Political and economic background of the adjustment of relations between major powers after the Cold War

The last century was a changeable world, with unprecedented accumulation of social wealth, unprecedented wars and complicated and subtle relations between countries.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, great changes took place in international relations. After more than 40 years of confrontation, the relationship between the two superpowers of the United States and the Soviet Union eased, then Germany was unified, the Gulf War broke out and quickly ended, the Soviet military bloc in eastern Europe disintegrated, the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe changed dramatically, and the Cold War marked by the ideological opposition between East and West completely ended. At the same time, the process of global economic integration continues to develop, the interdependence of countries is further deepened, the concept and nature of national security have undergone qualitative changes, and the concept of security is also changing. A single national security concept is being replaced by a comprehensive security concept. Interestingly, the concept of collective security revived at the beginning of the end of the Cold War and even became a hot topic in international relations. What this article is going to discuss is what challenges the United Nations, as the ideological carrier of collective security, will face in the post-cold war era, what its trend and future will be in the process of establishing a new international order, and what impact it will have on the development of international relations in the 2 1 century.

I opportunities and challenges for collective security in the post-cold war era

In an increasingly interdependent and integrated world, the concept of national security centered on military threats has become increasingly out of date. All kinds of transnational security problems can only be dealt with by collective forces composed of countries. An obvious feature of international relations in the post-cold war era is the rise of multilateralism and collectivism, which is not only the result of the trend of multipolarization in the international structure, but also the requirement of expanding the concept of security. The content of security has changed, as have national countermeasures and international relations. Our way of thinking is at a "turning point", that is, when facing new security problems in the post-cold war era, we should seek the help and support of collective or multilateral rather than unilateral security mechanisms. This is a challenge in the post-cold war era, "less military, more economy", and the means to deal with this challenge are "less unilateral, more cooperation" and "need to bear explicit or implicit responsibilities and burdens".

Before and after the end of the Cold War, the international community tended to multilateral cooperation and collective action when dealing with some international security issues. Since the late 1980s, with the relaxation of the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union, the power of cooperation among big countries in international politics has been continuously enhanced, and there are many successful examples. The end of the cold war changed the long-term confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union in post-war international relations and cured the hemiplegia of the Security Council for many years. This has brought vitality and vigor to the United Nations collective security system. The most important of these is the cooperation between the five permanent members of the UN Security Council in the Gulf crisis and the Gulf War1991-1991.

The end of the cold war has brought opportunities and challenges to collective security. Historically, people have different views on the idea of collective security, mainly the concept of collective security. The debate on the future of collective security in the post-cold war era is no exception, except that it is directly related to the expansion of the concept of security and the development trend of collective action.

First, what kind of security is security in the concept of collective security? 1At the end of the 9th century and the beginning of the 20th century, collective security was considered to be established against the formal war between countries, especially against the problem of foreign aggression by countries using force. Its core is to prohibit countries from using force to settle disputes or at least restrict the use of force, and to use collective coercive measures to stop aggression. However, some people think that this concept of security does not include all possibilities. The "threat to peace" mentioned in the Charter of the United Nations does not explicitly refer to "formal war between countries". Threats to peace are varied, especially today when the concept of security is expanding. Should the scope of collective security be expanded?

Second, for whose safety? Since the beginning of this century, the dominant concept of collective security has been to strengthen the right of national independence and the international legal order based on sovereignty and non-interventionism. Wilson emphasized that collective security is to ensure the independence of all countries and the right of national self-determination. But if we emphasize national sovereignty, how can we avoid making collective security organizations a means for some countries to maintain the status quo? How to deal with the root causes of internal instability in the country? Due to the deepening interdependence of countries in the post-cold war era, national security is inseparable. The problem to be solved by collective security is not only international security, but also domestic security.

Third, what does "collective" mean in the concept of collective security? The traditional view of collective security holds that the members of a collective security system should be universal, and the more members, the better, because this can ensure that the collective strength is greater than the aggressor's strength and reduce the danger under power politics and balance of power system. However, such collective security will be regarded as another form of alliance, which may also lead a small group to use collective strength to promote its own will. Others believe that only regional collective security can be effective, because such a collective can better understand the root and essence of conflicts, have the motivation to deal with conflicts, and gain knowledge more easily. At the end of the 20th century, with the development of regional integration and multilateralism, global collective security seems to be insufficient, and the establishment of a collective security system in a certain region conforms to this development trend.

