Four powers on state of world / 박상식
페이지 정보
조회 조회 999회 작성일2011-05-10 19:28:00본문
At the general debate of the 25th Session of the U.N. General Assembly the chief delegates of the United States, Russia, China and Japan delivered speeches and enunciated their respective countries’ perceptions of the present world order and their foreign policy principles and strategies. By analyzing and comparing their speeches, we may be able to make a reasonable prediction on their future status and goals in the international arena.
U.S. President Obama enumerated five global issues and expressed the U.S. policies toward them. The five issues are the global financial and trade systems, extremists and terrorists, comprehensive arms control and nuclear non-proliferation, the protection of the environment, and the Arab-Israeli conflict.
He supports the reform of the global financial architecture to reflect the changes taking place in the international financial order and reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to free trade. He reiterated the U.S.’s determination to fight the terrorists and extremists to the last. Referring to nuclear proliferation, he stressed that the U.S. would work toward comprehensive arms control. For the protection of the environment, he pledged to develop clean energy. Finally, he stressed that a peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict is absolutely necessary for permanent peace in the Middle East.
More important than the above is his view of the world order. He declared that human rights and democracy were universal values and that therefore all nations should live up to them. He emphatically stated that those who defend these values are America’s friends and those who deny them are its adversaries. By doing so, he places more weight on individual sovereignty and endorses democratic peace theory. He urged all nations to seek democracy and called for those nations who have emerged from tyranny to unite and fight for the freedom of others.
The Russian chief delegate reviewed the ongoing conflicts in the world and presented Russia’s position on them. He emphasized the importance of nuclear disarmament. In this connection, he called for the solution of the Iranian nuclear issue through dialogue between Iran and the six parties. On the Israel-Palestine conflict he urged all the parties to do their utmost for the success of the Palestinian-Israeli talks and announced Russia’s initiative for an international conference on Middle East peace.
On the conflicts in Afghanistan, Sudan and Somalia, he stressed the role of the international peacekeeping efforts and self-determination.
Lastly, he called for the active engagement of the U.N. in solving global issues. He considered that the U.N. Security Council is a key instrument for peace and security and should be strengthened accordingly.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao spent more time depicting China as a developing country than on dealing with international issues. And then he proclaimed China’s foreign policy principles. They include: the promotion of “a fair equitable, inclusive, managed international financial order” and “an open and free trading regime”; respect for and protection of human rights and social equity and justice; no ambition for hegemony but no compromise on its sovereignty and territorial integrity; and the sharing of the 5,000-year-old Chinese civilization of moral values and wisdom with the entire world.
Lastly, Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan focused on Japan’s contributions to the resolution of today’s key international challenges in four areas: international economic aid, education in developing countries, the fight against endemic diseases and official development aid in Africa; ambitious programs of environmental protection; nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation to ultimately realize a world without nuclear weapons; and Japan’s active participation in U.N. peacekeeping operations. He called for U.N. reform so that Japan can become a permanent Security Council member. He concluded by saying that Japan’s creative ideas and technology provide an innovative model for the solution of the world’s problems.
The four powers’ foreign policy principles and strategies reveal their respective goals in the international arena. We note that the United States tries to convince other nations that it is still the superpower which leads and will lead a world where democracy and human rights are universally respected and upheld. Therefore, it is natural that the United States actively gets involved in solving international conflicts and issues.
But it realizes that it cannot solve them alone and appeals to all countries to join in its endeavors. At the same time, it recognizes that it can no longer dictate or control the international political and economic orders and agrees to the revision of the international financial and economic architecture.
On the other hand, Russia has not completely discarded its self image as another superpower. This superpower syndrome is reflected in its willingness to participate in solving practically all international conflicts and issues. But considering its lack of ideological fervor and its support of multilateral solutions to international conflicts, it seems that Russia indirectly admits that its days of glory have gone.
In contrast, China behaves like a challenger to the hegemonic power. It declares that it has no desire to seek hegemony but demands the revision of the international financial architecture, while being cautious not to challenge the existing international economic order. On the other hand, it rejects individual sovereignty by stressing state sovereignty as most developing countries do, and indirectly claims itself as leader of the Third World by classifying itself as a developing country.
Japan depicts itself as a status quo power that has neither ambition to become a hegemonic power nor desire to challenge the hegemonic power. For this purpose, it magnifies its contributions to world peace and international development. Yet it does not hide its desire to play the role of a great power in the international arena by becoming a permanent member of the Security Council and by using its soft power.
In view of the above, the world is now entering into a transitional stage of a new international political order. Advocates of hegemonic cycle theories are closely watching this development. Is the existing hegemonic power losing its position in the international hierarchy? Will the existing great powers continue to seek the status quo? Will China as one of them challenge the hegemonic position of the United States? If so, when and how will it do this? Will Russia and Japan side with the hegemonic coalition or with the challenger or its coalition? A grand debate on these questions is heating up. The four powers’ views of the state of the world expressed at the general debate of the U.N. General Assembly have given us many clues on this issue.
