中美贸易战愈演愈烈，一触即发。但任何战争最后的结果几乎无一例外：两败俱伤。那么，不在主战场但夹在中美之间的加拿大，是可以渔翁得利呢，还是失大于得？
环球邮报的最新报道说，有专家形容，现在的情况类似于两位世界经济巨人要打架，加拿大的角色有点尴尬，既不能火上浇油，也不能劝架。但加拿大与中美的贸易关系都这么近，这么密切，即使作为一个旁观者，也难免受其影响，情况好的话，也许可以检点实惠，但情况不好的话，夹在两位巨人之间，当他们打起来的时候，说不定还会挨几下呢。
两强相争 加拿大渔翁得利
有一种说法是，中美两强相争，加拿大其实可以渔翁得利。比如说，川普对中国600亿美元的产品开始征收高额关税之后，显然会增强加拿大产品在美国的竞争力，特别是服装、航空以及列车车厢等产品。反过来，要是中国采取保护主义措施对美国强硬回击，那么得益的可能是加拿大农民，可以就此向中国市场出口更多农产品，比如大豆，油菜籽等等。
中美贸易战开打之后，为了以一种迂回方式反击美国，中国及中国企业有可能加大对加拿大的投资，在这边生产更多产品。
还有，在更宏观的层面，美国大幅增加关税有可能令国内通胀上升，不仅推动利率升高，也会令美元更坚挺。如果这种情况发生，那就有利于加拿大企业及产品，让加拿大出口产品更有竞争力，从车辆到木材均是如此。
负面影响巨大 加拿大得不偿失
但有专家认为，全球两大经济体开战绝不会是什么好事，不仅中美两国受损，世界经济也会深受打击，虽然看起来加拿大像个无辜的旁观者，但难免也会受到冲击，结果肯定是得不偿失。
加拿大咨议局（Conference Board of Canada）的首席经济学家Craig Alexander指出，中美贸易大战显然会伤害美国经济，也会伤害中国经济，加拿大经济也无法幸免。他说美国的高额关税将破坏中国经济的稳定，但加拿大很快就会感到“痛”，因为中国经济受损之后，对加拿大商品的需求必然减少，价格也会下跌，包括木浆，油籽和煤炭等系列产品。
中美贸易大战爆发之日，也是对加拿大产业冲击之时，首当其冲的就是已经整合到北美供应链中的加拿大汽车和钢铁等行业。美国较高的关税将提高整个北美地区所有企业或公司的成本，使该地区相对于其它地区竞争对手的竞争力明显下降。
加拿大前外交官、加拿大全球事务研究所的高级研究员Colin Robertson也同意上述看法。他说加拿大原本不是贸易战的直接目标，但中美之间的贸易战会给我们带来连带损害，这不仅因为加拿大在北美供应链中占有一席之地，而且也与中国的生产及产品有千丝万缕的联系。
Robertson说，加拿大有些公司或企业也许会从中美贸易战中获益，但他强调，贸易战是相当残酷的，无论参战者，还是参战者的邻居或贸易伙伴，几乎都是一损俱损。总而言之，在这场即将爆发的战争中，如果要说对加拿大的纯影响，几乎肯定是负面的。但是，影响究竟如何，目前还很难预测。不过有一点是可以肯定的，那就是加拿大也要为这场战争付出代价。
PUBLISHED MARCH 22, 2018UPDATED 22 HOURS AGO
Maybe there is a silver lining for Canada in the escalating U.S.-China trade imbroglio.
The steep tariffs on Chinese products, announced on Thursday by U.S. President Donald Trump, could give some Canadian companies a competitive edge in the U.S. market, particularly in targeted industries such as clothing, aerospace and rail cars. And if China hits back with protectionist measures of its own – on soybeans, perhaps – Canadian farmers could similarly make inroads in the tough Chinese market.
Some Chinese manufacturers might even invest more money in Canada, seeing it as a way to skirt the US$60-billion in tariffs to be imposed on their products.
Read more: Trump announces $60-billion in tariffs on Chinese imports
Inside the Markets: Protectionist fears grow after Trump acts
On a more macro level, higher U.S. tariffs could spark inflation, which would lead to higher interest rates and a stronger U.S. dollar. That, in turn, would make all Canadian exports more competitive in the United States – from cars to lumber.
But the glass-half-full narrative only goes so far. It's unequivocally bad for Canada if our top two trading partners and the world's largest economies come to blows. Canada could be the innocent bystander who gets hit with an errant punch.
"Having a tariff war would be very negative," says Craig Alexander, chief economist at the Conference Board of Canada. "At the end of the day, Canada has a lot of exposure to the global economy. It could hurt the U.S. economy, it could hurt the Chinese economy, and it could hurt Canada through a number of channels."
If the U.S. tariffs destabilize the Chinese economy, Canada could feel pain from less demand and lower prices for its commodity exports to China, including wood pulp, oil seeds and coal.
A more direct blow would come from Canada's integration into North American supply chains in industries such as autos and steel. Higher tariffs will raise costs for all companies in the region, making them less competitive against rivals located elsewhere.
"Canada may not be a direct target but we risk becoming collateral damage, because of our niche in supply chains, many of which involve Chinese production," argues Colin Robertson, a former Canadian diplomat and fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
Sure, a few Canadian companies might benefit from a U.S.-China tariff war. But the net impact would almost certainly be negative.
In spite of what Mr. Trump and his advisers may think, "trade wars are hard and everybody loses," Mr. Alexander says.
Within 15 days, the U.S. government intends to publish a list of 1,300 Chinese goods that will be hit with tariffs – everything from shoes and clothing to aerospace and rail cars.
Predicting with any precision how Canada will fare in all this isn't easy.
"There is bound to be a lot of trade diversion and reshuffling of sourcing," pointed out Dan Ciuriak, former deputy chief economist for Canada's Global Affairs department. "It's hard to call net effects given the complexity of the trade relationships."
Canada is already getting burned by Mr. Trump's misguided efforts to reverse the massive U.S. trade deficit.
Consider the Trump administration's targeting of Mexico via the North American free-trade agreement. Canada's trade has been in near-perfect balance with the United States for at least three years. That has not stopped the United States from threatening to pull out of NAFTA unless Canada bends to a series of painful concessions.
Mr. Trump's showdown with China has echoes of Ronald Reagan's war against Japanese imports in the 1980s.
Someone might want to remind Mr. Trump and his nest of hawkish trade advisers how that episode worked out. Mr. Reagan's get-tough strategy, which included negotiated limits on Japanese auto and steel imports, cost American jobs and imposed higher prices on consumers and manufacturers. And the trade deficit with Japan is roughly where it was in the late 1980s because the United States failed to address the root cause of its trade deficit.
The parallels between Mr. Trump and Mr. Reagan are apt. Both fought for big tax cuts that swelled the U.S. budget deficit. And countries inevitably run trade deficits when they save less than they invest – as the United States has done for decades. That's because budget shortfall must be financed by foreign lenders, whose influx of cash pushes up the U.S. dollar and punishes exporters.
Perhaps it's no coincidence that Mr. Trump and his key trade advisers – Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and director of trade and industrial policy Peter Navarro – all launched their careers in the middle of the U.S.-Japan trade wars.
