Abstract: In recent years, profound and complex transformations in the world order have emerged on the global landscape, which are marked by the following attributes. First, strategic tension between the major powers,namely China and the US, is unfolding in a more notable way than ever before. Second, conflicts between the public and private enterprises in the economic sector are deepening. Third, globalization is at the crossroad,featuring contradictions between nationalism and globalism. Last,uncertainties of the future world reflect also in the debates over conflicting concepts and ideologies.
Keywords: structural contradictions, strategic tension, enterprise, globalization,ideologies
I n recent years, the changes to the international order have been profound and complex, evolving so fast that there are many points worth our close observation. If the global structure of 2017 was said to be chaotic and directionless, then the one in 2018 remains practically the same with persisting chaos and randomness, which are likely to continue into the coming year. The effects of the global financial crisis have lingered until this very day with the global economic slump generally unchanged,continuing to exert negative impacts on the economic, social and political development of the world. The world today is full of uncertainties, as the impacts of the US’policies under the Trump administration are extending unprecedentedly; the intensity of the major-power game is increasing;bilateral and multilateral coordination and contest are protrusive; regional hot spots remain perplexing; a turnaround in the sluggish global economy within the next year may only be wishful thinking; the tide of protectionism is not likely to subside in the near future; and the influence of populism is rising continuously. In such a chaotic world, what we have to meticulously note is the fact that structural contradictions and conflicts are materializing in an unprecedented way, as they are pluralistic rather than singular in nature, both bilateral and multilateral, and affecting not only individual regions but the world as a whole,which may be seen in the following.
First, major-country competition, particularly seen in the strategic tension between China and the US, is unfolding in a significant way on the global stage, which has given rise to an ascending“new bi-polar”contest represented by two individual major powers in the world system. China and the US have become key actors with global significance, as seen in such cases as when US warships conducted four provocative cruises this year close to China’s reefs in the South China Sea in the name of“free navigation”; the ongoing trade frictions that have occurred repeatedly between the two countries; and the heated exchanges that have taken place between them on several multilateral diplomatic and security occasions,revealing the bi-polar contest between a rising power and the established hegemon.The negative perspective of China and Russia perpetuated by the US in its diplomacy has given birth to the US’overall strategy toward China as well as foreign policy that corresponds to such a strategy. For the US, a rising China is an unprecedented, complex heavyweight competitor,a rival with a GDP exceeding US$10 trillion, which cannot be simply compared with the declining British empire and the Soviet Union of the past or the Germany and Japan of today in strategic terms. Francis Fukuyama, who wrote The End of History and the Last Man, asserted 30 years ago that with the end of the Cold War, rivalry and conflicts between major powers came to an end, while economy and globalism had become the main focus concerning various countries. However, in the face of China’s rise, the American neo-conservatives, who are adept at manipulating the national security agenda, have wanted to tackle the“threat of China”for a long time. In their eyes, terrorism is a thorn in the flesh,while the challenges posed by other major powers constitute a mortal malady for the United States. However, the realistic threats posed by 9/11 and the accompanying national hatred calmed down the impulse of the neoconservatives to suppress China,thus interrupting the US’strategic agenda to face China’s rise.While today,some assessments of the US have clearly pointed out that terrorism is no longer the priority national security threat to the US, which has instead been replaced by the major-power game among the US, Russia and China, indicating the“return of global conflicts.”1 Jacob Heibrunn,“Power Play,”National Interest,No.158(November 2018):9. So to speak,the current status quo between the US and China is a delayed but inevitable strategic contest. Nonetheless, the rising China is no longer playing a minor role on the world stage, nor is it a country unilaterally trying to become integrated into the world or the international order, but rather it is