✪ 强世功 | 北京大学法学院

【导读】2021年初拜登政府上台后，美国对华包围战略出现一个微妙变化：以炒作“新疆棉”事件为起点，中美价值冲突日趋激烈。尽管不少开明人士寄希望于拜登政府改变特朗普任内民粹主义的负面影响，但拜登政府在香港、台湾、新疆等中国事务上掀起的风浪，显露出对华意识形态合围的强烈倾向；而拜登政府有意将中国等国排除在外的“全球民主峰会”，更加剧了两国的价值裂痕。

本文着眼于宏大的历史视野和理论分析，揭示出美国行为的深层根源。作者指出：拜登政府将“贸易”与“人权”紧密挂钩的做法，意味着中美竞争已不单单涉及两国力量对比的变化，更涉及到两种人权理论、两种政治理念、两种全球秩序构想的竞争。作者分析，源出于启蒙运动的人权理论其实有不同分支：第一代人权理论强调私人产权和自由市场，由此导向自由贸易和殖民主义的世界帝国；第二代人权理论则追求人与人之间、不同民族之间、不同国家之间的平等。20世纪后，美国以第一代人权理论为“体”，第二代人权理论为“用”，逐渐建立起一个在法律形式上各主权国家平等，但在经济层面各国均不同程度地受制于美国霸权的、隐蔽的新型世界帝国体系。

在这一体系下，美国通过人权话语的交替使用建构世界经贸体系。世界经贸体系从大英帝国时代到美帝国时代的过渡，实际上体现了资本主义利润榨取逻辑的变化。与大英帝国主导的完全开放的自由贸易体系不同，美国通过跨国公司整合全球商业网络，形成了更加“温和”的经济垄断和技术垄断。以至于，发展中国家因自由贸易体系不平等而产生的“公平贸易”的诉求，最后也沦为美国打击竞争对手而采取的贸易保护主义措施。在这个意义上，“公平贸易”实际上是美国要求其他国家开放市场并采取“自由贸易”的代名词。而美国在不同处境中可以随意切换“自由贸易”或“公平贸易”作为其正当性理由。“自由贸易”和“公平贸易”成为了美国建构世界帝国中两股既敌对又配合的力量，而美国之所以能在其中自由切换，就在于它拥有超越国际法的“绝对主权”，可以将美国的国内法凌驾于国际法之上。

正是从世界帝国体系的角度，才能理解辛亥革命以来中国争取民族独立解放斗争中两条道路的选择及其命运。这里的关键不在于中国是否要加入世界体系，而是以什么样的身份和地位加入这个体系。与苏联和东欧各国的失败转型不同，中国转型之所以成功，正是因为没有以一种投降姿态彻底抛弃第二代人权理论以回归世界体系，而是形成了以第二代人权理论为“体”、第一代人权理论为“用”的新模式。

本文原发表于《文化纵横》2021年第5期和2021年第6期，原题分别为《贸易与人权（上）——世界帝国与“美国行为的根源”》、《贸易与人权（下）—— 世界帝国背景下的中美竞争》，仅代表作者观点，特此编发全文，供诸君思考。

贸易与人权（上）

——世界帝国与“美国行为的根源”

▍ 问题的提出：何以讲好“人权”故事？

 

从特朗普对中国全面发起贸易战以来，不少开明人士仅仅将其看作特朗普在民粹主义支持下的疯狂举动，从而期待秉持自由主义立场的民主党上台之后，拜登政府能够恢复商业理性，着眼于中美两国商业利益而缓和对华关系，通过谈判解决中美两国的经贸分歧。然而，在2021年3月举世瞩目的中美阿拉斯加对话上，双方争论的并非具体的经贸分歧，而是两国关系的定位。拜登政府试图向世界表明，美国以“人权帝国”形象回归世界并继续领导 世界，以矫正特朗普的“美国优先”政策给美国的世界帝国形象带来的损害。为此，拜登政府在中美会谈前一天以人权理由对中国香港施加进一步制裁。紧随其后，西方以“种族灭绝”“强迫劳动”之类的人权理由在联合国对中国展开围攻，并对新疆的棉花出口进行制裁。

“贸易”与“人权”两个问题紧密挂钩，代表了美国民主党未来对华战略的根本转变，即试图按照“新冷战”的思路抢占“人权”的道德制高点，从而在西欧和东亚致力于强化“民主同盟”的建构，动员整个世界帝国的力量向中国全面施加压力。由此，中美今天的竞争决不能简单理解为中美两国之间的“修昔底德陷阱”，而是美国建构的世界帝国体系压制中国崛起而引发的冲突和竞争。 [1]

如果我们不能从人类历史演化的角度来理解世界帝国体系的形成与发展，那么就看不清美国两党对华政策摇摆中的不变要素，也就无法真正理解中美竞争不单纯是两国力量对比关系的变化，而是涉及两种人权理论、两种政治理念、两种全球秩序构想之间的竞争。在这场竞争中，我们可以看到两种截然不同的国际秩序观：一种是美国基于经济军事硬实力和文化软实力所形成的帝国主义和霸权主义的世界帝国秩序观；另一种则是中国基于“和而不同”的理念，秉持在联合国框架下通过对话来解决各种争端，在全球化时代致力于建构人类命运共同体的“天下一家”秩序观。 [2]

中美之间的竞争不仅是两国经济、科技和军事实力的竞争，更重要的是围绕观念和价值展开的关于全球政治秩序建构的竞争，这无疑是一场具有普遍历史意义的竞争。在这场竞争中，“贸易”和“人权”扮演了重要的角色，前者涉及经济政治实力，后者涉及文化价值观念。这意味着，中美两国未来必然会在国际上围绕“人权”问题展开话语权竞争。

在经济、人权议题上，大多数美国人支持对话强硬立场 | 图源：皮尤（Pew）民调

遗憾的是，中国似乎尚未充分意识到从“人权”这一普遍价值出发，讲述原本精彩的“人权故事”的重要性。一方面，中国在人权事业中做出了举世瞩目的巨大贡献，我们却始终未能讲好中国的“人权故事”；另一方面，我们也未能揭穿美国版“人权故事”的伪善面纱。以至于在这场全球意识形态和话语权的争夺中，中国始终处于弱势。其关键在于，我们未能从全球视野理解贸易与人权之间的内在关联，未能理解人权理论的不同版本及其内在联系。尤其是改革开放以来，我们完全接受美国主导的世界帝国体系的第一代人权理论叙事，忽略或遗忘了中国秉持的社会主义传统在第二代人权理论叙事中做出的世界性贡献。 因此，中国要与美国争夺人权话语权，首先就要理解美国如何利用贸易与人权之间的互动来构建世界帝国，从根本上理解“美国行为的根源”。 [3] 在此基础上，我们才能从全球视角出发获得自信，进一步发展社会主义传统的人权理论和人权叙事，从而在全球事务中高举“人权”旗帜，打赢人权话语的舆论战。

 

▍ “自由贸易的帝国”：第一代人权理论

 

众所周知，今天我们所说的人权理论起源于启蒙哲学，具体而言源于自然状态学说、自然权利学说和社会契约学说，这些学说奠定了现代宪政、法治乃至民主的基本框架。需要注意的是，当时的权利理论称为“自然权利”（natural right），强调是“自然人”在自然状态中作为动物拥有的为所欲为的正当性；而“自然人”一旦加入社会契约成为“公民”，就只能享有公共权力制定的“法律之下的权利”，也就是“公民权利”（civil right）。在这个意义上，只有“自然权利”或“公民权利”，并不存在“人的权利”（human right）。因为“自然人”乃是动物，不是文明意义上的“人”；而自然人一旦成为人，就处在公共权力的约束之下，成为各个国家具体的“公民”。

按照启蒙哲学的理论思路，自然状态中的人在不同社会条件下会过渡到不同政治状态，根据不同的法律体系必然享有不同的“公民权利”。也就是说，人的自然权利是相同的，但在不同国家、民族享有的“公民权利”是不同的。初民社会、游牧民族、农业社会和商业社会的公民权利无疑是不同的，更不用说不同宗教、不同文明传统下的公民权利也会不同。因此，如果我们真正秉持启蒙哲学传统，“勇敢地运用理性”，就不会接受今天主流学界所流行的“中国古代没有自由、人权、法治、宪政和民主”之类的各种“黑话”，也就不用着力去批判所谓的“西方中心主义”。这就意味着，我们今天面临的政治争论不能简单地归之于“东方”与“西方”之争，而是源于启蒙哲学所开创的不同传统。而要解决这一争论，就必须在启蒙哲学的基础上运用我们的理性，理解人类的历史和未来。

