金砖国家的共同理念和价值观在哪里？

Club提要：8月24日至25日，由中国公共外交协会指导、北京对话主办的“金砖国家与多极世界2024对话会”在北京举行。来自15个国家和南方中心等国际组织的近40位专家学者，就金砖国家构建货币体系、参与多极世界构建、增强经济韧性与合作等议题，进行了深入研讨。

清华大学国际关系学系主任唐晓阳在发言中强调，西方构建的国家机器旨在保障资本的持续增长和扩张，而金砖国家应致力于建立共同价值观，在注重发展的同时，应该更加重视多元文化、建构平等的现代文明世界。

以下为唐晓阳发言：

今天我的议题是关于多极世界的构建。我认为，金砖国家机制发展到现在，是时候考虑这样一个宏大的、更长远的构建了。

为什么这么说呢？因为从金砖国家最初形成对话机制，到如今“金砖+”的扩员及相关机构的建立，已经奠定了一个基础。在这个基础上，如果金砖国家希望摆脱只是松散对话机制的印象，并实现更大的功能，就需要在思想和发展理念上对这个世界有更清晰的认知。

我们可以看到，金砖国家的成立最初只是被视为一些新兴经济体的集合，或者作为与西方不同的一个选择。然而，这些机制更多是作为对西方的替代选项存在的。作为新兴经济体，它们本身是在现有体系内，或仅仅作为对西方的不满而集结的国家。那么，这些国家到底有何共同点和共同理念？未来应如何行动？我们不能仅仅因为反对西方而联合，因为这种基础注定会导致联系和兴趣点的的松散。

唐晓阳（图源：北京对话）

我们在交往当中可以看到，每一个金砖国家都有各自的政治诉求、经济考量，以及显著的文化差异。在如此多样化的背景下，金砖国家与西方经过几百年发展所形成的相对统一的政治体制和文化模式存在明显的区别。西方国家在数百年内逐渐形成了一些相对一致的共同理念，比如他们所认同的民主、人权以及政治体制等明确的观念。作为金砖国家，我们是否也有类似的共同理念和价值原则来引领我们继续前行？这是一个我认为应首先提出的问题。由于金砖国家内部的多样性，以及其作为一个结构体的形成时间仅有短短十年左右，因此关于我们的共同点究竟在哪里，仍然存在许多讨论空间。

因此，我认为在政治倡议或我们对世界的整体看法上，我们需要逐渐进行反思和展现，从而引导我们推动世界经济和政治体制的改革。只有在这样的前提下，我们才能防止西方的破坏行为。否则，西方的“分而治之”（divide and rule）策略将极易在金砖国家内部引发分裂。如果我们没有共同且坚定的理念和原则，“分而治之”策略就会轻易奏效。

在对多极世界的进一步讨论之后，作为抛砖引玉，我想提出一些关于金砖国家如何建立共同理念的看法。我的理解是，西方国家在过去几百年间所形成的现行政治和经济制度，很大程度上是由资本主义驱动的。在这些国家中，国家的目标主要是基于企业和资本家的利益，并为了实现这些目标，构建了一个国家机器。归根结底，这个国家机器的目的在于保障资本的持续增长和扩张。

因此，无论是选举制度还是其他政治机制，其核心都隐含着对资本的保护：维护政治是为了维护资本，然后资本又反过来为政治站台。因此，资本可以说是这些西方国家背后的一个隐性理念。尽管它们有各种所谓的“制衡机制”（ check and balance）和政治制度，但最终维护的还是政治资本的发展利益。这一点与我们非西方国家的近现代化进程恰好相反。

对于我们这些非西方国家来说，我们不排斥市场，相反，在过去的50年到100年间，我们越来越意识到市场的重要性。因为中国的改革开放之所以成功，正是依靠市场经济来推动发展。但是在这个市场发展和现代化的过程中，存在一个重要的区别：我们的目标不是资本的无限增长，而是国家的独立和自主发展，是在保持自身传统文化和文明的基础上实现现代化。这在某种程度上是对西方“资本至上”的一种回应或调整。

西方的资本主义确实产生了巨大的力量，推动了工业革命、殖民化、现代化及全球化进程，带来了巨大的生产力变革。如果不采用现代化的政治经济组织方式，不利用市场和科技革命，我们就无法应对这种挑战。所以这些手段是必需的，但这正是手段与目标之间的区别。

对于我们而言，我们也采用了必要的手段，所以使得我们在许多方面看起来与跨国公司相似，但我们的最终目标与西方国家存在巨大的差异。西方国家甚至用国家机器来服务资本，其所有的“制衡机制”（check and balance）最终归根结底都为了促进资本的无限增长，并以此为标准。

