Club提要：复旦大学教授、北京对话特约专家赵华胜强调，和平并非自然产生的，而是需要我们积极追求和维护的宝贵状态。传统的安全机制往往无法触及战争的根源，而且世界上也并不存在一劳永逸、能够解决所有问题的万能安全机制。面对当前的国际局势，我们最紧迫的任务是解决那些正在发生的冲突。为了推动政治进程，我们必须首先确保当事国和相关大国之间能够达成最基本的共识，这是启动和平对话和有效解决冲突的关键第一步。
赵华胜在”中俄合作：推动多极世界“莫斯科对话会上发言（图源：北京对话）
国际安全体系是世界秩序中最关键的部分，不解决国际安全问题，建立国际秩序就是空谈。今天，安全问题是国际社会的特别关切，战争的阴影甚至是大规模战争的阴影更加浓厚。核扩散问题将更加严峻，乌克兰危机将刺激一些准核国家更不会放弃核武器，也会刺激另一些国家发展核武器。使用核武器的门槛可能会降低，使用核武器的风险增加。
1945年8月，美国投放原子弹后的广岛。2020年8月，联合国秘书长古特雷斯在广岛原子弹爆炸75周年纪念活动上发表视频致辞，“今天，实现一个无核化世界的希望似乎正在渐行渐远……虽然每一个国家都扮演着积极角色，但拥有核武器的国家肩负着特殊的责任。”（图源：联合国网站）对于当今的国际社会来说，寻找通向和平之路是最严峻的挑战。熄灭已燃起的战火，防止发生更大的战争，不管对世界和平来说，还是对正在进行的战争国家来说，这都是至关重要的任务。令人不安的是，战争与和平正在重新成为我们这个时代的焦点，世界不仅在经受着自冷战结束以来多场大规模局部战争，从涉及的国家、人口、面积来说，它实际上已经影响到半个世界，而且整个世界都站在可能发生的大战的边缘，谁也不能保证不会发生更坏的情况，这是在几年前还难以想象的情景。从1795年伊曼努尔·康德 (Immanuel Kant) 发表了著名的论著《永久和平论》（Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch），在此后至今的2个多世纪里，国际社会进行了多次尝试，试图找到一种整体性的框架，或说建立一种全覆盖的国际秩序，实现长久的和平。拿破仑战争之后，欧洲列强建立了被称为欧洲协调（Concert of Europe）的安全体系，它的核心思想是形成均势，使大国间保持力量均势，防止出现任何霸权国家，不使任何大国拥有绝对优势，因而它不敢发动战争，在发生利益冲突时召开会议，进行协调。大国协调发挥了重要作用，总体上说19世纪欧洲较前一世纪重大战争明显减少，但1853-1856年发生了俄罗斯与英国法国和土耳其之间的克里米亚战争，欧洲协调机制的基础动摇，到第一次世界大战爆发则完全解体。第一次世界大战后，形成了凡尔赛体系，它以对战败国德国实施严厉的军备限制和巨额赔款为手段，防止德国重整军备和恢复发动战争的能力。同时，在美国总统威尔逊的提议和坚持下，成立了国际联盟（League of Nations，1920年1月10日—1946年4月18日），先后有63个国家加入，这是以建立世界政府来维护世界和平的方式，也可以说是一种全球治理的雏形。但凡尔赛体系不仅未能阻止德国重新武装，反而刺激了德国的复仇心理。国联是一种理想和理想主义的方式，但在德日意的对外侵略行为面前，它既缺乏意志，也完全无能为力，最终未能阻止第二次世界大战的发生。第二次世界大战后形成了雅尔塔体系，出现了四个对国际安全产生了深刻影响的因素。其一是欧洲实现了历史上从未有过的和平联合和一体化，消除了欧洲绵延不息的战争根源，考虑到两次世界大战都是从欧洲肇始，这一点尤为重要。其二是形成了美苏两极结构，达成了一种国际战略平衡；其三是核武器的出现，它改变了战争的概念；其四是建立了联合国。这是有史以来最有世界代表性也是最接近于世界政府的国际机构。它几乎包括了世界上所有国家，它有自己的宪法—联合国宪章，它有自己的预算——成员国的会费；它有领导机构——安理会，它有自己的代表大会；它还有自己的职能机构。尽管联合国有种种不足，也没有强有力的执行能力，但应该说它对维护世界和平和解决地区冲突上发挥了重大作用。在以上三个因素的作用下，在二战结束后70多年里没有发生新的大战。
当地时间9月22日，联合国未来峰会在纽约联合国总部开幕。第79届联大主席菲勒蒙·扬主持会议（图源：中新网）
冷战结束后，华约和苏联消失，国际力量结构出现严重失衡，西方没有了强大对手的制约，傲骄之心膨胀，欲将其制度和价值观推向全世界，试图一统天下。这时，在某些方面，联合国和以联合国为中心的国际体系使西方感到了不方便，甚至成了它的障碍，西方开始设置新规则，以绕过联合国宪章和国际法的对顶，出现了一些新概念，为制定新规则提供理论支持，诸如历史终结论，单极稳定论，人权大于主权论，民主和平论等，现在西方的“以规则为基础的国际秩序”也许可以将其概括。联合国的权威性受到严重挑战，国际规则不断被突破，一些西方国家对联合国的藐视越来越明显和公开，它们对其他国家主权的干预越来越频繁。在这个背景下，地区混乱四处蔓延，欧洲的地缘政治对抗步步加剧，并最终出现了目前这世界动荡不安和战火燃烧的局面。简单说，在过去的几百年里，或者说自人类有史以来，虽然有过种种努力，尝试了种种方式，但战争与和平问题至今没有真正解决。可能需要同意康德的观点，即和平不是自然状态。和平不是自然而然产生的，也不是自然而然就能保持的，和平是创造出来的，并且需要精心的维护，国际社会只有共同努力，才能带来和平。从以往的安全机制的历史看，不管是通过什么途径，它的作用都是以外在的方式制约战争的发生，这种安全机制很难解决战争发生的根源，而且，有的机制虽为制止战争发生而设立，但它本身反而成为刺激战争发生的因素，如军事结盟、建立军事优势等，它使他国感到不安全，因而刺激它国扩充军备，结成联盟，导致军备竞争乃至冲突。不能期望建立永久和平的机制，也不应幻想建立万能的安全机制，从以往的历史看，一种安全机制在形成后的初期阶段较为有效，而在几十年后就会发生新的战争，这说明安全机制的效能有逐渐递减的倾向，其原因是相关国家或国际形势发生变化，导致稳定状态的被打破。因此，一种安全机制的建立不是一劳永逸的，它也有时效性，需要不断根据形势的变化发展和调整。世界正处于毁坏的时期，原有的国际机制瘫痪、半瘫痪、失效，原有的规则被屡屡打破，约束力减低，没有共同遵守的权威规则，没有共同的价值体系，更没有新的机制；世界在向着大分裂的方向疾驰，包括在政治上，外交上，安全上，经济上，金融系统上，产业链构成上，技术体系上，乃至意识形态上，社会文化上，等等。世界从裁军的进程转向军备竞赛的进程，战争越来越经常被用于国际政治，替代外交成为解决问题的手段。俄美和欧洲几乎所有军控条约和机制都被抛弃，战争已经是人们习以为常的话题，甚至包括核战争。国家关系被“武器化”，国家关系的一切要素都可能成为制裁的工具或对象。仅仅几年前，将经济关系政治化还是禁忌，而现在已是理所当然。国家关系的所有领域都成了政治斗争的牺牲品，甚至包括文化、体育、旅游。国家关系的意识形态化，价值观外交在西方国家又占据上风，以价值体系来划分国家关系，将其分为两大阵营。
国际奥委会运动员委员会委员保罗·加索尔（左）8月2日在巴黎奥运会的一场新闻发布会上对中国游泳运动员频繁接受兴奋剂检查一事表示“遗憾”，并呼吁各方尊重世界反兴奋剂机构（WADA）的权威和检测体系。自今年4月开始，美国反兴奋剂中心和部分外国媒体针对23名中国游泳运动员在2021年的食品污染事件发表了多篇出于政治意图的不实报道，并试图挑战WADA的检测体系。《纽约时报》8月又以偏概全地炒作了2022年中国选手美雄酮阳性事件，意图再次煽动对中国运动员的不满情绪（图源：新华社）
