百年未有之大变局下的国际环境与中国角色
Return to the Library

The International Environment and China’s Role amid Great Changes Unseen in a Century

百年未有之大变局下的国际环境与中国角色

Dai Changzheng, a national security scholar at the Beijing-based University of International Business and Economics, argues China’s external environment is becoming more challenging due to rising tensions with the United States and heightened risk of pandemics, economic crises, and regional conflicts. Yet, Dai suggests that Beijing now has significant power to shape its external environment, given its substantial economic growth in past decades. Dai recommends Beijing advance and preserve China’s interests in this new environment by deepening ties with developing and regional countries and actively participating in global governance institutions.


FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrintCopy Link
Original text
PDF
English text
PDF
See an error? Drop us a line at
View the translated and original text side-by-side

Against the background of great changes in the world unseen in a century,  international political and economic relationships are undergoing profound transformations. The globalization process has encountered setbacks in recent years under the impacts of global recession and the “epidemic of the century.” Populism and anti-globalization are prevalent in some developed countries. In these countries, hegemonism and unilateralism, zero-sum games, the Cold War mentality, “black and white” dichotomies, and even the clash of civilizations have become important ideas for managing foreign relations. On this basis, some Western countries have adopted policies of “decoupling” and “withdrawal,” causing difficulties for the global supply of public goods. Global governance faces serious challenges, and risks of all sorts are proliferating.

当今世界正处于百年未有之大变局的背景之下,国际政治与经济关系都正在经历深刻的变革。近年来,随着全球经济的衰退和世纪疫情的冲击,全球化的进程遭遇到挫折。一些发达国家内部民粹主义和逆全球化思潮盛行,霸权主义、单边主义、零和博弈、冷战思维、非黑即白的二元对立观乃至文明冲突等,成为指导这些国家处理对外关系的重要思想。在此基础上,部分西方国家采取脱钩”“退群等政策,使全球公共产品供应遭遇困难,全球治理面临严重挑战,各类风险不断涌现 

In the face of profound and complex changes in the international environment, developed countries have adopted unilateralist policies out of consideration for protecting their vested interests. This has made the problems of unbalanced development and uneven distribution of benefits in the international community more pronounced. The global COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that it is increasingly difficult for the global governance framework centered on developed countries, which was formed after World War II, to adapt to the monitoring, prevention, and governance requirements of sudden crises. Developed countries such as the United States are increasingly inclined to shirk their global governance responsibilities, or engage in “small circles” that exclude the vast number of developing countries from the governance process. Developing countries have increased their ability to participate in global governance as their own strength has grown, but their voice in various kinds of international systems is still weak. They remain in a relatively marginalized position in an international order made up of rules and systems dominated by Western countries. The United Nations, an international organization established after World War II to maintain international peace and security, is at the core of the international system. However, its performance in dealing with the COVID-19 epidemic and resolving regional conflicts has been mediocre, and it has not delivered the results people expected. Contradictions and differences among the major powers are conspicuous within the United Nations at present, leading to a weakening of the organization’s authority and its ability to participate in global governance. Under this great change, strategic competition among powers has intensified, and the willingness of countries to cooperate with each other has weakened. In terms of global governance, this has further led to the emergence of disorder and a governance deficit. The proliferation of global challenges is in stark contrast with the inefficiency or even ineffectiveness of the international community in responding to those challenges, raising deep questions about the prospects for peace and development.