就18世纪西方的启蒙哲学而言，人权话语的建构是为了给欧洲历史中涌现的一种前所未有的生活状态提供正当性辩护。 这就是地理大发现以来，从西欧兴起的全球商业贸易所推动的市场交换、自由流动、私有财产、契约精神、城市生活等这样一种不断扩散、壮大的社会生活。这种社会经济状态和生活方式给欧洲的封建主义和宗教秩序、东方的帝国秩序以及新发现土地上的初民社会秩序带来了巨大冲击。西方启蒙思想家们称这种新型生活方式为“市民社会”，或“资产阶级”生活方式，或更为概括性的“资本主义”。自此，在全球地理版图上形成了西欧的“市民社会”和资本主义秩序、东欧的封建秩序和宗教秩序、东方的农业帝国秩序以及美洲、非洲、大洋洲的初民秩序并存的格局；而商业贸易将曾经这些被分割在不同地理空间的不同文明秩序联系起来，催生了最初的全球化图景。此时，面对新发现空间中的初民社会，刚开始崛起的西方拥有巨大优势，将前者变为殖民地；但面对强大富裕的东方帝国，欧洲处于明显的劣势，绞尽脑汁思考如何通过商业和炮舰挤入已存在了几个世纪的“东方贸易圈”。正是借助炮舰和通过殖民非洲、美洲所获得的白银和廉价产品，西欧才勉强获得加入“东方贸易圈”的“门票”。 [4] 然而，18世纪之后，欧洲发生的两件大事深刻地改变了全球化的历史图景。

其一，英国通过长期的重商主义战略率先完成工业革命。 工业革命改变了全球格局，英国利用炮舰打开东方帝国的贸易大门，借助廉价的工业品打开东方帝国的广阔市场，从而将这些地区变成自己的原料产地和销售市场。英国由此逐渐从欧洲霸主变成全球霸主，最终在19世纪打败大陆竞争者拿破仑帝国之后，成为唯一的世界霸主。为了将整个世界纳入英国主导的贸易体系，英国开始在全球推广“自由贸易”的理论。英国在成为全球工业中心和贸易中心的同时，伦敦也成为全球金融中心，英镑取代了白银。这意味着全球经济霸主从东方世界转向西方，从中国转向了英国，全球经济和权势格局发生了历史性的大转移。最终，英国建立起第一个扩至全球的世界帝国——“自由贸易的帝国”。也正是在工业革命和自由贸易推动的世界帝国兴起和全球权势大转移的背景下，我们才能理解1840年之后的中国历史。

其二，法国大革命在意识形态领域的革命性贡献。 18世纪，英法两国曾长时期在全球层面相互竞争。英国人通过海洋贸易获得了巨大的殖民地和财富，而法国长期被面向大陆的农业政策阻碍，未能向英国那样走向全球商业扩张。在这个意义上，法国大革命可以说是由法国在全球遭受屈辱引发的一种过激精神反应。在这种精神的推动下，不仅产生了大革命的激情，而且产生了大革命之后的重要文件《人和公民权利宣言》。 这个文件将启蒙哲学的抽象性概括发展到极致，率先提出了“人权” （human right） 概念。 这个概念不同于启蒙思想家关于“自然权利”的理解，而是将自然状态下人作为动物的权利上升为人的 权利 。 但更重要的是，“人权”给出了衡量“人”与“非人”的标准和尺度。具体而言，欧洲人将自己的资本主义生活方式上升为“人类”，从而潜在地将全球其他地理空间和文明秩序中的其他民族视为“非人”或“野蛮人”；相应地，欧洲资本主义生活方式意味着“文明”，其他生活方式就意味着“野蛮”。既然是“野蛮”，那么不仅殖民主义是正当的，种族主义和大屠杀也变成了正当的。欧洲现代的“野蛮性”实际上源于欧洲人发明和垄断了“人权”概念，进而垄断了对“人”与“非人”的裁判权。

欧洲崛起使得大英帝国主导的“贸易”这种经济社会生活与法国哲学主导的“人权”这种价值观念表达，实现了完美的结合。在贸易推动的资本主义这种特定的社会形态、制度体系和生活方式中形成的“公民权利”，为“人权”充实了具体内容，核心是私有产权、市场交换权、自由贸易权，以及为了保障这些权利而形成的有限政府和宪政法治。这就是我们今天已经烂熟的辉格党叙述中的人权理论逻辑。一旦将这种特定历史条件下的“公民权利”视为“人权”，甚至将之视为划分“人”与“非人”、“文明”与“野蛮”的尺度，那么在欧洲人看来，非洲、美洲的初民社会就仍处于“野蛮”状态，而中国、印度这些拥有漫长历史文化传统和社会政治体系但未能进入资本主义生活方式的东方社会，则依然处在“未开化”阶段。对这些“野蛮人”和“未开化人”进行殖民征服以及经济社会和政治文化改造，将他们纳入全球资本主义商业贸易的世界帝国体系中，无疑是对这些民族和地区的“拯救”——这被欧洲的人权主义者、人道主义者看作是白人自觉承担的历史天命，是“白人的重担”（吉卜林语）。由此，我们就能理解为什么鼓吹人权的欧洲自由主义者可能同时是帝国主义者。 [5]

正是通过隐含的“人”与“非人”、“文明”与“野蛮”的划分尺度，人权理论成为一种正当化的意识形态，推动全球商业贸易的世界帝国肆意扩展。正是在世界帝国建构的背景下，“贸易”和“人权”开始携手合作，“贸易”代表西方资本主义的“硬实力”，“人权”代表西方资本主义的“软实力”，共同推动西方资本主义世界帝国的扩张。我们把这种与自由贸易的世界帝国相匹配的人权理论称为“第一代人权理论”，其要义在于个人主义基础上的私有财产权和自由市场交易权等，即后来贡斯当所说的“现代人的自由”，或柏林所说的“消极自由”。

▍ 从“革命权”到“发展权”：第二代人权理论的兴起与发展

 

法国人为欧洲崛起提供的不仅是“人权”这个抽象的概念，更重要的是为“人权”概念赋予不同于商业贸易这种“消极自由权”的内容，那就是平等地、积极地参与政治生活的民主自由权，以及拥有政治统治权的“人民主权”，即贡斯当所说的“古代人的自由”，或柏林所说的“积极自由”。这种人权理论的奠基人无疑是卢梭。正是基于民主自由权和人民主权，人权理论发展出民主革命的权利、独立建国的权利和独立探索发展道路的权利。马克思、列宁、毛泽东都是这种理论传统的继承人，他们不断继续发展卢梭提出的人民自由权和政治自主权。

欧洲思想中经常区分英美自由主义与欧陆自由主义，强调前者基于所谓的经验主义，后者基于所谓的唯理主义，等等。这种哲学观念的分野，也体现为两种人权理论以及与之相应的两种发展道路之间的差异：前者是基于英国全球商业贸易的历史经验所形成的第一代人权理论，后者则是基于法国大革命、1848年革命、欧洲共产主义运动以及俄国革命和中国革命的历史经验所形成的第二代人权理论。第一代人权理论的核心价值是自由，尤其强调个人在经济领域不受政治权力干预的自由，但这种自由的代价是制造、扩大甚至固化了社会不平等。作为对第一代人权理论的校正，第二代人权理论的核心价值是追求平等，是在各领域追求人与人之间、国家之间、民族之间乃至文明之间的平等。几百年来，第一代人权理论已经成为辉格党叙事中不变的教条；第二代人权理论却能根据历史环境的变化不断探索新的可能性，因此始终处于发展变化之中。

第二代人权理论虽然不断发展变化，但核心要义始终在于对第一代人权理论及其推动的自由贸易的世界帝国的颠覆和反叛。 只是在不同的历史时代，颠覆和反叛的方式不同。早期，马克思、列宁、毛泽东的民主革命权、民族自决权和独立建国权，推动了欧洲殖民帝国体系下的殖民地或半殖民地纷纷独立建国，导致自由贸易的世界帝国陷入分崩离析，于是阶级平等、男女平等、民族平等的社会主义道路，以及发展中国家的“发展权”，就成为人权理论的重要内容。“二战”之后，特别是冷战结束以来，面对自由贸易的世界帝国在全球的胜利，西方左翼提出后现代理论、后种族主义，转而在文化私人生活领域追求平等，试图颠覆世界帝国的文化基础，发达国家政治生活的核心议题也由此转向基于种族、性别的“身份政治”。

一旦我们从两种人权理论推动的两种发展道路的角度考察，就会非常清晰地看到：如果捍卫从大英帝国到美国的自由贸易的世界帝国传统，就必然强调第一代人权的重要性；如果反对英美的世界帝国传统，强调人人平等的共和主义或民族国家平等的世界主义、国际主义传统，必然强调第二代人权理论的重要性。因为第一代人权理论与英国建构的世界帝国体系紧密结合在一起；而第二代人权理论的最大成就正在于为“二战”后民族国家纷纷独立提供了思想武器，使得世界帝国体系（殖民体系）日趋瓦解，并促进了由平等的主权国家构成的共同体体系（联合国）的形成。《联合国宪章》不仅强调主权绝对性、国家主权平等和不干涉内政等原则，更重要的是强调不同文明对权利概念的不同理解。两种人权理论及其支撑的两种全球秩序，始终处于不断纠缠的斗争之中。