当然，这不否认世界上还存在着强大的和平力量。在舆论上，反对战争仍是公认的价值观。总体而言，现在世界不是越来越安全，而是越来越不安全。现在是自二战结束以来最危险的时刻，其危险程度甚至超过1962年的加勒比海危机，战争就在人们眼前加剧和升级，难以控制，一不小心就可能落入大灾难的深渊。那么，应该如何使世界从这种危险状态走出来、使世界更安全呢？通常人们首先想到的是形成共同的安全体系，这也是中国的目标，中国称之为“人类安全共同体”。建立共同的安全体系虽然是最理想的，但这不意味着很快会实现，摧毁一个安全体系很容易，但要建设它却很难。更重要的是要建立一个什么样的安全体系。国际社会正在经历着大分裂，不同国家对建立国际安全持有尖锐对立的理念和立场，对应建立什么样的国际安全体系有完全不同的想象，甚至对应否建设共同安全体系也有不同看法，例如有观点认为国际安全体系既不可靠也没有用处，因而也不需要，国家只能靠自己的力量保证自己的安全，这等于重返“丛林规则”的世界。当前也不具备建立共同安全体系的条件，现在世界大国能坐在一起讨论问题都已经是奢侈，更何况说为建设国际安全制度而共同努力。形成共同的安全体系是长期的目标，而现在首先应解决的是正在发生的冲突。在这些重大冲突解决之前，在美欧与俄关系未达到一个稳定状态之前、特别是在俄乌冲突结束之前，谈建设统一的欧洲安全体系还为时尚早。不能期望在不稳定的基础上建设一个稳定的安全大厦，那它随时有倒塌之虞，而且远水不解近渴，不能解决现在面临的迫切问题。提出对未来理想的设计并不很难，但如何解决现实的安全问题却困难重重，国际社会深感无力，尽管许多国家做了大量努力，但依然不能改变局势的危险性下滑。现实形势令人悲观，找不到灵丹妙药，也不会出现奇迹。可以走的只能是最简单、最直接、也是最原始的途径。首先是努力熄灭正在燃烧的战火，从欧亚、中东、缅甸、一直到萨赫勒地区（Sahel），只有结束战争，才可能防止它们扩大蔓延和升级，也只有结束战争，才可能谈安全机制的建设。
法国总统与萨赫勒五国领导人召开新闻发布会（图源：路透社）
俄乌冲突仍是最大的危险。要熄灭战火，现在最重要的是迈出第一步，也就是相关方进入政治进程。这也是最困难的一步。要启动政治进程，首先需要当事国和相关大国取得最基本的共识。大国仍是国际和平与安全的关键因素，不解决大国对抗的问题，危机就难以平息，和平就无法实现，大战的危险就不能消除。在美欧与俄罗斯之间缺乏最基本安全保障机制的条件下，需恢复或建立危机管理机制，这不是哪一方的妥协，而是为防止最坏的结果出现，对双方的安全都有好处。地区大国和地区组织也是重要政治力量，它们帮助解决冲突和推动政治进程中能起到重大作用，甚至是大国所起不到的特别作用。因此应鼓励地区大国和地区组织更积极主动地参与解决危机的努力。
赵华胜、唐晓阳和韩桦访问瓦尔代俱乐部（图源：北京对话）
英文译文如下：
The international security system is the most critical part of world order. Without resolving security issues, the establishment of international order becomes mere rhetoric.Today, security concerns are a major focus of the international community, with the looming shadow of war, even large-scale conflict, growing ever darker. The problem of nuclear proliferation will become more acute, as the Ukraine crisis will incentivize some near-nuclear countries to hold onto their nuclear weapons and encourage others to develop them. The threshold for using nuclear weapons may be lowered, increasing the risk of their use.For today’s international community, finding a path to peace is the most pressing challenge. Containing the wars that have already been waged and preventing larger conflicts is essential, not only for world peace but also for the nations currently engaged in warfare.What is troubling is that war and peace are once again becoming the focal issues of our time. The world is experiencing several large-scale regional wars, unseen since the end of the Cold War. These conflicts—judging by the countries, populations, and areas involved—are affecting nearly half the globe. The world now stands on the brink of potential large-scale conflict, and no one can guarantee that things won’t take a turn for the worse—a scenario unimaginable just a few years ago.Since 1795, when Immanuel Kant published his famous treatise Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch, international society has made multiple attempts over the past two centuries to find a comprehensive framework or establish an all-encompassing international order, to achieve lasting peace.After the Napoleonic Wars, the European powers created a security mechanism known as the Concert of Europe. Its core idea was to form a balance of power among the major nations, preventing any one country from gaining overwhelming dominance. This balance discouraged the outbreak of war, with conflicts being addressed through coordination and negotiation. While this system played a crucial role in reducing the number of major wars in 19th-century Europe, compared to the previous century, it began to crumble with the Crimean War (1853-1856) and eventually collapsed with the outbreak of World War I.Following World War I, the Versailles system