国际经济大变局：各国还能在同一个棋盘下棋吗？_风闻

　　**Club提要：**8月24日至25日，由中国公共外交协会指导、北京对话主办的“金砖国家与多极世界2024对话会”在北京举行。来自15个国家和南方中心等国际组织的近40位专家学者，就金砖国家构建货币体系、参与多极世界构建、增强经济韧性与合作等议题，进行了深入研讨。

　　俄罗斯国际事务委员会学术主任安德烈•科尔图诺夫在发言中强调，国际治理体系已经走到了重要历史关头，必须就如何前进做出决定。需要关注以下三点：首先，多极化必须辅之以多边主义概念；其次，多极化在世界政治的不同领域具有不对称性；第三，金砖国家需要解决包容性与排他性相匹配的问题。

　　以下为科尔图诺夫发言：

　　请允许我就当前 “打破一极 ”和多极化普遍面临的战略困境发表一些看法。我认为，国际体系如今已经到了一个重要的历史关头，必须就如何继续前进做出重要的决定。

　　科尔图诺夫（图源：乌拉尔联邦大学官网）

　　请允许我谈三点看法。首先，我们倾向于强调多极化是一个反映世界力量平衡变化的进程，最终要使国际体系更具包容性和民主性。然而，这并不一定意味着国际体系会变得更加稳定，更能抵御各种破坏稳定的冲动，**因为多极化并没有告诉我们不同的极之间关系的性质。这些关系可以是合作性的，也可以是对抗性的，可能意味着结盟，也可能意味着冲突甚至战争。这就是为什么多极化的概念必须辅之以多边主义的概念。**然而，金砖国家在这方面并没有很多可以借鉴的历史经验。

　　从历史上看，大多数金砖国家都回避做出任何限制其主权的多边承诺。外交政策的决定是独立的，这是很自然的，因为长期以来，这些国家都是各自地区的领导者。他们并不像欧盟或东盟国家那样习惯于限制国家主权的多边主义，这也是他们必须面对的两难选择之一：要么继续作为一个辩论俱乐部，要么引入更严格的程序和决定，即扩大互惠原则和下放一定的权力，以支持国家边界。

　　我要强调的第二个问题是不对称问题。**我们总是讨论“多极化”，但在世界政治的不同领域，多极化的具体表现形式却大相径庭。**以全球经济为例，如果从战略层面来看，我们仍然可以看到苏美或美俄两极化的一些残留因素，特别是在核领域。在军事领域和地缘政治领域，世界显然正朝着多极化的方向发展，但在国际经济领域，情况却未必如此，因为有两个超级大国在许多重要方面遥遥领先于其他参与者——在经济上，中美两极化的道路可以说是越走越远。

　　而在国际金融等领域，**由美国管理、以美元为主导的国际金融机构仍主导着金融领域的许多方面，世界依旧是相当单极的。这就意味着，统一、普遍的游戏规则将不再存在，各国不是在一个棋盘上下棋，而是要在许多棋盘上下棋。**对于发展前景暗淡的国家来说，选择能够提供更多附加值的领域和特定棋盘将是非常重要的。

　　我们还应该谈谈非常规的安全问题和国际金融体系的特殊变化——这一体系将变得截然不同。

　　最后，金砖国家面临的挑战之一是如何使包容性和排他性相匹配。如果想要组建一个国际俱乐部，那么这个俱乐部就应该是特殊的，为俱乐部成员提供某些特权，以吸引新成员加入。但如果把俱乐部封闭起来，它就会沦为一个宗派。那么，如何管理开放的大门和更严格的入会标准呢？

　　有一段时间，北京和莫斯科提出了“金砖+”的想法，即不需要增加成员数量，而是应该通过具体机制，在这些国家愿意接受的层面上，为各国创造与金砖国家接触的机会。但金砖国家最近扩员之后，“金砖+”的概念可能不再像以前那么重要了。

　　我们必须思考，是否可以使加入程序更加规范，是否可以有一个更加透明和开放的金砖国家成员标准，以及如何计划平衡该体系的深化和扩展。

　　我认为，这对每一个国际集团来说都是一个非常严峻的挑战。显然，金砖国家也不例外。尽管存在这些挑战和问题，但金砖组织的对外开放仍有很大潜力。今年正值俄罗斯担任金砖国家主席国，我真心希望这将成为金砖组织的一个重要里程碑，有助于加强金砖国家在未来发挥国际性作用。

　　（翻译：毛琪    核译：李雨琪）

　　以下为英文发言原文：

　　Let me express some of my ideas on the strategic dilemmas that breaks I and multipolarity in generally faces these days. I think that right now, the institution has come to an important historic juncture at which it will have to make very important decisions on how to move forward.

