全球化世界的现状与人类未来
日期：07-01
亚历山大 ·N · 丘马科夫
俄罗斯罗蒙诺索夫莫斯科州立大学
摘要俄罗斯罗蒙诺索夫莫斯科州立大学
面向全球的世界观的形成是时代所要求的，也是有效互动所必须的，更是世界文明和文化体系的一种存在方式。同时，只有充分考察人类共同体的民族特性和文化多样性，这种互动才可能是有效的。总而言之，当今的国际社会需要严肃且整全的世界观、价值和精神转变，这只有全球性的文明变革才能促成。这一变革的目的是全球市民社会的形成和国际全球化变迁，这对对维持和平和全人类的可持续发展最重要的原则共识来说不可或缺。这一原则就是：“全球思考，共同行动！”
REALITIES OF THE GLOBAL WORLD AND THEHUMAN FUTURE
Alexander N. CHUMAKOV
Lomonosov Moscow State University
AbstractAlexander N. CHUMAKOV
Lomonosov Moscow State University
The formation of a globally oriented worldview is the imperative of time and a necessary conditionfor effective interaction and, ultimately, a means of survival of the world cultural and civilizational system. At the same time, such interaction can be effective only if national peculiarities and cultural diversity of people living together or nearby are taken into сonsideration. In General, the world community today faces the need for serious and, above all, worldview, value and spiritual changes, which should be the result of a global civilizational revolution aimed at the formation of a global civil society and the transition in international relations from the "right of force" to the "force of law". In an era of multidimensional globalization, this is an absolutely necessary condition for preserving peace and realizing the most important principle of sustainable development of planetary humanity: "to think globally, to act – together!".
The modern world order and the real alignment of forces on the world are the environment in which various states, their various associations, as well as a multitude of social structures, organizations, movements and other legal and illegal actors of international relations realize their interests at the global level. In this regard, the crucial question is: “How should our world be structured, so that taking into account the imperfections and all the contradictions inherent not only to social systems, but also to man himself, the future of the world community and our planet as a whole would be at least stable and sustainable?
In this case, we note that man does not need to create a paradise on Earth. He is already here. And in fact, on our planet there is absolutely everything that people need for their happy, fulfilling life ... And if this world becomes hell for people, then this is no longer a natural problem, but a person’s own. This raises another key question: “How to learn to live by yourself, while leaving others the opportunity to live “in their own way ”?
Dialogue, which is now often interspersed with “soft power” and with the use of sanctions, which, unlike “soft” and “hard” forces, act as “medium power”, is in this situation an absolutely necessary and indispensable condition of civilized relations in the global world. But dialogue in itself is not the solution of problems itself, but only a means, a tool and a way to solve them. The maximum results, which can be expected as a result of the dialogue, are largely determined by the conditions in which it takes place. For example, world events in the twentieth century took place mostly under the banner of the irreconcilable struggle of two socio-political systems - capitalism and socialism. It was a confrontation of two poles of multidirectional forces, antagonistic in nature. In this essentially bipolar world, dialogue between the warring parties has played a crucial role in preserving peace and preventing nuclear war. And this was the limit to the peaceful resolution of contradictions in those conditions.
In fact, the relatively peaceful end of the cold war was the result, among other things, of a tense dialogue that did not stop almost all the time of the confrontation between the two poles of ideology and military force. However, with the collapse of the socialist camp, the balance of power in the international arena has changed fundamentally.
The Western world and the United States, which remained practically without acounterweight, began to be perceived as the only pole and an uncontested center of power, only capable of maintaining the world order. In any case, it seemed so to many in the West at that time, which was most clearly reflected in the 1990s in the works of such well-known political scientists as F. Fukuyama, J. Chase, Charles Krauthammer,Zbigniew Brzezinski and etc.
However, already in the second half of the 1990s, another point of view began to strengthen. So, S. Huntington in his work "Clash of civilizations" wrote: "Politics in the world after the "cold war" for the first time in history has become multipolar, and poly civilization" 21 . And the permanent representative of Japan to the UN H. Ovada said that “the unipolar world is a dangerous delusion; in fact, the order of the world cannot be dictated by the will of one pole alone, however powerful that pole may be incomparative terms”22
Thus, by the beginning of the 21st century, when the reformatting of the world order with a clear strengthening of the West's position, especially after the massive terrorist attack on the US on September 11, 2001, was almost over, it became most obvious that the concept of a unipolar world does not correspond to the real situation on the international arena.
