There is nothing wrong with this sentence itself. Friends are changeable and interests are eternal. However, when quite a few people understand this sentence, they intentionally or unintentionally oppose interests and morality. Some even make it clear that there is only a struggle for interests in the world, and there is no morality at all. Behind this opposition, interests are actually interpreted as material interests, and international relations are nothing more than the struggle for land, resources, human technology and so on. Neo-interventionism under the banner of human rights or the cessation of aggression and tyranny is naturally considered to have ulterior motives or to seize some resources, such as oil.
Under the control of this concept and logic, 1989, the U.S. invasion of noriega was imagined as continuing to control the Panama Canal, 199 1 was imagined as controlling the oil in the Gulf, 1999, the Kosoyo War was imagined as controlling the Balkans, and the annual human rights conference was even imagined as an imperialist conspiracy.
This kind of imagination is tenable to some extent-under the condition of limited resources, competition between people and even between countries is inevitable. However, the theory that interests are only material interests cannot explain all the motives of the above-mentioned international acts.
According to conspiracy theories, this is a cover for the United States to seize noriega, but its purpose is to stay in the Panama Canal. But in fact, the US military did not occupy Panama, but left the country after the military operation ended. 1999 When the lease of Panama Canal expired, the US military withdrew from the canal without any sign of breach of contract. Isn't it a piece of cake to occupy Panama with American military strength? What is the use of international condemnation? What is impossible to annex a militarily weak Canada? But why can those militarily weak countries live in peace under the eyes of the United States, and even the later elected Panamanian president is often dissatisfied with the United States? Why should the United States abide by the treaty with Panama, a small country? Can the United States get any material benefits from voluntarily withdrawing from the Canal Zone? If you can't do this, how can you explain it?
Why is the American condemnation so impassioned when Iraq invaded Kuwait? Why doesn't the United States choose to cooperate with Iraq, a big Gulf country, for its own benefit? To take a step back, even if the United States has an attempt to dominate the weak in order to control the Gulf, why can the military action against Iraq be supported by the vast majority of countries in the world? Is it true that almost all countries in the world have no judgment or support the American conspiracy against their will? We have to ask, is the Gulf War purely for oil or for material benefits? If not, what else?
For conspiracy theorists, the Kosovo war is more like a conspiracy, because the Balkans is a battleground for military strategists in history, because it was the first humanitarian intervention, and because China suffered the most complete failure in this diplomatic action. However, if you think about it carefully, how much material benefit does dismemberment of Yugoslavia have for the countries involved in dismemberment? What's more, this dismemberment was invented by some people-Kosovo still belongs to Yugoslavia in law. Will it be like the Vienna Conference 18 15, after Milosevic was ousted and Yugoslavia was transformed into a democratic country, a new round of land and property competition will begin? But in fact, none of this happened. No oil, no gold, no land, no technology. So what do many countries go to Corso to maintain order for?
The annual human rights conference is regarded as a conspiracy by some nationalists, because every time there is a proposal against China, there is a quarrel with China because of human rights issues. Is it good for those countries? Some people say they just want to mess up China. So, what are the benefits of a turbulent China, an economically collapsed China and a China with refugees all over the world? Knowing that reform and opening up, democracy and the rule of law are conducive to China's progress, China's strength and the improvement of China people's living standards, why should we support China's reform and opening up and building democracy and the rule of law-if their intentions are sinister enough? Besides, with human rights, will China be chaotic? Obviously, big American companies want to come to China to make money, and human rights disputes are obviously harmful to Sino-US relations and American capitalists to make money. Why does America talk about human rights year after year? What are the benefits for the United States and western countries?
2. What is welfare?
Of course, I'm not saying that some countries are so virtuous and selfless. What I want to make clear is that we need to reflect. What is the connotation of interest? Is it appropriate to oppose interests and moral justice?
Interests, in other words, interests, personal judgment is beneficial to oneself. As the soul of all things, man not only pursues satiety, but also pursues happiness. So the benefits are not only material, but also spiritual. Moreover, matter and spirit can be exchanged. People who support out-of-school children can usually get happiness and pride from it, which is the truth of helping others. At the same time, people are social animals that regulate their own existence, and moral norms may help people sacrifice immediate material interests for long-term interests or spiritual interests.
In real life, people's pursuit of self-worth is different. Many people often pursue long-term or spiritual interests rather than short-term material interests. As a billionaire, Perot knows that being president is less profitable than doing business, but he still wants to be president. It is also possible for the elders of ancient villages to mediate disputes voluntarily without any reward, because they have already received rewards-his happiness and his prestige.
So is the country. Making allies to obtain land and oil is a benefit, and multilateral trade is a benefit. When the world police get pride from it, what compensation is not interest? Getting happiness from the pursuit of moral justice is a kind of interest in itself. How can we deny moral demands on the pretext of interests? Therefore, if you think that interests are only material interests, deny that the pursuit of morality is a way to obtain interests, or deny that moral pride is a kind of interests, you can't answer the questions raised in the first part of this article, so the sentence that there are only eternal interests between countries can't stand scrutiny; On the contrary, if we admit that interests cover all interests, whether material or spiritual, isn't it nonsense to say that there are only eternal interests between countries?
Three. The Evolution of International Order and the Emergence of Moral Interests
Obviously, the statement that there are only eternal interests between countries does not cover moral interests, because the first half of this sentence is that there are no eternal friends. Here, interest and morality are opposite concepts, and because this famous saying refers to an era, morality is not an interest in international relations.
