龚炯｜乌克兰危机：随着美国主导的制裁压力增加，“不自愿联盟”必须团结起来

编者按

3月8日，《南华早报》评论版发表中国论坛特约专家、对外经贸大学以色列分校副校长龚炯的文章“Ukraine war: As pressure from US-led sanctions build, ‘coalition of the unwilling’ must stand together”。龚炯教授认为，对中立阵营的压力目前主要针对中国，但也很容易扩散到世界上其他沉默的国家。当前亟需一个“不自愿联盟”来支持和平、远离战争。中国论坛授权翻译，以飨读者。

当美国总统乔治·布什发动第二次海湾战争时，他自创了“自愿联盟”这一短语，意指支持2003年入侵和随后军事占领伊拉克的国家。美国的入侵理由是萨达姆·侯赛因与基地组织有联系以及伊拉克正在开发大规模杀伤性武器。然而这两点原因之后都被证实为捏造的。

尽管如此，仍有40多万人因此丧命。今天，我主张建立一个“不自愿联盟”——一个不参与战争的联盟。

中国同许多国家一样处于中立立场，采取有原则的中立态度。中国在促进乌克兰危机和平解决和对该国实施人道主义援助的同时，也努力同乌克兰和俄罗斯保持正常的贸易关系。

采取中立立场不仅关乎国家利益，也合乎道德。制裁就像T-72坦克一样会致人于死地。1999年，发表在《外交事务》上的一篇文章称制裁为“大规模杀伤性武器”，因为制裁会造成经济困难，导致被制裁国无法获得医疗援助，甚至可能引发饥荒。

即使我们不考虑俄罗斯境内潜在的制裁伤亡，当下西方集体施加的制裁也将会“杀死”更多俄罗斯之外的人，因为俄罗斯是全球主要的农产品和能源产品出口国。中立不仅是避免在交战国中站队，还是站在和平和人性的一边。

事实是没有实施制裁的国家远远多于实施制裁的国家，这些国家所代表的人口规模甚至更大。几乎整个全球南部发展中国家都不在制裁阵营中。他们才是真正的大多数，是沉默的大多数。

这次瓦尔代国际辩论俱乐部会议的主题是中东。中东这些国家包括完全民主国家到独裁政权，从宗教信仰强烈的国家到世俗国家，从美国最亲密的盟友到美国的宿敌，从北约成员国到美国的主要非北约盟友。简而言之，他们涵盖了广泛的政治制度种类，但没有一个中东国家属于制裁阵营。

华盛顿却将这场战争归结为民主与权威体制之间的斗争。

在19世纪，大英帝国对冲突不断的欧洲大陆采取中立政策是相当容易的，历史学家将这种政策称为“光辉孤立”。但在今天要成为一个中立国就不那么容易了。

华盛顿对中立阵营有怨恨，中国首当其冲，这很好理解，因为中国是一个全球贸易大国，中国与俄罗斯的贸易关系尤其发展迅速。

尽管中国从俄罗斯购买的石油比印度少，而且与俄罗斯的贸易严格限制在民用领域，但仍被华盛顿单独针对。华盛顿正在向全世界传达一种错误的叙事逻辑，即别问为什么，中国与俄罗斯继续保持正常的贸易关系就等同于在这场战争中同俄罗斯站队。

美国国务卿安东尼·布林肯在最近访问哈萨克斯坦时发出警告，“中国不能鱼与熊掌兼得”。华盛顿一直在散布无端猜测，称中国公司向俄罗斯提供民用产品，用于潜在的军事用途。

在接受美国广播公司（ABC）新闻采访时，美国总统拜登说，“普京正在为其鼓掌”——指的是中国的和平计划——“那么这个计划怎么可能是好事呢？”他没有提到的是泽连斯基也在鼓掌。华盛顿正积极推动对中俄贸易关系的误读，将两国间的正常贸易统计数值解释为中国正处于向俄罗斯提供所谓实质支持的边缘。

双向贸易被解读为单向支持着实令人费解。如果2022年中俄之间约2000亿美元的贸易是“实质支持”，那么中美之间价值约7000亿美元的贸易一定是“神助力”！这种叙事纯属无稽之谈。

华盛顿不会止步于中国。只要基辅在战场上继续失利，只要战场僵局还在持续，只要战争有进一步升级和扩大的风险，针对中立阵营的压力就会不断增大。今天是针对中国，明天可能是印度，后天可能将矛头指向以色列、阿拉伯国家等等。

在去年12月的一次采访中，北约秘书长延斯·斯托尔滕贝格警告说，冲突可能升级成为“一场全面的，会蔓延至北约和俄罗斯之间的重大战争”。如果这种情况真的发生，预计美国将更加依赖于盟友。美国在中东的盟友将面临来自美国、欧盟和北约越来越大的压力，要求其减少或断绝与俄罗斯的联系、对俄罗斯实施制裁，并加强对乌克兰的援助包括可能的军事援助。

现在是时候让世界上沉默的大多数国家联手抵抗来自西方越来越大的政治压力。沉默的大多数国家应该建立一个“不自愿联盟”来置身这场战争之外。“不自愿联盟”符合对和平的倡导也符合联盟国的国家利益。

