“中国经济的崛起是在西方制定的规则里赶上了西方”——赵华胜在RIAC发文阐释中俄开展国际合作的三个重要概念
Club点评：复旦大学国际问题研究院教授、北京对话特约专家赵华胜在俄罗斯国际事务委员会（RIAC）网站发文阐释中俄两国开展国际合作的三个重要概念：多极化、经济全球化和国际秩序建设。他指出，多极世界已是现实，是公正公平国际秩序的基础。中国的“天下观”和构建包容性国际秩序的主张，并不排除西方，而是包括西方的，是真正的全球性包容立场。
赵华胜在俄罗斯国际事务委员会发表题为"Three Core Concepts of Sino-Russian International Cooperation"的文章（图源：俄罗斯国际事务委员会网站）
中俄的国际合作是围绕着许多核心概念进行的，在这些核心概念中，多极化、经济全球化、国际秩序建设占有突出地位。两国在这些概念上的共识构成了中俄国际合作的重要基础，与此同时，两国在概念的解读、政策的运用、途径的选择上也各有特点。
多极化
多极化是中俄国际合作共识的起点，也就是说，反对世界的单极霸权，主张多极化的国际政治结构是推动中俄走向国际合作的最初因素。可能有人还记得，1996年4月，叶利钦总统访问中国，在上海参加首次“上海五国”峰会，在峰会晚宴上他即兴讲了一段话，在国际上引起了广泛反响。当时他说，俄罗斯是一个大国，中国也是一个大国，让那些国家看看它们在一起会是怎么样。叶利钦是在宴会结束走向大厅出口时说这段话的，虽然是即兴讲话，但表达的思想是认真的，他讲这话时正好是在笔者作为工作人员所在的餐桌旁边，所以直接听到了他的讲话。
2002年3月1日，俄罗斯前总统叶利钦携夫人到中国驻俄罗斯大使馆做客。图为张德广大使（前左）向叶利钦介绍有关情况（图源：参考消息）
当时这段话的意义非同寻常。那时冷战刚结束不久，美国成为唯一的超级大国，权势扶摇直上，把所有其他国家远远抛在后面。俄罗斯还在苏联解体后的阵痛中，国力急剧衰落。中国当时也还没发展壮大起来。叶利钦的讲话可能是第一次提出中俄联合起来，共同反对单极霸权和推动世界多极化。事实上，中俄战略伙伴关系也首先是由叶利钦总统在1996年4月出访中国的飞行途中提出的。这一思想很快转化为两国的政策。1997年4月，中俄发表了《关于世界多极化和建立国际新秩序的联合声明》，这是两国第一个国际合作的联合声明，此前两国的联合声明基本都是有关发展双边关系的内容。自此，世界多极化成为中俄国际合作的重要内容和核心概念之一，27年后的今天依然如此。
最初，对中俄在多极化问题上合作的解释是一种简单的力量平衡逻辑：冷战之后美国成为超级霸权国家，中俄相对都是弱国，因此它们需要联手，以提高自己的国际地位。
现在这种解释已经不适用，因为中国和俄罗斯的国力和地位都已大大提高，它们实际上已经是世界的两个极。现在中俄所推动的是更广泛范围的多极化，而不局限于两国，或者说目标已不仅仅是局限于使本国成为一极，而是要在世界范围内形成多极结构。中俄推动多极化已更多是出于一种理念，即建立公平公正的世界秩序，而多极化是其必要条件，在一定意义上，推动多极化也就是为推动建设公平公正的国际秩序。
2024年5月16日上午，国家主席习近平在北京人民大会堂同来华进行国事访问的俄罗斯总统普京举行会谈。会谈后两国元首共同签署并发表《中华人民共和国和俄罗斯联邦在两国建交75周年之际关于深化新时代全面战略协作伙伴关系的联合声明》（图源：新华社）
从现在的形势看，世界多极化已经是大势所趋，难以阻挡。新兴经济体的成长，金砖集团、上合组织的壮大，地区组织的发展，全球南方的崛起，这为世界多极化提供了的物质条件，广大国家独立自主意识的增强，对单边主义越来越强的抵触和反抗，对公正世界越来越强烈的追求，则为世界多极化提供了精神上的动力。可以认为，多极已经是现实，世界已经是多极的了，因为在现今世界上没有任何一个权力中心可以主导世界。有必要指出，如果对概念进行细致的分析的话，在多极和多极化之间也可以做出区分：多极是指数量而言，以力量为基础自然形成，没有特定的形态属性，而多极化有着权力分配和结构的固定形态，不过，在现实的使用中，多极和多极化也常常可以通用。
在多极化问题上，中俄在概念的理解上没有明显差别，都认为这是实现公正合理的世界政治、经济、贸易、金融秩序的必要条件，两国在政策上也都十分稳定，都把推动多元化作为两国国际合作的重要内容，在途径上也基本一致，都特别重视发挥双边、小多边、上合组织、金砖集团、全球南方和其他地区组织的作用。
未来，多极化仍将是中俄国际合作的核心概念之一。不过，多极化本身不是最终目标，它只是通向建设一个公平公正国际秩序的途径。而且，仅仅是多极化还不是国际公平公正和安全稳定的保证。这里更重要的是各极之间关系的形态和性质，在正向发展的情况下，它们可以是和谐合作的，在负向发展的情况下，它们也可能是对抗冲突的。由此，在实现多极化之后，世界又处于一个关键的岔路口，各极之间将形成什么关系成为更重大的挑战。
经济全球化
推进经济全球化也是中俄国际合作的重要概念，它主要是用于国际经济领域。这一概念至少在20年前就进入到中俄国际合作的主要词汇里，在中俄2005年7月发布的《关于21世纪国际秩序的联合声明》中，两国都认为经济全球化是世界发展的大势，它对于促进世界经济的发展有积极意义。
