[Bilingual] Who Would Be a Chinese Ambassador?
中国大使如何行事？
梅卓琳
原稿发表在John Menadue – Pearls and Irritations (opens in a new window)
翻译：澳中艺术与文化研究院研究员 任翔博士
此文为中国大使成竞业辩护，他被指责以贸易战相要挟。
成先生受到媒体评论的抨击，其中一篇 (opens in a new window) 来自天空新闻的保罗·默里，发表于4月28日。从成先生的访谈原文看，我们可以看出他是被一个诱导性的问题迫至一隅。更有经验的外交官或许能够摆脱这种尴尬境地。他的反应显然不够聪明，但我们应该看看他的整个发言，而不是断章取义。似乎有些人只是想加剧澳大利亚和中国之间的紧张关系。
大使的职责是代表其政府的政策，并将这些政策传达给东道国。德语的“大使（Botschafter）”一词最清楚地表明了此意:传递信息的人。大使不必广受欢迎。以美国总统唐纳德·特朗普驻德国大使理查德·格雷内尔（RichardGrenell）为例，德国政界人士称其为"险恶"。《大西洋》最近的一篇文章 (opens in a new window)引用一位前美国外交官的话，“他只对一个听众演奏 ...... 关键人物是特朗普，没有其他人”。美国外交的真谛也适用于中国。
中国驻堪培拉大使的职责是向澳大利亚政府和公众传达北京制定的政策。过去一周，这些政策与外交部长马丽斯·佩恩（Marise Payne）4月19日呼吁对新冠病毒的来源进行独立调查有关，暗示中国对此缺乏“透明度”。请参阅我之前的评论 (opens in a new window)。
4月23日，中国外交部发言人耿爽在记者招待会上对此作出正式回应，此处值得全文 (opens in a new window)引用。当被问及对佩恩的言论有何评论时，耿爽回答说：
“我看到了有关报道，如果报道属实，那只能说澳大利亚方面提议的所谓“独立调查”实际上是在搞政治操弄，干扰国际疫情防控合作，不得人心。当前，疫情在全球扩散蔓延，当务之急是聚焦各国人民的生命健康、共同抗击疫情。在这样的紧要关头，出于政治目的无端质疑、横加指责极其不负责任。我们奉劝澳大利亚方面放下意识形态偏见和政治操弄，真正聚焦澳大利亚人民的福祉和世界各国人民的公共卫生安全，顺应国际社会的合作意愿，为抗击疫情国际合作多作建设性贡献，而不是相反。”
这就是中国驻堪培拉大使馆所转达的立场。4月26日，当成竞业大使接受《澳大利亚金融评论报》的安德鲁·蒂利特的采访 (opens in a new window)时，他很清楚自己需要说什么。
“坦率地说，我们之所以反对这一想法，反对澳大利亚方面的这一主张，（因为）它出于政治动机。它迎合了华盛顿某些势力在某一特定阶段的论断。有些人试图将自己的问题归咎于中国，从而转移注意力。澳大利亚的主张显然是与华盛顿的这些势力为伍，发起一场反对中国的政治运动。看看一些政客的言论，以及媒体的煽动性评论。有常识的人不难看出这项倡议针对哪个国家。”
“第二点，我们担心这一想法会破坏目前迫切需要的国际合作。我们都知道，这一流行病仍在全球一些地区肆虐。因此，各国最紧迫的任务是把人民的生命安全置于首位。这意味着一方面，每个国家，特别是受疫情影响的国家，必须集中精力，积极努力，加快疫情控制工作。另一方面，各国需要共同努力，互相帮助，相互支持。在这样一个关键时刻诉诸怀疑、指责或分裂，只会破坏全球防疫的努力。我们认为这是不负责任的。”
许多澳大利亚人会同意这些言论。斯蒂芬·菲茨杰拉德表达了同样的观点，参见《悉尼先驱晨报》本周的文章 (opens in a new window)。大使的言辞不能够归于煽动。而接下来的采访则很有意思。请原谅我这里长篇摘录。
蒂利特继续询问新冠病毒的起源，成大使说这个问题应该留给“专业人士”。蒂利特接着问，如果澳大利亚方面继续促请这项调查，会怎么样呢？成大使说，“这不会为你们赢得尊重，而且不利于全球的努力。”他提议，澳大利亚和中国应该深化合作，以对抗 “这一骇人的疾病”。“重要的是集中力量抗击传染病”。蒂利特继续挑问。
蒂利特：“如果澳大利亚继续坚持调查，会有经济后果吗？”
成：“我认为不会走到那一步，目前为止，我认为没有人支持的。”
蒂利特：“但如果澳大利亚继续这样做，中国会停止购买我们的铁矿石、煤炭和天然气，转而从其他地方进口吗？”
这是一种毫不掩饰推手民调手法，旨在诱导受访人说出预设的观点。在我看来，此时大使应该拒绝回答，并结束采访。可是，成大使却迎头而上。
“首先，我不认为这会取得任何实质性进展。第二，正如我刚才所说，中国民众会对你们的所作所为感到懊恼、不满和失望。从长远看，比如，我想如果这种情绪趋于恶化，人们会想为什么我们要去这样一个国家，他们对中国不是那么友好。游客们可能会三思而行。学生家长们可能也会重新考量，他们发现这个地方不是那么友好，甚至充满敌意，是送孩子留学的最佳去处吗？因此，这些都是由民众决定的，由人民决定的。而且，也许普通人会问自己，他们为什么要喝澳大利亚葡萄酒或吃澳大利亚牛肉。我们为什么不能有其它做法？”
