如何看待德国外长称中国应遵循「一个欧洲」原则？ 第1页

特地去百度了一下华姐姐的回答

华春莹： 我看到有关报道，对有关言论感到吃惊。希望有关人士能澄清一下什么是“一个欧洲”的概念？在欧盟成员国内部对于“一个欧洲”的提法是否有共识？我相信，有关“中国试图分化欧洲”的言论并不代表欧洲绝大多数人的想法。 欧盟是由主权国家组成的地区组织，本身并不是一个主权国家。其他国家与欧盟机构及各成员国发展关系是并行不悖、互不矛盾的。事实上这也是客观现实。 中国一贯坚定支持欧洲一体化进程。不知欧方有关人士能不能列举出有哪些国家比中国更加持续、坚定、无条件、无论公开还是私下都支持欧洲一体化进程？中国一贯高度重视发展与欧盟的关系。在当前欧盟内部面临各种问题的情况下，我认为中国对欧洲一体化进程的坚定支持更显得难能可贵，欧方对此应感到珍惜。希望有关人士以客观、开放而非零和的心态看待中欧关系，不要再发表此类无助于互信与合作的不负责任言论。

连华姐姐都不知道什么是所谓的一个欧洲，果然不是我孤陋寡闻。

本义自然应该是打算指欧洲一体化，不过语言里显然出现了问题。

这并不简单，中欧共识其中一条是："欧盟重申坚持一个中国原则，中国重申支持欧洲一体化"。

德国这样说，其中不乏暗示：如果继续插手破坏德国的计划，那么也可能会在"坚持一个中国"的论调上改变态度。

这事名义上借口的起因，是因为今年欧盟打算公开发布中国人权问题的报告，因为中国最近在帮助了希腊，所以希腊阻止了欧盟发布这个报告。

不过实际上德国人一向不是那么大公无私为世界格局考虑的，事实上是而是中国最近在帮助希腊后，导致德国本来试图低价收购希腊资产的计划受到了阻碍。

希腊从欧盟借了大笔了的钱，而欠下巨额债务欧盟债务后也不是耍赖就能解决的，偿还这些债务必然需要出售国内的资产。

在希腊国有资产私有化清单上，计划出售的包括2004年雅典奥运会场馆、码头、电力公司、天然气公司、希腊石油、希腊邮政、雅典水务公司以及一些知名的酒店等很多地方，并且希腊还很有可能会卖小岛，这实际上就是出售国土了，更重要的是，无论谁急需钱的时候，都是压价的好时机。

在15年的时候，德国把希腊的14个机场都给买走了。

按德国人的意见是，如果这些被他们低价买走，属于欧盟内部自己的事，因为德国已经为救希腊拿掏出了近900亿欧元，所以是理所当然。

然而这一切跟欧洲一体化实际上没有半点关系，因为德国曾想把希腊踢出欧盟，然后理直气壮大去收取希腊资产，然而现在希腊有所缓和，意味着希腊可以继续呆在欧盟里。

当初希腊来求助时，本身便是欧盟成员国的身份，从这个意义上来说，中国帮助了希腊，反倒是维护了欧洲一体化。

中国外交部这次的回应很是高明，因为德国人这话是跑到法国说的，直接要求加布里埃尔澄清“一个欧洲”的含义，以及欧盟成员国对”一个欧洲“的共识”，其中暗示也不言而喻。

Let me answer as a German how I see the statement of my (former) Foreign Minister

1. I wasn't aware of this statement until I read this Zhihu question, although I follow the news very closely.
   This tells you that in Germany, this statement was not a big deal at all.
2. I found the facts after a little search, e.g. here : One China – One Europe? German Foreign Minister’s Remarks Irk Beijing
   This is a magazine specializing in diplomacy, so not necessarily what ordinary people read.
3. Sigmar Gabriel, then (September 2017) foreign minister, is a well known politician of the Social Democratic Party. He was their chairman for some time.
   The reputation he got over the years was that of somebody actually uncommon in politics: A "straight shooter" who simply says what he thinks, with little diplomacy. This brought him a lot of sympathy with common voters, but also made him a lot of enemies in his own party and other parties.
   You might ask, why then name him as Foreign Minister. I think his diplomacy skills were not the decisive criterion, rather to give him the very popular job of foreign minister (usually very popular with the people, and in any case giving the opportunity to travel around the globe and be received with honors). When he stepped down as head of the party (see above for enemies he made himself), he was "paid off" by this job.
4. Gabriel said those words in front of French ambassadors. France - Germany being the "hard core" of the European integration, the "engine".
   Gabriel talked about the necessity for Europe to integrate better, and this facing other great powers.
   
