近期，在外媒炒作中国话题的新闻中，常常出现诬蔑中国的言论。仔细查找这些言论的来源就能发现，澳大利亚战略政策研究所（ASPI）是一个主要源头。
这个所谓的“研究所”到底什么来头？
从表面上看，ASPI和其他智库并无二致。在其官网上，该机构将自己标榜为一个“独立”、“无党派”的智库，旨在为“澳大利亚的战略和国防领导人提供专业而及时的建议”。网站上时不时就会冒出一些分析印太地区国家的文章。
然而，仔细研究就会发现，ASPI实则“亲美反华”。事实上，该机构一直是一场公关运动的“先锋”。这场运动由几个西方国家发起，以期降低中国的信誉，助长“新冷战”。
On the surface, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) is like any other regular think tank. It identifies itself as an "independent, non-partisan" think tank that produces "expert and timely advice for Australia's strategic and defense leaders," according to its website, which displays several analyses on Indo-Pacific countries at any given time.
However, a closer examination reveals the think tanks' deep pro-U.S. and anti-China views. In fact, it has been a vanguard of a public relations campaign driven by several Western countries to lower China's credibility while propping up a new Cold War.
这个位于堪培拉的机构以前鲜为人知，近几个月来因受《纽约时报》和其他西方媒体的青睐频频“出镜”。这些西方媒体援引该机构所谓的调查，一致指责中国政府虐待新疆维吾尔族，声称维吾尔人被“强迫劳动”。
ASPI所谓“新疆文化灭绝”和“2017年-2019年至少8万名维吾尔族人被转移到中国各地工厂强迫劳动”的报告纯属主观臆断、缺乏事实依据，报告中引用的所谓“卫星图片”实则“互动式地图”，图中被标注为“拘留中心”的地点其实都是民事机构。而这些抹黑和诋毁中国的言论却屡屡出现在西方报纸和电视上。
In recent months, the previously obscure organization based in Canberra has been featured in The New York Times and other Western news outlets as the source for a series of reporting that decries "Xinjiang's new slavery." These reports uniformly accuse China of ill-treating its Uygur Muslim ethnic minorities in the country's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region and coercing them into "forced labor."
While relying on satellite imagery and shady estimation methods, ASPI reached such conclusions as the "Chinese Government's policies are actively erasing and altering key elements of their (ethnic Uygurs') tangible cultural heritage," and "more than 80,000 Uygurs were transferred out of Xinjiang to work in factories across China between 2017 and 2019."
These dubious claims have been repeated endlessly across Western newspapers and televisions to smear China and reinforce its image as a wicked "authoritarian" government.
The Australian Strategic Policy Institute sponsors' prison and forced labor links. /APAC News
事实上，这一连串事件是在美国政府和其庞大的武器制造商参与下精心策划的阴谋。
澳大利亚工党参议员金·卡尔指出，ASPI在2019到2020财年接受了美国国务院将近45万美元的资助。
据《今日美国》报道，ASPI还得到了几家全球领先武器制造商的赞助，这些“金主”包括波音、洛克希德·马丁和雷神公司，它们在外交和军事紧张时期均获得了巨额利润。
澳大利亚独立新闻机构亚太新闻网（APAC News）也刊文揭露ASPI的“金主”强迫监狱劳工工作、组装武器。讽刺的是，ASPI却指责中国进行“强迫劳动”。
金·卡尔揭露出：“这是一家澳大利亚政府组织，一家英联邦公司，他们坚守在反华阵线的最前沿。这种形态可以跟冷战相提并论。你建立一个战线并创造一种不容置辩的世界观。”
In fact, this chain of events is carefully engineered with the involvement of the U.S. government and the country's powerful arms industry.
During a parliamentary session earlier this year, Australian Senator of the Labor Party Kim Carr highlighted ASPI's extensive funding from the U.S. State Department's Global Engagement Center, which amounted to some $450,000 between 2019 to 2020.
The ASPI is also sponsored by several leading global weapons manufacturers in the ranks of Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, who all profit enormously during times of diplomatic and military tension, according to USA Today.
In an ironic twist, many of these war-profiteering sponsors have been revealed to use forced prison labor in assembling their weapons, according to a recent revelation by APAC News, a Sydney-based news outlet.
"It is an Australian government organization, a Commonwealth company, and they've been at the center of Sinophobia. This is what happened in the Cold War, you set up a front and create a world view that's unchallengeable," Carr said.