面对国际环境深刻而复杂的变化,发达国家出于维护自身既得利益的考量而采取单边主义政策,使国际社会中的发展不平衡、利益分配不均衡问题更加突出。新冠疫情的全球大流行表明,在第二次世界大战之后形成的以发达国家为核心的全球治理框架,越来越难以适应突发性危机的监测、预防和治理需求。美国等发达国家在全球治理中越来越倾向于推卸责任或搞小圈子将广大发展中国家排斥在治理进程之外。发展中国家随着自身实力的增长,参与全球治理的能力不断增强,但是在各类国际制度中的话语权仍然较弱,在由西方国家所主导的各类规则与制度构成的国际秩序中仍然处于较为边缘的地位。联合国作为二战后建立的维护国际和平与安全的国际组织,在国际制度体系中处于核心位置,但是在应对新冠疫情、解决地区冲突等方面表现平平,并没有发挥出人们所预期的效果。当前联合国内部大国矛盾与分歧突出,导致该组织的权威性和参与全球治理的能力有所减弱。在这一大变局之下,大国战略竞争态势加剧,国家之间的合作意愿减弱,而这就进一步导致了全球治理的失序和治理赤字的出现。各类层出不穷的全球性挑战同国际社会在应对这些挑战时所表现出来的低效甚至是无效形成鲜明对比,致使人们对和平与发展的前景产生了深深的疑问 

Historically, the likelihood of war has indeed been higher when there was a transfer of power between major powers in the international system. In the history of international relations over the centuries, there have been numerous power shifts between major powers, and each shift has led to the emergence of a new hegemonic power and its corresponding challengers. By summarizing the history of international relations over several centuries, George Modelski points out that long cycles are a basic feature of the international political system, and that in every cycle there is a system-determining phase in which a world power becomes the leader of the system through hegemonic war. Hegemonic war is the determining factor in filling the leadership position in the global political system, and it marks the emergence of a successful power as the new leader of the system, whereas the previous leader then withdraws from its hegemonic position. Thus, the history of world politics is nothing but the cyclical turnover of hegemonic powers, and hegemonic war is a cyclically recurring phenomenon. It is a necessary condition for a country to achieve leadership. Similarly, Robert Gilpin argues that changes in the international system are essentially changes in the benefits available to individual actors in the system relative to the costs they have to pay, and therefore actors will always attempt to change the international system to advance their own interests. Change in the international system is a process from stability to instability and back to stability again, and this process is often accompanied by hegemonic wars. Hegemonic war determines which state can occupy the dominant position in the system, and creates a new status quo reflecting a new equilibrium in which power is redistributed. Viewed from this perspective, phenomena such as changes in the balance of power, power shifts, and hegemonic wars are the norm in international relations; changes in the international system are always accompanied by the rise and fall of hegemonic states; and war and conflict are the ultimate means of adjusting interstate relations. Even in the 21st century, Western scholars still believe that the modes of operation and internal mechanisms of international politics are unchanging. While there have been some changes in international relations along with economic and social development and scientific and technological progress, those changes have not altered the fundamental nature of international relations, and war and peace, order and constraint, and freedom and equality are still the fundamental issues in international relations. This view reflects the static perspective of Western scholars in understanding international politics, that is, they believe that the fundamental issues in international relations are unchanging, and that so-called changes in the international system are only the turnover of hegemonic states. In the more than one hundred years since the birth of international relations as a field of study, despite the emergence of many international systems, violence has remained the ultimate means of resolving international disputes. The rise of a state is often inseparable from violence and war, and a peaceful hegemonic turnover is almost an impossible scenario. For this reason, Gilpin points out that the nature of international relations has remained unchanged for thousands of years, and that international relations has always been a cyclical contest over wealth and power between independent states within a state of anarchy.

