首页 / 观点 / 正文

龚炯:乌克兰危机中“有原则”的中立(中英文)

2022-05-26 21:28 龚炯
人访问

中国对联合国大会斥责俄罗斯侵略乌克兰的决议投了弃权票。尽管那里发生了可怕的战争,但仍然需要指出导致战争的多个复杂原因,包括中国政府多次提到的乌克兰危机复杂的历史经纬和俄罗斯现实安全因素,并非所有这些都完全归咎于俄罗斯方面。中国政府的官方声明已经多次把这一点说得很清楚。

China has cast its vote of abstention for the United Nations General Assembly resolution that deplores Russian "aggression" in Ukraine. As horrendous as the war in Ukraine is the set of complex reasons and causes that led up to the war still need to be pointed out, not all of which can be entirely attributed to the Russian side. The Chinese government's official statements have repeatedly affirmed this point.

与许多其他国家一样,中国未宣布对俄罗斯实施任何制裁。无论如何,不制裁阵营在国际社会中都是不小的少数,包括所有金砖国家,除新加坡以外的所有东盟国家,几乎所有的南美洲,几乎所有的撒哈拉以南非洲,大部分的中亚国家,地中海东非和北非 (MENA) 地区,印度、巴西、印度尼西亚等主要经济体,甚至作为北约成员国的土耳其,都没有宣布任何制裁。

Like many other countries, China has not announced any sanctions against Russia. China's non-sanction policy is more than motivated by its perception and analysis of the causes leading up to the war. The non-sanction camp– which includes all the BRICS members and ASEAN countries barring Singapore; almost all of South America, sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia; and the bulk of the Middle East and North Africa region –is no small minority in the international community. Major economies like India, Brazil, Indonesia, and NATO member Turkey have not announced sanctions.

由于中国在贸易方面在全球经济中占有独特地位,以及人民币作为一个重要贸易结算货币的作用在不断扩大,中国被美国单独挑出来,威胁说要对华实施二级制裁。美国总统安全顾问沙利文的原话说,如果中国“试图帮助俄罗斯逃避制裁”,将会产生严重的影响和后果。3月18日,中美元首云端会晤时,拜登提到如果中国“向俄罗斯提供实质性(material)支持”的话,会有严重的影响和后果。这种胁迫性的警告似乎比沙利文的说法缓和些。(此前,全国政协常委,北京大学国际关系学院原院长、中外人文交流研究基地主任贾庆国,中国人民大学国际关系学院副教授、北京大学中外人文交流研究基地兼职研究员刁大明就此次中美元首云端会晤进行深度解读,点击链接查看详情)因此,如何理解对俄罗斯的“实质性支持”?它的确切含义成了关键。

China, with its unique status in the global economy in terms of trade and the yuan's expanding role as a major trade settlement currency, has been singled out by the United States with the threat of secondary sanctions. U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said there will be implications and consequences if China "attempts to help Russia evade sanctions." In a video call with Chinese President Xi Jinping, U.S. President Joe Biden made clear that there would be "consequences" if China provides "material support to Russia." So the matter boils down to the exact meaning of "material support."

美国国务院发言人爱德华·普莱斯曾经在一次新闻发布会上说的话,似乎有点对“实质性支持”的确切含义做了解释,它包括三个方面:第一,对俄军售很可能被视为“实质性支持”,过了红线;第二,利用中国的国际支付系统CIPS规避SWIFT的对俄制裁,尤其是涉及美元计价的交易,也可有能属于“实质性支持”的范畴;最后,中俄贸易的大幅度增长恐怕也是“实质性支持”。

An interpretation of what exactly "material support" means may be found in U.S. State Department spokesperson Edward Price's words in a recent press conference. Arms sales to Russia may well be regarded as "material support."Using China's international payment system CIPS to circumvent SWIFT, especially for dollar-denominated transactions, may also belong to the "material support" category. And last, a dramatic increase in Sino-Russia trade is probably also "material support."

