羅思義：卡梅倫的北京教訓刻骨銘心

【按：《衞報》顯然不打算與英國政府緩和。不僅在斯諾登事件上如此，當卡梅倫終於回頭是岸，謙恭訪問中國時刻，《衞報》依然用嚴辭批評卡梅倫此前的表演。不過忠言逆耳，這樣的批評顯然不應該只有卡梅倫來承受，對西方各國領導人來説都不失為一個提醒。作者羅思義為前英國倫敦經濟與商業政策署署長，英文原文發表於《衞報》，作者授權觀察者網獨家首發中文版。觀察者網王楊翻譯】

歷史上鮮有哪個英國首相的誇張表演像大衞·卡梅倫的對華政策這樣，無比沉重和恥辱，被弄得顏面掃地。中國領導人的外交技巧太高超，因此沒有在卡梅倫的訪華行程中當面直説。但是世界各國，包括英國的評論家們，都知道卡梅倫幹了什麼。

去年卡梅倫會見達賴喇嘛，這就像習近平會見亞歷克斯·薩爾蒙德（觀察者網譯註：蘇格蘭首席大臣、蘇格蘭民族黨領袖）並祝他在蘇格蘭獨立的競選中“順利”，或者戴高樂1967年的“魁北克自由萬歲”演講一樣。不出意外地，中英關係隨後降至“冰點”——英國大臣與中方會面的請求遭拒。

卡梅倫似乎相信中國的領導人會在對峙時先軟下來——好像世界的第二大經濟體，經濟增速7.8%，會需要英國的幫助，而英國的GDP還沒趕上5年前的水平。可惜這並沒發生，而正如西蒙·詹金斯所説：“卡梅倫卑躬屈膝到了極點。唐寧街消息稱英國如今‘翻過了一頁’而且‘着眼於未來’；這將展示‘相互尊重和理解’。”一個再清楚不過的事實是，中國如今是個超級大國，英國不是。

遺憾的是，卡梅倫的無節操不可避免地給他領導的國家蒙羞。但是，尋求中英互利最大化的政策應當恢復。

卡梅倫微博發自己與李克強出席簽字儀式

這樣的關係不僅僅是“雙贏局面”這種陳詞濫調。英國需要中國的基建投資，中國的出口正好面臨放緩；此外中國1億遊客將出國旅遊，英國能從中分一杯羹就夠了。中國需要英國的高科技，比如生命科學，還需要將倫敦這一世界最大的外匯交易中心作為人民幣國際化的基地。

而卡梅倫之前的所作所為就是讓這些關係更加艱難。連英國政府都不相信他的官方論調，認為其早期的政策對經濟毫無裨益。要是卡梅倫的説辭是真的，他如今可能不用這麼低聲下氣地領着史上最大的經貿團訪華。

從這件事中，我們可以學到一些普遍的教訓。

**在中國看來，英國在兩國關係中企圖奪取道德高點的做法毫無誠信可言。英國自己都幹了些啥？**它跟中國的第一次接觸就是派軍隊過去強迫中國進口英國的鴉片。接着它奪取香港島——也許中國政府應奪取懷特島作為補償。後來它的軍隊毀掉了北京的圓明園——也許中國解放軍應當洗劫並燒燬白金漢宮。英國敦促中國在香港實行民主，而它統治香港期間嚴禁民主政府，直到它意識到殖民地保不住了。就説現在，英國是美國入侵伊拉克的第一大盟友。當他們在伊拉克殺死數萬人時，中國讓6億人脱貧，這比歐盟總人口還多。

大衞·卡梅倫的政治生涯將很快畫上句號。等他輸了2015年的普選，託利黨（英國保守黨——觀察者網注）為落選的領袖辦完砍頭儀式後，新首相艾德·米利班德（Ed Miliband）訪問北京時，或許會對卡梅倫對華政策的慘敗好好琢磨，這是更普遍的教訓。

