文章详细页面
As a historical period, the turn of the century is an important transitional era. Its starting point may be regarded to be the end of the cold war、Due to the break-up of the Soviet Union, which had the capability of starting a world war with the United States, the world situation is undergoing great changes. This interim period at the turn of the century encompasses the last 10 years of the 20th century and the first 10 years of the 21st century.
According to Joseph S. Nye, “each of the major great power wars since1500was followed by a period of uncertainty in which statesmen attempted to change the international system or adapt it to prevent a recurrence of a great power war. We are at present in a new period of uncertainty after the equivalent of a major great power‘war’-the Cold War. This is very different from past postwar periods for several reasons. First, in some ways it is the most uncertain transition of all because there has been no single, decisive military confrontation or postwar negotiation.” “Taken together, these changes in the balance and nature of power indicate that the most dangerous kind of conflict-a direct clash among two or more of the five major power centers of the United States, Russia, China, Europe, and Japan over the fundamental shape of the international system-is very unlikely.”
With respect to the world system, the term‘polarity’was most frequently used in the past. In Chinese the word‘pole, means the‘end,’ or the‘top.’ were antagonistic toward each other. During the Cold War, the Such ends USSR and the United States, as the leaders of the Warsaw Pact and NATO respectively, were engaged in confrontation. They were thus the ends of the international community and also the tops of their respective blocs. Within the international bipolar framework, the two superpowers constituted a typical power relationship. In general, using the concept of “polarity” to denote the world framework and the power relationship may simplify the issues, but it may also result in some confusion because of ambiguities in the definition of the terms.
In order to explain the trend in the international situation by using the concept of the “world framework” and the major power relationship, three questions need to be addressed: 1) What is the world framework at present?
2) Will the framework change in the near future?
3) How does the framework affect the international situation?
There are differing perceptions regarding the world system in the 1990s. One opinion regards the world system as unipolar, because the Soviet Union no longer exists and the United States is the sole superpower in the world. There is no other state in the world today that can be considered a pole. A second opinion is that the world system is already a multi-polat system. In addition to the United States, the European Union, Japan, Russia, and China all can be considered to be global poles. However, some scholars view the world as neither unipolar nor multipolar. In this respect, the world system can be considered to be both “one superpower and multi-powers”. In the words of Samuel P. Huntington, it is “a uni-multipolar system with one superpower and several major powers.”
One reason for differences in opinion about the world system is due to different definitions of the term” “polarity.” A second reason may be due to the fact that the world framework is indeed characterized by both unipolarity and multipolarity.
As the one and only superpower, the United States is “the sole state with preeminence in every domain of power-economic, military, diplomatic, ideological, technological, and cultural-with the reach and capacities to promote its interests in virtually every part of the world.”
However, the other major powers in the world, including China, Russia, France, Japan, etc, advocate the multipolarization of world politics. Of course, such a multipolarization does not imply a balance of power within a short time. It is highly impossible that these major powers may become powerful world actors like the U. S. in the foreseeable future. In this case, multipolarization only implies that the world should be multi-voice and the U.
S. alone should not totally control world affairs.
Obviously, at present there are two tendencies in international relations. Samuel P. Huntington recognizes this point very clearly. He writes: “The United States would clearly prefer a unipolar system in which it will be the hegemon and often acts as if such a system existed. The major powers, on the other hand, would prefer a multipolar system in which they could pursue their interests, unilaterally and collectively, without being subject to constraints, coercion, and pressure by the stronger superpower. They feel threatened by what they see as the American pursuit of global hegemony.”
There is only one standard for the United States to realize a unipolar World, which is that it can achieve its own interests without cooperation from any partner. To do this, the United States not only needs a preeminent military force, but it must also have other preeminent power resources. For the Western countries, at present, the best the U. S. cando is assert its “leadership,” not “control,” while for many other countries, say China, the U. S. cannot even assert its “leadership.” NATO’s collective attack on Serbia, the failure of the economic sanctions against Cuba, Iran, and Libya and the failure of the UN human rights proposal in Geneva against China all show that although the U. S. is still the number one power in the world, it is no longer a true hegemon.
Nevertheless, the intention of other nations to realize a truly multi-polar world system also cannot be accomplished in the near future, for it is impossible to foresee a major change in the global power relationship. In other words, the power relationship between the United States and the other nations basically cannot be transformed unless there is a drastic decline in the power of the United States. In the 21st century, the superiority of the United States is likely to continue for a long period of time.
In view of the trends in the post-Cold War world situation, it is obvious that the U. S. will be likely to maintain its position as the sole superpower in the major power configuration, even if the world system is not unipolar. At the same time, the other major powers will continue the process of multipolarization, but they will not be able to achieve positions equal to that of the United States. Thus, a truly multipolar world will not be realized. As two contrary forces in the world, unipolarity and multipolarity will form a basic conflict at the highest levels for the near future.
