摘要：近日，中国人民大学重阳金融研究院高级研究员刘志勤就“中国是否正在试图改变国际秩序？”“美国和中国目前的角色”等相关议题与香港大学当代中国与世界研究中心创始主任李成在CGTN《论见中国》节目中再次对话。英籍资深时政编辑John Goodrich、CGTN社交媒体
编者按：近日，中国人民大学重阳金融研究院高级研究员刘志勤就“中国是否正在试图改变国际秩序？”“美国和中国目前的角色”等相关议题与香港大学当代中国与世界研究中心创始主任李成在CGTN《论见中国》节目中再次对话。英籍资深时政编辑John Goodrich、CGTN社交媒体专家李菁菁担任对话主持人。现将第五期（点击此处可查看往期内容）对话中英文视频及内容发布如下：（全文中英文约12000字，预计阅读时间20分钟）
点击查看视频
John Goodrich：欢迎收看《论见中国》节目。本节目聚焦于邀请对中国议题具有独特视角与深厚知识的专家，展开深度对话。
李菁菁：近年来，我访问了很多“全球南方”国家，采访了来自这些地区的许多学者、政治人物和意见领袖。所以稍后我会把来自非洲、亚洲和拉丁美洲的声音带进我们的讨论。
John Goodrich：谢谢菁菁。那我们就从第一个辩题开始：中国是否正在试图改变国际秩序？
中国所奉行的基本外交理念，多数人并不陌生：致力于保障所有国家平等的发声权利，反对战争冲突，支持和平事业、协商解决国际问题，并助力发展中国家的发展。然而，国际上仍存在不少质疑的声音，部分人士对中国外交的真实意图持有怀疑态度。《华盛顿邮报》曾刊发文章，声称中国正在试图构建一个多极世界，打造一种区别于美国主导的全新国际秩序，文章标题直接点明中国正在推动构建一个新的世界秩序。可以说，中美对世界治理有着截然不同的看法。
虽然中国始终倡导践行 “真正的多边主义”，反对霸权主义。但是，李教授，中国真的致力于构建一个多极世界吗？倘若如此，中国能从中获得什么？
李成：当然，中国一直在强调多极化和多边主义。现在我来回答你的问题——中国是否会改变国际秩序？
首先，具有讽刺意味的是，近年来，特别是最近几周，所谓的自由国际秩序出现了严重崩塌，美国和欧洲地区的表现尤为明显。这一局面并非中国所致，追根溯源，更可能是美国自身及其跨大西洋关系处理失当造成的。现在，如果你说的“有影响力的秩序” 是指联合国主导、基于规则的秩序，那么中国无意改变它。中国和其他一些国家一样，在当下这一关键历史节点，强调联合国的重要性。
当聚焦全球化议题时，我认为中国无疑是全球经济体系的坚定支持者。因为中国和一些其他国家一样，从中受益良多。
但如果你说的秩序是特朗普政府奉行的“美国优先”理念与单边主义行径，那么中国持明确保留态度；如果是拜登政府构建威权与民主二元对立、两大阵营对抗的叙事，那么中国更是坚决抵制这种说法。
所以，讨论中国对国际秩序的立场，首先要明确“国际秩序”指的是什么。但更为关键的是，我们正处在历史的十字路口，美国主导的自由秩序已基本瓦解。需要再次强调，这并非中国的责任。当然，在某种程度上，中国始终主张对现有国际秩序进行改革，而非完全取代。并且，这一主张如今表达得比以往任何时候都更加清晰、有力。
John Goodrich：谢谢李教授。请问刘教授，中国希望从多极世界中得到什么？为什么中国希望实现多极化？
刘志勤：这是个很有趣的问题，但我的答案其实很简单。在我看来，这本质上是一个 “需求与供给” 的问题。国际社会是否有改变全球秩序的需求？若这种需求真实且必要，那么必然会催生出相应的供给。这无疑是问题的核心所在。
正如李教授刚才提到的，我们一直在探讨“现有秩序”。但我们必须反思，当下的国际秩序是否真的亟待变革？倘若答案是肯定的，那么谁有能力承担这一重任？谁能推动全球秩序以不同的方式运作？一旦我们厘清这一根本问题，答案便会水落石出。
在我看来，中国从未主动寻求改变现行全球秩序，并且当前全球秩序的演变也并非中国单方面所能决定。举例来说，如果西方国家持续以单边主义、霸权主义或霸凌行径主导国际秩序，长此以往，包括中国在内的世界各国，都会推动对这一秩序的变革。但需要着重强调的是，中国既没有主导全球秩序变革的意图，也没有采取相关行动。中国的目标，是对现有国际秩序进行必要的修正与完善。
