風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
中立、安全與文明現實主義：俄羅斯與烏克蘭的難題及其教訓
https://pascallottaz.substack.com/p/neutrality-security-and-civilizational
羅德島大學尼古拉·N·佩特羅教授於2024年10月25日在日本京都大學舉行的“重塑中立”國際會議上發表的講話。
帕斯卡爾·洛塔茲的頭像 帕斯卡爾·洛塔茲 2024年11月1日
中立的難題
可以說，像俄羅斯這樣的地區大國的戰略野心是通過促進全球不結盟來阻止全球霸權的出現。然而，其自身的身份認同在很多方麵都與在其利益範圍內占據主導地位息息相關。一個自詡為“文明國家”的國家，例如俄羅斯或其他任何國家，能否以一種不威脅其他國家的方式界定其利益範圍？
部分答案可能在於像烏克蘭這樣的區域小國如何看待中立。當它們將中立作為一種安全戰略時，這些國家麵臨著一個嚴峻的選擇。消極中立使它們能夠充當緩衝區，讓競爭對手至少暫時脫離接觸。或者，它們可以采取積極的中立，通過不斷轉移盟友來挑撥競爭對手之間的矛盾。這兩種策略都強化了國家的政治自主權，而這正是主權的本質屬性。
但無論是消極中立還是積極中立，是否與北約和歐盟等西方聯盟結構相容？正如我們在匈牙利、斯洛伐克和土耳其的案例中所看到的，許多人認為中立與聯盟的價值觀相悖，因此對它們構成了潛在的威脅。
因此，中立構成了一個難題。一方麵，推行反映國家獨特文化和政治價值觀的政策的能力是國家主權的重要組成部分。但過度的獨立可能會削弱聯盟提供的安全屏障，使其更容易受到來自侵略性鄰國的威脅。
因此，自2022年以來，北約和歐盟采取了前所未有的措施，限製成員國獨立行動的能力，堅持為了集體安全利益，必須執行一項總體價值觀共識。
有時，對匈牙利、土耳其和斯洛伐克異見人士的批評僅僅是因為他們的不忠誠破壞了聯盟的安全。但這反過來又基於這樣一種觀點：北約反映了一種獨特的文明認同，而成員國身份帶來的安全利益迫使各國接受這種特定的、自由的文明認同。
這種自由的文明認同不再局限於歐洲的文化範圍。它被認為將擴展到全球，這使得北約的擴張“涵蓋日本、澳大利亞、韓國、菲律賓以及任何像阿根廷一樣表示希望加入的民主國家”（正如最近一封由一百多名前任和現任政治和軍事官員簽名的公開信所暗示的那樣）成為弗朗西斯·福山曾經稱之為“曆史的終結”的再現。[1]
與此同時，“金磚國家+”國家正在倡導一種截然不同的主權與安全關係觀，這種觀為政治和價值觀中立提供了更大的空間。北約認為各國的文化和政治理念必須一致，否則全球安全就會受到損害，而金磚國家聯盟則基於這樣的理念：增強全球安全的是政治和文化多樣性，而非一致性。
現在我們可以理解為什麽俄羅斯與西方在烏克蘭問題上的爭鬥具有全球意義。這是一場理念的衝突。
北約認為，戰爭的結果將決定其核心意識形態的命運——即自由價值觀的擴張將帶來世界和平與繁榮。自蘇聯解體以來，這已成為北約的核心信念和核心使命。
金磚國家也認為，這場戰爭的結果將決定其核心意識形態的命運——即文化和政治多樣性是世界和平與繁榮的關鍵。其核心信念和核心使命日益依賴於文明多極化的製度化。
我認為，文明多極化——我稱之為金磚國家意識形態——比大多數分析人士認為的更為複雜，因為它借鑒了俄羅斯自21世紀初以來在國內推行的“主權民主”概念。起初，主權民主並沒有任何外交政策的成分，因為當時俄羅斯正致力於融入西方。
主權民主或許能成為俄羅斯在西方穩固地位的手段，這種希望持續了十年，但當它被拋棄時，正是對主權的強調使俄羅斯得以從親西方的外交政策順利過渡到文明多極化的政策。自2022年以來，俄羅斯還
開始將自己定義為“文明國家”。[2]
這一術語的含義仍在演變，但莫斯科國立大學教授鮑裏斯·梅茹耶夫對文明、多極化和安全之間的關係進行了深入思考。
梅茹耶夫認為，自由國際主義在哲學上與外交政策現實主義相悖，這種不相容性阻礙了全球許多衝突的解決。世界各國領導人麵臨的挑戰是如何防止這種緊張局勢升級為一場席卷全球的衝突。梅茹耶夫認為，存在一個框架，在這個框架內，這種衝突不必成為現實。他將這個框架稱為“文明現實主義”。
文明現實主義者認為，當前的國際體係將無法在自由主義與現實主義之間的衝突中生存下來。自由主義認為，使用武力迫使國家服從於普遍的道德框架是正當的，而現實主義則認為，使用武力是為了確保每個國家的生存是正當的。這兩種觀點都會導致持續不斷、不斷加深並最終跨越國界的衝突。