Because of the co-existence of these two trends, we can arrive at the following conclusions about the probability of war and peace:
1. The world situation at present is at a critical turning point. Global competition is still prevalent. While there are calls for cooperation, there are also conflicts among the major powers. Because the uni-multipolar trend will last for a long period of time, and one tendency will not replace the other, there is no possibility of a world war-though limited wars, such as the NATO attack on Serbia and civil wars in many countries, will continue.
2. The partnerships among the major powers in the West and the East will continue because such relations are consistent with the interests of the respective countries. So a serious confrontation is unlikely to occur in the near future.
3. Due to the strong tendency for interventionism on the part of the West and to the superior position of the West, issues of human rights, democracy, and ethnic conflicts will likely remain elements of insecurity in international relations. Those states which the West is in conflict with may face the possibility of interventionist wars.
4. The tendency for mulipolarization advocated by China, Russia, and the other major powers has been a containing factor in world politics. Therefore, international conflicts and wars will be limited and they will be able to be controlled, though hegemonistic intervention may also occur at times.
With regard to the evolution of the world situation, the turn of the century may be divided into two periods: the first one is from 1989 to 1999, and the second one is from 1999 to 2009. In this respect, 1999 may be considered a turning point. An analysis of each period in terms of conflict/cooperation reveals that the past decade was characterized by both conflict and cooperation, but cooperation was still dominant. Such cooperation was evident in the normal relationships among most states, especially among the major powers, which were able to solve bilateral or multilateral issues by means of a diplomatic dialogue. Moreover, the atmosphere was not conducive to the outbreak of a major world war. However, NATO’s “humanitarian war” in its attack on Serbia can be considered to be a turning point, and one can expect more conflicts of such a type in the future.
In the Kosovo crisis, NATO emerged as the largest and strongest war machine in the history of man. It no longer operated as a regional defensive organization but rather as an offensive organization willing to take action anywhere in the world. Its basic tenet now is not only to protect its member states, security, but also to carry out missions of “humanitarian interventionism”. Thus, war will be likely whenever any military organization engages in the building up of arms not for defensive purposes, but as a strategy to carry out ethical doctrines beyond its borders. Thus, the outbreak of a major war is much more likely. And such a war will be even more dangerous for those nations that do not accept western institutions and ethical standards.
With respect to the NATO war, many European states provided active support to the United States. Even France, which in the past differed from the U. S., also supported NATO’s actions. This fact shows that in the progress of integration, the European countries, as allies of the U. S. and parts of NATO’s chariot, are becoming more and more dependent on the U. S. Such unanimity might promote war-like mentalities among some politicians.
As the successor to the Soviet Union, Russia has declined drastically since the Cold War. Originally, it had expected to join the Western bloc, but as the facts have shown, the West will not allow Russia to integrate into the Western community. In order to restrain Russia’s existing space, NATO has firmly expanded toward the East, and it appears even to be willing to risk a war in this area. Because of NATO’s aggressive offensive, Russia has had to adjust its military strategy, especially its nuclear strategy. As a great power which is capable of provoking the United States because of its nuclear capability, this adjustment certainly is an important factor in the global situation at the turn of the century.
In the post-Cold War world, China’s position is more active, but its engagement in international affairs is still less dominant than that of other major powers. Despite its initial condemnation of NATO’s brutal war in Serbia, it was still willing to develop a relationship with the West. However, the bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade ended the cooperative atmosphere between China and the Western powers. Therefore, China has had to adjust its diplomatic strategy.
From a global perspective, we find that some events in the Asia-Pacific area have also affected worldwide trends, for example, the U. S.-Japan TMD plan and the passage of bills to implement the New U. S.-Japanese Security Guidelines. Like the NATO bombing in Serbia, such events make the world situation much clearer. The Western nations intend to promote their own social institutions and values by their powerful economic and military forces, and they are even willing to resort to war and humanitarian interventionism. Such a pattern of war will be a predominant feature in the new world order.
Contrasting the next ten years with the last ten years, we can conclude that future conflicts will be more dangerous, even though there will also be efforts to cooperate. During the period of the next ten years, China and Russia will confront pressures from both the East and the West. They will attempt to maintain cooperative relationships with the Western countries, but they will meet more difficulties and the possibility that clashes will occur is more likely. Similarly, the chances that military intervention will take place due to their domestic situations are also more likely.
Certainly, in the next ten years, there is no danger of a world war. At present, no country wants to kindle the flames of a third world war. With regard to the Russian-American relationship and the Sino-American relationship, a foundation for cooperation still exists, even though the bilateral relationships have been badly damaged. It is in the national interests of both sides to continue to cooperate. However, antagonisms will also continue to fester as long as the West continues its policy of interventionism.
In general, overall international relations at the turn of the century will be basically peaceful, but antagonisms and conflicts will also continue to exist, and at times there may be periods of tension. Both the period of the ten years before the turn of the century, and the period of ten years after the turn of the century, will be characterized by cooperation and conflict, but where the main feature of the first period was cooperation, the main feature of the second period is uncertain.