当前，联合国以及其他负责全球事务治理的国际组织，依然在国际舞台上发挥着重要作用。并且，从原则上来说，这些组织仍得到国际社会的广泛认可。但在某些领域，尤其在经济和地缘政治关系愈发紧张的形势下，美国及部分北约国家，包括一些欧洲主要国家，时常干扰这些国际机制的正常运行。在这种背景下，无论是市场层面，还是国际社会整体，都切实产生了变革或修正现有秩序的现实需求。
毫无疑问，这的确是个很好的问题，但究竟应该由谁来承担这一责任？我认为中国不会主动扛起这面大旗。中国作为全球化进程的重要参与者，更愿意协助其他国家营造多元的发展环境，促进各国经济的共同繁荣。所以，结合当前的现实背景，这个问题其实不难理解。
John Goodrich：菁菁，有人提出，中国正在调整自身立场，而美国却背离先前承诺，这是否为中国带来全新机会与定位？你在“全球南方” 进行采访与旅行时，当地各方是如何看待这一说法的？他们对美国和中国目前的角色有着怎样的见解？
李菁菁：首先，我不知道是谁提出这样的问题，但我觉得我们首先得问一句：这里所说的“秩序”，到底是指哪一种？美国政客常提及“基于规则的国际秩序”，但本质上，这不过是少数国家凭借自身权势，主导世界上的大多数国家。我并不认同中国试图改变世界秩序这一观点。中国真正致力于推动的，是让国际社会重回大家共同认可的秩序，即基于《联合国宪章》、在二战后共同确立的国际秩序。
我认为过去几年，部分国家滥用权力，甚至漠视联合国，推行它们所谓的 “基于规则的国际秩序”。这种秩序剥削大多数国家，“全球南方” 国家更是深受其害。所以，如果所指的是这种不公正秩序，那么想要改变“秩序”的绝非只有中国，整个“全球南方”都希望重塑现状。因为他们深知，这种秩序极不公平，实质上是把“全球南方”的民众置于不利地位。
但如果我们谈的是二战后基于《联合国宪章》建立的国际秩序，那么中国始终严格遵守，从未试图改变。实际上，在今年“两会”期间，外交部长王毅也指出，如果每个国家都强调本国优先，都迷信实力地位，那这个世界将倒退回“丛林法则”。毕竟，强权绝不能等同于公理 。这就是我对这个问题的看法。
John Goodrich：谢谢你的分享，菁菁。我想接下来请两位教授谈谈，这些理念听起来理想吗？比如国家之间的平等、每个国家都有平等的发言权、更小的国家也能拥有更强的声音，以及对发展中国家的支持。但这些设想是否真能在现实中实现？尤其是在美国日趋孤立主义、西欧对自身角色感到迷茫的当下，我们真的有可能实现一个更平等的多极世界吗？李教授，您怎么看？
李成：我们当下尚难预判局势走向。如今，我们身处一个风云变幻的时期，充满了不确定性和混乱。就像菁菁提到的，美国和欧洲等西方国家，总是将“基于规则的秩序”挂在嘴边；但随着政治局势的演变，这种言论仅维持到拜登政府结束。你看看最近的政治叙事——从特朗普再度上任，到慕尼黑安全会议上美国副总统万斯对欧洲的严厉批评——美国实际上已把欧洲国家当作“问题对象”，而非盟友。如此一来，美西方自诩的所谓秩序体系，实则早已名存实亡。
在这种情形下，现在就断言“多边主义能否最终占据主导”，还为时尚早。但有一点我认同刘教授的观点：中国如今比以往任何时候都更重视全球治理。过去，“治理”一词常被美国和其他西方国家挂在嘴边，可现在，他们似乎已把它忘得一干二净。所以，我们正处于一种快速的变化中。
如今，美国主导的联盟内部，竟开始公开讨论北约可能瓦解、跨大西洋关系走向崩溃，这一转变着实令人震惊。所以，我们应该从这个角度来看待问题。当今世界，并非两极，也不是所说的中国称霸的格局，或者其他任何一个国家称霸的格局。可以说，我们正实实在在地迈入多极时代。未来，世界可能不止存在三个“极”，四个、五个，甚至更多都有可能。
这就引出了一个关键的问题：在这种全新的经济、政治和安全形势下，我们究竟该如何开展有效治理？
John Goodrich：确实，有一种观点，可能稍显夸张，但不无道理：中美如今正走在不同的道路上，用不同方式推进各自的发展，各有不同的目标与动机。但在某种奇特的偶然下（即特朗普再次当选），我们可能真的会进入我们一直在讨论的那种多极世界。
对话英文版
John Goodrich：Hello and welcome to Talking China, the show where we talk to people with unique perspectives and unrivaled knowledge about the main talking points in China today.
