3月30日，中国和所罗门群岛草签两国安全合作框架协议。后经外交部证实，两国已正式签署正式签署该协议

主持人：周波于2003年至2020年任中国人民解放军大校，曾任中央军委国际军事合作办公室安全合作中心主任。现任清华大学战略与安全研究中心（CISS）研究员。他现在北京与我连线。周波大校，很高兴与你对话，我们能否谈谈中国在所罗门群岛的意图是什么？是否打算建立一个军事基地？

周波：第一，这是来自所罗门政府的请求，要求我们为其维护安全提供援助，这一要求首先来自所罗门政府。我不认为中国希望在那里建立一个军事基地。中国只是在吉布提有一个后勤补给基地，以保障我们在亚丁湾的反海盗行动，在那里，我们实际上也与澳大利亚进行了反海盗合作。中国没有必要（在所罗门群岛）建立军事基地。

主持人：然而，大家猜测（中国建立军事基地）已经有一段时间了。你提到吉布提。当然还有在巴基斯坦的港口。中国对南海有争议的岛屿提出主权声索并将其军事化，人们对中国在太平洋建立军事基地有很多猜测。那么，为什么不会让人认为中国确实想在所罗门群岛建立军事存在？

周波：答案很简单，因为中国没有全球军事野心，因为中国不想成为一个世界警察。这也是为什么迄今为止，在海外军事行动层面，无论是维和、反海盗还是救灾等，中国向国外提供的都是人道主义援助。如果你把所有中国的海外军事行动归结在一起，你会发现这些行动仅限于人道主义领域。

主持人：但是我们讨论的是中国的区域目标，而不是其全球抱负。非常清楚的是，中国想成为地区主导性大国。为此，中国加强了南海的军事存在，不断增加在台湾（地区）上空的军事演习，扩大在太平洋的军事存在。难道不是这样吗？

周波：你把太多事情搅在一起了。中国根本没有全球军事野心，因此不需要在南太平洋建立军事基地。除了经济利益之外，中国在南太平洋没有太多的安全关切。你谈的南海实际上就是指中国的领土主权，在南海…（被打断）

主持人：（中国在南海拥有主权）有争议，而且根据海牙国际海事法庭的规定，任何一方都不能提出声索，但中国还是这样做了。

周波：的确是存在争议，但中国的主张基于历史，也有对国际法的解读依据。中国认为南海岛礁和附近水域是中国的领土和领海。

主持人：周大校，如果真的如你所说，中国不想在所罗门群岛建立军事基地或军港，那为什么还需要签订安全协议？为什么需要为中国创造在这个安全协议下可能部署更多军事力量的机会？为什么需要（签订）它？

周波：其实我想问你一个问题：澳大利亚为什么这么担心这件事？澳大利亚比中国离所罗门群岛更近，如果你们担心中国同所罗门群岛签署的安全协议，事实上你们更方便给所罗门群岛提供安全保障。为什么你们没这么做，还反对中国去做？中国这么做，是应所罗门群岛的要求。我认为所罗门群岛作为小国，之所以这样做，是和所有小国一样，想在主要大国间保持一种平衡。对于所罗门群岛而言，澳大利亚是一个大国。

主持人：澳大利亚与所罗门群岛关系由来已久，并于不同时期在那里部署了军队，即在保持着长期关系的同时，为所罗门群岛提供援助。澳大利亚总理莫里森（Scott Morrison）的态度非常明确，他说，如果中国确实在所罗门群岛寻求建立军事基地，那么这将被视为“红线”。我想请你解释一下这意味着什么？中国是如何看待这条“红线”的？

周波：我不相信澳大利亚政府有何能耐，可以为中国与所罗门群岛的合作划出“红线”。让我再次重申，正如中国政府所言，中国没有在所罗门群岛建立军事基地的意图。我们是两个主权国家，当然完全有权进行任何我们想要的合作。这与澳大利亚毫无关系。

主持人：这确实与澳大利亚有关，因为澳大利亚是一个太平洋国家，澳大利亚与包括所罗门群岛在内的太平洋国家长期交往。显然，美国也将增加在所罗门群岛的存在。现在澳总理说这是一条“红线”。请问你认为中国是如何理解“红线”这种说法的？如果中国确实希望增加在所罗门群岛的军事存在，这是否意味着潜在冲突？