世界想從英國獲得很多，對此我們頗為自豪——投資、莎士比亞、科學、幽默、流行音樂和貿易，等等。但是有些是世界不想要的，對此我們最好道歉或遠離——坐武裝直升機訪問、鴉片、奪島和干涉別國內政。

假如這個更加普遍的教訓能被吸取，那卡梅倫目前在北京收到的教訓多少還是有好處的。

（翻頁請看英文原文）

 

   

Harsh lessons for Cameron in Beijing

Rarely have the exaggerated pretensions of a British prime minister been so harshly and humiliatingly brought crashing to earth as with David Cameron’s policy on China. China’s leaders are too skilled in diplomacy to state it bluntly during Cameron’s current Beijing visit, but the rest of the world, including numerous British commentators, knows exactly what has occurred.

Last year Cameron met the Dalai Lama, which in China’s terms has about the same level of subtlety as Xi Jinping meeting Alex Salmond to “wish him well” in his campaign for Scottish independence or de Gaulle’s notorious 1967 “Vive le Québec libre” speech. It was predictably met with the “big freeze” – British ministers being refused meetings with their senior Chinese counterparts.

Cameron seems to have believed that China’s leaders would blink first in the ensuing standoff – as though the world’s second largest economy, with 7.8% growth, needed help from a UK whose GDP has not even regained its level of five years ago. It didn’t happen and, as Simon Jenkins put it, “Cameron could hardly have grovelled lower. Downing Street sources say Britain has now ’turned a page’ and is ’looking to the future’; it will show ‘mutual respect and understanding’.” The lesson that China is now a great power and Britain is not was forcibly driven home.

This humiliation for Cameron regrettably inevitably reflects on the country he leads. But the policy of seeking the best mutually beneficial ties between Britain and China should be resumed.

These relations are in reality, not just as a trite phrase, a potential “win-win situation”. Britain needs China’s investment in its infrastructure, China as a market for faltering exports, and to grab a small proportion of the 100 million Chinese tourists who will soon be travelling abroad. China needs Britain’s hi-tech knowledge in areas such as life sciences, and London, the world’s biggest foreign exchange trading centre, as a base for its currency’s internationalisation.

All Cameron did was to make these relations more difficult. Not even the British government believes its official rhetoric that its earlier policies had no effect on economic ties. If that were true, Cameron would not feel the need to eat political humble pie and lead the biggest ever group of business leaders to China.

Some general lessons can be drawn from this episode. Seen from China, Britain’s attempts to claim some moral high ground in its dealings with the country have no credibility. What is Britain’s record? Its first major encounter with China was to send troops to force the country to import British opium. Then it seized the island of Hong Kong – perhaps the Chinese government will ask for the Isle of Wight in compensation. Then its troops destroyed the summer palace in Beijing – perhaps the People’s Liberation Army should loot and burn Buckingham Palace. Britain lectures China on democracy in Hong Kong when, in the whole time the UK ruled the island, it never allowed democratic government until it realised it would be forced to return its colony to China. Or, to come up to the present, Britain was the chief US ally in an invasion of Iraq, which led to hundreds of thousands of deaths while China raised more than 600 million people – more than the EU’s entire population – out of poverty.

David Cameron’s political career is coming to an end. After he loses the 2015 general election, and the Tory party has carried out the ritual slaughter of the failed leader, the new prime minister, Ed Miliband, may want to ponder the more general lessons of Cameron’s Chinese fiasco for British foreign policy as he plans his Beijing visit.

There are many things people all over the world want from this country in which we can take pride – investment, Shakespeare, science, humour, pop music and trade, to name but a few. But it would be good to apologise for, and stay out of, things the world did not want to receive from this country – visits from gunships, opium, seizure of islands and interference in their internal affairs.

If that more general lesson can be absorbed, Cameron’s current humiliation in Beijing will have served a useful purpose after all.

英文原文鏈接：http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/03/david-cameron-humiliation-beijing-china