Not only the United States, but also the Western world as a whole was not able to
21Huntington S. Clash of civilizations. – Moscow: Publishing house "AST", 2003. P. 16.
22Owada H. The Problem of World Public Ordеr // B. Boutros-Ghali Amicorum Discipulorumque Liber. Bruxelles,1998. Vol. I. P. 556.
perform the role of a world gendarme or arbitrator, not to mention the effective management of world Affairs. Of course, the West has great opportunities to influence world politics, but not so great as to feel full masters of the situation on the planet. That is why it is incorrect to speak about a "unipolar" world. Today, in international relations, everyone plays his role depending on his place and position in the world community, whereas no one has a decisive vote, a “controlling interest”. Of course, by individual parameters, for example, by military force or by gross national product, there may be a clear priority of some countries over the rest, but by the totality of all explicit, implicit, material, spiritual, real, potential, etc. components, absolute, especially, stable and long-term advantage does not have one.
In this regard, the fact that the new architecture of world relations rather corresponds to the state of affairs that was described in the 15th century by Nikolay Kuzansky deserves special attention. Arguing about the nature of the universe and the infinity of God, he, in particular, argued that, being infinite, God is thereby contained in each particular thing, and therefore the world is infinite, the center of which is also"everywhere and nowhere."
Is this not the case now in the modern globally interdependent world, where there is no constant constancy in the distribution of forces between the subjects of international relations? Some of them increase, others weaken; someone acquires allies, unites, cooperates, someone loses his support and disposition to himself, while others take a wait-and-see attitude and are ready to join the stronger side at one time or another.
As a result of the addition of such multidirectional vectors of the behavior of interacting subjects, due to their specific interests and the actual state of affairs in the system of international relations, in the modern world there are many centers of influence and decision-making. At the same time, the picture of their distribution is constantly changing and, since they interact on conditions varying from close cooperation to hard confrontation, often the real decision-making center is not where it is advertised or implied. In other words, we are dealing with such a state of affairs when the center is “everywhere and nowhere”, i.e. in fact, there is a multicenter (multipolar) global world.
In this regard, it is important to emphasize that in such conditions, moreover, with ever-increasing global interdependence, when humanity has not overcome the old fragmentation and is a motley picture of the opposing forces, the overwhelming majority of the subjects of international relations is aimed at solving mainly local and regional tactical tasks scale. Strategic plans and ambitions of the global level can only afford a few. At the same time, a tough struggle for leadership at this level is conducted explicitly and implicitly, using all the possibilities and resources. This struggle is conducted between several centers of influence, among which four vectors of force, four main global trends are quite clearly distinguished. Already today, they have the greatest impact on the development of world processes and really have serious opportunities to drastically influence the shape of the world structure in the future.
We are talking about the West, China, the Islamic world and Russia. Their place, role and importance in world affairs undoubtedly have a global dimension.
The principal in this scenario of the four main multidirectional vectors of world interaction is that none of them can be radically changed as a result of external, especially exclusively power influence. And this means that although many other, less significant centers of power and decision-making can be forced in one way or another to a certain line of conduct, in general, this does not add stability to the global world.
So, although individual States and the world community as a whole, primarily through the efforts of the UN, are taking steps to consolidate actions, while appealing to the common interests, human values and the common destiny of all peoples, there have been no significant results on this path. The main reason, as already noted, is the
fragmentation of the world community, when everyone pursues his own interests in the first place. At the same time, the balance of forces in the international arena is now maintained not only, and not so much by military power and the presence of nuclear weapons, but also by the level of economic development of the warring parties and the degree of their integration into the unified system of the world economy.
In this regard, from the point of view of the prospects of social development, the most important question is: can humanity become one not only in form but also in content, i.e. can it formulate and jointly defend the same priorities, pursue common goals and consistently solve common problems? The affirmative answer to this question is not at all obvious. National sovereignty, which is the basis of modern States, andwhich they actively advocate for the preservation of for this reason, is a serious obstacle in this way. At the same time, there is no alternative to the state forms of organization of life (as the largest social systems that can be managed), at best, interacting on a Confederate basis, in a globally built world. As the famous Russian philosopher V. Solovyov said, the state exists not to create a Paradise on earth, but to prevent the transformation of our planet into hell.