was established, which imposed severe military restrictions and heavy reparations on defeated Germany to prevent it from rearming. Meanwhile, under the insistence of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, the League of Nations (January 10, 1920–April 18, 1946) was founded, with 63 member nations joining at different times. The League was envisioned as a world government dedicated to maintaining peace, and it can be seen as a precursor to global governance. However, instead of preventing Germany from rearming, the Versailles system provoked a desire for revenge. The League of Nations, though idealistic, lacked authority and enforcement in the face of external aggression by Germany, Japan, and Italy and failed to prevent World War II.After World War II, the Yalta system emerged, bringing four key factors that profoundly influenced international security. First, Europe achieved unprecedented peace and integration, eliminating the continent’s perennial war triggers. This was particularly significant given that both world wars originated in Europe. Second, the U.S.-Soviet bipolar structure brought about a strategic balance. Third, the advent of nuclear weapons redefined the concept of war. And fourth, the establishment of the United Nations—the most representative international organization ever, and the closest institution to a world government. The UN includes almost all nations and has its own constitution (the UN Charter), budget (funded by member states), governing body (the Security Council), and General Assembly, as well as functional agencies. Despite its shortcomings and lack of strong enforcement power, the UN has played a significant role in maintaining world peace and resolving regional conflicts. Under the influence of these factors, no major wars have occurred in the more than 70 years since the end of World War II.Following the Cold War, with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, the balance of international power became severely lopsided. With no powerful adversaries, the West became increasingly arrogant in an attempt to impose its systems and values globally and establish a unipolar world. In some respects, the UN and the international system centered around it have become inconvenient for the West, even an obstacle. The West began to introduce new rules to bypass the UN Charter and international law, promoting concepts such as the “end of history”, “unipolar stability”, “human rights over sovereignty”, and “democratic peace”. These ideas are now encapsulated in the “rules-based international order”. The UN’s authority has been seriously challenged, international rules are being constantly broken, and the disregard for the UN by some Western nations has become more blatant. Their interference in other nations’ sovereignty has become more frequent. Against this backdrop, regional chaos has spread and geopolitical tensions in Europe have escalated, leading to the current global unrest and conflict.In summary, while humanity has made numerous efforts and tried various approaches over the past few centuries—or even throughout human history—the issue of war and peace remains unresolved to this day.From this, a few conclusions can be drawn.It may be necessary to agree with Kant’s view that peace is not a natural state. Peace is not something that arises spontaneously