   Earlier, these were the USSR or the USA, today China is very much on the top of that list.

"If we do not succeed for example in developing a single strategy towards China, then China will succeed in dividing Europe,” he said.
The Chinese Foreign Ministry declared to be "shocked" by the statement.

You may argue the poor choice of words (see below).

The fact remains that Europe to this day has still a long way to go in uniting.

• No joint foreign minister, but foreign minister of all member states
• No joined armed forces, although many co-operations exist
• No harmonized taxes, retirement system, minimum wage etc. etc.

So when China points out, rightly so, that there is no "one Europe",

that“The EU is a regional organization composed of sovereign states, not a sovereign country itself."
it is absolutely correct.

And that is, flip-side of the same coin, the justification why Gabriel urged his colleagues for more unity, because otherwise Europe is divided.

For me, it is pure semantics then, if a foreign power "seeks to divide Europe", or if any foreign power is obliged to negotiate bi-laterally with each member state, leading to differing agreements.

-> the result is identical!

It is natural and normal that China buys influence, and if Europe doesn't have one voice, it is all the easier.

Already the Romans knew 2000 years ago: "dīvide et imperā" = divide and conquer

So far, so good.

The comparison to the "One China Policy" is certainly out of place and a poor choice of words. There simply is no such thing as a European Foreign Ministry (although we have a sort of coordinator: Federica Mogherini, and Italian lady born 16 June 1973 is the "High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy" since November 2014.
Ask anybody in the streets in Germany, France, and probably also Italy: They won't know her! 7

But European politicians can't have it both ways: Keep their individual foreign representation and speak as e.g. Germany, and at the same time demand that others treat Europe as a united whole.

The One China Policy is about the question if, after a civil war, a split country is to be recognized as two separate countries, or not. We Germans have had 40 years of division after WW II, and the West. I am not a specialist in the law of nations. But as far as I know, West Germany (where I was born) had the re-unification of Germany as a central goal in it's constitution. It was therefore unable and unwilling to recognize East Germany as an independent, sovereign state. It had to accept the status - quo of East Germany as an entity they had to deal with. But the relation was quite different from any other "normal" country.

We (and Mr. Gabriel) therefore should (and does certainly) understand the "One China Policy" somewhat better.

So why such "undiplomatic" and insensible use of language?

This reminds me of another phenomenon in German politics:

Not a year goes by in which not one or several politicians try to make some sort of comparison between a current event and Nazi Germany / Hitler.
EVERY time, unless it's a far right wing politician where you don't expect anything else, eventually a public apology and the withdrawal from official functions is the end result. EVERY time.
Yet, every year politicians are tempted to make some comparison, although the topic is way too delicate and is typically mishandled.

I think the "One China Policy" issue is highly delicate for China to handle, just as was West/East Germany, or the 2 Koreas negotiating.

How much less suitable is this for an international comparison then?
No wonder, some feelings got hurt.

However, I also think that the unwise choice of words "hit a nerve" with China.

Mr. Gabriel certainly didn't mean to question the "One China policy" in any way (but which is automatically felt, if you only evoke the word). Neither did he really expect to make China change its diplomatic processes. Instead, he directed those words more towards Europe, and wanted to motivate his European colleagues.

I Europe made some additional, decisive steps towards integration esp. in foreign policy, the rest would automatically and naturally follow.

"如果喜欢我的答案，并且希望及时获知我的最新更新，请进入我的主页：https://www.zhihu.com/people/gunter-schoech/activities， 右上角点击关注他"


"如果喜欢我的答案，请点击答案下方向上的箭头，为我点赞！谢谢！