南华早报报道图片

中国外交部新闻发言人赵立坚最近在推特上发出一张漫画照片，描述一名澳大利亚士兵持刀对一名阿富汗儿童割喉。澳大利亚总理斯科特•莫里森（Scott Morrison）为此要求中国对此道歉。双方由此引发推特争端。

在这件事上，并非只有中国一家批评澳大利亚。澳大利亚国防部队的调查结果引发了广泛的国际谴责。《纽约时报》一篇报道的标题是“血腥的半神：在澳大利亚军队屠杀无助的阿富汗人背后”。

《印度快报》、《德国之声》等多家媒体均对此调查进行了报道。既然全球媒体已经对该报告的大量细节进行了详尽的披露，赵的推文对此事的谴责并没有明显添油加醋。然而，为什么唯独中国的批评引发了澳大利亚的愤怒呢？

首先，这个看似新的爆发点其实只是中澳之间一长串争执的一小部分。过去几年中，两国在许多问题上一直存在分歧，其中包括特恩布尔政府决定将中国电信公司华为和中兴从澳大利亚的5G网络中排除，以及引入被视为针对中国活动的外国干扰法。

今年早些时候，澳大利亚呼吁对冠状病毒的起源进行调查，此举激怒了北京。而针对这张渲染澳大利亚军人战争罪行的推特图片的争吵，则进一步加剧了两国关系的恶化。许多人认为两国关系已经达到了最低点。

第二，澳大利亚也许还会感到冤枉，因为相比其他国家，即使它对自己的行为承担了更多的自我问责，却似乎受到了更多的批评。要知道，在这份澳大利亚报告公开发表之前，就存在针对9.11袭击后美军对阿富汗战争罪行的指控，以及英军在以美国为首的入侵伊拉克行动后在该国犯下的战争罪行指控。

这些指控促使国际刑事法院（ICC）准备开展初步调查。但是，到目前为止，美英两国都避免了任何形式的正式调查（或者像美国通过硬制裁，或者像英国通过软外交）。

根据指导国际刑事法院运作的补充性原则，只有当一国的法律制度不能或不愿意真正地对该国国际罪行行使司法管辖时，国际法院才有权行使其权利。为了避免受到国际法院的起诉，澳大利亚通过对其自己士兵进行调查而展现出其主动担当的意愿。

然而，尽管澳大利亚做出努力，中国外交部发言人还是使用了一张漫画图片对澳大利亚进行了严厉谴责。这有可能也是将莫里森政府推到了愤怒边缘的重要原因之一。

毕竟，过去澳大利亚一直都站在道德制高点上对中国涉嫌侵犯人权的行为进行批评，但这次却是澳大利亚士兵被指控严重违反国际人道法。

更为吊诡的是，尽管已有澳大利亚士兵犯下战争罪行这个不争的事实，西方其他国家均齐齐站到了堪培拉一边，指责中国针对澳大利亚的批评带有偏见和不专业。包括美国、法国和英国在内的一些国家均以不同的方式表达了对澳大利亚的支持。

由于许多国家都作为北约盟友参加了阿富汗行动，因此，对澳大利亚在阿富汗战争期间行为的谴责在某种程度上等同于对其他国家的谴责。但这样的事实还不能将西方国家的选边站队完全解释清楚。尽管犯下战争罪行的是澳大利亚士兵，但北约其他国家的高级官员可能会因未能履行阻止和惩治这些罪行的职责而负有国际法上的指挥官责任。在这方面，他们是绑在一根儿绳上的蚂蚱。

西方对抗中国的集体行动同时源于其在民主传统、文化和价值观方面的共同身份认同。由于这些共同的价值观，它们倾向于对彼此更为宽容，而对中国更为苛刻。

正如中国外交部发言人华春莹在一次新闻发布会上说的那样，这种双重标准其实源于西方人对中国的心态—“我可以，但你不能”。但这并不是说中国与西方没有共同利益。比如说，在气候变化和环境保护方面开展合作均符合双方利益。

近几个月来，中国也因奉行所谓“战狼”式外交而受到西方的批评，其根本原因当然是由于上述西方共同身份认同而产生的歧视性双标。但在北京确实应该反击西方双重标准的同时，一些中国外交官也需要学习外交的艺术。如果中西方在合作上找到更多共同点，以更加优雅的方式处理外交关系，那么双方的外交争端将会大大减少。

（原文发表于南华早报：https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3112880/australias-twitter-row-china-no-surprise-who-west-sides；观察者网编译刊发中文译文：https://m.guancha.cn/tianshichen/2020_12_10_574147.shtml）

In Australia’s Twitter row with China, no surprise who the West sides with

Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison has demanded that China apologise after Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian recently shared a post on Twitter depicting an Australian soldier holding a knife to the throat of an Afghan child.

