国务卿安东尼·布林肯在联合国安理会多边主义问题公开辩论会上发表视讯讲话
华盛顿哥伦比亚特区（Washington, D.C.）
2021年5月7日
讲话
国务卿布林肯：上午好，下午好，晚上好。请允许我首先感谢中国和王外长发起这次有关联合国和国际秩序未来的重要讨论。也感谢联合国大会（General Assembly）主席博兹基尔（Bozkir）发挥的领导作用。
各国在第二次世界大战（World War II）结束后共襄盛举成立联合国。在此之前，实际上人类所有的历史都奉行强权即公理的法则。以往，竞争不可避免会引发冲突。一个国家或国家集团的崛起必然导致其他国家的衰亡。
当年，我们各国共同选择了一条不同的道路。我们采纳了一系列相关原则，目的在于防止冲突，缓解人类的痛苦；承认并捍卫人权；支持通过持续的对话维护和改善为全体人民谋利益的体系。
实力最强大的各国恪守这些原则。他们同意采取某种自我克制的形式——正如杜鲁门总统（President Truman）所说，不能容许自己随心所欲，为所欲为——因为他们认识到现行的世界最终不仅有利于人类的利益，而且也符合本身的利益。尽管当时美国是地球上实力超强的国家，美国仍然为此躬体力行。这符合明智的自我利益。我们相信，其他国家的成功对我们自身至关重要。我们不希望实力较弱的国家觉得自己受到威胁，随之感到必须联合起来对付我们。
从此，我们始终面临严峻的挑战，例如冷战（Cold War）时期的分裂、 殖民主义的遗虐，以及全世界在面临大规模屠杀时的束手无措。如今，全球各地出现冲突、非正义和苦难的现象强烈地告诫我们还有多少未竟之志需要达成。
然而，自联合国成立以来，现代历史空前地展示了更和平与更繁荣的景象。我们避免了核大国之间的武装冲突。我们帮助数百万人摆脱了贫困。我们促使人权达到前所未有的高度。
这项具有胆略的事业，不论有多少不完美之处，已经取得了绝无仅有的成就。这项事业能够持之以恒，是因为绝大多数的人民和国家继续视之为自身利益、自身价值观、自身希望的体现。
但是，现在遇到了严重的障碍。
民族主义死灰复燃，压迫日益猖獗，国家之间的对抗愈演愈烈——同时有规可循的秩序遭到的攻击正在加剧。现在已经有人提出了多边主义合作是否仍然可行的问题。
美国相信，这不仅可能，而且关系重大。
多边主义仍然是我们应对重大全球挑战最好的工具——例如今天我们无法聚集在会议桌旁，不得不通过屏幕举行会议。我们在全球各地都能看到，COVID-19新冠疫情改变了生活，数百万人丧生，经济、卫生、教育、社会进步都受到摧毁性的影响。
气候危机是另一个巨大的威胁。我们如果不迅速采取削减排放的行动，将面临灾难性的后果。
我们建立多边体系，目的之一在于解决诸如此类的重大、复杂的问题，世界各地人民的命运都与之息息相关，没有一个国家——不论其实力多强——可以单独应对这些挑战。
为此，美国通过多边机制努力制止COVID-19新冠疾病，应对气候危机。在这个过程中，我们将恪守国际秩序的核心原则。
我们还将在有关问题上与任何国家共同努力 ——包括与我们存在严重分歧的国家。兹事体大，绝不允许分歧阻挡合作的道路。这项原则也同样适用于制止核武器的扩散和使用，提供挽救生命的人道主义援助，管理致命的冲突等。
与此同时，我们在看到有些国家破坏国际秩序，佯装我们一致赞同的规则并不存在，或者直接肆意背信弃义的时候，必将继续强烈进行抵制。为了现行体系兑现承诺，毕成其功，所有的国家都必须恪守不渝，切实遵行。
我们可以通过三个途径达到目的。
首先，所有的成员都应该履行自己的承诺——特别是具有法律约束力的承诺，其中包括联合国宪章（UN Charter）、条约和公约、联合国安理会决议（UN Security Council resolutions）、国际人道主义法律，以及世界贸易组织（World Trade Organization）和确立各类标准的众多国际组织制定的规章和标准。
必须明确指出——美国并不想依靠这个有规可循的秩序压制其他国家。我们为建立和捍卫这个国际秩序进行了努力，同时这个秩序也导致一些与我们竞争最激烈的对手逐渐兴起。我们的目的很简单，即捍卫、维护和振兴现行秩序。