周波：我认为你们做得不够好，要不然所罗门群岛政府怎么会舍近求远，请求中国政府帮忙呢？难道你们不应该深刻反省一下，去探寻这件事发生的原因吗？实际上你们得地利之便，本应做得更好。为什么要因为所罗门群岛政府的一个请求，来谴责中国呢？

澳大利亚总理斯科特·莫里森宣称，中国在所罗门群岛的军事基地将成为澳大利亚和美国的“红线”

主持人：你还是没有回答关于“红线”以及中国如何看待这条“红线”的问题。这是澳大利亚发出的极为明确的信息，不得越过“红线”。中国会如何回应？你如何理解澳大利亚所说的不允许越过“红线”？

周波：好吧，斯坦，那么让我问你一个问题。你是如何解释这条“红线”的？你能向我们说明“红线”长什么样吗？让我看看，作为一个中国人，我们如何才能不越过“红线”。我不认为澳大利亚政府有任何资格为中国划定“红线”。在我看来，这真是荒唐可笑。

主持人：周大校，用这样的语言质疑澳大利亚在太平洋的利益也是很可笑的。当你把这句话与在南海不断增加的军事存在、在台湾上空不断增加的军事演习、威胁要统一台湾或武统等联系起来时，这难道不是证明中国在该地区越来越咄咄逼人了吗？

周波：我不这么认为。你所说的“红线”极其荒谬，“红线”究竟在哪里？你能在像所罗门群岛这样的主权国家划出一条“红线”吗？它不是澳大利亚的一部分。所以你怎么能把主权国家之间的合作描述为（你们的）“红线”？你谈到了台湾问题，包括澳大利亚在内的181个国家承认台湾是中国的一部分。如果我们只是在万不得已的情况下才使用武力，那有什么问题吗？

主持人：中国使用武力有什么问题？当台湾把自己当成一个追求自身利益的国家，有自己的选举，与世界其他地方建立关系时，你真的在说对台湾使用武力没有问题吗？对于台北而言，如果你使用武力没有问题，而这种武力可能会引发涉及美澳在内的更广泛的冲突，并可能招致潜在的灾难性的生命损失，而你说这没有问题？

周波：首先，你把台湾描述为一个国家是错误的…（被打断）

主持人：我没有把它描述为一个国家，我们都知道有“一个中国”政策，这一点你是对的，但你明白“一个中国”有不同解释。话说回来，你说对台湾使用武力没有问题？

周波：你绝对是误解了我的意思，我们愿以最大诚意、最大努力争取与台湾和平统一，但如果台湾当局违反了我们的《反分裂国家法》中明确规定的三个条件，那么武力统一是解决台湾问题的最后保留手段。如果“台独”势力宣布独立，我们将不得不使用武力；如果有外国势力利用重大事变插手，导致台湾分离，我们会使用武力；如果大陆认为所有和平统一的条件都已丧失，我们会使用武力。这是《反分裂国家法》明确规定的三个条件。这并不意味着我们会随意使用武力。

主持人：周大校，习近平主席提出的“全球安全倡议”想表达什么含义？

周波：习主席阐述了很多观点。最引人注目的是他提出该倡议的背景。我认为这次最让观察家耳目一新的是，他提到建立平衡、有效和可持续的安全架构。我想他指出的是欧洲，因为俄罗斯和乌克兰正在打仗。当下欧洲的安全与过去一样，取决于俄罗斯和欧洲之间的妥协。除非俄罗斯和欧洲甚至北约之间能够达成协议，欧洲的和平与繁荣就没有希望。

主持人：这一倡议提及对主权的尊重。普京将习近平描述为他最好的朋友，并在冬奥会期间访问中国，然后在冬奥会结束后的第二天就对乌克兰发动战争。这究竟如何能被看作是对主权的尊重？而尊重主权正是习近平主席在全球安全倡议中所要建立的。