而这一切的背后，是澳大利亚正在充当美国对华鹰派的“急先锋”。上周，澳大利亚外长和国防部长声明支持更加强硬的印太战略，向中国发出强烈的信号。
在美国智库兰德公司防务问题分析师德里克·格罗斯曼看来，澳大利亚这些举动并不是理所当然的，因为“澳大利亚此前一直害怕过于得罪中国”。
观察人士一致认为，澳美两国除了在意识形态上结盟之外，双边防务和安全伙伴关系也是澳大利亚倾向于遵循美国政策的原因之一。
双方长期以来在情报方面的广泛合作最能说明这种伙伴关系。作为“五眼联盟”的成员，澳大利亚可以获得高度有价值的信息。澳美还在澳大利亚共同运营情报设施，位于澳大利亚中部的“松峡联合防御基地”就是一个显著的例子。
This episode comes against the backdrop of an Australia falling more closely in line with Washington's hawkish policy on China. Last week, Australia's foreign and defense ministers affirmed their support for a more assertive Indo-Pacific strategy, sending China a strong message.
These moves should not be taken for granted "because Australia in the past has been hesitant to push China too far," Derek Grossman, a senior defense analyst at the California-based Rand Corp., told Nikkei Asia.
"Since perhaps as early as the publication of Canberra's last defense white paper in 2016, and certainly within the last few months as punctuated by the 2020 defense strategy and force posture update, Australian policymakers have appeared more willing to support the U.S. in great-power competition against China," Grossman said.
There is consensus among observers that, aside from the two countries' ideological alignment, the bilateral defense and security partnership has also contributed to Canberra's propensity in following U.S. policy.
Most demonstrative of this partnership is their long-honed, extensive intelligence cooperation. As a member of the Five Eyes alliance, a signals intelligence sharing network led by the U.S., Australia has access to the flow of highly valuable information. The two countries also jointly run intelligence facilities located on Australian territory. Pine Gap, a U.S. satellite surveillance base in the center of Australia, is the most notable example.
不过，尽管澳美有着多层次的安全合作，但澳大利亚长期以来一直在“走钢丝”，尽力平衡与美国和中国的关系。一方面，澳大利亚在经贸合作领域紧紧端住中国的“饭碗”，因为惹恼中国可能会严重损害其自身经济利益；另一方面，澳大利亚在军事安全领域靠拢美国、针对中国。
值得一提的是，澳大利亚并非美国在安全领域最重要的合作伙伴，一些观察人士认为，为了保全合作所带来的益处，可能会倾向于改变其对华政策，以适应美国政府的对华政策。
但这些仅仅是猜测，无法确切指明澳大利亚对华转变的态度是否来自于美国压力。
然而可以肯定的是，对抗世界第二大经济体已日益成为“五眼联盟”的核心议程。这一趋势在最近几个月愈发明显。对“五眼联盟”来说，它对中国的强化攻势似乎是一条不可逆转的道路，澳大利亚可能早晚会发现，即使它想软化对中国的立场，也很难。
But despite its multi-layered security cooperation with the U.S., Australia has long been walking the tightrope of balancing its relations with the U.S. and China. Upsetting its largest trade partner could seriously hurt Australia's economic interests, which is an unwanted outcome for Canberra's policy centers. Still, being Washington's junior partner in the security realm leaves Canberra prone to altering its China policy to accommodate that of the Trump administration.
It is believed that the asymmetrical nature of the Five Eyes alliance has allowed the stronger power to dictate both the terms of how the network functions and the direction it takes. Some have argued that for Australia, if it wants to preserve the benefits of ingrained cooperation with the U.S., it has to give up some of its sovereignty.
Nonetheless, underneath these speculations is the uncertainty over whether Australia's shifted China policy is truly a result of U.S. pressure or just the outcome of its genuine concerns.
What's certain is that countering the world's second-largest economy has increasingly become the Five Eyes alliance's central agenda. According to a Reuters report in 2018, the intelligence network was slated to expand to include other "like-minded partners" around an operational focus on China, while members of the alliance were also gaining momentum in having consultations on how to counteract China's "assertive international strategy."
This trend has become more evident in recent months.
A July report by the Guardian revealed that proposals had been put forward to expand the Five Eyes alliance into a strategically economic relationship that could accelerate the decoupling between China and the West.
For the Five Eyes alliance, its intensifying campaign against China seems to be an irreversible path, and Canberra may inevitably find it difficult to soften its China stance even if it wants to.