其次，人权和尊严必须在国际秩序中始终占据核心地位。 联合国的基本单元——如宪章的第一句话——不仅仅是国家，而且还有人民。某些人声称政府在自身边界内的行动是其内部事务，说什么人权属于主观的价值观，依各自的社会情况各不相同。然而，世界人权宣言（Universal Declaration of Human Rights）以“universal”（世界性）一词开宗明义，因为我们各国一致认为，任何地方的每一个人都享有某些权利。强调国内管辖权并不等于任何国家可以任意对本国人民进行奴役、施加酷刑、造成人员失踪，实行种族清洗，或者采取其他方式侵犯他们的人权。
由此涉及到我谈的第三点，即联合国所基于的原则是成员国主权平等。
当一个国家要重新划定另一个国家的边界时，或者试图使用武力或以武力相威胁去解决领土纠纷时，或者当一个国家声称有自己的势力范围可以命令或强迫另一个国家作选择和决定时，它没有尊重那项原则。当一个国家针对另一个国家散布假信息或以腐败作武器时，当破坏其他国家自由和公平的选举和民主机制时，或者当它迫害新闻工作者或海外的异议人士时，它是在蔑视那项原则。
这些敌意行动也会威胁联合国宪章责成本机构维护的国际和平与安全。
当联合国成员国——尤其是安理会常任理事国——无视这些原则并阻止向违背国际法的国家追究责任时，其所传递的信息是，其他国家可以违反规则而不受惩罚。
我们所有国家都必须接受伴随我们自愿作出的承诺而带来的严格审视，无论它是多么困难。这也包括美国。
我知道，我们近年的一些行动有损于基于规则的秩序，并使其他国家对我们是否仍然坚守承诺产生了质疑。我们请世界不要以我们的言辞，而是以我们的行动作出判断。
在拜登-哈里森（Biden-Harris）政府领导下，美国已经重新积极参与多边机制。我们重新加入了巴黎气候协议，重新对世界卫生组织（World Health Organization）作出承诺，并且正在争取重新进入人权理事会（Human Rights Council）。我们在进行外交努力，重新回到对《联合全面行动计划》（Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action）的相互遵守，加强核不扩散机制。我们是对疫苗全球获取机制（COVAX）的遥遥领先的最大赞助国，这是一个平等发放COVID-19疫苗的最佳机制，我们正在不附加政治条件地向其他国家提供千百万剂疫苗。
我们也在采取步骤，以非常谦卑的态度解决我们自身民主制度中的不平等和不公正。我们以公开和透明的方式这样做，让全世界的人都可以看到，即便有时是丑陋的，甚至有时是痛苦的。我们将通过这样做而变得更强大，更好。
同样，单纯捍卫我们现有的基于规则的秩序是不够的。我们应该改进和发展它。我们需要考虑到过去80年来的实力动态变化，不仅在国与国之间，而且它们内部。我们需要解决合理的诉愿——尤其是不公平的贸易做法——这些做法在许多国家内，包括在美国国内，引起了对开放的国际经济秩序的反弹。我们必须确保让这个秩序具备解决新问题的能力——如国家安全和新技术带来的人权关注，以及从网络攻击到监控到歧视性的演算程式等。
最后，我们需要把建立联盟的方式和开展外交及发展努力的对象现代化。这意味着跨越区域界限，打造非传统式的伙伴关系，将城市、私人行业，基金会、公民社会以及社会和青年运动结合到一起。
我们必须在国内和国家之间增进公平，弥合基于种族、性别以及其他决定我们身份认同的特征而长期存在的经济、政治和社会鸿沟。
杜鲁门总统在这个机构成立时说，“这个宪章不是任何无论大小的一个国家或一个国家群体的成就。它是一种相互妥协的精神，一种对他人的观点和利益予以包容的精神的产物”。他说，这证明了各国可以表述彼此的分歧，面视这些分歧，同时找到可以立足的共同点。
我们继续存在深刻的分歧——在联合国成员国之间和在本理事会内部。但是，美国将不遗余力地与任何信守对共创秩序的承诺的国家找到并立足于共同点，我们必须共同捍卫和重振这一秩序。
这是这一时刻的重大考验。让我们一道迎接它。
谢谢各位。

Secretary Antony J. Blinken
Virtual Remarks at the UN Security Council Open Debate on Multilateralism
May 7, 2021
Washington, D.C.