周波：这恰恰是为什么习主席谈到要尊重所有国家主权，这正是他强调主权的原因。但与此同时，特别是在这种情况下，我们表达了对俄罗斯合理担忧北约东扩的理解。

主持人：北约并没有入侵俄罗斯，没有国家入侵俄罗斯，但俄罗斯却入侵了乌克兰。

周波：北约并没有入侵俄罗斯，但自戈尔巴乔夫以来的所有俄罗斯领导人一次又一次地警告北约不得无休止的扩张，但西方根本不理会他们，直到俄罗斯这次出手。所以，我们不应当仅仅谈论俄罗斯入侵，而是要防止所有这些事情的发生。你们应该扪心自问，为什么北约要不断扩张？或许北约会说这恰恰表明自己很受欢迎。但是，正如我之前所说，“受欢迎”反而会给欧洲的安全带来风险。欧洲安全必须由俄罗斯和北约来谈判协商。

主持人：周大校，你认为我们现在正处于新的冷战吗？

周波：我想在很大程度上是这样的。事实上，我认为我们已经进入一个世界、两场冷战的境地。一个在欧洲，在这场热战之后，冷战情景肯定会在欧洲重现。另一个在亚太地区，人们虽然不公开谈论，特别是在官方层面，不过从特朗普开始，美国就大谈“大国竞争”，而拜登的政策在很大程度上是继承了特朗普的衣钵。拜登的对华政策基本上是极限竞争，但不发生冲突。如果竞争已是极限，那不就是冷战吗？还能是什么呢？

主持人：最后，关于这一点，中国在其中的作用如何？中国对俄罗斯的支持？中国正在加强军事化，对台湾威胁的增加？如果我们确实处于一场新冷战，那在多大程度上是中国造成的？

周波：中国会站稳脚跟，坚定不移。中国不是加在俄罗斯一方或者美国一方的砝码。在冷战时期，在美苏双方都很强大的情况下，如果中国作为砝码，加到哪一方天平就会向哪一方倾斜。但如今中国在发展壮大，越来越举足轻重。无论世界上发生了什么，都不能改变世界政治和经济向亚太转移的事实，而中国就站在中心。

主持人：周大校，非常感谢你。

周波：谢谢你。

【听译：中国论坛/祖白地亚、武一琪，核稿：中国论坛/韩桦】

Stan Grant：ZHOU Bo was a Senior Colonel in the People's Liberation Army from 2003 until 2020, and was director of the Center for International Security Cooperation at the Ministry of National Defense. He is now a senior fellow at the Center for International Security and Strategy at Tsinghua University. He joins me from Beijing. It's good to have you with us. Senior Colonel Zhou, can we talk about what China's intentions are in the Solomon Islands? Is the intention to establish a military base?

Zhou Bo：First of all, it's a request from Solomon government for us to provide kind of assistance for maintaining security. The request first of all is from Solomon government. I don't believe that it is true that China would wish to establish a military base there. China only has one logistic supply base in Djibouti to facilitate PLA’s counter-piracy operation in the Gulf of Aden in which we actually had cooperation with Australian Navy as well. So there is no point for China to establish a military base.

Stan Grant：And yet this has been speculated about for some time. You mentioned Djibouti. Of course there is also the port in Pakistan. China has claimed and militarized the disputed islands of the South China Sea and there has been a lot of speculation about establishing a military base in the Pacific. Why wouldn't it then lead people to assume that China does indeed want to establish a military presence in the Solomon Islands?

Zhou Bo：The answer is very simple, because China has no global military ambition, because China doesn't want to become a global policeman. That is why China so far has only provided humanitarian aid to foreign countries in terms of military operations, be it peacekeeping, counter-piracy, or disaster relief. If you put all Chinese military operations overseas together, you would find they are only in humanitarian areas.

Stan Grant：We're not talking about a global aspiration. What we are talking about is a regional aspiration. And China has been very clear it wants to establish itself as the preponderant power in the region. That's why China is increasing a military presence in the South China Sea. That's why we've seen increased military exercises over Taiwan. And that's why China is increasing its presence in the pacific. Is it not?

Zhou Bo：I think you put too many things together. Because China has no global military ambition, therefore, it doesn't need to establish a military base in the South Pacific where China，apart from economic benefits, doesn't have much security concern. When you talk about South China Sea, you are actually referring to China's sovereign rights, in the South China Sea (interrupted)

Stan Grant：Disputed and also according to the international maritime court in Hague, it was not to be claimed by any party and China did that anyway.