China is not alone in criticising Australia in this regard. The findings from the Australian Defence Force inquiry sparked widespread international condemnation; a New York Times report was headlined “Blood Lust Demigods: Behind an Australian Force’s Slaughter of Helpless Afghans”.

The findings were also reported by The Indian Express, Deutsche Welle and many other media outlets. Zhao’s tweet does not add much to the condemnation since the global press has already covered the report’s publication in great detail. But why was it only the Chinese criticism that triggered Australia’s outrage?

First, this seemingly new flashpoint is only the tail of a long chain of disputes between Australia and China. The two countries have been at odds over a number of issues over the past few years, including the Turnbull government’s decision to exclude Chinese telecoms companies Huawei and ZTE from Australia’s 5G network and its introduction of foreign interference laws that were seen as targeting China’s activities.

Earlier this year, Australia called for an investigation into the origins of the coronavirus, infuriating Beijing. The quarrel over the Twitter image of Australian war crimes only aggravated the relationship, which many believe has reached its lowest point.

Second, Australia might also have felt wronged that, even though it took more accountability of its actions than others, it nevertheless appeared to have received more criticism. Prior to the publication of the Australia report, there were also claims of alleged war crimes committed by the US military in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks, and by the British military in Iraq following the US-led invasion of the country.

These allegations prompted the International Criminal Court (ICC) to look into launching an investigation. However, both the US and Britain have so far avoided any formal investigation.

According to the complementarity principle that guides ICC operations, it may only exercise jurisdiction over international crimes when national legal systems are genuinely unable or unwilling to do so. In order to avoid prosecution by international courts, Australia has shown goodwill by initiating an investigation of its soldiers’ actions.

Yet despite these efforts, the Chinese foreign ministry’s spokesman used a particularly inflammatory image to excoriate Australia. This probably pushed the Morrison government over the edge.

After all, in the past, Australia had been the one to stand on the moral high ground to criticise China on alleged human rights violations. Now, however, it is Australian soldiers who stand accused of gross violations of humanitarian laws.

Given the facts of the war crimes committed by Australian soldiers, it is strange to see the rest of the Western world teaming up and siding with Canberra by accusing China of being biased and unprofessional in targeting Australia. Countries including the US, France and Britain, to name just a few, have showed their support for Australia in one way or another.

Such teaming up cannot be fully explained by the fact that condemnation of Australia’s behaviour during the Afghan war is to some extent equivalent to condemnation of those other countries, since many were also involved in the Afghan operation as Nato allies.

Although it was Australian soldiers who committed the war crimes, high-ranking officials from other Nato countries could bear command responsibility for failing to fulfil their duties to prevent and punish these crimes. In this respect, they are like grasshoppers tied to the same string, to quote a Chinese idiom.

The collective action of the West in standing up to China also stems from the shared democratic traditions, culture and values of Western countries. Because of these shared values, they tend to be more tolerant of one another and more critical of China.

Such double standards have shaped the Western mindset towards China – an attitude of “I can, but you can’t”, as Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying put it during one press briefing. This is not to say that China and the West have no common interests. In climate change and environmental protection, for example, it serves both sides to cooperate.

In recent months, China has also been criticised by the West for embracing a “wolf warrior” style of diplomacy. While Beijing should push back on the West’s double standards, Chinese diplomats also need to learn the art of diplomacy. On many occasions, China has been blamed for being aggressive simply because some of its diplomats do not know how to say “no” nicely.

If China and the West could find more common ground on which to cooperate and if Chinese diplomats learned how to handle foreign relations in a more elegant way, the number of these diplomatic rows would soon decrease sharply.

Captain (retired) Tian Shichen, a senior research fellow, is vice-president of the Grandview Institution and director of the Centre for International Law of Military Operations in Beijing. He is also a China Forum Expert.

Bao Huaying is a visiting fellow at the East Asia National Resource Centre, George Washington University. She is also the Chief of Division for International Exchange, International Exhange and Cooperation Office, Beijing Foreign Studies University.