Fourth, what form of collective? People have always believed that collective security is to enforce peace between different political entities, and its "central" organization does not threaten the independence and autonomy of the country. However, some people think that the collective management of military forces is a step towards the political system. Therefore, peace in Europe has been very stable in the post-cold war era, which has created conditions for the establishment of a European Federation.

Fifth, how to deal with the compulsory issue of collective action in the collective security system? Since the formation of collective security thought, people generally regard compulsory collective action as the last means to deal with aggressors. Before that, we should try our best to solve international disputes through moral education, political negotiation and consultation and diplomatic mediation. The use of compulsory collective action is neither the original intention nor the ultimate goal of collective security thought. In the post-cold war era, the United Nations often took compulsory collective action for a period of time, which was related to the international political situation at that time. The United States plays the role of "super police" in United Nations peacekeeping operations, and the five permanent members of the Security Council have always maintained due cooperation on major international security issues. Therefore, collective security and compulsory collective action are imperative. The problem is that the collective security mechanism was destroyed when the United States manipulated the collective action of the United Nations, and the collective security system became a tool for big countries to pursue hegemony.

Second, the role of the great power factor in the United Nations' maintenance of international security.

To some extent, the end of the Cold War is a watershed in the collective security practice of the United Nations. For more than 40 years after World War II, due to the bipolar balance system, especially the balance between the five permanent members of the Security Council, the principle of unanimity among great powers in the collective security system has become a dead letter, and the United Nations has done nothing. With the easing of US-Soviet relations and the end of the Cold War, the momentum of international cooperation among major powers is increasing. In the post-cold war era, a new balance of power has gradually formed and operated smoothly. In this situation, whether collective security can play a greater role depends on how the relations between major powers evolve.

The Gulf War is a typical example of cooperation among big countries in the collective security system. During the Gulf crisis, the Security Council showed unprecedented unanimity, mainly because the relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union further improved, and the Soviet Union did not want to be the "backstage boss" of Iraq. In addition, several other big countries have the same interests in this incident. The principle of unanimity of the major powers in the Security Council was achieved under the overall relaxation of the global situation.

But in addition to the special background of great changes in the relations between major powers, the role of the United States cannot be ignored. The United States played the role of "police leader" in this incident. It used its national strength to put pressure on the members of the Security Council frequently, and finally got the power of the Security Council to authorize the use of force. Although the United States has won the "sword on the side", it cannot hide the power politics of big countries in collective action. The Gulf War can be seen as an exercise to promote American hegemony with the support of the United Nations. The Gulf War provided a historical opportunity for the United States to gain a leading position in the world. After the Gulf War, the United States became the only superpower. It not only won the victory of the Gulf War, but also won the victory of the Cold War, and its strength reached its peak. In the subsequent collective action of the United Nations, its power politics and hegemonic behavior became more explicit. Relying on the prestige of a "victorious country", the United States has "represented" the international community in countries and regions such as Somalia, Haiti and Bosnia and Herzegovina. As we all know, in last year's Kosovo crisis, the war of "protecting democracy and human rights" launched by NATO led by the United States in Kosovo was completely a game that violated the UN Charter and violated the sovereignty of other countries. Judging from the way in which the United Nations solves regional conflicts or internal conflicts in the post-cold war era, the important role of big countries is undeniable, but in areas with complex relations and intertwined interests among big countries, the intervention of big countries will only play a negative role.

Cooperation among major powers since the Gulf War is the inevitable development of international politics and the condition for the success of the United Nations. However, this kind of great power cooperation is also accidental. It can be seen from the changes in relations between major powers that national strength is the most important and strength is the basis of balance of power competition. When the balance of power system is still unstable or inclined to one end of the "balance of power", the cooperation among big countries can only be a "by-product" of the balance of power, not the best performance of collective security.

Third, the trend of great power relations and the new world order at the turn of the century.

Over the past decade or so since the end of the Cold War, relations between major powers have been fully adjusted, and a new international order will be gradually formed in the process of disintegration and renewal of the balance of power among major powers. Many people are sketching out the future international order, including multipolar power balance model, unipolar dominant model, peaceful zone and turbulent zone model, global village model, clash of civilizations model, bipolar reversal model and even tripolar geo-economic model. Although there are various models, they all illustrate a problem, that is, the new international order is still being rebuilt. Judging from the development of international relations in recent years, the new international order has the following main and obvious characteristics.