当地时间2024年9月5日下午，第九届东方经济论坛全会在俄罗斯符拉迪沃斯托克市举行。中国国家副主席韩正出席并作了题为《深化团结合作 共促繁荣发展》的致辞（图源：新华社）
但与多极化不同，在经济全球化上，中俄的立场有较大差异。中国对经济全球化持肯定态度，表现出很高的积极性。俄罗斯虽然在中俄共同文件中一直保留着推动经济全球化的内容，比如2023年3月的中俄《关于深化新时代全面战略协作伙伴关系的联合声明》， 2024年8月的《中俄总理第二十九次定期会晤联合公报》，都有推动经济全球化的表述，但在俄罗斯国内外交政策文件则较少看到这种说法，而且，在俄罗斯官方和学术界中，对经济全球化是持批评和否定性的评价。
这种情况的出现有可以理解的原因。一般说，中国侧重从经济角度定义全球化，因而称其为经济全球化。中国在改革开放的政策下，迅速融入了经济全球化的过程，从经济全球化中获得了巨大利益，经济持续高速发展，成为世界贸易大国、制造大国，基建强国，崛起为世界第二大经济体。中国与国际市场和世界经济的联系空前紧密，是世界100多个国家最大的贸易伙伴，中国越来越大的经济规模也推动着中国经济走向全世界，因此，经济全球化自然为中国所需，全球化的程度越高，中国经济发展的空间也越大。
中国制造业总体规模已连续14年位居世界首位，220多种工业产品产量位居全球第一（图源：央视财经频道）
俄罗斯的情况与中国有所差别，它主要从政治角度定义全球化。俄罗斯对经济全球化的否定分为两个层面。在政治上，它被定性为是西方的全球化，是西方全球主义在经济领域的反映，在它的基础上形成了由西方主导的世界经济秩序，其主要目的是为西方国家服务，体现了西方的经济霸权。俄罗斯决心从西方的这种全球化中挣脱出来，它现在提出以一体化概念与之相对。在经济上，全球化导致财富流向西方国家，造成更严重的贫富两极分化，是西方国家对世界其他国家经济剥削的形式。俄罗斯认为，西方的全球化模式已经过时，它的意义已经失去。
而从现实利益来说，俄罗斯在经济上融入全球化的程度不深，在国际产业链中的地位相对不突出，在全球化的过程中获益不多，甚至使俄罗斯的利益受损，因此俄罗斯对经济全球化自然不会有多大积极性。
俄罗斯认为现在的全球化是西方模式的，这当然是对的。经济全球化发端于西方。客观地看，经济的发展有内在的张力，在世界经济发展到一定程度后，在交通运输通讯设施变得发达时，它的力量一定向外溢出，由此全球化过程自然出现，而经济力量更强大的国家有更大的兴趣走向世界市场，在这个过程中它们也塑造和影响着这个过程，使其符合本国的需求。因此，经济全球化既是客观过程的产物，也有主观意识的推动。历史上，西方的经济全球化确实伴随着不公和剥削，比如说西方在全世界的经济殖民，再比如在一些国际经济和金融机构中不平等不合理权力和资源分配，等等。不过，我们现在所说的推进经济全球化是指它的积极方面，即在世界范围内合理配置资源，提高经济资源的有效利用，改进国际经济机制，使其更具合理性和普惠性，发展各国之间的经济合作，推动世界经济的共同繁荣发展。
有人会提出，现在是逆全球化潮流上升，西方国家修筑小院高墙，切断国际合作链，毁坏已经形成的世界经济联系，对经济全球化造成严重挑战。现实确实如此，但这不仅不应是放弃推动经济全球化的原因，反而显示出推动全球化的必要性和正确性。如果说全球化只是对西方国家有利，那它们为什么要逆转这个过程呢？这只能说它们也感到了全球化对它们带来的挑战，因此想要改变规则。俄罗斯人经常说中国经济的崛起是在西方制定的规则里赶上了西方，可见全球化的规则是可以用来发展自己的，重要的问题在于如何运用规则这些规则。如果不能很好地利用规则，那不管什么规则都不能带来机会。
俄乌冲突爆发后，俄罗斯富豪阿布拉莫维奇在英国资产遭到冻结，出售切尔西俱乐部（图源：视觉中国）
现在的全球化是由西方推向全世界的，或者说是西方模式的全球化，那还应该推动这个全球化吗？有没有可能创建替代西方模式的全球化吗？
迄今为止，世界上也只有这一个全球化，没有其他模式的全球化，因此，推动经济全球化不可能完全脱离这个过程。创建全新的替代性全球化过程同样不可能，没有一个国家或国家集团有这样的经济力量。而并行的全球化并不是真正的全球化，它至多是“半球化”，或说区域一体化。当然，区域一体化也是重要的经济合作形式。在一定意义上，如果区域一体化是开放的，它也可以构成经济全球化形成对接。
国务院总理李强2024年8月20日赴莫斯科举行中俄总理第二十九次定期会晤并正式访问俄罗斯（图源：新华社）
不管从政治上还是经济上说，继续推进全球化还是应该的。需要做的只是对其进行改造，使其更加公正公平。在中俄最新的联合公报中，已经对推进经济全球化的意义和目标做了新的诠释，即“促进普惠包容的经济全球化，推动形成公正的世界贸易和货币金融体系，扩大新兴市场和发展中国家在全球经济治理中的话语。”这也是金砖集团所推动的经济合作的目标所在，许多数据都表明，按购买力平价计算金砖集团已经超过七国集团，它在世界经济中的地位还在上升，因此它有越来越大的能力去塑造和影响经济全球化的进程。