因此，当我们理解人权理论时，重要的不是话语层面的论述，而是它们在非话语层面推动的历史行动和政治实践。同样是“革命权利”，从一国内追求人人平等的共和体制，发展到全球秩序中追求民族平等、国家平等的联合国体制，前者针对的是殖民主义和封建主义交织在一起所建立的专制政体，后者针对的是基于全球自由贸易理论建立起的世界帝国体系。然而，如果意识到世界帝国体系的经济基础是科技、产业、贸易和金融的中心-边缘式世界体系，[6]那么，处于边缘地带的殖民地国家或后发展国家，要摆脱对这种不平等经济体系的“依附”，不仅须运用政治上的“革命权利”来脱离甚至推翻世界帝国体系，更重要的是还应掌握基于独立政治主权的探索符合本国实际的“发展权”，尤其要摆脱国际资本的剥削和压迫，保护本国的产业和市场，推动本国经济发展。因此，“二战”之后，无论是从美国到德国的保护幼稚产业论，还是马克思主义的计划经济理论，对于发展中国家或第三世界都有着非常巨大的吸引力。

在这种背景下，第二代人权理论的核心概念就从“革命权”转向“发展权”，即强调发展中国家拥有与发达国家一样的发展本国经济的权利。 不少人将第一代人权称为“个体人权”，将第二代人权称为“集体人权”。但无论是“革命权”还是“发展权”，第二代人权理论的基石在于人民主权，主权意味着政治的“自主权”和“独立权”，强调每个国家为了保持独立性，均拥有摧毁世界帝国体系的“革命权”，强调每个国家均有运用独立的智识判断选择经济发展道路、制度模式和文明价值观念的“发展权”。第一代人权理论必然产生“历史终结”理论，即人类只有一条现代化道路，那就是通向世界帝国体系，而第二代人权理论必然强调“多元现代性”理论，强调发展道路和文明的多样性，强调基于“美美与共”的“天下大同”。

正是基于对资本主义世界帝国体系的批判，在联合国框架下，始终存在着资本主义与社会主义、发达国家与发展中国家、自由贸易与公平贸易（保护主义）、市场经济与计划经济之间的竞争和辩论，这些辩论均围绕两种人权理论展开。这两种力量的博弈在联合国的两个人权公约中得到了体现：《公民权利及政治权利国际公约》体现了第一代人权理论的主张，而《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约》体现了第二代人权理论的主张。发展中国家依据“发展权”等第二代人权理论，名正言顺地选择不同于西方自由市场经济的发展道路和发展模式，尤其强调政府对于推动经济发展的积极作用。在这种背景下，连信奉第一代人权理论的发达国家也不得不尊重“发展权”概念，并提出了“发展经济学”的话语策略，只不过把私有产权、市场经济、自由贸易作为药方提供给发展中国家。

 

▍ “美国行为的根源”：两种人权理论的体用结合

 

从建国时期联邦派与反联邦派的争论开始，美国就始终处在“矛盾”之中，以至于形成了孤立主义与世界主义、理想主义与现实主义、保守主义与自由主义等各种不同理论视角的概括。这种矛盾起源于北美在独立建国过程中，同时继承了欧洲的两种人权理论传统。

无论政治体制的设计，还是推动商业扩张，大英帝国始终是美国建国的模仿对象。联邦派就是第一代人权理论的积极主张者。 对内，他们主张通过三权分立和有限政府的分权理论来约束政治权力；对外，他们始终坚持建构“强大的联邦”来保障个 人自由，以为美国人和美国企业在全球开展自由的商业贸易开拓空间。他们还主张建立强大的海军，联邦拥有独立统一的外交权、司法权乃至行政权，甚至学习英国的重商主义战略，保护本国的“幼稚产业”，这一切无疑都以大英帝国作为楷模。联邦党人的政治理想，就是模仿大英帝国的自由贸易帝国“老路”。主张走这条道路的人，无不用辉格党叙事讲述美国的自由主义传统。 “二战”后基于英美特殊关系的大西洋体系论述，以及冷战中针对社会主义和计划经济的论述，进一步强化了这种辉格党的自由主义叙事。后冷战时期，新自由主义在美国全面兴起，对第二代人权理论展开系统批判，否定法国大革命和欧陆哲学传统，进而否定俄国革命、中国革命和社会主义道路。

然而，在美国建国时期，最强大的精神力量源于第二代人权理论。这种人权理论的美国继承者主张，借助人民主权和共和主义传统反抗殖民帝国体系的“旧世界”，建立一个自由平等的“新世界”。 美国往往被视为“新世界”的代表，就是要彻底抛弃欧洲殖民主义的专制统治，以“人民主权”奠定国家发展的政治独立性，抛弃欧洲在殖民体系下建立的世界帝国，进而通过独立的、平等的国家之间的“联盟”，建立起邦联主义的世界体系。这实际上相当于走一条不同欧洲殖民帝国主义体系的“新路”。这种主张尤其体现在杰斐逊代表的反联邦派的论述中。正是在这种传统的基础上，20世纪的威尔逊提出了“大国共同体”这种“国际联盟”构想，这一构想最终发展为后来的联合国体系。 从“一战”到“二战”，美国之所以是“世界灯塔”，就在于与欧洲殖民主义的世界帝国体系相比，美国进步力量主张的这种主权国家独立平等的联盟体系代表着人类进步的方向。

 

这两种人权理论及其背后的世界政治理念看似相互“矛盾”，美国却恰恰利用二者建构起一个全新的世界帝国。一方面，美国利用第二代人权的自由建国理论，推动美国向西部扩张，以“联盟”的方式将西部并入“美利坚联合国”的联盟体系，使得美国在北美大陆不断发展壮大，最终建构起一个全新的“大陆帝国”。正因此，当美国向西的边疆开拓完成之后，特纳才会忧心美国的共和主义理念会随着边疆扩张的结束而走向衰落。 [7] 另一方面，美国又利用第一代人权中的商业贸易理论，采取重商主义战略，加快美国经济商业贸易的崛起。尤其经过南北内战后，美国形成了统一的国内大市场，政府产业保护政策下的“美国体系”也逐渐完备和强大。 [8] 美国终于摆脱了在英国建构的“棉花帝国”中的边缘地位，成为工业强国，进而成为全球商业贸易的强国。整个19世纪，美国正是在充分利用这两种人权理论的基础上，在大陆和海洋两个地理空间中，在吸纳新州与商业工业发展两个领域飞速扩张，最终实现了自身的崛起并开始登上世界舞台。

20世纪登上世界历史舞台的美国，面对的是英国和俄国代表的欧洲“旧世界”中的殖民帝国传统。面对这种形势，两种看似矛盾的人权理论又构成新一轮的精巧组合。一方面，美国充分利用第二代人权理论在意识形态上的正当性，推动处于殖民压迫下的民族和国家开展民主革命，不断瓦解欧洲殖民帝国体系。在这个历史节点上，迈向世界舞台的美国和十月革命后的俄国一样，也扮演着革命性和进步性的角色。如果我们不考虑国内政治，仅仅考虑对国际格局的理解，威尔逊和列宁都是法国大革命思想的继承者，都在第二代人权理论的基础上推动民族自决、民族革命和民族解放运动。虽然他们有不同的现实政治考虑，但在意识形态上都是欧洲殖民帝国体系的颠覆者，都主张主权国家在独立平等的基础上走向国际联盟的道路。正是由于威尔逊的美国和列宁的俄国对第二代人权理论的捍卫和推广，殖民主义、帝国主义的欧洲旧帝国道路在那个时代的全球政治观念中丧失了正当性。两次世界大战后，欧洲殖民主义的帝国体系开始解体，一系列殖民或半殖民国家获得独立或解放。这些国家都按照共和国联盟的世界主义理想，要么加入美国为首的资本主义联盟体系，要么加入苏联为首的社会主义的联盟体系。

另一方面，美国并不完全按照第二代人权理论要求这些新独立国家必须是民主共和国，这些国家甚至可以是封建酋长国或独裁专制国家；但这些国家要加入美国主导的联盟体系，就必须接纳美国按照第一代人权理论建构的全球商业贸易体系。 换言之，美国对加入其联盟的国家有一个隐蔽的条件：必须采取第一代人权理论强调的自由市场体制，尤其要对美国开放其商业贸易领域。这就是与“民族自决”理念相伴随的是“门户开放”政策。在这个意义上， 社会主义国家之所以被美国视为“敌人”，绝非因为它们在理念上宣称要推翻资本主义世界，而是因为它们选择了公有制和计划经济体制，使得美国的资本、商业贸易的经济力量无法渗入。可见，美国实际上始终依据第一代人权理论的资本主义理念来划分政治上的“敌我”关系。

综上所述，第一代人权理论及其推动的世界帝国始终是美国政治的根本；而第二代人权理论往往只是工具，通过“民族自决”以及后来的“颜色革命”来打击外部的政治对手。 这些国家经过民族自决或政权更迭后，要获得美国的政治认可，就必须采取市场经济体制；至于在市场经济的经济基础上是建立自由民主政体，还是嫁接部落酋长制、独裁专制和宗教政体等其他上层建筑形式，都无所谓；只要其市场对美国的资本和商业开放，接受美国推行的全球经济规则，就可以纳入美国主导的全球商业贸易体系中，变成美国支配下的准殖民地。比较之下，采取计划经济的国家因为完全不受美国经济力量的干涉、渗透和支配，很容易被美国视为“敌人”。因此，美国在政治上判定敌我的逻辑之所以“矛盾”，真正根源乃是美国试图通过交替使用两种人权理论，建构一个新型的隐蔽的世界帝国。这就意味着我们要回到世界帝国的内在逻辑来探寻美国行为的根源。