First of all, the adjustment of relations between major powers is carried out in the context of international stability and peace. After the end of the Cold War, the situation of "sharing and dominating the world" between the Soviet Union and the United States was broken, and great changes took place in international relations, especially in the relations between world powers and regional powers. The status and role of great powers have been constantly changing in the contrast of the growth and decline of national strength. Different from the adjustment of relations between major powers after World War I and World War II, this adjustment was not accompanied by crises and conflicts between major powers, and it can be said that it was carried out in a calm and stable atmosphere. Of course, the international situation is not satisfactory, such as the long-standing unresolved Middle East issue, frequent civil wars in some African countries, the Korean Peninsula crisis, the Kosovo war and the Chechen crisis. Some of these international security issues involve the national interests of different powers, but they have not affected the overall situation of the international situation. There have been basically no twists and turns in relations between major powers, and the international situation has generally maintained a momentum of peaceful development.

Second, in the process of adjustment of relations between major powers, cooperation is greater than conflict, and the similarity on international security issues is outstanding. At the turn of the century, the relationship between major powers has changed from violent fluctuation and turbulent adjustment just after the end of the Cold War to smooth, stable and deepening adjustment.

In the early 1990s, due to the drastic changes in the social system of the Soviet Union and the socialist countries in Eastern Europe, the development of international relations was very emotional, and the western countries produced the idea of "never giving up" without knocking down all socialist countries. Therefore, the adjustment of international relations is not smooth, and there have been many major crises in the relations between major powers. Later, great powers established "strategic partnership" in succession, which is essentially different from the "strategic partnership" relationship during the Cold War. The relationship of "strategic partners" during the Cold War has the color of military alliance, which is often aimed at third countries. Today's "strategic partnership" relationship is by no means aimed at a third country. "This reflects that big countries want to have a higher status when seeking new bilateral relations." The relationship between "strategic partners" is long-term, stable and comprehensive.

The relationship between major powers has developed steadily and deepened gradually, which is mainly due to economic interdependence and globalization. Economic globalization is the basis for the continuous improvement of relations between major powers. In addition, in the post-cold war era, the concept of comprehensive security, international security and * * * security and the application of thinking mode in international relations have provided more benefits for big countries. In addition to the possibility of conflicts of interest among big countries on military security issues such as the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, some "cross-border" issues, such as non-military security issues such as economy, environment, population, illegal immigration and drug smuggling, have created conditions and opportunities for cooperation among big countries, and these issues can also strengthen cooperation among big countries.

Third, the adjustment of relations between major powers is still in progress. In every major change in the international structure, it takes a long time to complete the adjustment of relations between major powers, because it takes a long time to stabilize the balance of power between countries. Only after the framework of relations between major powers is formed and stabilized can a new international pattern be established. After the end of the Cold War, relations between major powers have been in the process of adjustment. At present, they are in a period of "the continuation or in-depth development of historic changes, which is likely to last until the end of the 20th century or the beginning of the 20th century, until the influence of the great earthquake gradually fades and disappears, the great changes come to an end and a new balance is established".

Some people think that international politics is in a situation of "one superpower and many powers", some people think that the international pattern is developing towards "multipolarization", and some people think that it is still a "unipolar" era. In either case, one thing is certain, that is, the adjustment of relations between major powers is far from over, because the comprehensive strength comparison among major powers is still changing. Corresponding to the adjustment of relations between major powers, the international pattern is still in transition and the regional pattern has not yet been established. This is mainly reflected in Europe and East Asia. The trilateral relations between the United States, Russia and Europe are still changing dynamically, and "the European security pattern is in a transitional period". The quadrilateral pattern of China, the United States, Russia and Japan in East Asia is even more unstable. The bilateral relations between China and Japan, China and the United States, Japan and Russia and the triangular relations between China, the United States and Japan are only temporary. With the change of their national strength, this adjustment may last until the beginning of 2 1 century and the 1920s.