5月22日，第27届全国发明展览会·“一带一路”暨金砖国家技能发展与技术创新大赛在河北省石家庄市举行。图为外宾在展览会现场参观（图源：人民日报）
国际秩序
国际秩序建设是中俄国际合作核心概念中的核心，其他的概念在一定意义上最终是从属于国际秩序建设。这一概念伴随着中俄国际合作的始终，在1996年4月两国宣布为战略伙伴的联合声明中，“公正合理的国际政治、经济新秩序”就已经成为中俄国际合作的坐标，今天它依然如此，这一点十分清楚，无需赘述
不过，在未来国际秩序建设的途径上，也存在着许多需要探讨的问题。
一个问题是如何对待原国际秩序：是采取激进的方式，把它彻底推倒重建，还是采取改良的方式，进行循序渐进的改革。在这个问题上，俄罗斯学术界有“建设性毁坏”的观点，即为了建设首先要摧毁，或说只有摧毁旧的，才能建立新的。按照这种观点，现行的国际秩序和国际规则是西方主导的，它捆住了俄罗斯的手脚，在这个圈子里俄罗斯发挥不出它的优势，只有跳出这个圈子，以新的规则与西方对抗，俄罗斯才有获胜的可能。因此，打破现行世界秩序是俄罗斯的选择和出路。
中国受传统中庸文化的影响，学术界比较谨慎，它更倾向于渐进和改良，使其变得更公正更合理。摧毁一种旧秩序不一定导致新秩序的诞生，尤其是不一定导致良性的国际秩序的责任诞生，它带来的也可能是一片政治废墟和混乱无序。
现行国际秩序也即二战之后形成的国际秩序有缺陷，也有不公正不合理之处，但它所创立的联合国和国际组织是迄今为止最有世界代表性的组织，在全球治理中有着独特的作用，是现行国际秩序的重要组成部分。中俄在五个安理会常任理事国中占了两席，对重大决定拥有否决权。现在的问题并不是联合国和国际规则都不好，而是这些规则被违反，联合国的效率和权威减低。因此，应该做的是维护国际法和国际规则，对联合国及其他国际机制进行改革，使其适应时代的发展和要求，而不是一概推翻它们。
当地时间2024年5月20日，联合国安理会就俄中共提的外空安全决议草案进行表决 （图源：视觉中国）
另一个问题是要建立什么样的国际秩序：是统一的国际秩序，还是各行其是的国际秩序。现在，在国际制度建设的原则上已经形成了两大概念：一种是西方主张的“以规则为基础的秩序”，另一种是中俄主张的以联合国为中心的国际体系和以国际法为基础的世界秩序。两大主张的差别不在于字面的表述，而在于它们代表着两大国际力量，两种政治理念，以及国际秩序建设的两种方向。它们互不融洽，相互对立，甚至是针锋相对。
那么，在中俄与西方的国际秩序观完全不同的情况下，双方能否达成妥协、找到共同的基础、形成统一的国际秩序？答案是在中短期未来这种可能性很小，现在世界正处于分裂的时期，国际社会正在走向越来越深的分离，不仅是在政治、安全、意识形态，而且也是在经济和技术体系上，乃至在人文文化上。这显然不是形成统一的秩序和规则的时期，它的出现只能是在较远的将来。多数观点认为，未来一个时期的国际秩序将是碎片化的，甚至是没有秩序。而严格地说，如果没有一定的普遍性，如果不能被多数国家接受，特别是如果不能为中俄和西方国家共同认同，那也不能称之为国际秩序，而只能称为“地方“秩序。
现在的形势既不同于一战后，也不同于二战后，没有一个国家或国家集团拥有压倒性力量，不管是西方还是中俄都不可能以自己的构想建立大一统的国际秩序，也不能使对方接受其国际政治理念、价值体系、国际权力分配安排。而且，西方和中俄也不能代表全世界，还存在着其他世界大国和地区大国，存在大量在国际和地区事务中有重要地位和影响的地区组织，存在着正在崛起的全球南方。
就中俄来说，也在这一问题上进行着各自的路径探寻。
俄罗斯有观点主张在政治、经济、安全、文化上全面摆脱来自西方的概念和理念，抛弃一切西方的模式，不管是全球化、西方化、美国化、普世化、还是自由主义化，重新进行全面的“主权化”，创造出一套全新的概念体系，进入到一个“非西方”世界。俄罗斯还提出以文明为建设多极世界和国际秩序路径的思路，主张以多种文明的互动代替西方文明的主导。
这是一种革命性的方式，通过与过去诀别走向未来。
中国的思维有所不同。从中国传统的世界观来说，它一向用“天下”的眼光看世界，当然，“天下”在它的眼中是视野所及的范围，不一定是真正地理意义上的全世界，但它的世界观是整体性的，不拘于一隅。对今天的中国来说，“天下”也就是整个世界。中国也是从整个世界的角度来看待未来的国际秩序，追求一种整体性的国际秩序。中国提出的“人类命运共同体”即体现了这种理念。它的核心是不同政治制度、宗教文明、价值理念的国家和平共处，友好合作。
2024年7月3日，在塔吉克斯坦首都杜尚别，鲁班工坊赴华留学生展示录取通知书 （图源：新华社）
多样性是世界存在的一种基本方式。世界各国的社会制度、政治文化、意识形态、民族宗教、习俗传统等从来都是多种多样的，不管喜不喜欢，不管过去、现在还是将来，世界都将是这样，不会改变。
事实上，对多样性的存在没人否认，分歧是在于如何对待它的存在。由此产生出两种思维。一种是排他性的，这种思维将世界变成了摩尼教式的非黑即白，它天然地带有一种身份上的傲慢，带有一种弥赛亚式救世主情节，认为自己的制度、意识形态、文化不仅更优越，而且唯一正确，并想把自身的制度和意识形态推广到全世界。如果仅仅是到此为止，这尚属正常，但它为此不惜采用不合法的手段，将本国的意志和模式强加于他国，这就违反了基本的国际法，成为冲突的来源。