因此，自由主義應該重新構想自身，將其視為眾多聲音中的一種，而非全人類唯一合法的聲音。放棄自由主義對普世道德權威的主張，是全球穩定與和平的關鍵，因為自由帝國主義已經與西方在軍事、政治和經濟領域建立霸權的努力交織在一起，而所有這些努力都建立在西方自由主義價值觀的道德優越性之上。
同樣，現實主義也必須重新構想，使主權和權力不再成為國家行為的絕對道德依據。相反，一個新構想的國家體係應該采用多極化的哲學前提，在多極化中，價值觀中立是至善，因此即使是價值體係互不相容的國家也必須學會共存。
這種轉變的可行性如何？梅若耶夫謹慎地表示，這將是“國際關係體係的一次重大變革”。但曆史上已有先例。17世紀的歐洲，飽受百年不間斷戰爭之苦的領導人選擇削弱宗教價值觀在國際事務中的作用。我認為，文明現實主義者所呼籲的實際上是一份新的《威斯特伐利亞條約》，它將像其前身一樣，終結基於價值觀的戰爭的泛濫。
梅若耶夫認為，文明現實主義的宗旨在於使多極化發揮作用，將其製度化，成為多元文明極點的代表，每個文明極點都有其自身的文化和政治勢力範圍。
他說，要實現這一目標，我們必須“取代”國際關係的“主導性政治語言”。這聽起來或許有些牽強，但當你回想起這也是西方最著名的國際關係學派之一——社會建構主義——的處方時，就會明白這一點。該學派認為，精英選擇新的政治語言，可以催生新的政治機遇。
“取代主流政治語言”可以首先將我們全球的弊病診斷為碎片化，並提出新的政治話語，設想一個植根於共同理想、共同身份和意義的全球社會，從而避免自由主義和現實主義的陷阱，因為這兩種主義都會導致二元思維。
然而，任何社會建構主義的解決方案都需要幾代人的時間才能實施，而世界可能沒有那麽長的時間。因此，我希望看到它與英國學派的常識性外交智慧以及中立性相結合。
與現實主義不同，社會建構主義承認價值觀是社會的根本，在製定政策時必須加以考慮；然而，與自由主義不同，它承認這些價值觀因國家而異。
與文明現實主義一樣，英國學派也肯定價值觀多樣性的重要性。這種多樣性要求各國加強全球社會，全球社會被定義為國家利益交匯的互動舞台。孤立任何國家的行為都被認為是不負責任且危險的，因為它們會撕裂我們全球社會的結構。因此，外交官的職責最好比作婚姻顧問，而離婚根本不是一個選項。
中立性如何融入其中？
我認為，中立性，尤其是在價值觀方麵的中立性，與文明現實主義的框架完美契合。
正如我之前提到的，中立性是一個存在問題的概念。如果它宣揚獨特的國家文化和政治價值觀，它可能會降低國家的安全性。因此，政治和價值觀主權（事實上的獨立）始終與國家安全存在衝突。
但是，正如英國學派喜歡指出的那樣，現代民族國家體係很大程度上歸功於這樣一種理念：在一個健康的社會中，宗教價值觀不應該
不僅要與政治保持距離，而且在重要性上也與政治相媲美。
我們最深層的價值觀並非源於政治，而是超越政治，這一古老觀念最終使領導人能夠在價值觀，甚至是宗教價值觀方麵保持中立，而不是為之拚死搏鬥。這最終促成了《威斯特伐利亞和約》的簽訂，三十年戰爭的結束，以及歐洲在接下來的三個世紀中崛起成為全球強國。
如果我們今天希望避免再次發生全球價值觀衝突，避免其破壞力遠超歐洲宗教戰爭造成的破壞，我們迫切需要重新獲得這種中立。
[1] “公開信：拜登總統，支持烏克蘭，你就能以此傳承你的政治遺產”，《基輔獨立報》，2024年10月8日。
https://kyivindependent.com/open-letter-president-biden-this-is-how-you-can-uphold-your-legacy-by-supporting-ukraine/
[2] https://mid.ru/en/nota-bene/1854841/
Neutrality, Security, and Civilizational Realism: A Conundrum with Lessons for Russia and Ukraine
https://pascallottaz.substack.com/p/neutrality-security-and-civilizational
Remarks by Professor Nicolai N. Petro (University of Rhode Island), delivered at the “Reimagining Neutrality” international conference in Kyoto University, Japan, on October 25, 2024.