在这方面，阿明提供了一个具有洞见的观察。他认为古代的财富积累主要依赖土地上的物产，为了掠夺其他土地上的财富，古典帝国往往通过军事征服建立直接统治，通过贡赋和税收完成利润榨取和财富积累。为了掩盖经济上的榨取关系，并为军事征服提供正当理由，古典帝国发展出一套具有垄断性的复杂的文明和宗教学说。然而，资本主义时代的财富积累往往通过资本和贸易完成，军事征服和直接统治的必要性大大降低，这就意味着在政治上和文化上完全不需要垄断，但需要建立起一套类似的具有垄断性的关于全球经济的复杂学说。这套用概念、数学公式和图表建立起来的复杂高深的经济学知识，实际上同样是为了掩盖新型的帝国榨取。 [9] 事实上，从这种古典的区域性文明帝国向现代的世界帝国过渡的过程中，恰恰是商业贸易的全球化使得通过资本和商业贸易控制全球的世界帝国成为可能。 作为第一个世界帝国，大英帝国只有在迫不得已的情况下才会采取殖民主义这种“有形帝国” （formal empire） 模式， [10] 除此之外则尽可能采取“无形帝国” （informal empire） 模式，通过商业贸易这只“看不见的手”获取利益。 [11] 由 此，帝国建构艺术的演化史，正是从直接征服的古典帝国形态发展到殖民主义“间接治理”这种中间形态，再发展到“无形帝国”形态的历史。

进入20世纪后，由于威尔逊对第二代人权理论的宣传，更重要的是来自社会主义理念的竞争，再加上有大陆帝国和“门罗主义”的基础，美国可以在遵循第二代人权理论推动民族国家独立的前提下，走“无形帝国”这种新型世界帝国道路，即要求所有新独立国家采取“门户开放”政策，接受自由贸易的市场理念，从而将其纳入美国主导的资本主义世界帝国体系。[12]正是在这种新型世界帝国的建构过程中，两种人权理论以及“民族自决”和“门户开放”两种政策完美地结合在一起。其中，第一代人权理论推动的“门户开放”为“体”，而第二代人权理论形成的“民族自决”为“用”。这种新型世界帝国建构，在“二战”后美国看似矛盾的两个方面有很好的体现：在政治上，完全接受第二代人权理论，推动主权国家独立平等地加入“联合国”这个国际联盟体系；但在经济上，通过布林顿森林体系建构起美元霸权和对全球经济的控制。“二战”后，欧洲各国、日本等大量国家在法律形式上虽然是独立的主权国家，但美国却可以通过经济、金融、科技、信息数据等方式将这些盟友变成“附庸国”或“准殖民地”。

可见，在美国建构的新型世界帝国中，这两种相互矛盾的人权理论实现了完美的“体用”配合：一方面，美国始终高举“人权”大旗，挥舞“人权”大棒干涉其他国家，主张“人权高于主权”，并采取“人道主义干涉”，摧毁其他国家的主权；另一方面，美国又通过全球市场体系将在前述过程中释放出来的市场和劳动力纳入其世界帝国的分工体系。这种战略在后冷战时代表现得更为明显和突出，因为社会主义阵营的瓦解意味着美国失去了外部制约的力量，可以肆无忌惮地加快世界帝国建构进程。两种看似“矛盾”的人权理论，形成一种完美的“体用”结合，表面上宣扬第二代人权主张的共和主义和世界主义理想，骨子里则是第一代人权理论支撑的世界帝国建构，从而形成“外人权”而“内帝国”的内外表里结构，共同推动新型世界帝国的建构和全球扩张，这无疑构成了“美国行为的根源”。

注释

[1] 关于世界帝国的初步讨论，参见强世功：《超大型国家的内在逻辑：帝国与全球秩序》，载《文化纵横》2019年第2期。更详细的讨论，参见强世功：《文明终结与世界帝国：美国建构的全球法秩序》，三联书店（香港）2021年即出。

[2] 关于美国主导的世界帝国体系与“深度全球化”所推动的“天下一家”的历史发展趋势之间的内在矛盾，参见强世功：《“天下一家”vs. 世界帝国：“深度全球化”与全球治理难题》，载《东方学刊》2021年第4期（即出）。

[3] 刘小枫老师从政治哲学角度考察了“美国行为的根源”，本文试图作为其脚注，增加一些经济社会史和帝国史的背景和内容。参见刘小枫：《美国行为的根源：出自政治史学的观察》，载《文化纵横》2021年第4期。

[4] 贡德·弗兰克：《白银资本》，刘北成译，中央编译出版社2008年版。

[5] 珍妮弗·皮茨：《转向帝国：英法帝国自由主义的兴起》，金毅、许鸿艳译，江苏人民出版社2012年版。

[6] 伊曼纽尔·沃勒斯坦：《现代世界体系》（第1卷），尤来寅等译，高等教育出版社1998年版，第462页。

[7] 特纳：《边疆在美国历史上的重要性》，李明译，载张世明、王济东、牛昢昢主编：《空间、法律与学术话语》，黑龙江教育出版社2014年版。

[8] 关于亨利·克莱提出的“美国体系”（American system，也有译者译为“美国制度”），参见迈克尔·赫德森：《保护主义：美国经济崛起的秘诀（1815—1914）》，贾根良、马学亮、邓郎、黄阳华等译，中国人民大学出版社2010年版，第34页。

[9] 阿明：《古代世界诸体系与现代资本主义体系》，载安德烈·冈德·弗兰克、巴里·K. 吉尔斯主编：《世界体系：500年还是5000年？》，郝名玮译，社会科学文献出版社2004年版。

[10] 大英帝国由于领土狭小，为了驾驭全球贸易的世界帝国，在地缘政治上必须依赖南非和印度这种采取“间接治理”的殖民地形态。

[11] John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson，“The Imperialism of Free Trade,”The Economic History Review，New Series，Vol. 6，No. 1，1953，pp. 1~15.

[12] 关于“门户开放”在美国帝国扩张“大战略”中的意义，参见克里斯托弗·莱恩：《和平的幻想：1940年以来的美国大战略》，孙建中译，上海人民出版社2009年版。

贸易与人权（下）

—— 世界帝国背景下的中美竞争

▍ 关贸总协定：两种人权理念之间的妥协

 

美国通过“民族自决”和“门户开放”在第一代人权与第二代人权之间形成了体用结合的内在机制，利用两次世界大战的机会推动美国继承了大英帝国的世界帝国衣钵，并将其推进到“无形帝国”的新阶段。“二战”后形成的政治领域中的联合国体系和经济领域中的布雷顿森林体系，是这两种人权理论的产物。[1]在布雷顿森林体系的设计中，美国的首要目标是摧毁大英帝国的帝国特惠制造成的全球贸易分割，利用美国战后主导全球经济的有利时机，要求欧洲和亚洲必须采取贸易和投资自由的“门户开放”政策，以便美国获得整个世界的资源和市场，重建自由贸易的世界帝国，实现保罗·肯尼迪所说的“美国治下的和平”。事实上，当大英帝国从自由贸易转向帝国特惠制时，美国正自罗斯福新政开始从重商主义转向自由贸易政策，这种政策变化恰恰反映了帝国实力此消彼长的变化。

大英帝国是在“心不在焉”的状态下自然成长为世界帝国的，而美国从建国开始就系统研究大英帝国的成败教训，通过精心筹划和设计来建构世界帝国。因此，不同于大英帝国自发形成的以产业和金融为中心推动自由贸易，并由此形成自由调节国际收支平衡的经济体系，美国在“二战”后对于建构世界帝国有一整套系统的筹划，经济上的关键就在于如何汲取各国采取重商主义政策导致西方世界陷入“大萧条”的教训，重新建构自由贸易的世界贸易体系。

“二战”后，资本主义世界掌握“贸易”（第一代人权）的话语权，社会主义阵营掌握“人权”（第二代人权）的话语权。美国原本希望按照第一代人权理念设计推动自由贸易的世界贸易组织，并签署了著名的《哈瓦那宪章》。然而，秉持第二代人权理念的新独立国家很难认同这种摧毁国家主权的做法，更何况在经历大萧条和两次世界大战后，人们对自由放任的经济政策导致的灾难有切肤之痛。即使在美国，由于新政自由主义的影响，人们也意识到自由经济必须与充分就业和政府调控联系起来，资本主义的“经济安全”必须与新政自由主义强调的“社会安全”和“道义安全”联系起来，甚至希望用新政自由主义的理念塑造战后秩序。[2]在这种背景下，两种人权理念之间相互妥协，形成了美国主导下的关税与贸易总协定（GATT）这样的多边谈判机制，不同经济制度、不同发展阶段、不同意识形态的国家都纳入关税和贸易问题的谈判中。这种妥协将第一代人权理论强调的市场自由与第二代人权理论强调的政府调控有机地结合起来，被称为体现了一种“嵌入式自由主义”（the embodied liberalism）。[3]