从历史角度来看,国际体系中存在大国之间权力转移的情形时,确实爆发战争的可能性较高。在几百年的国际关系发展历史上,曾经出现过若干次大国之间的权力转移,每次转移都会导致新的霸权国和与之相对应的挑战者的出现。乔治·莫德尔斯基(George Modelski)通过总结国际关系几百年来的历史指出,长周期是世界政治体系的基本特征,而在每一个周期中都存在着一个体系决定阶段,在这个阶段里一个世界大国通过霸权战争成为体系的领导者。霸权战争是填补世界政治体系中的领导地位的决定因素,它标志着一个成功的大国成为体系的新领导者,而原有的领导者则退出了霸权位置。因此,世界政治的历史不过是霸权国家的循环更替,而霸权战争则是周期性出现的现象,它是一个国家取得领导地位的必要条件。与此类似,罗伯特·吉尔平(Robert Gilpin)也认为,国际体系的变化实质上就是体系中的个体行为体所能获得的收益与所要付出的成本的相对变化,因此行为体总是会试图改变国际体系以增进自身的利益。国际体系的变化是一个从稳定到不稳定再回归稳定的过程,而这一过程往往伴随着霸权战争。霸权战争决定了哪个国家可以在体系中占据支配地位,并且制造了新的现状,反映了权力重新分配的新的均衡状态。从这种观点来看,均势变化、权力转移、霸权战争等现象是国际关系中的常态,国际体系的变化总是伴随着霸权国的兴起和衰落,而战争与冲突则是调整国家间关系的最终手段。即使到了21世纪,西方学者仍旧认为国际政治的运作模式和内在机理是始终不变的。尽管随着经济社会发展与科技进步,在国际关系中出现了一些变化,但是这些变化并没有改变国际关系的根本性质,战争与和平、秩序与约束、自由与平等仍然是国际关系中的根本性问题。这种观点反映了西方学者理解国际政治的静态视角,即认为国际关系的本质问题是始终不变的,所谓的国际体系的变化也只是霸权国家的更替。在国际关系学诞生以来的一百余年中,尽管出现了很多国际制度,但是暴力仍然是解决国际争端的最终手段。一个国家的崛起往往不能脱离暴力与战争,和平的霸权更替则几乎是一种不可能出现的情况。正是由于这个原因,吉尔平才会指出上千年来国际关系的本质没有发生任何变化,国际关系始终是独立的国家在无政府状态下对于财富和权力的循环往复的争夺 

Based on this static understanding of international politics, the Western world’s attitude toward China’s rise is relatively pessimistic, and there is even a view that considers conflict between China, the rising country, and the United States, the defender of the status quo, to be unavoidable. In fact, the United States has indeed intensified its military, political, and economic suppression of China in recent years in the hope of slowing down or even cutting off China’s peaceful development. At the same time, economic crisis, regional conflicts, and the epidemic of the century have combined to further complicate China’s external environment. It was in this context that General Secretary Xi Jinping said “the world has entered a period of turbulence and change,” and emphasized that “in the coming period, we face an external environment of increased headwinds and countercurrents, and we must prepare to deal with a series of new risks and challenges.” In the report of the 20th Party Congress, General Secretary Xi Jinping further pointed out that the changes in the world, the times, and history are unfolding in an unprecedented manner, and that “human society faces unprecedented challenges. The world is once again standing at the crossroads of history, and the way forward will depend on the choices made by the people of all countries.” In the past 20 years, especially since the Global Financial Crisis broke out in 2008, with the rapid growth of China’s economy, China has significantly narrowed the power gap between it and the United States, and gradually distanced itself from other major powers. China’s rise has created serious status anxiety for the United States, that is, fear that its hegemony may be challenged or lost. Compared to rising countries in terms of status expectations, hegemonic countries are more susceptible to status anxiety due to the influence of “loss aversion” because they are more concerned about the possibility of losing their hegemonic position. This explains to a certain extent why the United States has been suppressing China by every means possible in recent years, because serious anxiety over the possible challenge to its hegemony has affected its external behavior.

基于这种静态的理解国际政治的视角,西方世界对于中国崛起的态度较为悲观,甚至有观点认为崛起国中国同守成国美国之间的冲突是不可避免的。事实上,美国确实在近年来明显加强了通过军事、政治和经济等各种手段对中国的打压,希望以此减缓甚至是打断中国的和平发展。与此同时,经济危机、地区冲突、世纪疫情等因素叠加在一起,使中国的外部环境进一步复杂化。正是在这一背景之下,习近平总书记才会提出世界进入动荡变革期,强调今后一个时期,我们将面对更多逆风逆水的外部环境,必须做好应对一系列新的风险挑战的准备。在党的二十大报告中,习近平总书记进一步指出世界之变、时代之变、历史之变正以前所未有的方式展开,人类社会面临前所未有的挑战。世界又一次站在历史的十字路口,何去何从取决于各国人民的选择。在过去的20年中,特别是2008年全球金融危机爆发以来,随着中国经济的快速增长,中国同美国之间的实力差距明显缩小,并逐渐同其他主要大国拉开距离。中国的崛起给美国带来了严重的地位焦虑,即对于自身霸主地位可能受到挑战或损失的担忧。相比于崛起国对于地位的期待,霸权国由于损失规避的影响,对于可能失去霸主地位的担忧更加强烈,因而也更容易受到地位焦虑的影响。这就可以在一定程度上解释美国近年来不择手段对中国进行打压的原因,因为对于自身霸主地位可能受到挑战的严重焦虑已经影响到美国的对外行为 