我们可以用“but-for”的反事实方法来评估中俄贸易。问这个问题,如果没有发生战争,这种贸易还会发生吗?去年中俄贸易增长了36%。因此,如果这场战争没有发生,今年很有可能高达 50% 的增长,因此50%左右的增长可能仍然是相当合理的,大幅超过了这个增幅也许就成了“实质性支持”了。

We can use a "but-for" counterfactual approach to assess Sino-Russia trade, and ask this question: Had the war not happened, would this trade have still taken place? Last year Sino-Russia trade increased by about 36 per cent. So an increase of up to 50 per cent this year might have been fairly reasonable had this war not happened.

华盛顿一直在国际社会试图宣扬一种说法,即中国不对俄罗斯实施制裁就是等同于站在俄罗斯一边。然后这种说法似乎只适用于中国,而不使用与所有其他没有制裁的国家。整个 19 世纪英国的经验可以完全否定这种说法,当时伦敦对欧洲大陆不断发生的冲突和战争采取了历史学家所说的“光荣孤立”外交政策,也就是说,英国在欧洲大陆不站在任何国家一边,也不站在任何联盟一边,但仍与欧洲各国保持着正常的贸易关系。英国经济在那段时间蓬勃发展,一个重要原因就是因为这个“光荣孤立”的外交政策。

Washington is attempting to promote a narrative that China's decision not to impose sanctions is the same as siding with Russia. This narrative appears to have been only applied to China, not the other non-sanction countries. This argument should be rejected by the British experience during the entire 19th century when London adopted what historians called a "splendid isolation" foreign policy with respect to the constant conflicts and wars on the European continent. That is, Great Britain didn't side with any state, nor any alliance on the European continent, but still maintained a normal trading relationship with each one of them.

这种基本中立的立场对我们今天来说是宝贵的历史经验教训。但当然我们应该带着 21 世纪的道德主义去超越 19 世纪的现实主义。今天,我呼吁包括中国在内的所有国家,希望置身欧洲战争事外的国家,采取“有原则的中立”政策。

This position of neutrality is a valuable history lesson for us today. But of course, we should rise above the 19th century British realists with a dose of 21st-century moralism. Today, I call on all countries, like China, that would like to stay out of this mess in Europe, to adopt a policy of "principled neutrality" that should include at least the following four aspects:

1.“有原则的中立”为了和平而努力,其中最基本的是克制可能直接导致乌克兰冲突升级的行动,这显然也包括武器的销售。

1. Principled neutrality strives for peace, the least of which means restraint from actions that could directly contribute to military fighting in Ukraine, obviously including sales of arms to both sides as well.

2.“有原则的中立”要求采取积极行动,调解战争停火和帮助寻求和平政治解决方案。

2. Principled neutrality calls for proactive actions to mediate a truce and a peaceful political solution in Ukraine.

3.“有原则的中立”为俄罗斯和乌克兰人民的福利而努力。制裁造成的死亡人数比战争更多,因为从历史上看,由于生活困难、饥饿、无法获得医疗用品等会造成更多的死亡。这意味着与俄罗斯和乌克兰保持正常的贸易关系不仅在经济方面,而且在道德方面也都是很合理的。

3. Principled neutrality strives for the welfare of ordinary citizens in both Russia and Ukraine. Historically, sanctions kill more people than war, due to life hardship, starvation, denial of access to medical supplies, etc. That means maintaining normal trade relationships with both Russia and Ukraine is absolutely justified, not just on economic grounds but also on moral grounds.

4.“有原则中立”要求根据联合国人道主义援助原则,即根据人道、中立、公正和独立的原则,尽可能向乌克兰人民提供人道主义援助。

4. Principled neutrality calls for humanitarian assistance to the war-affected people in Ukraine, both Ukrainians and Russians, based on the United Nations humanitarian aid principles, i.e., humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence.

关于中国在这场战争中的立场的争论,不应去讨论是站在俄罗斯一边还是站在乌克兰一边。国际社会应当判断北京的所作所为是否是站在和平的一边,是否站在在人性(humanity)的一边,是否站在中国自身国家利益的一边。而“有原则的中立”政策可以满足所有这些标准。

The debate about China's stance in this war is not so much about being on Russia's side or on the Ukraine-U.S.-ally's side. The international community needs to judge whether Beijing's actions are on the side of peace, humanity and China's own national interests. A policy of "principled neutrality" meets all of these objectives.

本文为iGCU原创,欢迎转载,转载时请标明文章来源:北京大学中外人文交流研究基地

英文来源:CGTN

最新文章