中国と国連の介入－－リビアを例として

中國與聯合國干預：以利比亞為例（China and UN Intervention: the Case of Libya）

本文認為對照過去記錄，再檢視聯合國介入利比亞的案例，可發現中國對於安理會中相關決議的投票行為，其實並不令人意外，因為基本上符合北京以往的模式，也就是假設對於聯合國的介入行動有所保留與疑慮，北京基本上仍較傾向於棄權，而非行使否決權，以便在「表達自身不同意見」與「避免結果不致破局」之間取得平衡，主要目的是希望盡可能地保留迴旋餘地，以維護最佳利益。如果僅考量成敗論英雄，以此後見之明做為標準，評價北京的政策作為與成效，其實並不公允，因為如果是格達費政權取得最終勝利，不僅代表「全國過渡委員會」與「自由利比亞武力」將永遠淪為判亂團體與叛軍，也意謂聯合國與北約的制裁措施與軍事行動無以為繼，以失利收場，更遑論媒體近來所高度讚揚之西方介入新模式，即囊括所謂的以人民自身的力量為主軸、國際人道干預的正當性、大國責任分擔、美國居於第二線以及聯合國與區域組織的完美分工等成份。換言之，今日對於贏家與輸家的界定勢將改寫。但無可諱言，從聯合國對於介入利比亞的案例中，我們仍可察覺北京在政策上的缺陷或不足，因為對於形勢與利益的誤判，再加上僵化原則的牽絆與糾纏，過度的自我束縛，導致以往較重視彈性與務實取向的思維，在過去的七個月中卻不復見，此現象值得深思。

This research paper examines how the U.N. intervention worked in Libya in the past, and shows how China's voting action in the U.N. Security Council in the Libya case wasn't surprising-it was essentially Beijing's traditional approach. Usually when China has some doubt about U.N.'s invention, it does not tend to use its veto power to kill a resolution, but rather abstains from voting to consider all possibilities to protect national interests for change. It is not fair to judge this policy failure in hindsight, because had the Qaddafi regime won, the 'National Transitional Council' and the 'Libyan People's Army' would have become rebel forces for good, NATO could not have decided to continue its sanctions and military campaign against Libya, and people would have become skeptical about the Western model of 'humanitarian intervention': in other words, there is only a fine line between winner and loser. On the other hand, we should reconsider China's policy mistake in dealing with U.N.'s intervention in Libya. During the past 7 months, we could not see any practical and flexible diplomatic footing from China. It seems that Chinese authorities were bound by the existing rigid rules and could not accurately assess and respond to the situation.