China’s rise has caused anxiety and uneasiness in Western countries led by the United States, for two key reasons. First, China’s economy has grown rapidly since 2000, and its comprehensive national strength has risen apace. China is now firmly established as the world’s second largest economy, and may surpass the United States to become the largest economy in the future. China’s military power has grown significantly along with its rapid economic development, and its ability to defend its territory, the sovereignty of its territorial waters, and other legitimate interests is also improving continuously. China’s strength is nearing that of the United States, making some increasingly inclined to believe that a so-called “Thucydides trap” is likely to reappear—that is, when a rising country threatens to displace a country defending the status quo, serious structural pressures will arise such that even a small spark may trigger a large-scale conflict. Second, China’s rise is of a completely new kind that is different from the Western model. This shows that there is not just one path to national rejuvenation and modernization in the world. Socialism with Chinese characteristics has proven that it is entirely possible for a country to become prosperous and strong without relying on the Western model of colonial plunder. Although China has made it clear that it will not export the Chinese model externally and will not ask other countries to copy its practices, the fact that China has grown rapidly from a poor and weak country to a world power is likely to attract a large number of developing countries to learn from and emulate China’s experience and path, and this is something the Western world, led by the United States, does not want to see. The growth of power and the enhancement of the demonstration effect of “China’s path” constitute challenges to Western hegemony in both the material and conceptual dimensions. It is for this reason that the United States and other Western countries have intensified their containment and suppression of China. As early as the Obama administration, the United States implemented the “Asia pivot” strategy, hoping to use the South China Sea and other issues to restrain China. After the Trump administration took office, it launched a “trade war,” a “financial war,” and a “science and technology war” against China, advocated the “decoupling” of China and the United States, and used the COVID-19 epidemic to stigmatize China with no limitations. The Biden administration has continued to step up implementation of the “Indo-Pacific strategy” since it took office, in order to maintain the United States’ dominant position in the Asia-Pacific region and use it to further contain China. Compared with the Trump administration, the Biden administration has paid more attention to the role of allies when implementing the “Indo-Pacific strategy,” strengthening interactions with traditional allies such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia through bilateral and multilateral alliances, and actively building a “united front” with India to suppress China. At the same time, the Biden administration has continued the Trump administration’s practice of economic suppression of China, and continued to stigmatize China in the name of democracy and human rights.