Zhou Bo：It is disputed, that is for sure, but China has its own claims based on history, based on its own interpretation of the international law. So we in China believe that the islands and adjacent waters in the South China Sea are China's sovereign territory and territorial waters.

Stan Grant：Senior Colonel Zhou, why if indeed, as you say, China does not want to establish a military base or a military port in the Solomons, why the need for the security pact in the first place? Why the need to create an opportunity for China to put more military presence under this security pact, which is potentially one of the outcomes. Why the need for it in the first place?

Zhou Bo：Actually, I would ask you a question: why Australians are so worried about this? Because you are certainly closer to the Solomon Islands than China. If you are worried about China’s security pact with the Solomon Islands, you actually are in a better position to provide security to the Solomon Islands. And why don't you do that? And why would you oppose to China doing that? And China did it because the Solomon Islands asked for it, and I believe as small nations, they probably would try, as all of them would do, a kind of a balance among major powers. And Australia is a major power for the Solomon Islands.

Stan Grant：Australia has had a long relationship with the Solomon Islands and has deployed military there at various times as well and has a long relationship with aids to the Solomons as well. And Scott Morrison, the Australian prime minister is being very clear. He has said that this is a red line. If China was to indeed pursue establishing such a base, that would be considered a red line. I want your interpretation of what that means. How does China see that - a red line?

Zhou Bo：I don't believe the Australian government is in any capacity to lay any red line for China's cooperation with the Solomon Islands. Let me reiterate again, as my government has said, that China has no intentions whatsoever to establish a military base in the Solomon Islands. Besides, we two are sovereign states, and we certainly are fully entitled to have whatever cooperation we want. This has nothing to do with Australia.

Stan Grant：It does have something to do with Australia because Australia is a pacific nation, and Australia has a long relationship with pacific nations and a long relationship with the country like the Solomon Islands. Clearly, the United States is going to increase its presence in the Solomons as well. And now the prime minister is saying this is a red line. Again, I want to ask you, how does China interpret that language? Does that mean the potential conflict? If indeed China looks to increase its military presence in the Solomons.

Zhou Bo：I believe you are not doing good enough. Otherwise, why would the Solomon Islands government asked Chinese to help since you are much closer? So won't you search your own souls to find out why the situation has actually happened? You should actually be in a better position to do that. You should have done better. And why would you blame China because of a request from the Solomon government?

Stan Grant：Again, you're not really answering the question about the red line and how China would perceive a red line. That is a message coming very clearly from Australia about a line that cannot be crossed. So how does China respond to that? How do you interpret language that says this is a red line that Australia will not allow to be crossed?

Zhou Bo：Well Stan, then let me ask you a question. So how do you interpret this red line? Would you specify to us what the red line looks like? Let me see then as a Chinese how we can probably not cross the red line. I don't believe Australian government is in any capacity to lay such things like a red line for China. It is ridiculous, it is laughable for me.

Stan Grant：See, language like that, Senior Colonel Zhou, it is laughable questioning Australia’s interests in the Pacific. When you couple that with increasing military presence in the South China Sea, increasing military exercises over Taiwan, threats to reunify or take Taiwan by force, does that not send a signal of increasing Chinese aggression in the region?

Zhou Bo：I don’t think so. When you talk about the red line, that is extremely ridiculous in that, where is the red line? Could you lay a red line in a sovereign state like the Solomon Islands which is not part of Australia? So how could you describe it as a red line in terms of cooperation between sovereign states? When you talk about Taiwan issue, 181 countries, including Australia, recognizes it to be part of China. What is the problem if we would possibly use force as the last resort only?

Stan Grant：What is the problem if you use force? Are you seriously saying there is no problem if you use forces against Taiwan when Taiwan sees itself as a country pursuing its own interests, it carries out its own elections, it establishes relationships with the rest of the world? From Taipei to say that there is no problem if you use force, force that potentially could trigger a broader conflict involving the United States and Australia and lead to potentially catastrophic loss of life. And you say there is no problem with that?