访谈接下来又涉及了其他话题。自始至终成先生没有以贸易战相威胁。如上文引述，他指出如果中国人认为澳大利亚不友好，他们可能对来澳旅游、赴澳留学，以及食用澳洲牛肉有成见。
简而言之，大使转达了中国政府关于澳大利亚推动新冠病毒独立调查的立场，任何称职的外交官都应当这样做。在我看来，他并没有越格之处，他肯定没有提到任何对澳大利亚产品或服务的抵制。那么，为什么他的言论被媒体夸大了呢？
Who Would Be a Chinese Ambassador?
Jocelyn Chey
Originally published on John Menadue – Pearls and Irritations (opens in a new window)
Cheng has been abused (opens in a new window) for this by commentators in the press, including Skynews Paul Murray on 28 April. If we follow what Cheng actually said in the original interview, we can see that he was cornered by a leading question. A more experienced diplomat might have been able to escape from such an awkward position. He was certainly foolish, but we should look at his entire statement and not take one remark out of context. It seems some people simply wish to ratchet up tensions between Australia and China.
The role of an ambassador is to represent his or her government’s policies and to communicate them to the host country. The German term for ambassador spells it out most clearly. He is the Botschafter – the man who delivers the message. He does not have to be popular. Take the most Trumpian of all US President Donald Trump’s ambassadors, Richard Grenell, ambassador to Germany, who has been called “toxic” by German politicians. A recent article in The Atlantic (opens in a new window) quoted one former US diplomat, “He is playing to an audience of one…. Trump is what counts. No one else.” What is true of US diplomacy is also true of the PRC.
The role of the Chinese ambassador in Canberra is to relay the policies formulated in Beijing to the Australian government and to the public. Over the last week, these policies have related to the 19 April call by Foreign Minister Marise Payne for an independent inquiry into the origin of the Covid-19 virus, insinuating that China was not being “transparent” about this. See my earlier comments (opens in a new window) on this in Pearls and Irritations.