中国的崛起引发以美国为首的西方国家的焦虑和不安,主要是基于两个原因。第一,进入21世纪以来,中国经济得以快速发展,综合国力迅速提高。当前,中国已经稳居世界第二大经济体的位置,并且有可能在未来超越美国成为第一大经济体。伴随着经济的快速发展,中国的军事力量也显著增强,维护领土、领海主权和其他合理利益的能力也在不断提高。中国实力同美国的不断接近,使一些人越来越倾向于认为所谓的修昔底德陷阱”——即当崛起国威胁要取代守成国时,就会产生严重的结构性压力,从而使小的导火索也可能引发大规模冲突——有可能再度出现。第二,中国的崛起是一种不同于西方模式的全新崛起,这表明世界上不是只存在一种实现国家复兴和走向现代化的道路。中国特色社会主义证明,一个国家完全可以不依靠西方那种殖民掠夺的模式来实现富强。尽管中国明确表示不会对外输出中国模式,不会要求其他国家复制中国的做法,但是中国从一个积贫积弱的国家快速成长为世界强国这一事实,很有可能吸引大量发展中国家学习和模仿中国的经验和道路,而这是以美国为首的西方世界所不愿意看到的。实力的增长和中国道路示范效应的增强,在物质和观念两个维度对西方霸权构成了挑战。正是由于这个原因,美国等西方国家加大了对中国的围堵和打压。早在奥巴马政府时期,美国就高调推行亚太再平衡战略,希望借助南海等问题牵制中国。特朗普政府上台后大肆推行印太战略,发动对华贸易战”“金融战”“科技战,鼓吹中美脱钩,并利用新冠疫情无底线地对中国污名化。拜登政府上台后继续加紧推行印太战略,以维护美国在亚太地区的优势地位,并借此进一步遏制中国。相比于特朗普政府,拜登政府在推行印太战略时更加注重盟友的作用,通过双边和多边联盟加强同日本、韩国、澳大利亚等传统盟国的互动,并积极同印度构筑打压中国的统一战线。与此同时,拜登政府还延续了特朗普政府在经济上打压中国的做法,并借助民主、人权等名义继续对中国进行污名化 

In the face of profound and complex changes in the international environment, China’s own strategic positioning is changing as well. At the beginning of the 21st century, the CCP Central Committee put forward the major judgment that the first 20 years of the century should be a “period of strategic opportunity” with great potential, and that China must grasp it firmly. In fact, China has indeed seized this precious period of strategic opportunity, and this has greatly enhanced its overall national strength. In 2000, China’s economy accounted for 3.58% of the world economy, while in 2021 it accounted for 18.37%, surpassing the European Union. During those two decades, however, the international environment has changed continually. The events of “9/11,” the Global Financial Crisis, turmoil in North Africa and Western Asia, Brexit, the rise of populism, U.S.-China competition, the COVID-19 epidemic, and the Ukraine conflict have all had impacts from outside on China’s peaceful development. During this period, China has paid close attention to the external environment and responded in a timely manner. Its perception of the “period of strategic opportunity” has changed constantly as well, going through stages such as “showing great promise,” “changing connotations and conditions,” “proliferating risk points,” and “coexisting strategic opportunities and risks and challenges.” The changes in the external environment have led to an increase in the risks and challenges China’s development faces, but this does not mean that China’s “strategic opportunities” have disappeared, or that the external environment will become purely unfavorable to China’s development. On one hand, the report of the 20th Party Congress affirmed that “China’s development has entered a period of coexisting opportunities and risks and challenges, with a greater number of uncertain and unpredictable factors.” On the other hand, it also emphasized that “the historical trend of peace, development, cooperation, and win-win outcomes is unstoppable, and the will of the people and the general trend determine that the future of mankind will be bright.” At present, China’s per capita GDP is equivalent to only about 18% of that of the United States. According to the experience of countries with relatively successful economic development historically, China is fully capable of maintaining a higher economic growth rate of about 5% over the next decade or so. China, for its part, must also strive to maintain a comparatively high economic growth rate for a longer time in the future and deepen its impact on the world economy, as this will help strengthen China’s own ability to withstand external shocks. China still needs to further deepen its domestic reforms and open up to the outside world at a high level in order to strengthen its ability to cope with external risks and challenges.