关贸总协定的制度设计给发展中国家关税保护适度的空间，它比大英帝国时代的自由贸易的世界经济更为合理。大英帝国推动的自由贸易以赤裸裸的殖民主义为背景，殖民地或半殖民地完全被编织在世界体系的边缘位置上。而当美国提出自由贸易的时候，正是共产主义运动推动下的反帝国主义、反殖民主义的时代，是殖民地纷纷独立的民族解放时代。在这个主权国家追求独立平等的时代，美国提出的自由贸易必须给这些国家主权相当的调控权力。尽管美国努力将关贸总协定的讨论限定在“贸易”的技术范畴中，希望避免受到社会主义运动推动的第二代人权（经济社会发展权利）的影响，将“贸易”与“人权”隔绝开来，但二者之间的关联始终是客观存在的。这意味着大英帝国通过自由贸易建构世界帝国的历史环境已经一去不复返了。

与大英帝国主导的完全开放的自由贸易体系相比，布雷顿森林体系既为主权国家解决就业和社会问题提供了空间，同时防止这些国家采取重商主义政策危及全球经济秩序，从而避免了大英帝国激进的自由贸易导致的保护主义强烈反弹。可以说，这是一个比大英帝国的自由贸易更为温和、更为合理的经济全球化秩序。然而，我们必须意识到世界经济体系从大英帝国时代向美帝国时代的过渡，实际上体现了资本主义利润榨取逻辑的重要变化。大英帝国资本积累的主要方式是通过制造业优势获得商业贸易优势，进而获得金融优势。比较之下，“二战”后美国资本积累的方式不仅借助黄金-美元以及后来石油-美元的金融霸权，更重要的是它曾经在英国霸权的压力下积累起“公司资本主义”优势——美国的跨国公司通过整合全球商业网络，有效地将国际贸易中的交易成本内部化，以应对全球贸易自由化的冲击。新的公司管理方式最典型的例子就是福特制和泰罗制的兴起。公司管理效益的提高有效地加速了公司的扩张，最终形成了跨国公司这种新的经济垄断和技术垄断方式。[4]

大英帝国的自由贸易就像曼彻斯特学派所构想的那样，是由无数小店主构成的全球商业网络；美国的自由贸易则是由为数不多的庞大跨国寡头控制的。大英帝国与美利坚帝国的两种利润榨取模式的比较，完美地体现在芝加哥学派经济学家们的争论中，即市场和企业这两种模式哪一个更有效率，最终取决于哪一个更有利于降低交易成本。跨国公司将自由贸易中的市场成本内部化，更有利于降低交易费用。这些跨国公司在全球经济中拥有垄断地位，它们在很多主权国家（尤其第三世界国家）中拥有特权和权威，甚至可以左右这些国家的政治和经济。在这个意义上，美国对自由贸易的渴望远远没有鼎盛时期的大英帝国强烈，因为任何主权国家的贸易保护政策同样有利于美国在该国设立的跨国公司，而跨国公司在这些国家赚取的利润最终又会以美元的形式回流到美国。就像中国人在中美贸易战中抱怨的那样，中国出口至美国的很多产品都是美国的跨国公司在中国设厂制造的，中国人赚取的仅仅是一小部分劳动加工利润。

▍ 世界帝国的两副面孔：“自由贸易”与“公平贸易”

 

尽管由于社会主义阵营的外部压力和GATT谈判中发展中国家的抵制，美国期望的自由贸易理想无法马上实现，但美国还是充分利用其经济优势在GATT谈判中不断推动贸易自由化。为此，美国推出了“发展经济学”以及在此基础上的“现代化理论”。这些理论宣称对外贸易是经济发展的“发动机”，强调落后国家只有大力发展对外贸易才能拉动经济增长；因为对外贸易不仅可以通过扩大出口加速资本积累，更可以通过进口改善产业结构，实现经济协调发展，同时有利于引进先进技术、生产方式、经济体制和文化观念等。这些理论吸引着发展中国家纷纷加入GATT，并同意降低关税，尽可能推行自由贸易。[5]

尽管如此，在这个“俱乐部”式的谈判场所，第二代人权理论必然成为发展中国家对抗发达国家的思想武器。无论是沃勒斯坦的世界经济体系论，还是阿明的依附与不发达论，这些左翼思潮和马克思主义理论一样，都成为第三世界在各种国际场合批判西方主导的全球经济体系，争取本国发展权益的思想武器。发达国家认为发展中国家经济欠发达是因为经济政治制度不成熟，发展中国家则将其归结为西方主导的不合理的全球经济秩序，甚至将这种战后经济秩序批评为“新殖民主义”。第二代人权话语与全球左翼运动相结合，在贸易领域推动了“全球正义运动”，“公平贸易”成为发展中国家的诉求。发展中国家之所以争取“公平贸易”，用“公平贸易”批判西方发达国家建构的世界帝国秩序，是因为它们加入这一秩序后并没有出现发达国家所承诺的经济繁荣，反而越来越陷入被剥夺的地位，[6]布雷顿森林体系建构的发达国家（北方）与发展中国家（南方）之间的经济鸿沟越来越深。

美国既然想通过GATT这个经济“俱乐部”将广大发展中国家纳入其经济体系，用冷战手法孤立社会主义阵营，那就不得不承受发展中国家在贸易谈判中批评和抵制美国提出的某些主张的压力，更重要的是要面对为打赢冷战而推动的欧盟和日本经济复兴所带来的挑战。为了应对这些挑战，美国《1962年贸易扩展法》赋予总统以“不合理”或“不公平”贸易为理由采取报复性措施的权力。1974年，美国进一步修改贸易法，提出了“公平而有害”的贸易和“不公平贸易”等概念，把符合公平贸易原则但不符合美国利益标准的商品称为“有害的”。这标志着美国贸易政策发生了重大调整：在贸易的正当性话语策略上，从强调“自由贸易”转向强调“公平贸易”；在制度建构上，越来越倾向于单边主义，在GATT谈判框架之外，利用美国经济霸权，不断修订国内贸易法赋予政府越来越强的贸易报复和制裁手段，迫使其他国家接受美国提出的各种所谓“公平贸易”要求。由此，美国国内贸易法与关贸总协定等国际法之间、单边主义与多边主义之间的有机互动逐渐形成。

“公平贸易”原本是发展中国家基于第二代人权理论对“自由贸易”导致的不平等的批判，现在却反过来成为美国基于“自由贸易”原理对政府介入贸易（包括补贴、国有企业、劳动者权益、生态环境破坏等）的批判。在“公平贸易”这个问题上，存在着两种不同理解，而这种分歧与通常所说的“实质正义”与“程序正义”有着密切关联。如果说“自由贸易”有降低关税壁垒这样一个可见的客观尺度，那么“公平贸易”则缺乏一个普遍认可的标准，因为强者与弱者对于公平的理解是不同的。当强者和弱者展开竞赛，强者强调应该在一个共同的起跑线上开始竞争，也就是完全基于市场自由的“公平竞争”，因此任何政府对贸易的辅助都是“不公平贸易”，这种“公平”实际上是程序正义理念在国际贸易领域的体现。然而，对于弱者而言，这种放任自由的贸易是对发展中国家的掠夺，会导致发展中国家永远处在世界体系的边缘地位，形成因依附而不发达；因此，真正的“公平贸易”必须认可发展中国家运用政府力量推动经济发展的“发展权”，从而实现国家与国家之间的平等，这样的“公平贸易”无疑贯穿了实质正义的理念。

强者与弱者之间围绕“公平贸易”展开的政治博弈和话语辩论的背后，实质上是两代人权理论之间的分歧。在这场围绕“人权”的漫长辩论中，尤其在围绕市场贸易与国家发展、自由权与平等权的辩论中，美国并非总是赢家。20世纪60~70年代，受欧洲“五月风暴”和中国“文化大革命”的影响，美国校园发起了声势浩大的“文化革命”，社会主义推动的以平等为价值核心的第二代人权理论获得了全球主导权。与社会主义国家展现出来的阶层平等、男女平等、族群平等、国际平等景象相比，美国却深陷经济不平等扩大、种族隔离、女性被排斥、对外越战的深渊。面对这种压力，为了争夺在人权问题上的全球话语权，美国以打破种族隔离为起点，推动了涉及男女平等、性别解放、被告人权利保护的“民权运动”。从此，受马克思主义影响的“阶级左派”转向了后现代思潮影响下的“文化左派”，美国民主党也随之发生根本性转向。[7]

可见，不同国家都在讲“公平贸易”，但都根据自身利益赋予其不同的内涵。发展中国家往往用“公平贸易”强化对其内部经济发展的保护，反对发达国家试图推动的自由贸易政策，尤其是后来面对“华盛顿共识”推行的全球贸易自由化的冲击，“公平贸易”始终是全球左翼批判这一趋势的理论工具。而美国强调“公平贸易”恰恰是要打击竞争对手采取的这种贸易保护主义措施，目的是为了推行自由贸易。在这个意义上，“公平贸易”实际上是美国要求其他国家开放市场并采取“自由贸易”的代名词，是在第二代人权话语主导全球的历史背景下，美国被迫选择的一种为自由贸易政策辩护的新话语。

