
美法在安理会公开决裂:美国代表离席抗议法国人权批评
因法国在社交媒体上称美国已不再是“人权灯塔”,美国外交官在安理会乌克兰问题会议期间退出会场,凸显跨大西洋关系在特朗普时代的新裂痕。
7月27日,联合国安理会就乌克兰战争举行会议时,美国代表团在法国大使开始发言之际全体离席。据美方副代表丹·内格雷亚事后说明,此举是对法国此前在人权问题上“虚伪的道德表演”的直接回应。这一罕见的外交抗议源于三天前法国常驻联合国日内瓦办事处在社交平台X上发布的一条英文帖文,其中称“美国曾经是人权的灯塔,如今已不再是”,并指出美国在反对延长联合国人权事务高级专员沃尔克·图尔克任期的投票中,与朝鲜、尼加拉瓜、马里和俄罗斯站在了一起。
法国方面的批评聚焦于美国在联合国大会上的投票选择。7月24日,联大以144票赞成、10票反对、13票弃权的结果批准图尔克连任四年。美国是仅有的十个投反对票的国家之一,其余反对票来自俄罗斯、朝鲜、尼加拉瓜等国。法国驻日内瓦代表团在帖文中使用了“#AmericaAlone”的标签,暗示华盛顿在国际人权体系中陷入孤立。法国大使热罗姆·博纳丰在安理会发言时未直接提及离席事件,但强调法国致力于维护联合国的独立性与行动能力,并提及法国在美国独立250周年纪念中的角色,以此含蓄回应。
美国方面则通过多个渠道予以反击。美国常驻联合国代表迈克·沃尔茨在X上指责法国“庇护一些最恶劣的人权侵犯者”,并称图尔克本人“对自由民主国家说教,却与世界上最坏的压迫者亲近”。内格雷亚在返回会场后声明,美国曾在每一次威胁法国自由的冲突中站在巴黎一边,但今后将不再容忍其“居高临下且不尊重的言辞”,并宣布在法国改变态度之前,美方不会听取法方的“政治化胡言乱语”。他还强调“美国仍然是世界自由的灯塔”。
此次冲突并非孤立事件,而是特朗普政府与欧洲盟友之间一系列摩擦的最新表现。据多家欧洲和亚洲媒体报道,双方在防务开支、对伊朗战争中的军事参与、美国威胁对法国葡萄酒加征关税以及特朗普寻求控制格陵兰等问题上均存在分歧。在联合国体系内,华盛顿自2025年起已削减多个机构的资金并退出部分组织,其对多边人权机制的抵触态度与欧洲主流立场形成鲜明对比。法国则在欧盟内带头推动欧洲战略自主,包括强化自身核威慑能力。
从更广泛的视角看,这一事件折射出全球人权治理中的话语权争夺。图尔克此前曾批评以色列和美国在巴勒斯坦及伊朗的行为违反国际法,其连任获得绝大多数成员国支持,表明发展中国家和欧洲在人权议题上仍倾向于维护以联合国为核心的多边框架。美国以退出和抵制作为回应,可能进一步削弱安理会常任理事国之间的协作,并为人权理事会的议程设置带来更多不确定性。目前,美方已表明将继续抵制法国在安理会的发言,直至巴黎收回相关言论,而法国方面则未显示让步迹象,双方在联合国平台的僵局短期内恐难化解。
| 大西洋/英语圈媒体 | −0.60 | critical |
|---|---|---|
| 欧洲大陆媒体 | −0.30 | critical |
| 阿拉伯黎凡特—马格里布媒体 | 0.00 | neutral |
The United States delegation walked out to protest France's unwarranted and hypocritical comparison. France's moral posturing is disingenuous; the US remains a leader on human rights.
By framing France's comment as 'disingenuous grandstanding' and focusing on the US walkout as a principled protest, the narrative delegitimizes French criticism and reinforces US moral authority.
The narrative omits the full context of France's criticism, specifically the human rights vote where the US sided with North Korea, and the fact that the US walkout could be seen as an overreaction.
France rightly calls out the United States for abandoning its human rights leadership. The US now stands with authoritarian states, and its walkout is a petulant reaction to justified criticism.
By quoting the French mission's statement directly and presenting the US walkout as an overreaction, the narrative positions France as the moral authority and the US as defensive.
The narrative omits the US perspective that the comparison was unfair and that the US has a strong human rights record, as well as the fact that the walkout was a protest against being equated with authoritarian states.
The US walked out after France compared it to North Korea. Both sides trade accusations, but the incident highlights tensions between Western allies.
By reporting both sides' statements without explicit judgment, the narrative presents the event as a diplomatic spat between equals, avoiding taking sides.
The narrative omits the deeper historical context of US-France relations on human rights and the specific details of the vote that triggered the French criticism.