双语：建设性伙伴关系不可能建立在恶意中伤基础之上

Productive Partnerships Are Never Built on Insults

On 23 October 2019, Financial Times published Ambassador Liu Xiaoming’s letter to the editor under the title “Productive partnerships are never built on insults”. The full text is as follows:

2019年10月23日，英国主流大报《金融时报》在纸质版和网络版同时刊登驻英国大使刘晓明署名文章《建设性伙伴关系不可能建立在恶意中伤基础之上》，全文如下：

Productive Partnerships Are Never Built on Insults

建设性伙伴关系不可能建立在恶意中伤基础之上

Gideon Rachman’s column “China spreads its web of censorship” (October 15) does not do justice to China’s foreign policy.

贵报10月15日文章曲解中国的外交政策，误导公众，我愿强调三点：

First, “non-interference in each other’s internal affairs” is the prerequisite for exchanges and co-operation between countries. This is one of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence initiated by China, India and Myanmar jointly 65 years ago at the height of decolonisation. The Five Principles, namely mutual respect for each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, non-aggression, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence, have since become the basic norms governing international relations and central to Chinese foreign policy.

第一，不干涉内政是国与国交往合作的基本前提。65年前，第二次世界大战结束后兴起非殖民化运动，中国与印度、缅甸共同倡导了互相尊重主权和领土完整、互不侵犯、互不干涉内政、平等互利、和平共处的五项原则，已成为国际关系基本准则和中国外交政策的基石。

Having served in Africa twice, first as a junior diplomat and then as ambassador, I have seen first hand the application of the Five Principles in China’s policies towards African countries. The mutually beneficial co-operations have delivered fruitful results over the years. China has built more than 300 schools and hospitals in Africa and sent 20,000 healthcare workers who have treated more than 200m patients.

作为一名职业外交官，我第一次出国常驻和第一次出任大使都是在非洲国家，亲身感受到和平共处五项原则在中国对非政策中的生动体现。中非互利合作不断走深走实、取得丰硕成果。中国在非建设学校和医院等300余所，累计派遣医疗队员2万人次，医治患者逾2亿人次。

Second, “Non-interference” also means China does not tolerate interference in its own internal affairs, and will not keep silent in face of malicious slander, still less compromise its sovereignty, security and interests. Mutual respect is the precondition of exchanges and co-operation in any society. The National Basketball Association’s decision to ban the owner of Los Angeles Clippers for life on grounds of racial discrimination in 2014 showed that “freedom of speech” has limits. Remarks undermining national sovereignty and social stability should not take cover under “free speech”. Hence, when an NBA team manager made public remarks that hurt the sentiments of the Chinese people, the response he drew was only natural and logical. In any society, including the west, productive partnership is never built on insults.

第二，中国不干涉别人，也不会坐视“被干涉”。中国坚定维护主权、安全、发展利益，不会对各种恶意中伤“缄口不言”，更不会“委曲求全”。在任何社会，相互尊重是交流合作的前提。比如，2014年，美国男子篮球协会（NBA）洛杉矶快船队前所有者因发表种族歧视言论，被NBA终身禁赛，这体现言论自由也须有界限。任何挑战国家主权、社会稳定的言论，都不属于言论自由的范畴。近期，NBA负责人和有关球队高管发表不当言论，严重伤害中国人民感情，中国自然会做出必要反应，表明自己的立场。一边大把赚钱、一边却对你的客户“出言不逊”，这在西方恐怕也是行不通的。

Third, freedom of speech should not be used to cover up the facts. Endless newspaper and television reports in the UK keep labelling Hong Kong police’s lawful actions “brutality” while regarding violent demonstrators as “vulnerable”, but few reports cover the latter’s “neo-extremist” activities of beating, looting, setting fire, attacking police with lethal weapons, and assaulting innocent people. What else can be more partial? “Freedom of speech” is not the freedom to suspend the social media accounts of those voicing support for the Hong Kong police or the SAR government. Nor is the “free press” really free if the newspapers have declined several times to carry my articles explaining China’s position.

第三，西方标榜的“言论自由”实质上是掩盖事实真相。贵报文章提到香港局势，我不禁要问，英国媒体就此有“言论自由”吗？每天翻开报纸、打开电视，人们只能看到香港警察正当执法被说成“高压暴政”，暴力示威者被描绘成“弱势群体”，极少见到有媒体报道暴徒在街头打砸抢烧、对警察和路人暴力攻击的“新极端主义”行为，难道这不是在“拉偏架”吗？如果在推特、脸书、油管（YouTube）、照片墙（Instagram）等社交媒体上，发表支持港警或特区政府的言论，经常会被“封号”，难道这是“言论自由”吗？香港事态发生以来，我多次向英国报刊投书阐明立场，但均被拒登，难道这也是“新闻自由”吗？！