“自由贸易”和“公平贸易”不过是美国在推动世界帝国的历史进程中面对不同处境时的两副不同面孔，都是美国贸易政策工具箱的有用工具。美国可以随时根据自己的利益定义何谓“公平贸易”，并针对不同对象和不同情况选择用“自由贸易”还是“公平贸易”作为其正当性理由。比如，里根时期的美国采取自由放任政策，一度恢复了“自由贸易”的主张，然而在其第二个任期，巨大的外贸逆差让里根迅速转向“公平贸易”。正是里根在1985年的《贸易政策行动计划》中正式提出“自由且公平的贸易”这个概念，并组成贸易反击小组，奠定了后来美国处理贸易问题的话语策略和法律逻辑。在后冷战时代，美国利用单极霸权加快了世界帝国建设的步伐：一方面，用新自由主义学说扩张美国的经济势力；另一方面，为确保美国对全球经济的控制能力，克林顿政府甚至将“经济安全”作为美国外交政策的首要目标，并公开宣称把“公平贸易”作为扩大贸易的国家经济战略的一部分。总之，“自由贸易”和“公平贸易”是美国建构世界帝国的两个并行不悖的轨道，目的都是为了打击竞争对手，确保美国对世界经济的控制：一方面用“自由贸易”吸引并控制发展中国家，另一方面则用“公平贸易”应对欧盟、东亚发达国家乃至“金砖国家”等新兴经济体的挑战。

更值得注意的是，在世界帝国建构背景下，主张“自由贸易”的全球化右翼和主张“公平贸易”的全球化左翼之间出现了合流趋势。全球化右翼用“自由贸易”的主张要求其他国家取消各种非关税壁垒（如补贴、倾销等），以达到全球贸易自由化的目的；全球化左翼则要求全球贸易中必须加强对劳工、环境等的保护，以保护人权。然而，全球化左翼强调的劳工保护、环境保护无疑大幅度增加了发展中国家出口产品的成本，最终会削弱发展中国家的工业产品在全球贸易中的竞争力。2021年3月，西方就企图通过“强迫劳动”“种族灭绝”这样的人权话语，禁止中国新疆棉花进入全球贸易，实现通过“人权”议题赢得贸易战的目的。全球化左翼和全球化右翼一样，客观上都在削弱主权国家的权力，只不过全球化右翼建立的是世界帝国，而全球化背景下的西方左翼在接受这种“世界帝国”的前提下，试图通过“诸众”的反抗，将“帝国”改造为“大同世界”。[8]在这个意义上，美国的右翼和左翼在“自由贸易”和“公平贸易”的争论中往往能够形成有益配合，就像特朗普政府和拜登政府这两副面孔那样，前者主打贸易，后者凸显人权，成为美国建构世界帝国中两股既敌对又配合的力量。美国之所以能够在“自由贸易”和“公平贸易”之间自由切换，就在于它建构的世界帝国使其拥有超越国际法的“绝对主权”，可以将美国的国内法凌驾于国际法之上。


▍ 新自由主义的世界帝国：贸易与知识产权

 

从《1962年贸易扩展法》提出“不公平贸易”问题以来，随着贸易摩擦的不断增加，美国不断修订其贸易法，强化美国总统在GATT之外的单边行动能力，形成了所谓的“一般301条款”，即美国贸易代表可以根据总统授权，对任何其他国家因违反“公平贸易”而损害美国利益的行为，采取单边的惩罚和报复措施。正是依据“一般301条款”，美国在20世纪70~80年代多次向日本发起贸易战，以打击日本制造业对美国的挑战。1985年，美国通过著名的《广场协议》迫使日元对美元升值，从金融这个根本层面解决了美日之间的贸易摩擦，自此日本经济进入长期衰退。与此同时，美国还对日本发起“超级301调查”，1989年两国签订《美日结构性贸易障碍协议》，不仅要求日本开放国内市场，更强制日本修改国内经济政策。对于日本这个主权国家而言，这两份协议无疑都是“丧权辱国”的“不平等条约”。美国的单边惩罚性报复之所以奏效，不仅因为日本外向型经济早已嵌入美国主导的世界经济体系，更重要的是日本已经作为“附庸国”被整合在美国的世界帝国秩序中。[9]

面对新兴国家在制造业和贸易领域的挑战，美国一方面不断以“公平贸易”为由加强各种“301调查”的单边行动能力，另一方面竭力巩固自身在GATT谈判中的优势地位，形成以国内法促进国际法的双轨互动框架。这方面，将知识产权问题与贸易问题挂钩，利用“公平贸易”话语将知识产权纳入GATT谈判，无疑是80年代以来美国强化世界帝国体系的新战略。

从独立建国开始，美国便意识到欧洲帝国霸权的秘密就在于科技推动的制造业崛起。为此，美国建国者竟然将知识产权保护条款写入宪法，这在世界各国宪法中似乎独此一家。美国政府从一开始就是一个“企业型国家”，借助贸易保护政策，美国政府始终强力推动科技进步和产业发展，终于迎来了第二次工业革命。两次世界大战期间，欧洲科学家纷纷避难美国，美国很快登上全球科技巅峰。“二战”结束前著名的《科学：无尽的前沿》报告，进一步奠定了用科技力量赢得冷战的基础。70年代遭遇欧盟和日本的产业挑战之后，美国意识到必须通过强化科技创新和知识产权保护，维持美国在高科技产业领域的优势地位。1979年，卡特总统正式提出保护知识产权的国家发展战略，制定一系列保护知识产权的法律。

然而，绝大多数国家，尤其发展中国家反对发达国家的科技垄断。可如果没有国际社会的认可，发展中国家不可能遵守主要维护发达国家利益的知识产权保护规则。为此，美国试图将知识产权保护问题带入GATT谈判，使其成为发展中国家都认可的国际法。1988年，美国全面修订了贸易法中的301条款，明确将侵犯美国知识产权的行为定义为“不公平贸易”，并授权美国总统成立专门的办公室对有此类行为的国家发起调查，直至诉诸贸易制裁。这就是所谓的“特别301条款”。从此，美国贸易代表办公室成为跨国公司知识产权保护的代言人，对世界各国尤其是新兴经济体发起知识产权调查，日本、韩国、巴西、东南亚和中国都成为被调查和收割的对象，并展开一系列密集的知识产权谈判。

为了进一步宣传知识产权保护的正当性，“知识经济”概念被媒体大肆宣扬，微软总裁比尔·盖茨的财富神话成为知识经济的象征，知识产权因此成为一种“新型人权”。美国试图利用新的知识产权规则将全球主要经济体纳入其知识产权的帝国体系。在GATT乌拉圭回合谈判中，美国利用“特别301条款”作为威胁制裁的后盾，在最后阶段将知识产权这一与贸易没有关系、原来并不在谈判规划中的议题纳入谈判议程，并最终在1994年签署著名的《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》（TRIPS）。TRIPS协定违背了GATT的国家自主原则，采取“一刀切”的方式，削弱了国家决定本国知识产权保护立法的自主性，规定所有国家都必须接受的知识产权保护的最低标准。

当时，很多发展中国家对美国跨国公司的知识产权战略并不清楚。当美国以开放农产品市场为诱饵诱使发展中国家接受TRIPS协定时，许多发展中国家以为自己虽然在工业领域受损，但至少可在农产品领域获益。但它们不知道的是，美国的生物、制药、基因等领域的寡头已经垄断了各种专利技术，以至于传统农业中的种植、养殖都处在这些跨国寡头的控制之下。TRIPS协定推动的全球知识产权保护意味着一个新的时代的来临，在工业资本家控制劳动力和剩余价值的工业资本主义时代，以及银行家控制资本、证券、债券的金融资本主义时代之后，资本主义进入新的阶段，由苹果这样的信息寡头、辉瑞这样的医药寡头以及孟山都这样的生物寡头控制抽象知识产权的“信息资本主义”时代已经来临。这些控制了知识和信息的跨国公司向用户“收租”，就像控制了土地的中世纪封建地主向佃农收租一样。[10]

需要注意的是，在TRIPS谈判的最后阶段，冷战已经结束了。曾经支持发展中国家的社会主义阵营解体了，社会主义理论及第二代人权话语也随之走向衰落。代之而起的是世界范围内的保守主义革命，古典自由主义背景下的第一代人权理论开始全面复兴，并在新的历史环境下形成了复兴古典自由主义的新自由主义，与左翼背景的新政自由主义划清界限。新自由主义不仅复活了第一代人权理论，更重要的是用第一代人权理论改造了第二代人权理论，用经济自由化的理念推进政治上的民主化和文化价值的自由化，摧毁了人民主权、国家平等、社会主义等第二代人权理论原本的核心主张。

可见，冷战的结束和“华盛顿共识”支撑的新自由主义，将经济、政治和文化领域的自由化前所未有地结合在一起，为美国建构的世界帝国提供了新的前景。美国终于可以踢开布雷顿森林体系包含的对国家主权和政府自主性的尊重，抛开第二代人权理论保护的国家主权，完全按照新自由主义的原则和逻辑塑造更彻底的世界帝国。正是在后冷战时代美国加速推动世界帝国建设的历史进程中，国际货币基金组织和世界银行的职能发生了根本性变化，从稳定全球金融的机构变成美国管理世界帝国的超主权机构。与此同时，曾经作为主权国家多边协商谈判机制的GATT也被抛入历史，代之以全新的管理机构——世界贸易组织（WTO）。与GATT相比，世贸组织的最大区别在于拥有强有力的争端解决机制，因此成为凌驾于主权国家之上的世界帝国的法律执行机构，成为“世界法治”的象征。由此，世贸组织与国际货币基金组织和世界银行一道，被讥讽为美国展开世界帝国建构的“邪恶的三位一体”（Unholy Trinity）。正是在这种新自由主义的世界帝国筹划中，“人权高于主权”乃至“人道主义干涉”成为美国摧毁其他国家的主权，并将它们纳入其世界帝国版图的利器。美国以“人权保护”名义发起“第三波民主化”，以“反恐战争”名义提出改造中东的“大中东民主计划”；为了在其他国家和地区推行民主化改造，美国甚至发动“颜色革命”这种新型战争形态，将其世界帝国变成所谓的“民主帝国”或“人权帝国”。[11]

