中立、安全与文明现实主义：俄罗斯与乌克兰的难题及其教训
https://pascallottaz.substack.com/p/neutrality-security-and-civilizational
罗德岛大学尼古拉·N·佩特罗教授于2024年10月25日在日本京都大学举行的“重塑中立”国际会议上发表的讲话。
帕斯卡尔·洛塔兹的头像 帕斯卡尔·洛塔兹 2024年11月1日
中立的难题
可以说，像俄罗斯这样的地区大国的战略野心是通过促进全球不结盟来阻止全球霸权的出现。然而，其自身的身份认同在很多方面都与在其利益范围内占据主导地位息息相关。一个自诩为“文明国家”的国家，例如俄罗斯或其他任何国家，能否以一种不威胁其他国家的方式界定其利益范围？
部分答案可能在于像乌克兰这样的区域小国如何看待中立。当它们将中立作为一种安全战略时，这些国家面临着一个严峻的选择。消极中立使它们能够充当缓冲区，让竞争对手至少暂时脱离接触。或者，它们可以采取积极的中立，通过不断转移盟友来挑拨竞争对手之间的矛盾。这两种策略都强化了国家的政治自主权，而这正是主权的本质属性。
但无论是消极中立还是积极中立，是否与北约和欧盟等西方联盟结构相容？正如我们在匈牙利、斯洛伐克和土耳其的案例中所看到的，许多人认为中立与联盟的价值观相悖，因此对它们构成了潜在的威胁。
因此，中立构成了一个难题。一方面，推行反映国家独特文化和政治价值观的政策的能力是国家主权的重要组成部分。但过度的独立可能会削弱联盟提供的安全屏障，使其更容易受到来自侵略性邻国的威胁。
因此，自2022年以来，北约和欧盟采取了前所未有的措施，限制成员国独立行动的能力，坚持为了集体安全利益，必须执行一项总体价值观共识。
有时，对匈牙利、土耳其和斯洛伐克异见人士的批评仅仅是因为他们的不忠诚破坏了联盟的安全。但这反过来又基于这样一种观点：北约反映了一种独特的文明认同，而成员国身份带来的安全利益迫使各国接受这种特定的、自由的文明认同。
这种自由的文明认同不再局限于欧洲的文化范围。它被认为将扩展到全球，这使得北约的扩张“涵盖日本、澳大利亚、韩国、菲律宾以及任何像阿根廷一样表示希望加入的民主国家”（正如最近一封由一百多名前任和现任政治和军事官员签名的公开信所暗示的那样）成为弗朗西斯·福山曾经称之为“历史的终结”的再现。[1]
与此同时，“金砖国家+”国家正在倡导一种截然不同的主权与安全关系观，这种观为政治和价值观中立提供了更大的空间。北约认为各国的文化和政治理念必须一致，否则全球安全就会受到损害，而金砖国家联盟则基于这样的理念：增强全球安全的是政治和文化多样性，而非一致性。
现在我们可以理解为什么俄罗斯与西方在乌克兰问题上的争斗具有全球意义。这是一场理念的冲突。
北约认为，战争的结果将决定其核心意识形态的命运——即自由价值观的扩张将带来世界和平与繁荣。自苏联解体以来，这已成为北约的核心信念和核心使命。
金砖国家也认为，这场战争的结果将决定其核心意识形态的命运——即文化和政治多样性是世界和平与繁荣的关键。其核心信念和核心使命日益依赖于文明多极化的制度化。
我认为，文明多极化——我称之为金砖国家意识形态——比大多数分析人士认为的更为复杂，因为它借鉴了俄罗斯自21世纪初以来在国内推行的“主权民主”概念。起初，主权民主并没有任何外交政策的成分，因为当时俄罗斯正致力于融入西方。
主权民主或许能成为俄罗斯在西方稳固地位的手段，这种希望持续了十年，但当它被抛弃时，正是对主权的强调使俄罗斯得以从亲西方的外交政策顺利过渡到文明多极化的政策。自2022年以来，俄罗斯还
开始将自己定义为“文明国家”。[2]
这一术语的含义仍在演变，但莫斯科国立大学教授鲍里斯·梅茹耶夫对文明、多极化和安全之间的关系进行了深入思考。
梅茹耶夫认为，自由国际主义在哲学上与外交政策现实主义相悖，这种不相容性阻碍了全球许多冲突的解决。世界各国领导人面临的挑战是如何防止这种紧张局势升级为一场席卷全球的冲突。梅茹耶夫认为，存在一个框架，在这个框架内，这种冲突不必成为现实。他将这个框架称为“文明现实主义”。
文明现实主义者认为，当前的国际体系将无法在自由主义与现实主义之间的冲突中生存下来。自由主义认为，使用武力迫使国家服从于普遍的道德框架是正当的，而现实主义则认为，使用武力是为了确保每个国家的生存是正当的。这两种观点都会导致持续不断、不断加深并最终跨越国界的冲突。
