汤蓓：中国的外交与欧洲的危机

编者按

4月8日，俄罗斯瓦尔代国际辩论俱乐部网站发表了上海外国语大学金砖国家研究中心执行主任、中国论坛特约专家汤蓓的评论文章“China's Diplomacy and the European Crisis（中国的外交与欧洲的危机）”，探讨联合国在俄乌危机中的作用以及危机对中国的联合国外交提出的挑战。汤蓓认为，无论对于解决乌克兰危机本身，或是对中国外交而言，联合国都发挥着不可或缺的作用。通过推进安理会中的协商、重申主权原则的普遍适用，以及提出更多促进和平的具体方案，中国的联合国外交或可有所作为。中国论坛受权首发中文版，以飨读者。

当前，在俄乌危机与中国外交的讨论上，焦点集中在大国关系的层面，本文则试图探讨联合国在俄乌危机中的作用以及危机对中国的联合国外交提出的挑战。

这一问题对中国的全球议程具有重要意义。联合国是中国多边外交最重要的舞台，也是国际规则制定不可替代的场所。中国对联合国会费与维和经费的贡献持续增加，也是常任理事国中派出维和部队最多的国家。另一方面，中国提出的一些重要的国际倡议，如“一带一路”，也得到了联合国的大力支持。

联合国的命运也涉及国际秩序的未来。联合国是全球治理的重要平台，如果它的合法性和效力在这次危机中受到损害，那么无论哪一方最终占据上风，从长远来看，国际社会都可能面临更大的危险和挑战。

在这场危机中，第一个令人关切的问题是安理会的运作。俄罗斯是这场冲突中首先发难的一方；美国虽然坚持不与俄罗斯接战的底线，但实际上深度介入，动用各种手段火上浇油，包括向乌克兰提供大规模的军事援助。不出意料，联合国安理会在2月26日未能通过涉及俄罗斯军事行动的决议，3月23日关于乌克兰的人道主义局势的决议也流产了。

安理会未能做出集体决定，这一事实让许多研究者感到沮丧。一些人甚至在危机爆发之前就提出，应该援引《联合国宪章》第27条第（3）款，迫使俄罗斯在涉及乌克兰的表决中弃权。还有一些人建议，应当完全废除否决权，未来安理会的所有决议可以由其成员的三分之二多数或代表世界三分之二人口的国家集体作出。

认为否决权的存在阻碍了安理会在危机中发挥作用，这种观点忽略了一个重要事实，安理会之所以能够享有维护国际安全与和平的主要责任，正是因为主要大国集体为它提供了政治承诺和资源贡献。迫使一个大国执行它所反对的决定，将使得该国远离这种安排，从而破坏安全理事会制度本身。事实上，美国和英国在伊拉克问题上、法国在马里问题上都没有放弃否决权。概言之，排除了俄罗斯或任何其他常任理事国，都不再是真正的联合国安理会。

因此，联合国安理会要发挥积极作用，唯一现实可行的途径就是恢复协商一致的原则。美国及其盟友对俄罗斯的制裁，以及他们对中国不参与制裁将带来“后果”的威胁，只会在大国之间造成更大的裂痕。一种建设性的办法是在所有成员之间找到共同点。中国与各方、特别是与俄罗斯的良好沟通，有可能让它成为弥合分裂的桥梁。

3月25日，安理会一致投票通过了一项关于核不扩散和朝鲜问题的决议。这表明，各常任理事国仍然能够在重大的国际问题上进行合作。安全理事会应当将这种合作精神延伸至乌克兰问题的解决上。

第二，联合国显然是所有国家，特别是非西方国家表达其观点和态度的主要论坛。许多国家并不接受在危机中必须选边站的观点。事实上，中国、印度、越南以及其他一些国家都强烈主张，必须通过降级和谈判来解决危机。中国还进一步提出了关于解决危机的六点主张。

但是，宣传言论自由的西方媒体，并不愿为中国提供发言的平台。3月20日，中国驻美国大使秦刚接受了美国CBS电视台“面对国家”的节目采访，在9分钟的时间内被打断了23次。从这次采访中可以看出，美国媒体带有强烈的预设立场，并且对不同的观点怀有敌意。

联合国则是一个让中国能够充分表达意见的场合。中国在安理会和联合国大会投票后都做了解释性发言，不仅在乌克兰问题上是这样，在上述朝鲜核问题上也是一样。这些声明详细阐述了中国对联合国的立场和建议，事实上比投票本身更能全面反映中国外交的态度。

中国在这些声明中反复强调的一点是，国际社会应该在主权问题以及处理国际关系的方式上具有一以贯之的态度。在联合国大会就乌克兰人道主义危机进行投票后，中国驻联合国代表张军强调，尊重各国的主权、独立和领土完整是国际关系的基本原则，适用于所有国家、所有情况，不应该有例外，更不用说双重标准。