SECRETARY BLINKEN:  Well, good morning, good afternoon, good evening.  Let me start by thanking China and Foreign Minister Wang for initiating this critical discussion on the future of the United Nations and the international order.  And thank you as well to the President of the General Assembly Bozkir for your leadership.
When countries came together after World War II to form the United Nations, virtually all of human history up till then indicated that might made right.  Competition inevitably led to collision.  The rise of a nation or group of nations necessitated the fall of others.
Then our nations united in choosing a different path.  We adopted a set of principles to prevent conflict and alleviate human suffering; to recognize and defend human rights; to foster an ongoing dialogue to uphold and improve a system aimed at benefiting all people.
The most powerful countries bound themselves to these principles.  They agreed to a form of self-restraint – as President Truman put it, to deny themselves the license to do always as they pleased – because they recognized that this would ultimately serve not only humanity’s interests, but their own.  The United States did this, even though it was by far the most powerful nation on Earth at the time.  It was enlightened self-interest.  We believed other nations’ success was critical to ours.  And we didn’t want less powerful countries feeling threatened and obliged to band together against us.
In the years since, we’ve faced daunting challenges, from the divisions of the Cold War, the vestiges of colonialism, and the times the world stood by in the face of mass atrocities.  And today, conflicts, injustice, and suffering around the globe underscore how many of our aspirations remain unfulfilled.
But no period in modern history has been more peaceful or prosperous than the one since the United Nations was created.  We avoided armed conflict between nuclear powers.  We helped millions of people emerge from poverty.  We advanced human rights as never before.
This bold endeavor, whatever its imperfections, has been an unprecedented achievement.  And it’s endured because the overwhelming majority of people and nations continue to see it as representing their interests, their values, their hopes.
But now it’s in serious jeopardy.
Nationalism is resurgent, repression is rising, rivalries among countries are deepening – and attacks against the rules-based order are intensifying.  Now, some question whether multilateral cooperation is still possible.
The United States believes it is not only possible, it is imperative.
Multilateralism is still our best tool for tackling big global challenges – like the one that’s forcing us to gather on a screen today rather than around a table.  The COVID-19 pandemic has changed life as we know it across the planet, with millions of deaths and devastating impacts on economies, health, education, social progress.
The climate crisis is another massive threat.  If we don’t move swiftly to cut emissions, the results will be catastrophic.
We built the multilateral system in part to solve big, complex problems like these, where the fates of people around the world are tied together and where no single country – no matter how powerful – can address the challenges alone.
That’s why the United States will work through multilateral institutions to stop COVID-19 and tackle the climate crisis, and we will abide by the core principles of the international order as we do.
We’ll also work with any country on these issues – including those with whom we have serious differences.  The stakes are too high to let differences stand in the way of our cooperation.  The same holds true for stemming the spread and use of nuclear weapons, delivering life-saving humanitarian assistance, managing deadly conflicts.
At the same time, we will continue to push back forcefully when we see countries undermine the international order, pretend that the rules we’ve all agreed to don’t exist, or simply violate them at will.  Because for the system to deliver, all countries must abide by it and put in the work for its success.