因此，自由主义应该重新构想自身，将其视为众多声音中的一种，而非全人类唯一合法的声音。放弃自由主义对普世道德权威的主张，是全球稳定与和平的关键，因为自由帝国主义已经与西方在军事、政治和经济领域建立霸权的努力交织在一起，而所有这些努力都建立在西方自由主义价值观的道德优越性之上。
同样，现实主义也必须重新构想，使主权和权力不再成为国家行为的绝对道德依据。相反，一个新构想的国家体系应该采用多极化的哲学前提，在多极化中，价值观中立是至善，因此即使是价值体系互不相容的国家也必须学会共存。
这种转变的可行性如何？梅若耶夫谨慎地表示，这将是“国际关系体系的一次重大变革”。但历史上已有先例。17世纪的欧洲，饱受百年不间断战争之苦的领导人选择削弱宗教价值观在国际事务中的作用。我认为，文明现实主义者所呼吁的实际上是一份新的《威斯特伐利亚条约》，它将像其前身一样，终结基于价值观的战争的泛滥。
梅若耶夫认为，文明现实主义的宗旨在于使多极化发挥作用，将其制度化，成为多元文明极点的代表，每个文明极点都有其自身的文化和政治势力范围。
他说，要实现这一目标，我们必须“取代”国际关系的“主导性政治语言”。这听起来或许有些牵强，但当你回想起这也是西方最著名的国际关系学派之一——社会建构主义——的处方时，就会明白这一点。该学派认为，精英选择新的政治语言，可以催生新的政治机遇。
“取代主流政治语言”可以首先将我们全球的弊病诊断为碎片化，并提出新的政治话语，设想一个植根于共同理想、共同身份和意义的全球社会，从而避免自由主义和现实主义的陷阱，因为这两种主义都会导致二元思维。
然而，任何社会建构主义的解决方案都需要几代人的时间才能实施，而世界可能没有那么长的时间。因此，我希望看到它与英国学派的常识性外交智慧以及中立性相结合。
与现实主义不同，社会建构主义承认价值观是社会的根本，在制定政策时必须加以考虑；然而，与自由主义不同，它承认这些价值观因国家而异。
与文明现实主义一样，英国学派也肯定价值观多样性的重要性。这种多样性要求各国加强全球社会，全球社会被定义为国家利益交汇的互动舞台。孤立任何国家的行为都被认为是不负责任且危险的，因为它们会撕裂我们全球社会的结构。因此，外交官的职责最好比作婚姻顾问，而离婚根本不是一个选项。
中立性如何融入其中？
我认为，中立性，尤其是在价值观方面的中立性，与文明现实主义的框架完美契合。
正如我之前提到的，中立性是一个存在问题的概念。如果它宣扬独特的国家文化和政治价值观，它可能会降低国家的安全性。因此，政治和价值观主权（事实上的独立）始终与国家安全存在冲突。
但是，正如英国学派喜欢指出的那样，现代民族国家体系很大程度上归功于这样一种理念：在一个健康的社会中，宗教价值观不应该
不仅要与政治保持距离，而且在重要性上也与政治相媲美。
我们最深层的价值观并非源于政治，而是超越政治，这一古老观念最终使领导人能够在价值观，甚至是宗教价值观方面保持中立，而不是为之拼死搏斗。这最终促成了《威斯特伐利亚和约》的签订，三十年战争的结束，以及欧洲在接下来的三个世纪中崛起成为全球强国。
如果我们今天希望避免再次发生全球价值观冲突，避免其破坏力远超欧洲宗教战争造成的破坏，我们迫切需要重新获得这种中立。
[1] “公开信：拜登总统，支持乌克兰，你就能以此传承你的政治遗产”，《基辅独立报》，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
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, 2024The Conundrum of Neutrality
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.
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?
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.
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/