a country actively interacting with the world and participating in or even leading the development of international affairs in a constructive way. For China, seeking benign interaction and mutual adaptation with the US is a basic and natural demand, in which China will inevitably touch upon the nerve of US hegemony. This trend of strategic competition between China and the US may be enduring. In the context of temporal and spatial changes, whether China and the US can mutually adapt depends,first of all,on finding a new model for their relations that is mutually acceptable, since the past model is no longer fit. Furthermore,neither can the old model of mutual exchanges engaged by the US and the Soviet Union of the past be duplicated to deal with the complex China-US relationship. However, the“new bi-polar”structure is completely different from the bi-polar confrontational structure of the Cold War. First, such a structure is not composed of confrontational blocs. Although the US has established its military camp, which can be used in its contest with China,China has no intention of setting up a similar camp to confront the United States. Although the“proxy wars on a global scale are not disappearing,but likely to come back again”,2 Daniel Byman,“Approximating War,”National Interest, No.157 (September 2018):11-13. it is unlikely in a real sense that the US and China would engage in proxy wars or conflicts. Second,interdependency between China and the US, especially in the fields of economy, trade and finance, is so outstanding that they are in fact closely tied to each other in their relationship, despite the requests of some Americans to decouple US economic and trade ties with China. Henry Paulson once issued a strong warning on the theory of decoupling USChina economic relations. He argues that decoupling is easier when you are actually a couple. But the United States and China are not a couple.They are part of an international economy that is multilaterally integrated on an unprecedented scale, especially within Asia.1 Editorial Board, ANU,“Decoupling the US from Asia,”accessed November 20,2018,http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2018/11/19/decoupling-the-us-from-asia/. Last, even in the field of security, the US and China share a common demand for cooperation to jointly face regional conflicts, as well as to fight against international terrorism and cope with non-traditional security threats. For both China and the US, although differences and frictions exist, it is no less important than imperative for them to maintain appropriate contact and dialogues, as both countries have the historical responsibility of strategically managing and controlling their bilateral relations,so as to keep it from falling into the Thucydides Trap.
对于目前国内的建筑性工程项目，一般在施工性阶段的造价问题会出现25%几率的影响，而在工程项目的设计阶段则会出现高达70%的造价影响。特别是在目前造价的管理体系下，施工的设计阶段活动不能得到很好有效的监管与重视，而且施工单位也没有采取促进优化的有效措施。同时，一部分工程项目也没有按照标准要求去应用项目的招投标体制形式，这也就会导致预先提前设计的方案无法实现最优化的选择，这也就大大的增加了项目施工的预期成本。
Second, the structural contradictions of the world also reflect themselves in a more microscopic dimension, namely in the conflict between public (state) and private enterprises, thus laying the groundwork for competition between nations of different types. Competition between nations is no longer the expression of abstract terminology. Public departments and enterprises, which enjoy some funding, taxation, and policy benefits,exist in some emerging nations.They have grown and risen rapidly in fierce global market competition through mergers and reorganizations, optimizing their structures, research and development, and innovation, thus ascending from the low-end to the middle- and high-end of the value chain, approaching from the periphery to the central stage or even the key core areas, and becoming enterprises with global significance in great numbers that cannot be ignored. The rise of public enterprises in emerging nations has exerted great impact on Western mainstream enterprises founded on neo-liberal economics. Although there are many enterprises in the West operating on a shareholding system or even on jointstock capitalism, they are far from the public enterprises talked about here in their nature and function. The private enterprises in China, Russia and India, among others, have contributed more than the public enterprises in terms of their respective GDPs, but their public enterprises are more pivotal as national economic pillars. It is impossible for emerging nations to give up their public enterprises, while the enterprises in the West are not likely to transform themselves into public ones, thus paving the way for structural competition in terms of economy,while the suppression of public enterprises and the resistance of the suppressed constitute the major basis for competition in national strength. Realistically, their contradictions are hard to reconcile.