There are three ways we can do that.
First, all members should meet their commitments – particularly the legally binding ones.  That includes the UN Charter, treaties and conventions, UN Security Council resolutions, international humanitarian law, and the rules and standards agreed to under the auspices of the World Trade Organization and numerous international standard-setting organizations.
Let me be clear – the United States is not seeking to uphold this rules-based order to keep other nations down.  The international order we helped build and defend has enabled the rise of some of our fiercest competitors.  Our aim is simply to defend, uphold, and revitalize that order.
Second, human rights and dignity must stay at the core of the international order.  The foundational unit of the United Nations – from the first sentence of the Charter – is not just the nation state.  It’s also the human being.  Some argue that what governments do within their own borders is their own business, and that human rights are subjective values that vary from one society to another.  But the Universal Declaration of Human Rights begins with the word “universal” because our nations agreed there are certain rights to which every person, everywhere, is entitled.  Asserting domestic jurisdiction doesn’t give any state a blank check to enslave, torture, disappear, ethnically cleanse their people, or violate their human rights in any other way.
And this leads me to my third point, which is that the United Nations is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of its member-states.
A state does not respect that principle when it purports to redraw the borders of another; or seeks to resolve territorial disputes by using or threatening force; or when a state claims it’s entitled to a sphere of influence to dictate or coerce the choices and decisions of another country.  And a state shows contempt for that principle when it targets another with disinformation or weaponized corruption, undermines other countries’ free and fair elections and democratic institutions, or goes after journalists or dissidents abroad.
These hostile actions can also threaten the international peace and security that the United Nations Charter obliges this body to maintain.
When UN member-states – particularly permanent members of the Security Council – flout these rules and block attempts to hold accountable those who violate international law, it sends the message that others can break those rules with impunity.
All of us must accept the scrutiny, however difficult, that comes with the commitments we have freely made.  That includes the United States.
I know that some of our actions in recent years have undermined the rules-based order and led others to question whether we are still committed to it.  Rather than take our word for it, we ask the world to judge our commitment by our actions.
Under the Biden-Harris administration, the United States has already re-engaged vigorously in multilateral institutions.  We have rejoined the Paris climate accord, recommitted to the World Health Organization, and we’re seeking to rejoin the Human Rights Council.  We’re engaged in diplomacy to return to mutual compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and to strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.  We are by far the largest contributor to COVAX, the best vehicle for the equitable distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, and we’re making tens of millions of doses available to others without political considerations.
We’re also taking steps, with great humility, to address the inequities and injustices in our own democracy.  We do so openly and transparently for people around the world to see, even when it’s ugly, even when it’s painful.  And we will emerge stronger and better for doing so.
Likewise, it’s not enough simply to defend the rules-based order we have now.  We should improve and build upon it.  We need to take into account the change in power dynamics over the past eight decades, not only between countries but within them.  We need to address legitimate grievances – particularly unfair trading practices – that have provoked a backlash against an open international economic order in many countries, including in the United States.  And we must ensure that this order is equipped to address new problems – like national security and human rights concerns raised by new technologies, from cyber attacks to surveillance to discriminatory algorithms.
Finally, we need to modernize the way we build coalitions and who we include in our diplomacy and development efforts.  That means forging non-traditional partnerships across regional lines, bringing together cities, the private sector, foundations, civil society, and social and youth movements.
And we must improve equity within and between our countries and close economic, political, and social gaps that persist based on race, gender, and other parts of our identity that make us who we are.
At the founding of this institution, President Truman said, “This Charter was not the work of any single nation or group of nations, large or small.  It was the result of a spirit of give-and-take, of tolerance for the views and interests of others.”  He said it was proof that nations can state their differences, face them, and find common ground on which to stand.
We continue to have profound differences – among the UN member-states and within this Council.  But the United States will spare no effort to find and stand on that common ground with any country that upholds its commitments to the order we founded together, and which we must defend and revitalize together.
That’s the great test of this moment.  Let’s meet it together.
Thank you.