Li Jingjing：I visited many Global South countries and interviewed many scholars, politicians, and key opinion leaders from these regions.
So later in the conversation I will try to bring those African, Asian, and Latin American voices in the debate.
John Goodrich：Thanks, Jingjing. So let’s kick things off with Debate Topic One: Is China trying to change the international order?
China’s fundamental diplomatic approach may seem like common sense to many people: trying to give all countries an equal voice, being against war and conflict, and in favor of peace, negotiation, and supporting developing countries.
But there's also a lot of confusion in some places, and a little cynicism about the true intention of Chinese diplomacy.
We’ve got an article from The Washington Post here that argues that China is seeking to create a multipolar world, offering an alternative order to one led by the United States, with headlines saying that China is pushing to build a new world order.
Now, it’s fair to say that China and the U.S. have very different views about how the world should be run.
But hmm… while China has been a vocal advocate of what it calls “true multilateralism” and against hegemonism, is it really true, Professor Li, that China wants a multipolar world? And what would it get out of it?
Li Cheng：Well, of course, China constantly emphasizes multipolarity and multilateralism. Now to answer your question—Is China going to change the international order?
Well first, ironically, the so-called liberal international order collapsed in recent years, especially in recent weeks, particularly evident in the United States and also in Europe.
This is not caused by China—probably rather caused by the United States and its relations in terms of classic transatlantic relations.
Now, if that order you refer to the UN-led, rules-based order, no—China does not want to change it. China, just like some other countries, emphasizes the importance of the UN at this critical moment in world history.
Now, if you also ask if it’s the globalization… I think China is the country that really has strong support for economic organization, because China benefits—along with some other countries—from the economic globalization.
Now, but if you ask that if the order is what President Trump favored, like “America First” and unilateralism, of course, China has reservation.
Now, if the order refers to President Biden’s two blocs—namely authoritarianism vs. democracy—then certainly China rejects that narrative.
So, it depends on what you refer to as the international order.
But most importantly, I think we are in a very critical moment in history. The so-called U.S.-led liberal order has basically already collapsed.
Again, it’s not caused by China.
And of course, in a way, China’s argument to reform the international order—not to completely replace one—now is stronger and clearer than ever before.
John Goodrich：Thank you, Professor Li. Professor Liu, what does China think it can get out of a multipolar world? Why does China want a multipolar world?
Li Zhiqin：That’s an interesting question. But my answer is quite simple. I should say this is a question between the demand and supply side.
Whether there is demand in the global community need to change the global order—if we need, if there is a necessity to change it, I think there is a supply side.
So this is really a very important thing.
Similar as Professor Li already mentioned here that we are always trying to talk about “the order at the moment.”
But do we think there is a necessity to change today’s order? And who can be able and responsible to take this responsibility and function to make the global order work in a different way?
If we can answer this fundamental question, I think the answer is clear.
In my opinion, I think that China has never tried to change the global order at present. But it is decided by something else.
For instance, if the Western countries make the order in a different way—unilateral, hegemonist, or through some bullying actions taken…so if we follow this order, I think, including China, all over the world, are willing to change it.
But I want to say that China is not going—or is not trying—to change the global order at present.
We are just trying to modify, to improve the present order.
Because at the moment, we already have the UN and also other international organizations that make the world governance. So, in principle, they are quite welcomed by the world.
But in some aspects—especially in the economic and geopolitical tensions—some things are always disordered by the United States and by some NATO members. For instance, by some major European countries.
Under such circumstances, there is a necessity and demand from the market that such order should be changed, should be modified.
No doubt, this is a good question. But who should take this responsibility? I don’t think China will take this responsibility.
China is only one part of the globalization. China is willing to help the rest of the world to make the world modified with diversified and more opportunities to develop their own economies.
So I think the question is quite simple to be cleared with all the backgrounds.
John Goodrich：Jingjing, do you think that there’s an argument that perhaps China is transitioning its existing positions, but America is moving away from its previous commitments—which is opening up a new opportunity and a new position?