沉默的大多数需要发出统一的声音：“不，我们不想与这场战争有任何瓜葛，我们共同支持和平努力，以调解达成可接受的解决方案。”今天，仅仅被动地、单方面地置身于这场战争之外已经不够了。世界中立阵营需要积极主动地、共同地、多边联合，避免被卷入站队的行列。

翻译：程泽笠

核译：许馨匀  文晶

本文根据作者3月1日在瓦尔代国际辩论俱乐部第12届中东会议上发表的演讲编辑而成。

Ukraine war: As Pressure from US-led sanctions is built, "coalition of the unwilling" must stand together

When US President George W. Bush launched the second Gulf War, he coined the phrase the “coalition of the willing” to refer to the countries who supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent military occupation, on the grounds of Saddam Hussein’s connection to al-Qaeda and Iraq’s development of weapons of mass destruction, both of which proved to be fabrications.

Nevertheless, over 400,000 people paid with their lives. Today, I advocate the creation of a “coalition of the unwilling” – an alliance to stay out of the war.

Like many countries, China takes a neutral position, one of principled neutrality that promotes a peaceful solution in Ukraine and humanitarian assistance to the country, while also striving to maintain normal trade relations with both Ukraine and Russia.

This neutral position is justified not only by selfish national interests but also morally. Sanctions kill just as T-72 tanks do. A article published in Foreign Affairs in 1999 called sanctions “weapons of mass destruction” as they cause economic hardship, denial of access to medical supplies and possibly starvation.

But even if we disregard the potential sanction casualties in Russia, today’s sanctions, led by the collective West, will probably kill more people outside Russia, given it is a major global exporter of agricultural and energy products. Therefore, the neutrality position, in addition to avoiding siding with a warring party, is on the side of peace and humanity.

The number of countries that have not imposed sanctions grossly outweighs the number that have. The size of the population these countries represent outweighs even more. Almost the entire Global South is not in the sanctions camp. They are the real majority, the silent majority.

This Valdai Discussion Club’s conference is about the Middle East. And not a single country in the Middle East is in the sanctions camp. These are countries that range from full democracies to authoritarian regimes, from countries of strong religious faith to secular states, from America’s closest ally to America’s bitter arch-enemy, and from Nato member state to major non-Nato allies of the US. In short, they encompass a wide range of the political spectrum.

Yet Washington frames this war as a battle between democracy and authoritarianism.

In the 19th century, it was pretty easy for the British Empire to adopt a neutral policy with respect to the constant conflicts on the European continent, a policy historians credit as the “splendid isolation”. But it is not so easy today to be a neutral state.

China is at the forefront of Washington’s grudge against the neutrality camp, understandably, due to its status as a global trading nation and in particular, its thriving trading relations with Russia.

China is singled out even though it buys less oil from Russia than India, and restricts trade with Russia strictly to the civilian space. Washington is promoting a false narrative around the world that somehow, China’s continued normal trading relationship with Russia is tantamount to siding with Russia in this war.

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, during his recent visit to Kazakhstan, warned that “China can’t have it both ways”. Washington has been spewing speculative stories about Chinese companies providing civilian products to Russia for potentially military applications.

During an interview with ABC News, US President Joe Biden said, “Putin is applauding it,” – referring to China’s peace plan – “so how could it be any good?” He did not mention that Zelensky is also applauding it. Washington is actively promoting an interpretation of normal trade statistics between China and Russia as China being on the brink of providing so-called material support to Russia.

That two-way trade can be interpreted as one-way support is baffling. If China’s roughly US$200 billion trade with Russia in 2022 is “material support”, then China’s roughly US$700 billion trade with the US must be “heavenly support”! That narrative is total chicanery.

But Washington is not going to just stop with China. As long as Kyiv is still losing ground in the battlefield, as long as the stalemate in the battlefield lasts, as long as the war risks further escalation and expansion, the pressure on the neutrality camp will keep mounting. Today it is China. Tomorrow it could be India. And the day after that it could be Israel, the Arab states, etc.

In an interview last December, Nato Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned that the conflict could escalate into a “a full-fledged war that spreads into a major war between Nato and Russia.” If that happens, expect it to lean harder on its allies to fall in line. US allies in the Middle East will come under increasing pressure from the US, the European Union and Nato to cut or reduce ties with Russia, enforce sanctions and step up aid to Ukraine, including possibly military assistance.

It is time for the silent majority of the world to resist increasing political pressure from the West, and establish a “coalition of the unwilling” to stay out of the war. A coalition of the unwilling is in the interests of peace and the coalition states’ national interests.

The silent majority needs to speak up with a unified message: “No, we don’t want to have any business with this war, and we jointly support the peace effort to mediate for an acceptable solution.” Today, it is no longer enough to just passively, unilaterally stay out of this war. The world’s neutrality camp needs to proactively, jointly and multilaterally stay out of the war.

John Gong is a professor at the University of International Business and Economics (UIBE) and vice-president for research and strategy at the UIBE-Israel. He is also a China Forum expert. 

This article is an edited version of a speech delivered at the Valdai Discussion Club – the 12th Middle East Conference in Moscow, Russia – on March 1, and was first published on South China Morning Post on Mar. 8, 2023.