另一种思维是包容性的，中国所主张的“人类文明共同体”即属于此，它希望不同政治制度、意识形态、宗教文化的国家相互包容，和平共处，共同推动世界繁荣发展。
2019年2月14日，在美国马斯卡廷，当地观众在演出结束后与扮演孙悟空的中国国家京剧院演员合影。当晚，由湖北省歌剧舞剧院编钟国乐团和中国国家京剧院一团的艺术家们联袂奉献的“欢乐春节”大戏在这里上演 （图源：新华社）
包容性的模式或说国际秩序也将西方包括在内，否则不能称其为包容。事实上，西方作为一个巨大的政治和经济体，也无法将其排斥在世界之外。因此，包容性模式的形成，其前提是消除西方与中俄之间的鸿沟，建立起能够进行沟通的桥梁，也就是说，尽管存在差异，但双方要能够对话，对话不是为了改变对方，而是为了寻求和平共处的基础。包容性共处模式的真正形成，仅有一部分国家的愿望是不够的，还需要西方同样秉持开放态度。
显然，包容性模式是一种理想主义的期望，推动世界走向团结比分裂它要困难百倍，它在冷峻的现实面前可能显得有些天真，但这是正确的方向。任何对美好世界的想往都是单纯和理想主义的，但这不代表着不应向着这个方向努力，也不意味着耽于幻想和失去现实感。
赵华胜参加北京对话活动（图源：北京对话）
以下为英文：
Sino-Russian international cooperation revolves around a number of core concepts, among which multipolarity, globalization, and international order-building occupy a prominent place. The consensus between the two countries on these concepts constitutes an important basis for Sino-Russian international cooperation, while at the same time, the two countries have their own characteristics in interpreting the concepts, applying the policies and choosing the paths.
Multipolarity
Multipolarity was the starting point of the Russian-Chinese consensus on international cooperation, i.e., the opposition to the unipolar structure of the world and the advocacy of a multipolar international political structure was the first factor that pushed Russia and China towards international cooperation. In April 1996, President Boris Yeltsin visited China to take part in the first summit of the “Shanghai Five” in Shanghai, where he made an impromptu speech at the summit dinner that caused a wide international reaction. He said, “Russia is a big country, China is a big country; let those countries see how they will be together”. Although Yeltsin said this as he was walking towards the exit of the hall at the end of the banquet, and although it was an impromptu speech, the thought expressed was serious, and he happened to be at the table where the author of this article, as a member of the staff, was sitting at the time, and so heard him directly.