 

▍ “中国道路”：人类命运共同体与人权理论的重构

 

近代以来，中国被迫纳入欧洲主导的世界体系，并开始从农业国转向发展商业和工业的现代化道路，以至于从一开始，中国就是作为半殖民地被规定在世界体系的边缘位置上，这也意味着近代中国不得不接受“依附与不发达”的命运。而要改变边缘位置与依附命运，必须首先实现政治上的独立，唯有如此才可以采用保护主义措施推动工业化，实现国家富强，迈向世界体系的中心地区。因此，政治独立、政治自主、全球反霸始终与世界体系的变化紧密联系在一起。

新独立的国家如何才能推动本国的工业化？一条道路是土耳其和印度采取的市场经济和资本主义道路，另一条道路是苏联和中国采取的社会主义道路。前者试图在西方主导的世界体系下，采取西方列强崛起时实行的重商主义战略推动本国的工业化。然而，西方列强的重商主义发展战略以战争为前提条件，如果没有做好战争的准备和能力，重商主义战略无法取得成功。此外，尽管土耳其和印度获得了政治形式上的独立，但依然无法摆脱对西方的依附，以至于最终无法摆脱对西方控制的世界体系的依赖。相反，社会主义道路从一开始就看透了本国资产阶级对世界体系的依附性和买办性，因此选择依靠工人阶级乃至农民阶层获得彻底的政治独立，甚至敢于以战争的方式与维持世界体系的欧美列强对抗，敢于承受西方列强在经济上切断其与世界经济体系之间关系的压力和后果。冷战期间在政治军事层面对抗的两大阵营，同时也是两个不同的经济体系，其中西方资本主义体系对社会主义阵营采取了封锁、限制、孤立和包围的政策。

正是从世界帝国体系的角度，我们才能理解辛亥革命以来中国争取民族独立解放斗争中两条道路的选择及其命运，关键不在于中国是否要加入世界体系，而是以什么样的身份和地位加入这个体系，而政治上的身份和地位又取决于经济和军事上的实力。在这个意义上，1949年之后的新中国进入危机与机会并存的历史关键时刻。“危机”源于政治军事上面临来自世界帝国体系的打压，唯有经历类似抗美援朝战争、中印边境自卫反击战和援越抗美战争的考验，才意味着中国在世界体系中获得了独立的政治地位；“机会”则在于民族解放和国家新生让中国有了走上独立发展的工业化道路的底气和能力，彻底摆脱了世界体系中被规定的依附品格和边缘地位，为中国迈向世界体系的中心奠定了坚实的基础。新中国成立后采取的社会主义计划体制就是一条不依赖资本主义世界体系，从落后的农业国快速“跃进”到工业化的道路，这是不同于重农主义和重商主义的“重工主义”或“工业主义”（industrialism）的发展道路。此时的中国还是落后的农业国，无法借助全球商业贸易或殖民获得足够且廉价的原材料，却要超越通过商业完成资源积累和知识积累的阶段，直接发展现代工业，而且一开始就是发展国防重工业，难度可想而知。这种“重工主义”发展战略，让中国付出了巨大代价，同时也取得了巨大成功，迅速改变了中国长期被殖民掠夺的地位，成为全球性大国，与苏、美展开“三角博弈”。

然而，这种发展战略将第二代人权理论发展到极致，必然会抑制第一代人权理论。从长期来看，这种状况不可持续。在冷战背景下，西方世界向社会主义国家输出第一代人权理念，以瓦解社会主义国家的工业化努力。这意味着社会主义国家在取得工业化成功之后，必须认可第一代人权理论的成就，重新回到全球化所推动的世界体系中。在这种重新回归过程中，苏联和东欧国家由于政治上的失败彻底丧失了政治主权的独立性，它们接受了世界帝国推出的“华盛顿共识”，工业能力被直接摧毁，整个国家被重新编织在世界帝国体系的边缘或半边缘位置上。改革开放后中国在重新加入世界体系的过程中，却始终保持了政治上的独立性，从而维持了在经济发展战略选择上的自主性。

正是在这样的背景下，我们看到改革开放后中国的经济发展战略始终包括两个进程：一方面，尽快融入世界体系，充分吸收外部的知识、资金、制度和法律，以发展壮大自己，加快建立一种与世界接轨的市场经济制度；另一方面，始终利用政治自主的优势，制定独立自主的发展战略。比如，中国政府始终保持对金融的管治，避免加入世界体系后被西方金融资本所操纵；中国政府坚持制定循序渐进的发展战略，尤其在贸易领域，最初以“出口创汇”为目标，通过出口退税等一系列政策推动初级产品出口，并用赚取的外汇引进高新技术；而随着经济的发展，近年来中国政府充分利用在“重工主义”阶段积累的制造业优势，加快产业升级，推动中国在全球科技产业链中不断向上攀升，逐渐对美国的科技产业优势及其主导的世界帝国体系形成挑战。这才是今天中美竞争的根源。

与苏联和东欧各国的失败转型相比较，中国转型之所以成功，就在于没有像它们那样以一种投降姿态彻底抛弃第二代人权理论。中国在重新接纳第一代人权理论的同时，始终坚持第二代人权理论的理想信念，并将二者完美结合在一起。从这个角度看，“中国特色社会主义市场经济”的核心要义就是对第一代人权理论和第二代人权理论的完美结合。改革开放刚好赶上美国在新自由主义席卷全球的背景下全面复兴第一代人权理论，第一代人权理论以及主张全面融入世界帝国体系的“与世界接轨”战略，于是成为中国的主流意识形态。然而，随着中国崛起以及在中美“关键十年”间的战略转型，[12]中国的主流意识形态必然转向全面复兴第二代人权及其所推动的社会主义，并在此基础上重建人权理论。

 

正如上篇所揭示的，无论是美国自身的国家建构，还是美国对外推行的世界帝国战略，都是对两种人权理论的结合和运用。[13]那么，美国和中国对两种人权理论的内在组装和具体运用有什么不同？

简单总结上篇及本篇前文的论述，可以看出自从欧洲发展出现代人权理论之后，现代人围绕人权概念形成了五种“理想类型”（ideal type）。一是历史上亚当·斯密式的英国模式，按照第一代人权理论形成自由放任模式，对内是商人阶层主导的议会制，对外是自由贸易的世界帝国体系。二是与此相对立的苏联时代将卢梭的“公意”理论发展到极致的斯大林模式，按照第二代人权理论形成全面计划控制模式，对内采取工人阶级专政，对外构建社会主义盟友互惠的“帝国体系”。三是在两种类型之间、让两种人权理论保持平衡的欧盟模式，对内采取民主社会主义的经济社会政策，对外采取平等的联盟体系。四是美国模式，两种人权理念处于不断斗争、相互推动、交替主导的状态，最终在“二战”后逐渐形成以第一代人权理论为“体”、第二代人权理论为“用”的世界帝国模式。[14]

新中国成立以来，在两种人权理论相互交织、交替主导的过程中，正在逐渐形成一种以第二代人权理论为“体”、第一代人权理论为“用”的新模式。在国内的经济社会政策层面，中国无疑要秉持第二代人权理论推动的社会主义理念，按照“以人民为中心”的人权理论重构和完善我们的经济、社会、政治和文化制度，同时将自由财产、市场经济、自由贸易作为社会主义制度的有机部分，充分发挥政府与市场、平等与自由、第二代人权理论与第一代人权理论的积极性。在全球秩序层面，中国基于第二代人权理论，尊重不同国家、不同文明探索适合自身实际的现代化道路的权利，主张充分发挥联合国体系的积极作用，推动各种平等联盟体系在全球治理中发挥积极作用，围绕人类命运共同体展开制度建设，以此适应“深度全球化”的必然发展趋势。

可见，今天中美之间的竞争，是围绕不同人权理论及其实践展开的竞争。近代以来西方发展出来的两种人权理论始终处在紧张的斗争之中，而中国实践正在探寻让两种人权理论形成完美结合的发展道路，这不仅源于对中国人权事业获得巨大成就的历史经验的总结，更重要的是源于寻求“中道”的中国智慧。在中国文明的传统中，人权并非主导性的概念，人权最终服从于天道秩序，唯有在天道秩序中，每一种人权理论所保护的权利才能找到自己的位置并为自身划定边界。在中国，两种人权理论完全可以在特定时势下交替使用，因时势而变化，克服西方原教旨主义内在的非此即彼的二元对立思维，让市场与政府、资本与人民完美地结合起来，共同服务于建构中国秩序和人类命运共同体。