不偏不倚、公正、不歧视一直是成功调停危机的基础，同时也是联合国集体安全机制的核心。同情冲突中看似较弱的一方是很自然的。但必须认识到，如果俄罗斯对安全的合理关切被忽视，让乌克兰面对一个拥有核武器、同时又愤懑不满的邻国，是不符合乌克兰人民的利益的，对全球安全也并无裨益。

此外，通过谴责西方对待主权的“双标”态度，中国也敦促西方反思自己在国际关系中的行为。谴责暴力又使用暴力，声称维护主权又破坏他国主权，口称“基于规则的秩序”实际上选择性地使用规则来让自己获利，西方要追求的是权力政治的旧秩序，与联合国倡导的原则截然相反。事实上，在联合国成立75周年时发起的“UN75”全球调查与对话中，全球公众也提出，希望联合国“一以贯之地行使道德权威以支持联合国宪章”，在国际事务中公正、不偏不倚、担负责任。

最后，对中国而言，应该支持联合国应对乌克兰危机带来的各种挑战。更重要的是，中国应该与国际伙伴一道为和平的工具箱增加新思想和新工具。

全球经济高度依存，俄罗斯和乌克兰在全球供应链中的地位决定，这场冲突虽然发生在欧洲，但却具有全球影响。到目前为止，联合国秘书长以及联合国难民署、世界粮食计划署、世卫组织、国际原子能机构等机构一直在提请国际社会关注危机带来的严重后果。中国支持联合国在乌克兰人道主义危机中发挥作用，并且进一步提出，必须以负责任的方式处理这场危机，决不能给国际社会以及生计维艰的数十亿人造成额外的损害。

自危机开始以来，西方国家的政策工具箱里只摆着两件东西，谴责和制裁。这不是偶然的。虽然美国的国际关系学者对冲突和战争的原因进行了大量的研究，但并不关注如何创造和平，特别是如何在具有不同价值观和政治制度的国家之间创造和平。相较而言，中国的国际关系研究及外交实践则主要集中在追求和平的问题上。中国认为，各国的利益能够通过良好的关系得到最好地实现，因此建立了遍布全球的伙伴关系网络。中国“人类命运共同体”的概念也旨在实现国际社会的和平与和谐。如果将这些理念转化为方案和政策工具，将为联合国的工作做出巨大贡献。

总而言之，无论对于解决乌克兰危机本身，或是对中国外交而言，联合国都发挥着不可或缺的作用。当前最大的挑战在于，一些国家将联合国作为施压的平台，而不是进行协商、寻求合理可行的解决方案的平台。要应对这些问题，中国的联合国外交可以在三个方面有所作为，推进安理会中的协商，重申主权原则的普遍适用，以及提出更多促进和平的具体方案。

China‘s Diplomacy and the European Crisis

Exploring this topic has important implications for China’s global agenda. China views the UN as the most important stage for multilateral diplomacy, and an irreplaceable venue for international rules-making. Its contribution to the UN, in terms of funding and peacekeeping forces, has increased significantly in the past decade. Additionally, some important international initiatives proposed by China, such as the Belt and Road Initiative, have also received strong support from the United Nations.

The future of the international order will be affected by the outcome of the conflict. If the legitimacy and effectiveness of the United Nations are jeopardised in the crisis, no matter which side prevails, the international community will face greater dangers and challenges in the long run.

In this crisis, the first issue of concern is the functioning of the Security Council. The five permanent members are clearly divided in their positions, especially the United States. While the US insists on not directly engaging in war, it has become deeply involved and deployed almost every method to fuel the conflict, including providing massive military assistance to Ukraine. It is not surprising that the UN Security Council failed to adopt a resolution on February 26 concerning Russia’s military operation, and failed again on March 23 on the humanitarian situation in Ukraine.

The fact that the Security Council failed to make legally binding decisions has left many UN experts frustrated. Some suggested, even before the crisis broke out, that Article 27(3) of the UN Charter should be cited to oblige Russia to abstain in any decision on Ukraine. Some go further and suggest the veto power should be abolished altogether and all Security Council resolutions can be made by a two-thirds majority of its members or by two-thirds of the world’s population.

The argument that the existence of the veto power hinders the Security Council’s role in crises ignores the important fact that the Security Council enjoys a central role in international security precisely because the world’s major powers, which were forged in the Second World War, collectively provide it with political commitments and resources. Forcing a great power to implement a decision it opposes will only turn it away, thereby undermining the Security Council itself. In fact, the United States and Britain didn’t give up their veto power over Iraq, and neither did France when it sent troops to Mali. Simply speaking, a Security Council, which excludes Russia, or any other permanent member, will no longer be a true Security Council.