PASCAL LOTTAZ NOV 01, 2024
The Conundrum of Neutrality
It can be argued that the strategic ambition of Regional Great Powers, like Russia, is to prevent the emergence of a global hegemon by promoting global nonalignment. And yet, its own identity is in many ways tied to dominating in its own sphere of interest. Can a self-professed “civilization-state,” such as Russia or any other, define its sphere of interests in a way that is not threatening to others?
Part of the answer may lie in how Lesser Regional Powers, like Ukraine, view neutrality. When they turn to neutrality as a security strategy, such states face a stark choice. Passive neutrality allows them to serve as a buffer zone, where rival powers can disengage, at least temporarily. Or, they could adopt an assertive neutrality and play rival powers against each other by constantly shifting allegiance. Both strategies strengthen national political autonomy, an essential attribute of sovereignty.
But is neutrality, either passive or assertive, compatible with Western alliance structures like NATO and the EU? As we have seen in the case of Hungary, Slovakia, and Turkey, many see neutrality as being at odds with the values of the alliance, and therefore a potential threat to them.
Thus, neutrality poses a conundrum. On the one hand, the ability to pursue policies that reflect the distinctive cultural and political values of the nation are an essential aspect of national sovereignty. But, too much independence could weaken the security shield offered by the alliance, and make them more vulnerable to threats from aggressive neighbors.
As a result, since 2022 NATO and the EU have taken unprecedented steps to restrict the ability of member states to act independently, insisting on the enforcement of an overarching values consensus in the interests of collective security.
Sometimes the criticism leveled at dissidents in Hungary, Turkey, and Slovakia is simply that their disloyalty undermines the security of the alliance. But this, in turn, rests on the idea that NATO reflects a distinctive civilizational identity, and that the security benefits that derive from membership obliges states to accept this specific, liberal civilizational identity.
This liberal civilizational identity is no longer limited to the cultural confines of Europe. It is assumed to extend globally, which makes the expansion of NATO “to include Japan, Australia, South Korea, the Philippines, and any other democratic country that, like Argentina, expresses a wish to join,” as suggested in a recent open letter signed by more than a hundred former and current political and military officials, the re-incarnation of what Francis Fukuyama once termed "the end of history."[1]
Meanwhile, the BRICS+ countries are promoting a very different view of the relationship between sovereignty and security, one that offers more space for both political and values neutrality. Whereas NATO presumes that the cultural and political ideals of states must conform, lest global security be undermined, the BRICS alliance is premised on the idea that it is political and cultural diversity, rather than unanimity, that enhances global security.
We can now grasp why the struggle between Russia and the West over Ukraine has global significance. It is a conflict of visions.
NATO assume that its outcome will determine the fate of its core ideology—the belief that the expansion of liberal values will lead to global peace and prosperity. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, this has become NATO's defining belief and core mission.
BRICS also assumes that the outcome of this war will determine the fate of its core ideology—the belief that cultural and political diversity are key to global peace and prosperity. Its defining belief and core mission increasingly lie in the institutionalization of civilizational multipolarity.
I argue that Civilizational Multipolarity—which I call the BRICS ideology—is more sophisticated than most analysts assume, since it borrows much from the concept of Sovereign Democracy that Russia has pursued domestically since the early 2000s. At first there was no foreign policy component to sovereign democracy, since Russia was at that point committed to integrating into the West.
The hope that sovereign democracy might serve as a means of anchoring Russia in the West survived for a decade, but when it was abandoned, it was the emphasis on sovereignty that allowed Russia to transition smoothly from a pro-western foreign policy, to a policy of civilizational multipolarity. Since 2022, Russia has, in addition, begun to define itself as a “civilization-state.”[2]
The meaning of this term is still evolving, but one scholar who has thought deeply about the relationship between civilizations, multipolarity, and security is Moscow State University Professor, Boris Mezhuev.