而中国自一开始接受市场经济时，它的目标就不是资本的无限增长，而是在对方资本无限扩张的情况下，我们依然能够生存、依然能够发展、依然能够壮大，从而抵御这种扩张，同时保持自身文化和文明的发展。我认为这一点在世界大多数非西方国家中具有很大的共通性。现在，非西方国家也越来越接受市场经济、工业化和现代化，并将其作为重要的手段。然而在这一重要手段中，我认为大多数非西方国家的政治家和政党并不认为要让发展为资本服务，相反，这往往是西方常常向非西方国家灌输的原则：“你们也应该支持资本，并采用我们的西方模式。”但这正是大多数非西方国家所抗拒和反对的一个方面，非西方国家更注重让资本和市场从属于国家发展的需要。

 作为金砖国家，我们属于非西方国家中的比较大的一个组成部分。我们应从这些大型国家的对话开始，同时引领所有更广泛的全球南方国家，就理念和价值目标进行讨论，形成与西方价值观不同的立场，非西方文化更加重视多元文化和平等的现代文明世界。我认为这可能是我们在理念和原则上进一步讨论的方向。

实际上，我认为我们今天讨论的许多问题都与我们如何看待世界有关。如果我们依然局限于民族国家的体系，那么有些难题实际上是无法解决的。例如，当我们谈到金砖国家或全球南方时，每个国家都追求其主权。实际上，这种分歧也带来了问题，即使是在中国和印度之间，有时也会出现类似的情况。即便在全球南方内部，我们也有许多问题是由主权和国家利益引起的。此外，当涉及到发展中国家与西方的对立时，西方的问题在于它们的权力超出了国家的界限，实际上对全球体系拥有一定的掌控力。这使得它们比其他国家拥有更多的杠杆，从而可以对他国实施制裁。

但这也正是为什么我们看到非国家行为体可能会为我们提供一些新的解决方案。事实上，即使在发达经济体内部，它们的企业也并不总是与特朗普或其各自的政府立场一致。这也是为什么即便是这些国家的政府，也无法完全掌控一切的原因。尽管有时企业可能会表现出过度合规的行为，但这些跨国公司有时也会游说其国家政府放松制裁。

因此，这为我们如何利用金砖国家平台提供了一些想法。或许我们不应只专注于主权国家。的确，最初是追求独立和自主将我们团结在一起。但当我们走到一起时，我们意识到局面实际上相当复杂。事实上，即便在金砖国家内部，我们如何推动非国家行为体，为那些受制裁国家寻找解决方案？这些只是一些初步的想法。我认为我们可以在金砖国家内部利用这一新的秩序。如果这是一个新的结构，它不应仅仅固守于二战后形成的民族国家体系，而应鼓励更多的非国家行为体参与进来，解决这些确实关系到共同利益的问题。

 以下为唐晓阳发言译文：

The topic I will discuss will address the construction of a multipolar world, which is a broader and more comprehensive topic. I believe that the development of BRICS has reached a point where it is time to consider a more ambitious and long-term framework.

The reason for this perspective is that, from the initial formation of the BRICS dialogue mechanism to its expansion and the establishment of various institutions, a foundation has already been laid. On this basis, if BRICS wishes to move beyond the perception of being merely a loose dialogue mechanism and achieve more substantial functions, there needs to be a clearer understanding of the world in terms of ideas and development philosophy.

The original formation of BRICS was merely seen as a coalition of emerging economies or as a different alternative to the West. As emerging economies, they were originally part of the existing system, or united out of their dissatisfaction with the West. So, what are the commonalities and shared philosophies among these countries? What should they do next? We cannot simply act as a group in opposition to the West, as this would inevitably lead to loose relationships and diverted interests.

During our interactions, each BRICS country has its own political demands, economic considerations, and significant cultural differences. This diversity distinguishes BRICS from the relatively unified political systems and cultural models that the West has developed over the past centuries. They have gradually formed relatively consistent common principles in their interpretations of democracy, human rights, and political systems. As BRICS countries, do we have similar common principles and values to guide our future progress? I believe this is an initial question to consider. Given the diversity within BRICS and the fact that this grouping has only been in existence for about a decade, there remains considerable debate about where our commonalities truly lie.

Therefore, we need to reflect on our political initiatives or our overall view of the world, and demonstrate our stance to guide the reform of the global economic and political systems. Only under such circumstances can we prevent destructive actions from the West. Otherwise, the "divide and rule" strategy, which is a familiar tactic of the West, may easily create divisions within the BRICS countries. Without common and firm principles among us, this strategy could easily succeed.