The premise of a person's moral praise is the existence of a moral concept. At the same time, only when there are universal moral norms within a certain range will people be encouraged to sacrifice material interests in pursuit of moral interests. In primitive society, people who killed another tribe by one tribe were not convicted. In the colonial era, it is natural for a country to use force to expand its territory. It was not until modern times that people gradually thought that aggression was immoral, but until the 1990s, the moral factors in international relations failed to effectively regulate the international order, because the most important force in the international community was always divided.
With the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the weakening of China's ideology in the reform, human society is forming an international order based on moral norms. These ethics include not invading other countries and the government must respect human rights.
At the same time, the way a country's international status and influence expand is also changing. In addition to the important role of economic power and military power, the role of moral power is becoming more and more important. Since human society has relatively universal morality, countries that take the lead in maintaining morality have the legitimacy to expand their influence.
The Kosovo war is a typical moral war. First of all, the initiation of the war is based on the common moral feelings of the international community. Secondly, the purpose of this war transcends the traditional material interest war. Third, the means of this war also followed the moral norms to the maximum extent. The initiator of this war gained great moral and emotional benefits and gained prestige. At first, Russia wanted to cling to the traditional geopolitical concept, but in the end it was not allowed to join the new order and share some benefits from it. By refusing to accept international morality, China suffered a disastrous failure.
It should be pointed out that the failure of China's diplomacy in the Kosovo crisis was disastrous, which may be the worst failure of China since the Sino-Japanese Treaty in the 20th century. In this crisis, China was not only defeated, but also abandoned by the world. After World War II, China's status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council became worthless in this crisis. This is a terrible omen.
Four. Adjustment of China's Diplomatic Strategy
In fact, since the Kosovo crisis, China's foreign policy has undergone major adjustments. The handling of the plane collision incident between China and the United States shows that this adjustment is fruitful. In the plane collision incident, China made full use of the international media and launched a moral diplomacy centered on human life, which was slightly better than the Bush administration.
However, we must also see that this strategic adjustment is still unstable. First of all, China's diplomatic strategy has not been systematized, and this strategic adjustment is immediate. Dealing with bilateral relations is acceptable, but dealing with multilateral international relations is not necessarily feasible. Secondly, China has no mature diplomatic theory. In the face of the great changes in the international order in the past decade, China's mainstream ideology is still critical, and most of his diplomatic ideas and theories remain in the words of balance of power, interdependence and multipolarization. Thirdly, the people have an incomprehensible attitude towards the adjustment of China's diplomatic strategy, and the government's diplomatic strategy has changed from a pragmatic perspective. However, because people's concept of international relations is quite backward, they still exert retrogressive pressure on diplomatic transformation.
Therefore, the adjustment of China's diplomatic strategy still needs efforts in the following aspects:
First of all, we must fully realize the profound changes that have taken place in the international order in the past decade. Although we can still say that there are only interests in the relationship between countries, we must realize that the interests here have increased moral interests in addition to traditional economic interests and strategic interests-international actions may not be based on any theoretical thinking about material interests, but on people's moral and emotional preferences. For modern politicians, making decisions profoundly and rationally is not necessarily more beneficial than directly catering to people's moral feelings. So people under the influence of the media have more and more influence on international politics.
With the popularization of international moral concepts, the third world countries have also undergone great division and reorganization, and China's original loyal allies may change, which will undoubtedly affect Russian relations with China.
On the other hand, when the war of aggression is far away and material interests can only be realized through cooperation, the appeal of moral interests may also be a shortcut to the rapid growth of a country's influence. In the next few decades, the country that will lead the world may not be the most powerful country in military strength, but the most powerful country in moral strength.
Not only should scholars and relevant government departments be made aware of this change, but people should also be gradually made aware of this change through the media.
Second, we must establish a big country mentality. The history of humiliation can be the driving force of a country's progress, and it can also be the spiritual burden of a country's diplomacy. An independent foreign policy sounds good, but when you are independent, attack from all sides, and don't associate with people (as in the 1960s), it is called retreating or going further, which is insanity; It's not a bad thing to have strong self-esteem, but when someone touches you carelessly, you think it's a deliberate insult, and then it's not a normal state of mind to stand up to others. A confident big country will never deal with one accusation after another nervously all day, and will never think about where another enemy comes out all day, or whose grandfather bullied our family.
To establish the mentality of a big country, we should look at the past rationally, look forward to the future with confidence, take the initiative to assume international obligations, and of course, reform internal affairs.
Third, we should take international public opinion seriously. The annual human rights conference and its news hype cannot be explained by simple conspiracy theories. And our media is still stuck in the concept of the past, and even makes some jokes from time to time. The government must attach importance to public relations, learn to use modern media, and learn to establish a good image sincerely. In this sense, the government's diplomatic advisory department should have public relations experts, and those ambassadors or spokespersons don't have to keep a straight face.
Fourthly, China should seize the moral opportunity to participate in and integrate regional organizations and the United Nations. For example, in the Taliban's destruction of Buddha, the rigid relationship between the United States and Islamic countries is not conducive to coming forward. China can seize the opportunity to enhance the role of the United Nations, which at present means the decline of NATO.
Another example is the North Korea issue. China can play a great role in the reunification of Korea. If reunification is facilitated by China, then the reunified North Korea will become China's friendliest neighbor. Even if reunification is impossible for the time being, China's promotion of North Korea's reform and opening up is also a sign that China is friendly to the whole world and is more beneficial to China.
In short, in today's advocating the rule of virtue, we also need to consider the issue of governing the country by virtue.