　　Let me limit myself to only three observations. First of all, we tend to emphasize multipolarity as a process that reflects the change in the balance of powers in the world, which ultimately makes the international system more inclusive and more democratic. This is the right. However, it does not necessarily mean that the international system is going to become more stable and more resilient to various destabilizing impulses, because multipolarity does not tell us anything about the nature of the relationship between the poles. These relations can be cooperative, but they can be confrontational. They can imply joint projects. They can also imply conflicts and even wars. That’s why the concept of multipolarity has to be complemented by the concept of multilateralism. And here, BRICS countries do not have a lot of historic experience that they can use. 

　　Historically, most of BRICS countries, a return to avoid making any multilateral commitments that would limit their sovereignty, and their independence of foreign policy decisions. This is natural that for many years, even for centuries, these countries were leaders in their respective regions. And therefore, they are not as used to multilateralism as, for example, countries of the European Union or countries of ASEAN. So multilateralism is not possible without bring it in limitations on the national sovereignty. And this is one of the dilemmas that the BRICS countries will have to face, are either to stay as a discussion club or to introduce more rigid procedures and decisions that would assume diffused reciprocity and certain delegation of powers to support national borders.

　　The second problem that I would like to emphasize is the problem of asymmetry. We are talking about the multipolarity, but multipolarity manifests itself in very different ways in different areas of world politics. The global economy, for instance, if we take the strategic dimension, we still see some residual elements of the Soviet-American or US-Russian bipolarity, especially in the nuclear field. However, in the military domain and in the geopolitical domain, the world is clearly moving towards a multipolarity. This is not necessarily the case in the economic dimension of international relations, because in the economic domain, there are apparently two superpowers which are far superior to other players, are in many important dimensions. So economically, the road is the arguably moving the towards the US-China bipolarity.

　　Finally, if you take certain areas like international finance, the world is still quite unipolar in terms that the US dollar and the US managed international financial institutions still dominate a lot of the financial dimensions as of the current system. That means that there will be no integrated, universal rules of the game will have her to play, not only one chess board, but rather on many chess boards. For bleaks, it would be very important to select the areas and specific chairs boards where they can provide more value added than others. Maybe we should talk about the non-conventional security issues. Maybe we should talk about the special changes in the international financial system. But I just wanted to say that the system will be very different. And finally, let me also say that one of the challenges for BRICS, is how to match inclusivity and exclusivity. If you try to put together an international club, the club should be special. You should have a certain special privileges for club members to attract their new members. However, if you close the club, it will evolve into a sect. So how to manage open doors and more rigid criteria on membership? For some time, I remember in Beijing and also in Moscow, they entertained the idea of BRICS+, the idea was that we do not really need to increase the number of members, but rather we should create opportunities to various countries to engage with BRICS through specific mechanisms at the level that these countries are ready to take. But now after the recent enlargement of BRICS, maybe the concept of BRICS+ is no longer as relevant as it was some time ago.

　　We have to think about whether we can make the accession process more regulated, whether we can have a more transparent and more open criteria for BRICS membership, and how we plan to balance the deepening and the broadening of the institution. I think it’s a very serious challenge for every international grouping. And clearly, BRICS is not an exception. Let me conclude, I was saying that all these challenges and problems notwithstanding, the BRICS open has a lot of potential. And I do hope that this year, the year of the Russian presidency in the organization will be an important milestone for the institution. And it will help to enhance the international role for BRICS for years ahead.

　　以“砖”之名，谋“金”之实，专题对话会在京召开

　　（独家）2035年的世界：向好还是变坏？

　　美国的全球政治权力，正因俄乌冲突而缩水