The significance of these words at that time was extraordinary. At that time, the Cold War had just ended, and the United States had rocketed to unipolar power, leaving all countries far behind. Russia was still in the throes of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and its national strength was in sharp decline. China was not yet developed either. Yeltsin's speech may have been the first to suggest that China and Russia should join forces to oppose unipolar hegemony and promote multipolarity in the world. In fact, the Sino-Russian strategic partnership was also first proposed by President Yeltsin in April 1996, on his flight to China. This idea was soon translated into the policies of the two countries, and in April 1997, China and Russia issued the Joint Declaration on Multipolarity in the World and the Establishment of a New International Order, which was the first joint declaration on international cooperation between the two countries, as the previous joint declarations of the two countries were basically about the development of bilateral relations. Since then, the multipolarity of the world has become one of the key elements and core concepts of Russian-Chinese international cooperation, and this is still the case.
Initially, the reason for cooperation between China and Russia on the issue of multipolarity was explained on the basis of a simple logic –the balance of power: after the Cold War, the United States became the sole superpower and formed a unipolar hegemony. Both China and Russia were weak countries, so they needed to join forces in order to improve their international standing. This interpretation no longer applies because both China and Russia have grown so much in power and stature that they are in effect the two poles of the world. What China and Russia are now promoting is multipolarity on a broader scale than that of the two countries, or the goal is no longer limited to their own countries as poles, but to form a multipolar world on a global scale. China and Russia's promotion of multipolarity has been motivated more by the idea of establishing a fair and just world order, and multipolarity is a necessary condition to it; in a certain sense, the promotion of multipolarity is an integral part of the promotion of the construction of a fair and just international order.