面对国际环境深刻和复杂的变化,中国对于自身的战略定位也在发生变化。21世纪初,党中央提出了战略机遇期的重大判断,认为21世纪的最初20年应当是中国必须紧紧抓住并且大有可为的战略机遇期。事实上,中国也确实抓住了这一珍贵的战略机遇期,使自身的综合国力得到了极大提升。2000年,中国经济占世界经济的比重为3.58%,而在2021年这一比重则为18.37%,超过了欧盟。但是,在这20年中,国际环境也在不断变化。“9·11”事件、全球金融危机、西亚北非动荡、英国脱欧、民粹主义兴起、中美竞争、新冠疫情、俄乌冲突等,都从外部对中国的和平发展造成了冲击。在此期间,中国密切关注外部环境并及时做出回应,对战略机遇期的认知也在不断变化,经历了大有作为”“内涵和条件变化”“风险点增多”“战略机遇和风险挑战并存等阶段。外部环境的变化导致中国发展所面临的风险与挑战增加,但这并非意味着中国的战略机遇已经消失,或外部环境将变得单纯不利于中国发展。党的二十大报告一方面承认我国发展进入机遇和风险挑战并存、不确定难预料因素增多的时期,另一方面也强调和平、发展、合作、共赢的历史潮流不可阻挡,人心所向、大势所趋决定了人类前途终归光明。当前,中国的人均GDP只相当于美国的18%左右。根据历史上经济发展较为成功的国家的经验,中国在未来十余年的时间内,完全有能力保持5%左右的较高经济增速。对于中国而言,在未来较长的一段时期内努力保持较高的经济增长速度,加深对于世界经济的影响也是必要的,因为这有利于增强中国自身抵御外部冲击的能力。中国仍需要进一步深化国内改革,扩大高水平对外开放,以增强应对外部风险与挑战的能力 

The great changes unseen in a century require China to go beyond the narrow and static perspective of international relations, and to tear up the so-called “law of history” that says that conflicts are bound to break out between status quo-defending countries and rising countries. Unlike the individualistic world view of the West, the Chinese adhere to a holistic world view that sees everything in the world as interconnected, and believe that all things are in a state of relationality. The biggest problem with the individualistic world view is that it assumes that individuals are rational and selfish, and therefore can sacrifice the interests of others without hesitation in order to maximize their own interests. In the context of anarchic international relations, this is manifested in the pursuit of power by states in order to maintain and promote their own interests. This pursuit of power by all states for their own interests leads to mutual suspicion and mistrust among states, which in turn leads to conflicts among them, because in the pursuit of power, a state always wants to have more power than other states. Relationality, in contrast, which is born out of a holistic world view, regards different actors as being in a kind of social relationship, and believes that there are sustained interconnections and interactions between them. Understanding international relations from this perspective, then, it is the process of interaction between actors in a structured social relationship that determines interstate relations, rather than the characteristics of the actors themselves. It was under the influence of this mode of thinking that China developed the concepts of “universal harmony,” “unification of the world,” “do not do to others what you would not have them do to you,” “treat others as you would yourself,” and “honor old people as you would your own parents, and care for the children of others as you would for your own.” Through the inheritance and development of these ideas, contemporary China has successively put forward the concepts of establishing a new international political and economic order, building a harmonious world, and constructing a community of common destiny for mankind. This holistic mode of thinking views all countries of the world as a whole. Whether they are developed or developing countries, they are all in a relationship of mutual dependence and symbiosis. All countries face common opportunities for development, as well as common risks and challenges. Only by joining hands can all countries work together to create a bright future for the human community.

百年未有之大变局要求中国超越理解国际关系的狭隘的静态视角,打破守成国同崛起国之间必然爆发冲突的所谓历史定律。同西方的个体主义世界观不同,中国人坚持一种整体主义世界观,将世界上的所有事物都看作是相互联系的,认为各种事物都处于一种关系性当中。个体主义世界观的最大问题在于,它假定个体是理性和自私的,因而为了实现自身利益的最大化可以不惜牺牲他人的利益。在无政府的国际关系中,这就表现为国家为了维护和增进自身的利益需要追求权力。这种各国都为自身利益而对于权力的追求就会导致国与国之间的相互怀疑与互不信任,进而导致国家之间的冲突。因为在追求权力的过程中,一个国家总是希望自身的权力比其他国家更多。与此不同,生成于整体主义世界观的关系性将不同的行为体看作是处于一种社会关系当中,并且认为行为体之间存在着持续的相互联系和互动。从这一视角来理解国际关系,那么对国家间关系起决定性影响的就是行为体之间在一种结构化的社会关系中的互动过程,而非行为体自身的特性。正是在这种思维模式的影响下,中国形成了世界大同”“天下一统”“己所不欲,勿施于人”“推己及人以及老吾老以及人之老,幼吾幼以及人之幼等思想。通过继承和发展这些思想,当代中国陆续提出了建立国际政治经济新秩序、建设和谐世界、构建人类命运共同体等理念。这种整体主义的思维模式将世界各国看作是一个整体,无论是发达国家还是发展中国家都是唇齿相依、互融共生的关系。各国面临着共同的发展机遇,也面临着共同的风险与挑战。只有各国携手努力,才能共同创造人类社会的美好未来 