Park Sang-seek is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University. Ed.
코리아헤럴드
(2010.10.11)
U.S. President Obama enumerated five global issues and expressed the U.S. policies toward them. The five issues are the global financial and trade systems, extremists and terrorists, comprehensive arms control and nuclear non-proliferation, the protection of the environment, and the Arab-Israeli conflict.
He supports the reform of the global financial architecture to reflect the changes taking place in the international financial order and reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to free trade. He reiterated the U.S.’s determination to fight the terrorists and extremists to the last. Referring to nuclear proliferation, he stressed that the U.S. would work toward comprehensive arms control. For the protection of the environment, he pledged to develop clean energy. Finally, he stressed that a peaceful resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict is absolutely necessary for permanent peace in the Middle East.
More important than the above is his view of the world order. He declared that human rights and democracy were universal values and that therefore all nations should live up to them. He emphatically stated that those who defend these values are America’s friends and those who deny them are its adversaries. By doing so, he places more weight on individual sovereignty and endorses democratic peace theory. He urged all nations to seek democracy and called for those nations who have emerged from tyranny to unite and fight for the freedom of others.
The Russian chief delegate reviewed the ongoing conflicts in the world and presented Russia’s position on them. He emphasized the importance of nuclear disarmament. In this connection, he called for the solution of the Iranian nuclear issue through dialogue between Iran and the six parties. On the Israel-Palestine conflict he urged all the parties to do their utmost for the success of the Palestinian-Israeli talks and announced Russia’s initiative for an international conference on Middle East peace.
On the conflicts in Afghanistan, Sudan and Somalia, he stressed the role of the international peacekeeping efforts and self-determination.
Lastly, he called for the active engagement of the U.N. in solving global issues. He considered that the U.N. Security Council is a key instrument for peace and security and should be strengthened accordingly.
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao spent more time depicting China as a developing country than on dealing with international issues. And then he proclaimed China’s foreign policy principles. They include: the promotion of “a fair equitable, inclusive, managed international financial order” and “an open and free trading regime”; respect for and protection of human rights and social equity and justice; no ambition for hegemony but no compromise on its sovereignty and territorial integrity; and the sharing of the 5,000-year-old Chinese civilization of moral values and wisdom with the entire world.
Lastly, Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan focused on Japan’s contributions to the resolution of today’s key international challenges in four areas: international economic aid, education in developing countries, the fight against endemic diseases and official development aid in Africa; ambitious programs of environmental protection; nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation to ultimately realize a world without nuclear weapons; and Japan’s active participation in U.N. peacekeeping operations. He called for U.N. reform so that Japan can become a permanent Security Council member. He concluded by saying that Japan’s creative ideas and technology provide an innovative model for the solution of the world’s problems.
The four powers’ foreign policy principles and strategies reveal their respective goals in the international arena. We note that the United States tries to convince other nations that it is still the superpower which leads and will lead a world where democracy and human rights are universally respected and upheld. Therefore, it is natural that the United States actively gets involved in solving international conflicts and issues.
But it realizes that it cannot solve them alone and appeals to all countries to join in its endeavors. At the same time, it recognizes that it can no longer dictate or control the international political and economic orders and agrees to the revision of the international financial and economic architecture.
On the other hand, Russia has not completely discarded its self image as another superpower. This superpower syndrome is reflected in its willingness to participate in solving practically all international conflicts and issues. But considering its lack of ideological fervor and its support of multilateral solutions to international conflicts, it seems that Russia indirectly admits that its days of glory have gone.
In contrast, China behaves like a challenger to the hegemonic power. It declares that it has no desire to seek hegemony but demands the revision of the international financial architecture, while being cautious not to challenge the existing international economic order. On the other hand, it rejects individual sovereignty by stressing state sovereignty as most developing countries do, and indirectly claims itself as leader of the Third World by classifying itself as a developing country.
Japan depicts itself as a status quo power that has neither ambition to become a hegemonic power nor desire to challenge the hegemonic power. For this purpose, it magnifies its contributions to world peace and international development. Yet it does not hide its desire to play the role of a great power in the international arena by becoming a permanent member of the Security Council and by using its soft power.
In view of the above, the world is now entering into a transitional stage of a new international political order. Advocates of hegemonic cycle theories are closely watching this development. Is the existing hegemonic power losing its position in the international hierarchy? Will the existing great powers continue to seek the status quo? Will China as one of them challenge the hegemonic position of the United States? If so, when and how will it do this? Will Russia and Japan side with the hegemonic coalition or with the challenger or its coalition? A grand debate on these questions is heating up. The four powers’ views of the state of the world expressed at the general debate of the U.N. General Assembly have given us many clues on this issue.
Park Sang-seek is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University. Ed.
코리아헤럴드
(2010.10.11)
댓글목록
등록된 댓글이 없습니다.
