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 explicitly say 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 competition for land, resources, human technology and so on. The neo-interventionism under the banner of human rights or stopping aggression and tyranny is taken for granted as having ulterior motives behind it or, in order to seize some resources, such as oil and so on.
under the control of this concept and logic, the American action to capture noriega in 1989 was imagined to continue to control the Panama Canal, the Gulf War in 1991 was imagined to control the oil in the Gulf, the Kosoyue War in 1999 was imagined to control the Balkans, and the annual human rights conference was even imagined to be an imperialist conspiracy.
this kind of imagination is valid to some extent-under the condition of limited resources, the competition between people and even between countries is inevitable. However, the theory of looking at interests only by material interests cannot explain all the motives of the above international behaviors.
According to the conspiracy theory, it is a cover for the United States to seize noriega, but its purpose is to stay on the Panama Canal. In fact, however, the US military did not occupy Panama, but withdrew to China after the military operation. When the lease of the Panama Canal expired in 1999, the US military withdrew from the canal without any indication of default. Isn't it a piece of cake to occupy Panama with the military strength of the United States? What's the use of international condemnation? What's impossible to even 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 president of Panama 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 by voluntarily withdrawing from the canal area? If you can't do this, how can you explain it?
after Iraq invaded Kuwait, why was the American condemnation so impassioned? For its own benefit, why doesn't the United States choose to cooperate with the Gulf power Iraq? To take a step back, even if the United States has a plot to attack the strong in order to control the Gulf, then why can the military action against Iraq be supported by the vast majority of countries in the world? Do almost all countries in the world have no judgment or support the American conspiracy against their will? We must ask, is the Gulf War purely for oil or material benefits? If not, then 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 benefits does dismemberment of Yugoslavia have for the countries involved in dismemberment? What's more, this dismemberment was also invented by some people-Kosova still belongs to Yugoslavia legally. Will the overthrow of Milosevic and the transformation of Yugoslavia into a democratic country start a new round of land and property scraping, just like the Vienna Conference in 1815? But in fact, none of this has happened. There is no oil, no gold mine, no land, and no technology. So what are many countries going to Koso to maintain order?
The annual human rights conference is regarded as a conspiracy by some nationalists because every time there is a proposal against China. Is it good for those countries to quarrel with China over human rights issues? Some people say that 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 they support China's reform and opening up and build democracy and the rule of law-if their intentions are sinister enough? Besides, with human rights, will China be chaotic? Big American companies obviously want to come to China to make money, and human rights disputes are obviously harmful to Sino-US relations and American capitalists' making money. Why does the United States talk about human rights year after year? What are the benefits for the United States and western countries?
2. What are benefits?
of course, I'm not saying that some countries are so virtuous and selfless. What I want to explain is that we need to reflect. What are the connotations of interests? Is it appropriate to oppose interests and moral justice?
benefits, in other words, are benefits, and personal judgment is beneficial to oneself. Man, as the soul of all things, not only pursues satiety, but also happiness. Therefore, the benefits are not only material but also spiritual. Moreover, it is possible to exchange between matter and spirit. 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 existence, and moral norms may help people sacrifice their immediate material interests for long-term interests or spiritual interests.
In real life, the realization of self-worth pursued by people is different. Many people, in many cases, pursue long-term or spiritual interests instead of short-term material interests. Perot, a billionaire, knows that being president makes less money than doing business, but he still wants to be president. It is also possible for the ancient village elders to mediate disputes voluntarily without receiving any reward, because they have already received rewards from it-his happiness and his prestige.
The same is true for countries. Making allies to get land and oil is an interest, and multilateral trade is an interest. When the world police get pride from it, why not pay for it? Getting happiness from the pursuit of moral justice is a kind of interest in itself. How can we deny moral demands under the pretext of interest? Therefore, if you think that interests are only material interests, deny that pursuing 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 paper, 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 benefits, both material and spiritual, wouldn't it be nonsense to say that there are only eternal interests between countries?