An official response was made by Geng Shuang, spokesperson for the PRC Ministry of Foreign Affairs, at a press conference on 23 April. It is worthwhile to quote the full text (opens in a new window). Asked for a comment on Payne’s remarks, Geng Shuang replied,
“I have noticed relevant reports. If they are truthful, then I have to say that the so-called independent review proposed by the Australian side is political manoeuvring in essence. It will disrupt international cooperation in fighting the pandemic and goes against people’s shared aspiration. Currently, with the pandemic still spreading across the world, the most pressing task is to put people’s life and health first and work together to defeat the virus. At such a critical juncture, it is highly irresponsible to resort to politically motivated suspicion and accusation. We advise the Australian side to put aside ideological bias and political games, focus on the welfare of the Australian people and global public health security, follow the international community’s collective will for cooperation, and contribute to the global cooperation in fighting the virus, instead of doing things to the contrary.”
This was the line conveyed to the Chinese embassy in Canberra. When Ambassador Cheng Jingye spoke to Andrew Tillett (opens in a new window) of the Australian Financial Review on 26 April, he knew what he had to say.
“Frankly speaking, the reason why we are opposed to this idea, this proposition from the Australian side, (because) it is politically motivated. It’s a kind of pandering to the assertions that were made by some forces in Washington over a certain period of time. Some guys are attempting to blame China for their own problems and deflect the attention. The proposition is obviously teaming up with those forces in Washington to launch a political campaign against China. Just look at the remarks of some of the politicians and also the inflammatory comments in the media. People with common sense can easily come to the conclusion which country this initiative or this idea is targeting at.
“Secondly, it’s our fear that this idea would disrupt international cooperation which is so urgently needed at the moment. We all know that this pandemic is still rampaging across some parts of the globe. So the most pressing task for the world is to put the life and safety of the people first. That means on the one hand it’s important for every country especially those affected to concentrate, to work and to speed up the efforts in their response. On the other hand, it’s important for countries to work together, to help each other and to support each other. Resorting to suspicion, recrimination or division at such a critical time could only undermine the global efforts to fight against this pandemic. We think it is irresponsible.”
Many in Australia would agree with these remarks. Stephen FitzGerald said much the same, as quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald (opens in a new window) this week. No one could categorise the Ambassador’s words as inflammatory. How the interview unfolded next is interesting and I beg the reader’s indulgence for some lengthy extracts.
Tillett moved on to ask about the origin of the Covid-19 virus, and Cheng said that this question should be left to “professionals.” Tillett then asked what would happen if the Australian side pursued the idea of an inquiry and Cheng said, “It won’t bring you respect and it’s detrimental to global efforts.” He proposed that Australia and China should instead deepen cooperation to fight “this terrible disease.” “It’s important to focus on the fight against the epidemic.” Tillett continued to probe.
Tillett: “Could there be economic consequences for Australia if we continue to pursue this?”
Cheng:“I don’t think it would lead to anywhere because so far I don’t think this has got any support.”
Tillett: “But if Australia continues to do it, would China stop buying our iron ore and coal and gas and look elsewhere for it?”
This is a blatant push polling technique, designed to elicit a desired outcome. This is also the point at which the ambassador, in my view, should have refused to answer, or even shut down the interview. Instead, Cheng soldiered bravely on.
“Firstly, I don’t think this will make any substantial progress. Secondly, as I said earlier, the Chinese public is frustrated, dismayed and disappointed with what you are doing now. In the long term, for example, I think if the mood is going from bad to worse, people would think why we should go to such a country while it’s not so friendly to China. The tourists may have second thoughts. Maybe the parents of the students would also think whether this place, which they find is not so friendly, even hostile, is the best place to send their kids to. So it’s up to the public, the people to decide. And also, maybe the ordinary people will think why they should drink Australian wine or eat Australian beef. Why couldn’t we do it differently?”
The interview then ranged over other topics. At no point did Cheng threaten a trade war. He did remark, as quoted above, that Chinese people might be prejudiced against visiting Australia or studying here, or buying Australian goods, if they perceived Australia to be unfriendly.
In short, the Ambassador conveyed his government’s message on the proposed independent inquiry into the origin of the Covid-19 virus, as any proper diplomat should have done. In my view, he did not go beyond his brief and he certainly did not mention any boycott of Australian products or services. Why then have his comments been exaggerated by the press?