Zhou Bo：First of all, you are wrong in describing Taiwan as a country…(interrupted)

Stan Grant：I didn't describe it as a country. There is a One China policy, which you are right, but the One China policy as you know is interpreted in different ways. But you say there is nothing wrong with the use of force against Taiwan, nothing wrong with that?

Zhou Bo：You’ve certainly misinterpreted me, because we would try our most sincere ways to reunify with Taiwan peacefully, but use of force is still maintained as a last possible resort. If Taiwanese authorities violate three conditions that are laid down clearly in our anti-secession law, in these cases: if they declare independence, we will have to use force; if there are major events that are used by foreign forces that cause separation of Taiwan, we will have to use force; and then if mainland China concludes that all the conditions for peaceful reunification are exhausted, we will have to use force. So these are the three conditions that laid down clearly in anti-secession law. It doesn't mean that we would use force freely or willingly.

Stan Grant：Senior Colonel Zhou, what does Xi Jinping mean when he talks about a global security initiative?

Zhou Bo：Yeah, he talked about many points. And the most interesting thing is because of the background of his talk. I think what is the most refreshing for any observer is when he talked about how security arrangement should be balanced, effective, and sustainable. Actually, I believe he's referring to the war in Europe, between Russia and Ukraine. Of course, the security in Europe, I believe, now as in the past, is a deal between Russia and Europe, unless until Russia and Europe or even NATO could come to an agreement, the peace and prosperity in Europe is not hopeful.

Stan Grant：He has talked about this initiative as respecting sovereignty. How is Vladimir Putin who has described Xi Jinping as his best friend and visited China during the Winter Olympics and then launched the war against Ukraine the day after the Winter Olympics ended. How on earth could that be seen as respect for sovereignty? The very thing that Xi Jinping says that his global initiative is seeking to establish.

Zhou Bo：And that is exactly why he would say that he talked about respect of sovereignty regardless of which countries involved. So that is exactly how he stressed sovereignty, but at the same time, especially in this case, we talked about the legitimate concern over Russia, over NATO 's eastward expansions.

Stan Grant：NATO did not invade Russia. No country has invaded Russia, but Russia has invaded Ukraine.  

Zhou Bo：NATO didn't invade Russia, but NATO's endless expansions were warned time and again by all Russian leaders since Mikhail Gorbachev. but the West simply would not heed them at all until this time when it really backfired. So it's not that we only talk about invasion, it's to prevent all these things from happening. You should search your soul to ask yourself why this has happened after all. NATO is growing. It might just claim that its growth demonstrates its popularity. But if the popularity would invite risk to the security of Europe as I said before, any security in Europe has to be arranged between Russia and NATO.

Stan Grant：Senior Colonel Zhou, do you believe that we are now in a new cold war?

Zhou Bo：I think to a great extent, yes. Actually, I believe we have entered into a world with two cold wars. One is in Europe. After this hot war, definitely the cold war scenario will re-emerge in Europe. And in the Asia-Pacific, people do not talk about it openly, especially at the government level. But Donald Trump has actually ushered in this great power competition. And Joe Biden’s policy is very much a follow-up. And Joe Biden's policy towards China is basically extreme competition short of war. If the competition is already extreme, isn’t it the cold war? What else can it be?

Stan Grant：And just finally on that, what about China's role in that? China's support for Russia? China’s increasing militarization, and its increasing threats to Taiwan? If indeed we are in a new cold war, how much is China contributing to that?

Zhou Bo：China can stand tall and firm, because China is not a weight that would be added to the Russian side or to the American side. During the cold war, at that time, if you are weaker than two sides that stronger than you, your weight actually becomes important if it is added to one side. But China now is growing, China is becoming more important. Whatever has happened in the world, it could not change the fact that the world’s political and economic shifts are moving toward the Asia-Pacific with China standing right in the center.

Stan Grant：Senior Colonel Zhou, thank you again for giving us your time.

Zhou Bo：Thank you.

本文系观察者网独家稿件，文章内容纯属作者个人观点，不代表平台观点，未经授权，不得转载，否则将追究法律责任。关注观察者网微信guanchacn，每日阅读趣味文章。