Mezhuev makes the case that Liberal internationalism is philosophically at odds with foreign policy Realism, and that this incompatibility is preventing the resolution of many conflicts around the globe. The challenge facing world leaders is how to prevent this tension from escalating into a conflict that consumes the entire globe. Mezhuev suggests that there is a framework within which this conflict need not become existential. He calls this framework Civilizational Realism.
Civilizational Realists believe that the current international system will not survive the clash between a Liberalism that justifies the use of force to make states submit to a universal moral framework, and a Realism that justifies the use of force to ensure the survival of every individual states. Both of these visions lead to conflicts that persist, deepen, and eventually cross national borders.
Liberalism should therefore re-conceive itself as but one voice among many, rather than as the sole legitimate voice for all of humanity. Relinquishing liberalism's claim to universal moral authority is the key to global stability and peace, because liberal imperialism has become intertwined with efforts to establish Western hegemony in military, politics, and economics, all of which rest on the claim of moral superiority for Western liberal values.
Realism must likewise be re-conceived, so that sovereignty and power no longer serve as absolute moral justifications for state actions. Instead, a newly conceived state system should adopt the philosophical premise of multipolarity, in which values neutrality is the summum bonum, and thus even countries with incompatible value systems, must learn to co-exist.
How plausible is such a transformation? Mezhuev is cautious, saying only that it would be "a major upheaval in the system of international relations." But there is historical precedent for it. In the 17th century Europe, leaders exhausted by a century of incessant warfare, chose to reduce the role of religious values in international affairs. I believe that what Civilizational Realists are calling for is, in effect, a new Treaty of Westphalia that, like its predecessor, would put an end to the proliferation of values based warfare.
The point of Civilizational Realism, says Mezhuev, is to make multipolarity functional, to institutionalize it as the representation of diverse civilizational poles, each one with its own cultural and political sphere of influence.
To get there, he says, we must "replace the dominant political language" of IR. This may seem rather farfetched, until one recalls that it is also the prescription of one of the West’s most prominent school of IR—social constructivism, which argues that new political opportunities can emerge from the elite’s choice of a new political language.
"Replacing the dominant political language" could begin by diagnosing our global malaise as due to fragmentation, and suggesting new political discourse that envisions a global society rooted in common ideals, shared identity, and meanings, thereby avoiding the pitfalls of Liberalism and Realism, both of which lead to binary thinking.
Any Social Constructivist solution, however, will take generations to implement, and the world may not have that long. I would therefore like to see it paired with the common sense diplomatic wisdom of the English School, and neutrality.
Unlike Realism, ES acknowledges that values are fundamental to societies and must be taken into account when formulating policy; unlike Liberalism, however, it acknowledges that such values vary from country to country.
Like Civilizational Realism, the English School affirm the importance of values diversity. This diversity requires that nations strengthen Global Society, defined as the arena of interaction where national interests overlap. Effort to isolate any nation are considered irresponsible and dangerous, because they tear at the fabric of our Global Society. The proper task of diplomats can therefore best be likened to that of a marriage counselor where divorce is simply not an option.
How does Neutrality fit into the picture?
I believe that neutrality, especially with respect to values, fits nicely into the framework of Civilization Realism.
As I suggested earlier, neutrality is problematic concept. To the extent that it promotes distinctive national cultural and political values, it can potentially make the nation less secure. Political and values sovereignty (de facto—independence) are thus always in tension with national security.
But, as the English School likes to point out, the modern nation-state system owes much to the idea that, in a healthy society, religious values should not only be kept separate from politics, but also rival them in importance.
The ancient notion, that our deepest values do not derive from politics, but transcend politics, is what ultimately allowed leaders to embrace neutrality with respect to values, even religious values, rather than fight to the death over them. This eventually led to the Peace of Westphalia, the end of the Thirty Years Wars, and the subsequent emergence of Europe as a global powerhouse for the next three centuries.
We sorely need to recapture this type of neutrality today, if we wish to avoid another global confrontation over values, one that would dwarf the devastation caused by the religious wars in Europe.
[1] “Open letter: President Biden, this is how you can uphold your legacy by supporting Ukraine,” The Kyiv Independent, October 8, 2024.