After discussing the potential next steps for a multipolar world, I would like to offer my thoughts on how BRICS countries might establish a shared philosophy. In my understanding, the current political and economic systems in Western countries, formed over the past few centuries, are largely driven by capitalism. In these nations, the state's goals are primarily aligned with the interests of businesses and capitalists. To achieve these objectives, a state apparatus was developed, which ultimately aims to protect the continuous growth and expansion of capital.

Thus, whether it is the electoral system or other political mechanisms, their core purpose implicitly involves the protection of capital: political structures are maintained to safeguard capital, while capital supports the political system. In this context, capital can be seen as the underlying principle behind these Western countries. Although they have various so-called "checks and balances" and political institutions, these ultimately serve to protect the interests of political capital. This is fundamentally different from the modernization processes of non-Western countries.

For non-Western countries like us, we do not reject the "market". In fact, over the past 50 to 100 years, we have increasingly recognized its importance. The success of China's reform and opening-up was precisely due to the market economy, which drove China's development. However, there is a significant distinction in this process of market development and modernization: our goal is not the infinite growth of capital but the country's independence and self-sustained development. That is to say, we need to maintain our traditional culture and civilization while achieving modernization. This, to some extent, is a response or adjustment to the Western emphasis on capital supremacy.

Western capitalism indeed generated enormous power, driving the Industrial Revolution, colonization, modernization, and globalization processes, leading to a revolutionary change in productivity. It would be impossible to counter these challenges, without adopting modern political and economic organizational methods, utilizing the market, and embracing the technological revolution —— these are necessary means. However, here lies the distinction between means and ends.

For us, we have adopted the necessary means, which may make us appear similar to multinational corporations in many ways, but our ultimate goal differs significantly from that of Western countries. Western countries even employ their state apparatus to serve capital, where all their "checks and balances" are ultimately designed to facilitate the endless growth of capital, and use this as their standard.

In contrast, from the moment China adopted the market economy, its objective was not the infinite growth of capital but rather to ensure that, in the face of the other side's infinite capital expansion, we could still survive, develop, and grow stronger, thus resisting this expansion while maintaining the development of our own culture and civilization. I believe this perspective is widely shared among most non-Western countries. Nowadays, non-Western countries are increasingly embracing the market economy, industrialization, and modernization, regarding them as essential means. However, I don't think that statesmen and political parties in most non-Western countries believe in putting development at the service of capital; on the contrary, this tends to be the principle that the West often inculcates in non-Western countries: “You should also support capital and adopt our Western model.” But this is what most non-Western countries resist and oppose — they are more concerned with subordinating capital and markets to the needs of national development.

As BRICS countries, we represent a significant part of the non-Western world. We should begin with dialogues among these major countries while leading broader discussions among all Global South countries on values and objectives, establishing a stance distinct from Western values—one where non-Western cultures place greater emphasis on diversity and equality in a modern civilized world. I believe this could be the direction for further discussions on principles and philosophies.

I think a lot of the problems we are discussing today are related to how we think about the world. If we continue to limit our perspective to the nation-state system, some of these puzzles are not really solvable. For example, when we talk about BRICS or the Global South, every country desires sovereignty. There is a problem for this division, even between China and India sometimes, right? We have a lot of problems caused by sovereignty and national interests, even within the Global South. Also, when it comes to the issue of developing countries versus the West, the West’s problem is that their power exceeds their state limit; they wield power over the global system. This gives them much more leverage than other countries so that they can sanction others.

But this is why we see that non-state actors, may actually give us some new solutions. Even within advanced economies, their enterprises are not always in line with Donald Trump or their respective governments. That is also why even these countries’ governments cannot totally control everything. Although sometimes enterprises may engage in over-compliance, sometimes these multinational corporations may also lobby their country, and their governments to loosen the sanctions.

So, this is the way to give us thoughts on how to use the BRICS platform. Maybe we should not just think about the sovereign states. It's true that at the beginning, that's this pursuit of demand for independence, for autonomy, brings us together. But when we come together, we see that the pictures are complicated. Even among the BRICS, how can we promote non-national actors and solve the problems for those sanctioned countries? These are just some thoughts. I think we can use our new order, actually in the BRICS. Maybe if it's a new structure, then it should not just stick to the old post-World War two nation-state system, but maybe encourage more non-state actors also to work to address these problems, which are really of common interests.

（翻译：王樟宸）