From China’s perspective, therefore, the great changes unseen in a century do not in any way imply chaos and disorder. The objective external environment facing China has changed dramatically over the past two decades, and some of the conditions that once contributed to China’s development may no longer exist. Nevertheless, as its own strength has grown, China’s ability to take the initiative in shaping the external environment has also improved significantly. The period of strategic opportunity is not just a product of the objective environment, but is also the result of active shaping. At present, China’s comprehensive national strength already has the potential to shape the international environment and situation in China’s favor. Promoting common interests, shaping common perceptions, and focusing on mutual benefits and win-win outcomes should be the basic principles for shaping the external environment. To this end, China proposed and actively implements the “Belt and Road” initiative, advocates building a community of common destiny for mankind in international relations, and adheres to the concepts of “proximity, sincerity, beneficence, and tolerance” in neighborhood diplomacy, “shared, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable” in global security, and “common cause, common construction, and common sharing” in global governance, thereby proactively shaping a new type of international relations characterized by “mutual respect, fairness and justice, and win-win cooperation.” When China’s economic power was still not strong enough, the main factor determining its diplomatic approach was the international situation, but now that China’s level of economic development has exceeded the world’s average level and is likely to surpass that of the United States in the 2030s, China’s own changes, especially the adjustment of its development strategy, have become a more important factor affecting its diplomacy. China not only needs to adapt to changes in the external environment, but also to proactively shape the international environment so that it can evolve in a direction favorable to China. In shaping the international environment in the future, China’s main directions will be to give more attention to neighboring country relations and developing countries, develop multilateral diplomacy through partnerships, actively promote changes in the global governance system, and build new global governance mechanisms.

因此,从中国的角度来看,百年未有之大变局绝不意味着混乱和无序。虽然中国所面对的客观外部环境在过去20年中发生了巨大的变化,一些过去曾有利于中国发展的条件可能已经不再存在。但是随着自身实力的增长,中国主动塑造外部环境的能力也得到了显著提高。战略机遇期不仅仅是客观环境的产物,它同时也是主动塑造的结果。当前,中国的综合国力已经具备了塑造对本国有利的国际环境与态势的潜能。增进共同利益、塑造共同认知、关注互利共赢等,应当成为塑造外部环境的基本原则。为此,中国提出并积极践行一带一路倡议,在国际关系中倡导构建人类命运共同体,坚持亲、诚、惠、容的周边外交理念、共同、综合、合作、可持续的全球安全观和共商、共建、共享的全球治理理念,以积极主动地塑造相互尊重、公平正义、合作共赢的新型国际关系。在中国经济实力尚不足够强大的时候,决定外交布局的主要因素是国际形势,而在当前中国经济发展水平已经超过世界平均水平,并且极有可能在21世纪的第三个十年超过美国的情况下,中国自身的变化,特别是发展战略的调整,已经成为影响外交布局的更为重要的因素。中国不仅要适应外部环境的变化,更需要积极主动地塑造国际环境,使这种环境能够向着有利于自身的方向发展。更加重视周边关系与发展中国家,通过伙伴关系发展多边外交,积极推动全球治理体系变革,构建新的全球治理机制,将是未来中国塑造国际环境的主要方向 

To top

Cite This Page

戴长征 (Dai Changzheng). "The International Environment and China’s Role amid Great Changes Unseen in a Century [百年未有之大变局下的国际环境与中国角色]". CSIS Interpret: China, original work published in International Social Sciences [世界社会科学], December 12, 2023

FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrintCopy Link