Judging from the current situation, the multipolarity of the world has become a general trend that is difficult to stop. The growth of emerging economies, the expansion of the BRICS Group and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, the development of regional organizations and the role of the Global South have provided the material conditions for world multipolarity, while the increasing awareness of independence and autonomy of the majority of countries, their growing resistance and defiance of hegemonism and their increasing pursuit of more just world have provided the spiritual impetus for world multipolarity. It can be said that multipolarity is already a reality, because there is no single center of power that can dominate the world.
On the issue of multipolarity, there is no obvious difference in the conceptual understanding of China and Russia, both of which believe that it is a necessary condition for the realization of a just and fair world political, economic, trade and financial order, and both of which have been very stable in their policies. There is also a general convergence of approaches, with a particular emphasis on the role of the SCO, the BRICS group, the Global South and other regional organizations. In the future, multipolarity will remain as one of the core concepts of Russian-Chinese international cooperation. However, multipolarity is not the ultimate goal; it is only the way to build a fair and just international order. Moreover, multipolarity alone is not a guarantee of international justice and security. What is more important here is the shape and nature of the relationship among the multipoles, which can be harmonious and cooperative or confrontational and conflictual. Therefore, with the realization of multipolarity, a more significant challenge is understanding what kind of relationship should be formed among the multipoles. In this regard, China has chosen multilateralism as the way to build a virtuous multilateral relationship. Multilateralism is also a very important but rather difficult concept to articulate, and China therefore calls it “genuine multilateralism” for the time being, to distinguish it from other interpretations.
Economic Globalization
The promotion of economic globalization is another important concept of Russian-Chinese international cooperation, specifically in the economic sphere. This concept entered the main vocabulary of Russian-Chinese international cooperation at least 20 years ago. For example, in the Sino-Russian Joint Statement on the International Order in the 21st Century, published on July 02, 2005, Russia and China agreed that economic globalization was a major trend in the world's development and that it had a positive significance for the development of the world economy. However, unlike multipolarity, there are major differences between the positions of China and Russia on economic globalization. China has a very positive attitude towards economic globalization and shows a high degree of activism. Although Russia has kept the promotion of economic globalization in common documents between China and Russia, such as the Joint Statement on Deepening the Comprehensive Strategic Collaborative Partnership in the New Era of Russia and China in March 2023 and the Joint Communiqué of the Twenty-Ninth Regular Meeting of the Prime Ministers of Russia and China in August 2024, both of which contain statements on the promotion of economic globalization, it is less common to see such statements in Russia's domestic foreign policy documents. Moreover, economic globalization is viewed critically and negatively in Russian official and academic circles. There are understandable reasons for this situation. Generally speaking, China focuses on defining globalization from an economic perspective, thus calling it economic globalization. Under its policy of reform and opening up, China has rapidly integrated into the process of economic globalization, reaped enormous benefits from it, and sustained its rapid economic development, becoming a major trading nation, a major manufacturing nation and an infrastructure powerhouse in the world, and rising to become the world's second-largest economy. China's ties with the international market and the world economy have never been closer, and it is the largest trading partner of more than 100 countries in the world. China's growing economic scale is also driving its economy to the whole world, so economic globalization is naturally needed by China, and the higher the degree of globalization, the greater the room for China's economic development. Russia's situation differs from China's in that it defines globalization more often in political terms. Russia's rejection of economic globalization is on two levels. Politically, it is characterized as Western globalization, a reflection of Western globalism in the economic sphere, on the basis of which a Western-dominated world economic order has been formed, the main purpose of which is to serve the West and reflect its economic hegemony. Russia is determined to break free from this Western globalization, which it opposes with the concept of integration. Economically, it has led to the flow of global wealth to the West, resulting in greater polarization between rich and poor and the economic exploitation of the rest of the world by the West. Russia believes that the Western model of globalization is obsolete and that it has lost its relevance. In terms of real interests, Russia's economic integration into globalization is not so deep, its position in the international industrial chain is relatively insignificant, and it does not benefit much from the process of globalization, even to the detriment of Russia's interests. So naturally, Russia will not be positive about economic globalization. Russia is undoubtedly right in believing that globalization nowadays is of the Western model, and that the globalization of the world's economy had its beginnings in the West. Objectively, there is an inherent tension in the development of the economy, and after a certain level of grow-up of the world economy and with the transport and communications infrastructures systems developed, its power must spill over to the