The concept of the "Golden billion", which explains the impossibility of a decent existence on Earth for more than one billion people, also does not add optimism about the unity of all living and continuing to increase for more than seven and a half billion people on Earth.
Hence, the range of possible development scenarios for the world as a whole lies between the bad and the worst. Not being one in essence, humanity, in the context of the above, can count on the coherence of actions only in some cases, coming to this through numerous negotiations, agreements, comparison of interests, etc. "the Method of trial and error" is not excluded, but also continues to be the norm. Also, for the foreseeable future, domestic and international conflicts remain the "norm", with the only difference that revolutionary changes in socio-economic and political systems are not only undesirable, but also extremely dangerous for international stability. In addition, objectively, they become less possible in the current situation of forces and the emergence of more and more advanced means and technologies of manipulating public consciousness.
Including for the same reason, while maintaining the status quo in conditions of close transnational cooperation not only in the socio-economic and political spheres, but also in the spiritual sphere, changes are likely to occur, albeit with acceleration, but mainly through evolution. Rapid changes and phenomenal results in the field of science, technology and new technologies lead to the same, as they entail the development of communications and global information networks. Thus, the integration and interdependence of all spheres of public life of the world community is expanding and strengthening, and the speed of evolutionary processes in the global world is increasing.
Globalization, which has been a hallmark of world development since the end of the twentieth century, and since then has increasingly taken the form of glocalization, requires, along with a serious restructuring of international relations, close attention to the processes and problems of local and regional level. In other words, decision-makers, the global elite and humanity as a whole face a special responsibility with regard to regional policy. This is especially true in regions where the interests of many States converge with fundamentally different socio-political and economic structures, culture and religious orientation. Hence, the establishment in the public consciousness of the relevant values, ideological positions that would adequately reflect the integrity of the world and the common destiny of mankind, must be based on the regional specifics and mentality of the people living in these regions. Thus, the formation of a globally-oriented worldview is the imperative of time anda necessary condition for the survival of the world cultural and civilizational system.But it can be effective, at a minimum, if the national characteristics and cultural diversity of the peoples living together or near them are taken into account. Such an approach is a prerequisite for modern upbringing and education. It is also intended to promote better mutual understanding and rapprochement of people, focusing them on dialogue and mutually beneficial cooperation.
Does this need a single platform? Is it possible in this connection to talk about asingle socio-political system, which would be an example to follow for the rest? For example, the Western way of life and value system pretend to such a role.
However, Western civilization and the corresponding values that have been formed in its depths (now it is becoming more and more obvious) are not a panacea for solving many specific, including global, problems that humanity faced in the second half of the 20th century. The East, which plays an increasingly prominent role in world affairs, not only does not want, but cannot change its essence, having accepted, in the form in which they are imposed, the rules of the game and the value system of the West. Africa, the Islamic world and even Russia, which is historically and mentally much closer to the West than its Eastern neighbors, cannot do this either.
Therefore, whether they want to or not, Western countries will have to look for compromises on this path and, first of all, with the countries of the East and with Russia, which, however, does not exempt the latter from the search for the same compromises. At the same time, someone likes it or not, but it should be recognized that universal human values, rights and personal freedom, based on the institution of private property and forming the basis of civil society, are not propaganda techniques of the West, but essential characteristics of its lifestyle and way of action.
Of course, economic and political interests, as well as cultural peculiarities, will always be the basis of disagreements, sometimes acute, and there should be no illusions here. But the absence of common approaches and principles, values and a mutually
acceptable language of communication will always be an insurmountable obstacle in the way, if not unity, then at least mutual understanding of peoples in conditions where no one can avoid it.
Thus, the world community is today in the face of the urgent need for serious and, above all, ideological, value, spiritual changes. Now more than ever before, humanity needs a global civilization revolution, which would be a powerful impetus to the formation of a global civil society, and would start the process of transition from “the right of force” to the “power of law” in solving international problems. It is in this way that humanity can count on stable international security and building a new world order that would meet modern realities and create conditions for constructive cooperation based on common goals and principles.
In particular, it is important to keep this in mind when it comes to specific practices, not only at the global, but also at the regional, local levels, where the principle put forward by the club of Rome at the time continues to sound relevant – "Think globally, and act locally!". However, now that humanity has finally entered the era of multidimensional globalization and total interdependence, at the level of international relations we should be guided by a somewhat different principle – "Think globally, act together!".
