此前的公子沈官網將被關閉，所有訂閱者都將被轉移到這裡，自動成為免費版訂閱者。

這幾年，我一直主要透過影片和社交媒體分享對中國、國際局勢、中美關係、台灣以及世界變化的觀察。但我慢慢發現，有很多內容其實很難在影片裡完整展開。

有些話題需要更多文字、更多背景、更多細節，也需要一個不被演算法推著走、可以慢慢交流和沉澱內容的空間。

所以，我決定建立這個新平台。

未來，我會在這裡繼續發布：

• YouTube 節目原稿（公子時評/公子故事）

• 中英雙語時事評論及深度分析文章

• 我的其他見聞和觀察

• 中英雙語訪談內容（公子訪談）

• YouTube影片裡沒辦法完整展開的其他想法和內容

除了中文內容之外，我也會逐步增加英文與雙語內容，讓更多國際讀者能夠理解中國問題，以及當今世界正在發生的巨大變化。另外我也會邀請更多不同類型的作者加入進來，作為特約嘉賓向大家提供精彩的獨家內容。

目前您的免費訂閱者身分可以閱讀少部分偶爾免費公開的文章；但是升級為付費訂閱後，可以獲取本站全部內容，同時支持我持續投入更多時間與資源，做更深入的分析、研究與原創。

我也希望，這裡未來不只是一個 newsletter，而是一個能長期交流、分享觀點、一起理解這個世界變化的社群。

再次感謝大家一路以來的支持。

公子沈

Welcome, and thank you for subscribing.

After years of sharing my thoughts mainly through YouTube videos and social media, I wanted to create a space where I could slow down a little and go deeper. There are many topics about China, geopolitics, history, culture, and international affairs that simply cannot be fully explained in a short video clip or a tweet.

That is why I started this publication.

Having lived in both China and the West, I’ve spent much of my life observing how differently people understand China, and how difficult it can be to bridge those two worlds. Through this platform, I hope to share analysis and perspectives shaped not only by current events, but also by long-term historical observation and personal experience.

Here you will find:

• written versions of selected political commentary

• deeper geopolitical and historical analysis

• interview transcripts

• notes and ideas that may never appear on my X

• bilingual content in both English and Chinese

Some posts will remain free for everyone, while paid subscriptions will help support more in-depth writing, research, travel, and independent content production in the future. I will also invite other authors to provide different perspectives to my readers.

Most importantly, I hope this becomes more than just a newsletter. I hope it becomes a thoughtful community of people who care about China, freedom, international affairs, and the rapidly changing world we are all living through.

Thank you again for being here.

Terence Shen