outside. Thus, the process of globalization naturally emerges, and the countries with greater economic power have a greater interest in reaching out to the world market. In turn, they also shape and influence the globalization process to meet their own needs. Historically, economic globalization in the West has indeed been accompanied by injustice and exploitation, such as the economic colonization of the world by the West, and then the unequal and irrational distribution of power in the international economic and financial institutions, and so on. However, promoting economic globalization now means to promote its positive aspects, that is, the rational allocation of resources worldwide, the maximization of economic benefits, the development of economic cooperation among countries and the promotion of the common prosperity and development of the world economy. It may be argued that there is now a rising tide of anti-globalization, with Western countries posing a serious challenge to economic globalization by so-called de-coupling and de-risking, severing the chains of international cooperation and destroying the world economic links that have been formed. This is indeed the reality, but not only should this be a reason for abandoning the economic globalization, but it shows the necessity and correctness of promoting globalization. If globalization is only beneficial to the Western countries, why do they want to reverse the process? This can only mean that they also feel the challenges posed to them by globalization and therefore want to change the rules. Russians often say that the rise of the Chinese economy has defeated the West within the rules set by the West, so the rules of globalization can be used to develop themselves; the important question is how to use the rules. If the rules are not well utilized, then no matter what the rules are, they will not bring opportunities. Should globalization, which is now being pushed around the world by the West, or the Western model of globalization, still be promoted? Is it possible to create an alternative to the Western model of globalization? To date, there has been no other model of globalization in the world but this one, and it is therefore impossible to promote economic globalization entirely apart from this process. It is equally impossible to create entirely new alternatives to the current process of globalization, and no country or group of countries has the economic power to do so. Also, parallel globalization is not true globalization; at best, it is “hemisphericization”, or regionalization. Of course, regional integration is also a very important form of cooperation. In a sense, if regional integration is open, it can also form part of economic globalization. Whether politically or economically, it is still desirable to continue with globalization. All that needs to be done is to transform it to make it more just and fairer. In the latest joint communiqué of China and Russia, the meaning and goal of promoting economic globalization has been interpreted in a new way, namely, “to promote all-beneficial and inclusive economic globalization, to push for the formation of a fair world trade and monetary and financial system, and to expand the voice of emerging markets and developing countries in global economic governance”. This is also the objective of the economic process promoted by the BRICS Group, which, as many data show, has surpassed the G7 in terms of purchasing power parity, and its position in the world economy is still rising, thus giving it an increasing ability to shape and influence the process of globalization.
International Order
International order building is the heart of the core concepts of Russian-Chinese international cooperation, to which all other concepts are ultimately subordinate in a certain sense. This concept has accompanied Russian-Chinese international cooperation throughout its history. In the joint statement of April 1996, when the two countries declared themselves to be strategic partners, “a new, just and rational international political and economic order” was set as the goal of international cooperation. Today, it still remains the main aim of international cooperation between the two countries. However, there are still many questions to be explored on how to build the future international order.
One is how to deal with the old international order: whether to take a revolutionary approach and rebuild it completely, or to take an evolutive approach and carry out gradual reforms. On this issue, Russian academics have a view of “constructive destruction”, which means that in order to build a new one, one must firstly destroy the old one, or that only by destroying the old can one build the new. According to this point of view, the current international order and international rules are dominated by the West, which binds Russia's hands and feet so that it cannot play to its advantage; only by jumping out of this circle and confronting the West with new rules can Russia have the possibility to win. Therefore, breaking the current world order is Russia's choice and way out.
Influenced by the traditional culture of moderation, Chinese academia is more cautious, preferring gradualism and improvement to make it more just and fairer. Destroying an old order does not necessarily lead to the birth of a new order, especially not to the birth of a benign one. It may also result in political ruins and bring about chaos and disorder.
The current international order, that is, the international order that emerged after the Second World War, has its shortcomings, injustices and irrationalities, but the United Nations and the international organizations it created are by far the most representative organizations in the world. They have a unique role in global governance, and are an important part of the current international order. China and Russia are two of the five permanent members of the Security Council and have veto power over major decisions. The problem now is not that the international rules are all bad, but that the West has violated them. What China and Russia should do, therefore, is uphold international law and rules, improve the world order, and not overthrow them altogether.