Fourth, in the process of adjustment, the relationship between major powers is characterized by decentralization of power and stable balance of power. Although this feature is not obvious, it is very important. This situation has changed since1mid-1990s. Ideological factors in international relations have faded, and ideological opposition is not as sharp as it was during the Cold War. The factors that play a role in the relations between major powers tend to be scattered, and there is no dominant factor. Especially in the relations between China and western countries, the position of "human rights" in bilateral relations has moved backward, and this situation is expected to continue. Great powers attach great importance to the change of national comprehensive strength when formulating foreign policies, and emphasize the role of strength and balance of power, so that the relations between great powers revolve around strength and engage in relations with strength. The relationship between major powers is in a benign interaction, and bilateral relations are constantly improving and crossing. Theoretically speaking, this kind of great power relationship is a stable balance of power relationship. As long as this momentum is maintained, the international situation will be very good. However, once serious problems occur in this benign interaction between big powers, it will inevitably bring danger and anxiety to the international community.

In short, the relationship between major powers and the world order are closely related and complement each other. The relationship between major powers largely determines the peace and turmoil of the world order; On the other hand, if the world order is stable, relations among big countries will also improve. If the world order is destroyed, relations between major powers will also experience twists and turns. At present, the trend of great power relations in the post-cold war era is basically satisfactory, bilateral and multilateral relations have been further improved, and the trend of security cooperation has been further strengthened. This international situation has created conditions for the development of international security organizations.

Fourth, the development trend of collective security (United Nations).

Before and after the end of the Cold War, the role of the United Nations continued to rise, especially in the Gulf War, which aroused widespread concern in the international community. People have placed great hopes on the collective security system in the post-cold war era, hoping that it can play the dual roles of "arbitrator" and "law enforcer" in the post-cold war era, realize the original intention of the charter makers, and really play the role of maintaining peace and stopping war.

The revival of collective security in the post-cold war era is determined by historical conditions. Historical experience tells us that whenever the international pattern changes from old to new, especially in the case of world war, people are disappointed with the existing international system and fantasize about replacing it with a new one. At this time, the concept of collective security will rise. During the cold war, realism dominated everything. Neither the initial US-Soviet bipolar nor the multipolar trend in the later period have got rid of the shackles of the idea of balance of power. The cold war system is an unstable system of balance of power, in which regional military conflicts and political turmoil continue, and there have also been crises of world wars. Although the cold war did not end in the form of a world war, the fear of war it brought did not disappear in people's hearts. The rise of idealism is the result of the great transformation of the international pattern.

The rise of collective security thought is different from the past. The League of Nations and the United Nations were founded under the condition that people were tortured by war, and the world war was an opportunity for them to step onto the historical stage. However, in the post-cold war era, the idea of collective security rose without a world war, and the conditions for its rise were brewing before the end of the cold war. After the mid-1980s, the thawing of US-Soviet relations brought great vitality to the United Nations. Not only does the reconciliation between the United States and the Soviet Union continue unabated, but the security cooperation among the five major countries of the United Nations Security Council has also been absent since the beginning of the Cold War. Especially in the Gulf War, the P5 showed a rare agreement, which was a historical opportunity for the revival of collective security thought.

The revival of collective security thought lasted for a long time, and it also achieved some success in practice, mainly because of the continuous improvement of relations between major powers and the continuous relaxation of the international situation. As mentioned earlier, the relationship between major powers in the post-cold war era is a benign and interactive balance of power relationship, which is conducive to collective security. At present, the balance of power among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council is taking shape.

Although the international politics in the post-cold war era is still disordered on the whole, the order in disorder and the order in disorder can also be attributed to the relationship between power balance and collective security in theory. The post-cold war era is still an era in which the two coexist and play a role, and the new international order depends on their coordinated development. However, in the future international relations, as the relationship between major powers is the decisive factor, the role of balance of power may be enhanced, and whether collective security can be weakened depends on the negative degree of balance of power. "The revival of the United Nations benefits from the unity of the five permanent members. Once there is a contradiction between major powers, the harmony accumulated in the United Nations in previous years will be swept away overnight. " . International relations before and after the Kosovo war have begun to show such signs.

Whether the role of the United Nations will rise depends on whether the two forms of policies and means of collective security and power balance can be coordinated continuously, and whether the conflict between them will seriously affect the national security of all countries, especially big countries. As long as the relations between major powers maintain a good momentum of development, this balanced cooperation will be greater than conflict and coordination will be greater than friction, thus creating a favorable international environment for the effective functioning of the United Nations collective security mechanism. On the contrary, if the relaxation of relations between major powers in the 2 1 century is reversed and contradictions and conflicts among major powers increase, then the United Nations may return to the cold war era.