德国位于欧洲西部，是一个由16个州组成的联邦共和国，国土面积3.57×105km2，人口8.076 75×107人。德国是高度发达的工业国家，全球八大工业国之一。农业也非常发达，机械化程度较高。20世纪70年代德国环境问题最为突出，认识到简单的垃圾末端处理并不能从根本上解决问题，资源回收和再利用有极其重要的意义，便开始试图解决垃圾减量和再利用问题。
Third, the co-existence of and conflict between nationalism and globalism have put globalization at a crossroad and lowered the resultant and efficiency of global governance. A world full of uncertainties and an age without a global consensus have greatly strengthened the awareness of self-protection of respective nations. Globalization has indeed provided many countries with development opportunities, but it has also fragmented and marginalized some regions, deviated real economy from virtual economy, broadened the gap between the rich and the poor, stirred up social discontent, and encouraged the growth of xenophobia and exclusion of immigrants as well as national identity and resentment against authority and elites. As globalization is still finding its way, the roles played by major powers in steering its direction are even more important. From its founding to Presidents Thomas Woodrow Wilson and Franklin D.Roosevelt, the US had followed the admonition of George Washington, a founding father of the United States, to not get involved in the affairs of Europe and Eurasia, thus giving rise to overwhelming isolationism and nationalism. While in the wake of the World War II, the US’national strength became so powerful that it was able to lead the establishment of the United Nations and other relevant international institutions such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the predecessor of the World Trade Organization (WTO), thereby making globalism the mainstream of the world. Today, the US is facing an option for the third time. As discussed in The National Interest article in 2018, although Trump has repeatedly withdrawn the US from international treaties, it does not mean that the US will withdraw itself from the world; rather, it has pursued a tactic highlighting both nationalism and globalism. America First is not synonymous with nationalism. In the mind of Trump, the world has changed, and these new changes have to be embraced. As a result, the focus of“developing economy and conforming to globalism”over the past 30 years should be shifted to facing challenges of various kinds including major-power competition. Nevertheless, nationalism and globalism are complementary to each other. Thus, he has held onto the democratic alliance of the Cold War era except totalitarian nationalism and the majorpower balance;although he is dissatisfied with the US security alliance,his starting point is to make the alliance stronger rather than weaker; and he has demanded US allies to do more, but that does not mean he would require the US to do less. He has intended to pull US troops from Afghanistan and Iraq and refused to send more troops into Syria and Yemen, favoring the nationalist strategy of countering terrorism through overseas balance.1 Henry R. Nau,“Return of the Balance of Power,”National Interest, No. 158,(October 2018):27-33. Whatever the explanation, America First remains the mainstream of Trump’s policies, reflecting his basic cognition that globalism should be subject to American supremacy.
Last,the structural conflicts of the world are also reflected in different ideas and concepts, whose convergence and unity would determine the future of the international order. Accompanying the uncertainties of the international order, reversals and complexity reflect the co-existence of conflicting concepts and ideologies, which has made uniting the world seemingly impossible, as the debate persists between openness and protectionism, liberal trade and fair trade, nationalism and internationalism or globalism, confrontational party politics and relative consistency in foreign policy, and improving and maintaining the existing international order (generally known as revisionism and maintainability). Therefore,different voices and opinions arise, ideologies and actors have tended to be more diversified, and the world is divided into a great wrangle with the contending parties incompatible with each other and insisting on their own ground. This ideological confrontation has led to the general rise of hedging in international relations, reflected in the competition of politics,military, economy and culture. As a matter of fact, the overtone of this ideological debate can be summarized in a major strategic question: who dominates international politics? The trend of the development of this debate will, to some extent, determine the prospect of the international order.
Currently,China is in a transitional process from a regional power to a global power, and from a large global economy to a global economic power. Under these new historical circumstances, China should more calmly and prudently observe the complex international situation,persistently uphold and advocate for China’s solutions, Chinese wisdom and Chinese concepts, as well as expand China’s influence, boost the consensus of the world, and improve global governance by promoting the Belt and Road Initiative so as to make its due contributions to the building of a community with a shared future for humanity.
* Dr. Fu Mengzi is a research professor and vice president of CICIR. He concurrently serves as a member of the Academic Committee of the Collaborative Innovation Center for National Territorial Sovereignty and Maritime Interest, Wuhan University.
(edited by Li Xin)
标签：德国论文; 工程项目论文; 造价论文; 这也论文; 阶段论文; 政治论文; 法律论文; 世界政治论文; 世界政治概况论文; 《ContemporaryInternationalRelations》2019年第1期论文; CICIR论文;