So, if the UN Security Council is to play an active role, the only realistic and feasible way is to restore the principle of consultation and consensus. The United States and its alliance’s sanctions against Russia, as well as their threat of “consequences” for China if it does not join forces with them, can only create bigger division and shake the cornerstone the council was built on. A constructive approach would be to find a common ground among all members. China’s communication with all parties, especially with Russia, gives it advantages as a bridge in the Security Council.

There is a silver lining in the dark clouds hanging over the Council. On March 25, the Council voted unanimously to pass a resolution on nuclear non-proliferation in North Korea. This shows that the permanent members are still able to cooperate on major international concerns. On Ukraine, the Security Council should maintain the spirit of cooperation.

Second, it is evident to China that the United Nations remains the main forum for all countries, especially non-Western countries, to express their views and attitudes. In this crisis, a black-and-white narrative cannot be accepted by a lot of countries. In fact, China, India, Vietnam and other countries have strongly advocated for the imperative use of de-escalation and negotiation to resolve the crisis. China has furthermore introduced six propositions in its final resolution.

However, it is hard to have them heard. Western media, which ostensibly advertise freedom of speech, have been unwilling to provide platforms for China to speak. On March 20th, China’s ambassador to the United States, Qing Gang, was interrupted 23 times during a 9-minute interview with CBS’s “Face the Nation” programme, when explaining China’s position on the conflict. From this interview, it can be seen that the US media has a strong, preset position and is hostile to any different opinions.

The United Nations has enabled China to fully express its views and call for a rational and proper handling of the crisis. China has made explanatory statements after voting in the Security Council and the UN General Assembly, not only on the Ukraine issue, but also on the aforementioned North Korean nuclear issue. These statements have elaborated China’s positions and suggestions for the UN.

China has made a very important point in these statements: that international community should develop a consistent matter for addressing sovereignty and the way international relations are handled. After the UN General Assembly’s decision on Ukraine’s humanitarian crisis, Zhang Jun, the Chinese representative to the UN, emphasized that respect for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of all countries is a basic principle in international relations. It is applicable to all countries and all situations, and there should be no exception, let alone a double standard.

Impartiality and non-discrimination have always been the fundamentals for successful mediation. They are also at the heart of the collective security mechanism of the United Nations. It is natural to sympathize with the seemingly weaker side in a conflict. But the interests of Ukraine’s people cannot be served if Russia’s legitimate aspirations for security are ignored and Ukraine is left with a disgruntled neighbour with nuclear weapons on hand. Striving for a mutually satisfactory and sustainable peace arrangement thus is the correct goal of UN diplomacy. In addition, by rebuking the double-standard approach to sovereignty, China is urging the West to reflect on its own behaviour in international relations. It also points out a simple fact: that if the so called “rule-based order” is a selective use of rule to the West’s own advantages, condemning violence while using it, claiming sovereignty while undermining others’ sovereignty, it is in fact an order of power politics and an order that the UN is strongly opposed to.

Last but not least, China should support the UN to tackle various challenges brought about by the Ukraine crisis. More importantly, working with international partners, China should add new ideas and instruments to the toolbox of peace. The interdependence of the global economy and the positions of Russia and Ukraine in the global supply chain determine that this conflict, despite occurring in Europe, has a global impact.

To date, the UN Secretary General, and agencies like the UNHCR, WFP, WHO and IAEA have kept drawing the international community’s attention to the desperate consequences of the ongoing violence. China has shared these concerns, and supports the United Nations in playing a major role in resolving the humanitarian crisis in Ukraine. Moreover, it pointed out that the crisis must be handled in a responsible way, and must not deal additional damage to the international community and billions of people whose livelihoods have already been severely affected by the pandemic.

Since the start of the crisis, the West has relied upon two tools exclusively: condemnation and sanctions. This is not accidental. Although IR scholars in the United States have conducted abundant research into the causes of conflicts and wars, their knowledge on peace-making, especially among countries with different values and political systems, is limited. By contrast, China’s international relations studies, as well as its diplomatic practices, are mainly focused on the pursuit of peace. China has built a global network of partnerships, based on the idea that mutual interests can be best achieved through good relations. China’s concept of “community with a shared future for mankind” is also a concept of peace and harmony, which if used to create programmes and policy tools, will make a huge contribution to the work of the United Nations.

To sum up, the United Nations has once again demonstrated its indispensable role, both in the resolution of the Ukrainian crisis and in China’s diplomacy. The biggest challenge is that some countries use the United Nations as a platform for pressure rather than a platform for consultation. These practices are not only detrimental to the resolution of the crisis; they also undermine the United Nations itself. China’s diplomacy can contribute in three ways, facilitating consultations in the Security Council, reaffirming the universal application of the principle of sovereignty, and proposing tools and solutions for peace.

Tang Bei: Associate Professor at the School of International Relations and Public Affairs, at Shanghai International Studies University and a China Forum expert

向上滑动阅览

相关阅读

汤蓓：全球卫生体系的彻底变革刻不容缓
汤蓓：“全球卫生委员会”倡议为何遇冷