Another question is what kind of international order is to be established, whether it is a unified international order or one in which each party has its own way of doing things. At present, two major ideas have emerged on the principle of international order: the Western idea of a “rules-based order” and the Chinese-Russian idea of an international system centered on the United Nations and a world order based on international law. The difference between the two propositions lies not in their literal expressions, but in the fact that they represent two major international forces, two political philosophies and two directions in the construction of international order. They do not get along with each other, are opposed to each other, and are even tit-for-tat.
So, given the completely different views of the international order between Russia, China and the West, will it be possible for the two sides to reach a compromise, find common ground and form a unified international order? The answer is that it is highly unlikely in the short- and medium-term future. The world is now in times of rapid dividing, and the international community is moving towards total separation, not only in politics, security and ideology, but also in economic and technological systems, and even in humanistic culture, which is clearly not a period for the formation of a unified order and rules. The emergence of a relatively unified and holistic international order can only take place in the more distant future. The majority view is that the international order of the coming period will be fragmented, or even devoid of order. Strictly speaking, if it does not have a certain universality, if it is not accepted by the majority of countries, if it is not shared by China, Russia and the West, then it cannot be called an international order, but only a “local” order.
The present situation is different from both post-World War I and post-World War II: no single country or group of countries possesses absolute superiority in power, and neither the West nor China and Russia can establish a grand unified international order in their own conception. Nor can they make each other acceptable in terms of their international political concepts, value systems, and arrangements for the distribution of international power. Moreover, the West and China and Russia do not represent the whole world; there are other major countries and medium-sized countries, and many regional organizations with significant influence, such as ASEAN, the Arab League, the African Union and others; and there is a rising Global South.
China and Russia, for their part, are also exploring their own paths on this issue. Some Russians advocate getting rid of Western concepts and ideas in politics, economy, security and culture, abandoning all Western models, be they globalization, Westernization, Americanization, universalization or liberalization, and relying on a comprehensive “sovereignization” to create a completely new set of conceptual systems and enter a “non-Western” world. Russia puts forward the idea of civilization as the path to building a multipolar world and international order, and advocates replacing the dominance of Western civilization with the interaction of civilizations. It is a revolutionary way to move into the future by breaking with the past.
Chinese thinking is not totally the same. In terms of traditional Chinese worldviews, it has always looked at the world from the perspective of “the land under heaven”, that is to say, the whole world, which, of course, is the scope of its vision, not necessarily the real whole world, but its worldview is holistic and not confined to a single corner. China also looks at the future international order from the perspective of the whole world and pursues a holistic international order. The “community of human destiny” proposed by China embodies this concept. At its core is the peaceful coexistence, friendship and cooperation of countries with different political systems, religions, civilizations and values.
Diversity is a fundamental way of being in the world. The social systems, political cultures, ideologies, nationalities, religions, customs, etc., of the countries of the world have always been diverse, and, like it or not, the world will be the same and will not change, whether in the past, at present or in the future.
In fact, no one denies the existence of diversity, but the disagreement is about how to treat it. There are two ways of thinking and behaving. One is exclusive, which turns the world into Manichaean black and white; it naturally has a kind of identity arrogance, a messianic complex, which thinks that its own system, ideology, culture is not only superior, but the only one that is right, and it wants to spread its system and ideology to the whole world. This would be normal if it only went so far, but it has resorted to illegal means to impose its own will and model on other countries, which violates basic international law and becomes a source of conflict.
Another kind of thinking is inclusive; the “Community with a shared future for mankind” advocated by China is one of them, which hopes that countries with different political systems, ideologies, religions and cultures will tolerate each other, coexist peacefully and work together to promote world prosperity and development. Obviously, it is a hundred times more difficult to push the world towards unity than to divide it, but this is the right direction.
The model of inclusiveness, or international order, also includes the West, otherwise it cannot be called inclusive. In fact, the West, as a huge political and economic power, cannot be excluded from the world. Thus, the formation of the so-called inclusive model presupposes the elimination of the gap between the West and China and Russia, and establishing bridges by which they can communicate. That is, despite their differences, the parties are able to engage in a dialogue, a dialogue that is not aimed at changing the other side, but at seeking a basis for peaceful coexistence and cooperation.
However, this is only possible to be truly realized when the West upholds the same attitude of inclusiveness. Naturally, this is an idealistic wish. However, any desire for a better world is pure and idealistic, but that does not mean that one should not strive in that direction, nor does it mean indulging in illusions and losing a sense of reality.