or is maintained automatically. It must be created and meticulously preserved. Only through collective effort can the international community achieve peace.History shows that security mechanisms, regardless of their form, have typically worked externally to constrain the outbreak of war. However, these mechanisms rarely address the root causes of conflict. In some cases, mechanisms established to prevent war have actually contributed to its occurrence, as seen with military alliances and the pursuit of military superiority. These make other nations feel insecure, prompting them to expand their own military capabilities and form alliances, leading to arms races and potential conflict.It is unrealistic to expect a permanent peace mechanism or to fantasize about an all-encompassing security system. History shows that the effectiveness of security mechanisms diminishes over time. This is because the international landscape and the positions of relevant countries change, destabilizing the status quo. Thus, no security mechanism is ever permanent; it must be continuously adapted to evolving circumstances.Looking at the current situation, the international landscape is deeply unsettling.The world is in a state of breakdown: former international mechanisms are paralyzed or ineffective, old rules are frequently violated, and their binding power is diminishing. There is no universally accepted authoritative rule, no shared value system, and certainly no new mechanisms. The world is hurtling toward fragmentation—politically, diplomatically, in terms of security, economically, financially, industrially, technologically, ideologically, and even socio-culturally.The global trend has shifted from disarmament to an arms race, with war increasingly used in international politics as a means to resolve disputes, replacing diplomacy. Nearly all arms control treaties between Russia, the U.S. and Europe have been discarded. War has become a commonplace topic of discussion, including nuclear war.State relations are being “weaponized”, with every element of these relationships potentially becoming a tool or target for sanctions. Just a few years ago, politicizing economic relations was taboo, but now it has become routine. All aspects of state relations have been sacrificed to political struggles, even areas like culture, sports, and tourism. Ideological divisions have re-emerged, with the West reverting to value-based diplomacy, dividing nations into two camps based on value systems.Of course, this does not negate the presence of powerful forces for peace in the world. Public opinion still largely recognizes opposition to war as a universal value.In general, the world is becoming less safe, not more. This is the most dangerous moment since the end of World War II—arguably even more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. War is escalating before our eyes, becoming increasingly difficult to control, and one misstep could lead to catastrophe.So, how can we pull the world out of this dangerous state and make it safer? The common answer is to create a collective security system, which is also China’s goal, a community with a shared future for mankind that enjoys universal security.While establishing a collective security system is an ideal, it is not something that can be achieved quickly. Dismantling a security system