Based on your conversations with people in the Global South and your travels, what do they say? How do they feel about the U.S. role at the moment and China’s role?
Li Jingjing：I think first, I don’t know who asked those questions, but to those who ask this question, I think we need to ask: what kind of order are they referring to in this question?
Because sometimes U.S. politicians say “the rules-based international order,” which is basically a few countries using their power to dominate the majority of the world.
But I don’t think China is trying to change the world order. China is trying to call on everybody: let’s go back to the world order that we all agreed on—that was based on the UN Charter, all countries agreed on after World War II.
Because I think in the past few years, we saw some countries are abusing their power, even neglecting the UN, and following their own “rules-based international order,” which is basically exploiting the majority of countries—Global South countries.
So, if that’s the order they refer to, not just China wants to change that—the whole Global South wants to change that.
Because they know it’s unfair. It’s basically pushing the Global South people down to the bottom of the trap.
But in terms of the world order that we all agreed on after World War II, which is based on the UN Charter, that’s the thing that China has always been following. And China is not trying to change that.
And actually, during the Two Sessions, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi mentioned that if every country only achieves their own interests, puts their own interests first, then we go back to the rule of the jungle. Might does not equal right.
So that’s my thought on it.
John Goodrich：Thank you, Jingjing. What I would like to ask the two professors is, does this sound great? It’s something we can all really agree on the basis of equality for countries, that each one has an equal voice, a stronger voice for smaller countries, support for developing nations.
But is it realistic in the current world, where the U.S. is becoming more isolationist, and Western Europe is a little bit confused about its role? Is this multipolar world—where we can see greater equality—really going to see in reality? Professor Li?
Li Cheng：Well… It's still yet to see. We are in a rapid change with lots of uncertainty and confusion.
For example, Jingjing mentioned that Western countries, including the United States and Europe, constantly talk about a "rules-based order"—but only until the end of the Biden administration.
I mean, if you look at the recent narrative after Trump, and after the Munich Security Conference, when Vice President JD Vance delivered that very harsh criticism of Europe, and pointed the fact that European countries become problems rather than allies. So, the whole thing is gone.
I think it’s too early to answer your question about whether a multilateral norm will prevail.
But one thing is I agree with Professor Liu that China now—more than at any time before—emphasizes global governance.
I think the keyword “governance” previously was also frequently used by the United States and Western countries, but now, it also sounds like that term has been thrown out the window.
So again, we are in a rapid change.
You know, sometimes it’s really astonishing to see how quickly U.S.-led alliances now talk about the possible collapse of NATO, the collapse of transatlantic relations.
So I think we should put it in that perspective.
But the fact is, it’s not bipolar, not even kind of a kingdom Chinese tend to obsess, or as some other countries tend to obsess.
I think we are really entering a polar that has more than three polars.
Maybe four, maybe five, or even more.
So that raises the issue about how to govern in this kind of new situation—a new economic, political, and security landscape.
John Goodrich：Yeah, I mean—there is an argument—maybe a bit of a stretch—that the U.S. and China are on somewhat different roads, going by different means, traveling in different ways, with different intents. But we may end up in the kind of multipolar world we’ve been talking about, by a kind of strange accident of Trump returns to the White House.
▼
推荐阅读
▼
外网100万+，对话美国大网红爆火：中国何来强大底气？
2025-04-26
央视、凤凰专访：特朗普“服软”？目前诚意和尊重还不够
2025-04-24
专访：特朗普被迫放软话，中国-东盟积极释放硬信息
2025-04-23
中印学者对话：警惕西方挑拨，亚洲不应为某国经济崩溃买单
2025-04-22
在纽约时报、CNN等美国顶媒频繁发声：关税战，美国赢不了！
2025-04-21
凤凰专访：245%？特朗普搬石头砸自己，一次不行再来、再来……
2025-04-20
// 人大重阳
///
RDCY
中国人民大学重阳金融研究院（人大重阳）成立于2013年1月19日，是重阳投资向中国人民大学捐赠并设立教育基金运营的主要资助项目。
作为中国特色新型智库，人大重阳聘请了全球数十位前政要、银行家、知名学者为高级研究员，旨在关注现实、建言国家、服务人民。目前，人大重阳下设7个部门、运营管理4个中心(生态金融研究中心、全球治理研究中心、中美人文交流研究中心、中俄人文交流研究中心)。近年来，人大重阳在金融发展、全球治理、大国关系、宏观政策等研究领域在国内外均具有较高认可度。
来源：人大重阳
