Recently, Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Joley announced the long-awaited Canadian "Indian Ocean-Pacific" strategy. From the perspective of strategic content, the current Canadian Trudeau government hopes to achieve Canada's trade diversification and expand its current close t

Recently, Canadian Foreign Minister Melanie Joley announced the long-awaited Canadian "Indian Ocean-Pacific" strategy. From the perspective of strategic content, the current Canadian Trudeau government hopes to achieve Canada's trade diversification and expand its current close trade relations with China to other countries in the " Indian Ocean - Pacific region", especially India. This strategy is largely due to Canada's high optimism about India's development. Not long ago, the Canadian Commerce Commission pointed out in a joint report that India is now roughly equivalent to China's level 20 years ago, and India's economy is in a stage of rapid expansion.

It is obvious that Canada's strategy is on the surface to promote trade diversification, but its essential purpose is to alienate China and allow India to replace China's trade relations with Australia. Coincidentally, Canada's strategy is actually almost the same as the core of Indo-Pacific Economic Framework launched by the Biden administration in the United States a few months ago. It is essentially to get rid of China's supply chain.

And why did the Trudeau government in Canada choose to do this? According to personal observation, it just reflects the sorrow that Canada cannot escape the control of the US economy. According to official Canadian statistics, the total trade volume between the United States and Canada accounts for 68% of Canada's total foreign trade. Such a huge gap has made Canada's economy closely linked to the US economy and is subject to various constraints from the United States. Under such circumstances, in the face of the situation of the Sino-US game and the firm determination to contain China's rise, Canada naturally has to listen to the United States. Therefore, no matter how the Canadian government changes, it is difficult to make fundamental changes in the face of real interests. In contrast, the reason why Australia's current Albany government is willing to re-repair relations with China is false. The core reason is that China is still Australia's largest trading partner.

So, in my opinion, Canada's so-called trade diversification in Indo-Pacific Strategy is itself a false proposition. As long as the United States is still Canada's most important trading partner, no matter how much Canada jumps around, it will not be able to get rid of the trade shackles. The so-called replacement of China's status is still full of difficulties at present. After all, China is still the main engine of global economic development, several times the size of India. Therefore, in the short term, Trudeau’s approach to is to simply draw a big pie, which has no meaning at all.

Finally, from the perspective of macro-decoupling of industrial chains, the United States and Canada intend to decouple from China. China is now preparing for decoupling. This can fully perceive the trend from the current measures in China to strengthen energy security, food security, and supply chain improvement. In this context of decoupling, it is actually difficult to tell who is the winner, but there is no doubt that small countries that have imperfect supply chains and are still decoupling with big countries will inevitably suffer the most losses, and Canada will be the best example.