III. Evolution of the international order and the emergence of moral interests
Obviously, the statement that there are only eternal interests among countries does not cover moral interests, because the first half of this sentence is that there are no eternal friends, and here, interests and morality are opposite concepts, and because of the era mentioned in this famous saying, morality is not a kind of 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 in a certain range will there be incentives for people to sacrifice their material interests in pursuit of moral interests. In primitive society, people who killed another tribe by one tribe were not condemned. In colonial times, it was taken for granted that a country used force to expand its territory. It was not until modern times that people gradually regarded aggression as immoral, but until the 199s, 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 fading of China's ideology in the reform, human society is forming an international order based on moral norms. These moral norms include not invading other countries, and the government must respect human rights.
At the same time, a country's international status and the way of expanding its influence are changing. In addition to the important role of economic power and military power, moral power plays an increasingly important role. Since human society has a relatively universal morality, the country that takes the lead in maintaining morality has the legitimacy to expand its 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 goes beyond the traditional war of material interests. Thirdly, the means of this war also follow 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 ideas, and finally it was not allowed to join the new order and share some benefits from it. China suffered a disastrous failure because of its refusal to accept international morality.
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 treaty of shame and ugliness in the 2th century. In this crisis, China was not only beaten, but also abandoned by the world. China's status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council after World War II became worthless in this crisis. This is a terrible omen.
IV. Adjustment of China's diplomatic strategy
In fact, China's foreign policy has undergone major adjustments since the Kosovo crisis. The handling of the plane collision incident between China and the United States this time shows that this adjustment is effective. In the plane collision incident, China made full use of the international media and launched moral diplomacy centering on human life, which was slightly better than the Bush administration.
however, we should 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. It is acceptable to deal with bilateral relations, but not necessarily feasible to deal with multilateral international relations. Secondly, China does not have a mature diplomatic theory. In the face of great changes in the international order in the past decade, China's mainstream ideology is still critical, and its diplomatic concepts and theories mostly stay on the words of balance of power, interdependence and multipolarization. Thirdly, the people hold an incomprehensible attitude towards the adjustment of China administration's diplomatic strategy, and the government's diplomatic strategy has changed from a pragmatic perspective. However, because the people's concept of international relations is quite backward, they still exert retrogressive pressure on the diplomatic transformation.
Therefore, the adjustment of China's diplomatic strategy needs to do well in the following aspects:
First, 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 added moral interests in addition to traditional economic interests and strategic interests-international action 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. Therefore, people under the influence of the media have a greater and greater influence on international politics.
With the popularization of international moral concepts, the third world countries have also undergone major 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 achieved 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 richest and strongest in military strength, but the country with the strongest moral strength.
We should not only make scholars and relevant government departments aware of this change, but also gradually make people aware of this change through the media.
secondly, we should establish a big country mentality. The history of humiliation can be the driving force of a country's progress and the spiritual burden of a country's diplomacy. An independent foreign policy sounds good, but when you are independent and attack in all directions and don't associate with others (as in the 196 s), it is called being withdrawn or going further, which is insane; It's not a bad thing to have a 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 fight hard with others. A confident big country will never deal with one accusation after another nervously all day, and will never wonder where another enemy comes out all day, or whose grandfather bullied our family.
To establish a big country mentality, we should look at the past rationally, look forward to the future confidently, take the initiative to assume international obligations, and of course, reform internal affairs.
Third, we must take international public opinion seriously. The annual human rights conference and its news hype cannot be explained by a simple conspiracy theory. And our media still stays in the past ideas 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 with sincerity. In this sense, there should be public relations experts in the government's diplomatic advisory department, and those ambassadors or spokespersons don't have to keep a straight face.
Fourth, China should seize the moral opportunity, participate in and integrate regional organizations and the United Nations. For example, in the Taliban's destruction of Buddha, the United States is not conducive to coming forward because of its rigid relationship with Islamic countries. China can seize the opportunity to promote the role of the United Nations, and the current enhancement of the role of the United Nations means the decline of NATO.
another example is north Korea. China can play a great role in the reunification of Korea. If reunification is achieved under the facilitation of China, then a unified Korea will become China's most friendly neighboring country. Even if reunification is not possible for the time being, China's promotion of North Korea's reform and opening up is also a sign of China's friendship to the whole world, which is more beneficial to China.
In short, in today's advocating the rule of virtue, we also need to consider the issue of building a country by virtue.