is easy; building one is far more difficult. More important is to build what kind of security system. The international community is currently experiencing deep divisions, with countries holding sharply opposing views on international security and the kind of system that should be created. Some even question the need for a collective security system, arguing that it is unreliable and unnecessary and that nations should rely on their own strength to ensure their security—essentially a return to the “law of the jungle”. Presently, the conditions for establishing a collective security system do not exist. Simply getting the world’s major powers to sit down and discuss issues is already a luxury, let alone working together to build an international security system.Building a collective security system is a long-term goal, but the immediate priority is to resolve ongoing conflicts. Until these major conflicts are resolved, until relations between the U.S./Europe and Russia stabilize, and especially until the Russia-Ukraine conflict is over, it is premature to talk about constructing a unified European security system. Building a stable security system on an unstable foundation is a risky endeavor, prone to collapse. Furthermore, distant solutions cannot resolve immediate problems.While it is not difficult to propose an ideal future design, solving real-world security issues is fraught with challenges. Despite significant efforts by many countries, the international community still feels powerless to stop the dangerous downward spiral of current affairs. The situation is grim, with no panacea in sight and no miracles on the horizon. The only viable path forward is the simplest, most direct, and most primitive:First and foremost, efforts must be made to control the ongoing conflicts—from Eurasia and the Middle East to Myanmar, and even the Sahel region. Only by ending these wars can we prevent their expansion and escalation. Ending the wars is also a prerequisite for discussing the construction of security mechanisms.The Russia-Ukraine conflict remains the greatest threat. The most crucial step in controlling the war is for the relevant parties to take action and engage in a political process—though this is also the most challenging step. Initiating such a process requires the parties directly involved and other major powers to first reach a basic consensus. Major powers remain key actors in international peace and security. If the issue of great power confrontation is not resolved, the crisis will be difficult to contain, peace will be unattainable, and the risk of a world war will not be eliminated.In the absence of even the most basic security guarantees between the U.S., Europe and Russia, it is necessary to restore or establish a crisis management mechanism. This is not about one side making concessions, but about preventing the worst-case scenario, benefiting the security of both sides.Regional powers and regional organizations are also important political forces. They can play a significant role in helping to resolve conflicts and promote the political process, sometimes even in ways that major powers cannot. Therefore, regional powers and organizations should be encouraged to take a more active and proactive role in efforts to resolve the crisis.中俄专家聚首莫斯科：多极世界如何构建？
专讯：中方专家团访问俄罗斯外交部、国际事务委员会、普里马科夫研究所、瓦尔代俱乐部