在这个意义上，中国崛起必然要重构人权理论。在国际话语权斗争以及推动全球治理过程中，中国应始终掌握人权话语的主动权，批判美国推动的世界帝国秩序带来的人权灾难。世界帝国体系下不受约束的资本势力，在西方各国国内带来了阶级压迫、种族压迫等人权问题。更重要的是，在国际层面，这种世界帝国秩序将过去几百年形成的西方与非西方的中心-边缘结构固定下来，美国攫取全球财富以自利，却不承担全球治理的责任，导致“逆全球化”趋势如今在全球范围内兴风作浪，狭隘的民族主义、民粹主义、保护主义在很多国家重新抬头，国际社会冲突加剧。中国崛起恰恰是要在第二代人权理论的基础上，通过国际社会协商对话和区域整合，解决世界帝国衰败带来的治理难题，推动下一波全球化，共建“天下一家”，共享“天下大同”。[15]

注释

[1] [13] [14] 参见强世功：《贸易与人权（上）——世界帝国与“美国行为的根源”》，载《文化纵横》2021年第5期。

[2] 参见约翰·伊肯伯里：《自由主义的利维坦》，赵明昊译，上海人民出版社2013年版。

[3] 参见安德鲁·朗：《世界贸易法律和新自由主义：重塑全球经济秩序》，樊健、王缙凌译，法律出版社2016年版。

[4] 相关讨论参见杰奥瓦尼·阿瑞基：《漫长的20世纪》，姚乃强、严维明、韩振荣译，江苏人民出版社2011年版。

[5] 大卫·哈维：《新帝国主义》，初立忠、沈晓雷译，社会科学文献出版社2009年版，第46~47页。

[6] 卢克·马特尔：《社会学视角下的全球化》，宋妍译，辽宁人民出版社2014年版，第235页。

[7] 参见理查德·罗蒂：《筑就我们的国家》，黄宗英译，生活·读书·新知三联书店2014年版。

[8] 参见麦克尔·哈特、安东尼奥·奈格里：《帝国》，杨建国、范一亭译，江苏人民出版社2008年版；Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri，Multitude，Penguin Books，2005；迈克尔·哈特、安东尼奥·奈格里：《大同世界》，王行坤译，中国人民大学出版社2016年版。

[9] 2017年特朗普就任美国总统后，30余年前担任美国贸易代表，对日本发起“一般301调查”并迫使日本签署《广场协议》的莱特希泽（Robert Lighthizer），再次被任命为贸易代表，并对中国发起“301调查”。然而，莱特希泽这次面对的中国，不是美国的附庸国，而是真正独立的主权国家。

[10] 关于TRIPS谈判以及由此引发的知识产权问题的详细论述，参见彼得·达沃豪斯、约翰·布雷思韦特：《信息封建主义》，刘雪涛译，知识产权出版社2005年版。

[11] 强世功：《文明终结与世界帝国：美国建构的全球法秩序》，三联书店（香港）2021年版，第二章。

[12] 强世功：《中美“关键十年”——“新罗马帝国”与“新的伟大斗争”》，载《东方学刊》总第9期。

[15] 参见强世功：《“天下一家”vs. 世界帝国：“深度全球化”与全球治理难题》，载《东方学刊》2021年第4期（即出）。

本文原载《文化纵横》2021年第5期和2021年第6期，原题分别为《贸易与人权（上）——世界帝国与“美国行为的根源”》、《贸易与人权（下）—— 世界帝国背景下的中美竞争》。 文章仅代表 作者本人观点，欢迎分享，媒体转载请联系本公众号。

 

 

 Qiang Shigong: The Hidden Logic of Trade and Human Rights

Article published by Culture Vertical and Horizontal | Time: 2022-01-08 | World·China

✪ Qiang Shigong | Peking University Law School

[Introduction] After the Biden administration took office in early 2021, a subtle change in the U.S. strategy of encircling China has occurred: starting from the hype of the "Xinjiang Cotton" incident, the Sino-U.S. value conflict has become increasingly fierce. Although many enlightened people pin their hopes on the Biden administration to change the negative impact of populism during Trump's tenure, the storms the Biden administration has caused in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Xinjiang and other Chinese affairs show a strong ideological encirclement against China. The Biden administration intends to exclude China and other countries from the "Global Democracy Summit", which further exacerbates the value rift between the two countries.

This article focuses on a grand historical perspective and theoretical analysis to reveal the deep roots of American behavior. The author pointed out: The Biden administration's approach of closely linking "trade" and "human rights" means that the competition between China and the United States not only involves changes in the balance of power between the two countries, but also involves two human rights theories, two political concepts, and two Competition for the idea of ​​a global order. The author analyzes that human rights theories originating from the Enlightenment actually have different branches: the first generation of human rights theories emphasized private property rights and free markets, which led to free trade and colonial world empires; the second generation of human rights theories pursued human rights equality among nations, among nations, among nations. After the 20th century, the United States took the first generation of human rights theories as the "body" and the second generation of human rights theories as the "use", and gradually established a legal system where all sovereign states are equal, but in economic terms, all countries are subject to varying degrees of constraints. America's hegemonic, covert new world imperial system.

Under this system, the United States constructs the world economic and trade system through the alternate use of human rights discourse. The transition of the world economic and trade system from the era of the British Empire to the era of the American Empire actually reflects the change in the logic of capitalist profit extraction. Different from the completely open free trade system dominated by the British Empire, the United States has formed a more "moderate" economic monopoly and technological monopoly by integrating global business networks through multinational companies. So much so that the demands of developing countries for "fair trade" arising from the unequal free trade system have finally turned into trade protectionist measures taken by the United States to combat competitors. In this sense, "fair trade" is actually synonymous with the United States asking other countries to open their markets and adopt "free trade". The United States can switch between "free trade" or "fair trade" at will in different situations as its justification. "Free trade" and "fair trade" have become two opposing and cooperative forces in the construction of a world empire by the United States. The reason why the United States can switch freely among them is that it has "absolute sovereignty" that transcends international law. domestic law prevails over international law.

It is from the perspective of the world imperial system that we can understand the choice and fate of the two paths in China's struggle for national independence and liberation since the Revolution of 1911. The key here is not whether China wants to join the world system, but what kind of identity and status to join the system. Different from the failed transitions of the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries, China’s transition was successful precisely because it did not completely abandon the second-generation human rights theory in a gesture of surrender to return to the world system, but instead formed a “body” based on the second-generation human rights theory. ", the first generation of human rights theory is a new model of "use".

This article was originally published in the 5th and 6th issues of 2021 and 2021 of "Cultural Landscape", with the original titles of "Trade and Human Rights (Part 1) - World Empire and "The Roots of American Behavior", "Trade and Human Rights (Part 2)" ) - Sino-American Competition in the Context of World Empire", only represents the author's point of view, the full text is hereby compiled and distributed for your consideration.

Trade and Human Rights (Part 1)

- World Empire and "The Roots of American Behavior"

▍ Question: How to tell the story of "human rights" well?

 

Since Trump launched a full-scale trade war with China, many enlightened people have only regarded it as Trump's crazy move supported by populism, and hoped that the Biden administration could resume business after the liberal Democrats took office. Rational, focus on the commercial interests of China and the United States, ease relations with China, and resolve economic and trade differences between China and the United States through negotiations. However, at the China-US Alaska Dialogue in March 2021, what the two sides debated was not specific economic and trade differences, but the positioning of the relationship between the two countries. The Biden administration is trying to show the world that the United States has returned to the world as a "human rights empire" and continues to lead the world, in order to correct the damage that Trump's "America First" policy has done to the image of America's world empire. To this end, the Biden administration imposed further sanctions on Hong Kong, China, on human rights grounds, a day before the Sino-US talks. Immediately after that, the West launched a siege of China at the United Nations on human rights grounds such as "genocide" and "forced labor" and imposed sanctions on Xinjiang's cotton exports.

The two issues of "trade" and "human rights" are closely linked, representing a fundamental change in the future of the US Democratic Party's strategy towards China, that is, trying to seize the moral commanding heights of "human rights" in accordance with the idea of ​​"new cold war", so as to devote itself to strengthening the The construction of the "Democratic Alliance" mobilized the power of the entire world empire to exert comprehensive pressure on China. Therefore, the competition between China and the United States today cannot be simply understood as the "Thucydides Trap" between China and the United States, but the conflict and competition caused by the suppression of China's rise by the world imperial system constructed by the United States. [1]

If we cannot understand the formation and development of the world imperial system from the perspective of human historical evolution, then we will not be able to see the invariable elements in the swing of the U.S. bipartisan policy toward China, and we will not be able to truly understand that the Sino-U.S. competition is not simply a matter of two countries. Instead, the change in the balance of power involves the competition between two human rights theories, two political ideas, and two global order conceptions. In this competition, we can see two completely different views of the international order: one is the imperialist and hegemonic world imperial order based on the US’s economic and military hard power and cultural soft power; the other is It is China based on the concept of "harmony but different", upholding the concept of "one world, one family" order, which is committed to building a community with a shared future for mankind in the era of globalization. [2]

The competition between China and the United States is not only the competition of economic, technological and military strength of the two countries, but more importantly, the competition of the construction of the global political order based on concepts and values. This is undoubtedly a competition of universal historical significance. In this competition, "trade" and "human rights" play an important role, the former involving economic and political power and the latter involving cultural values. This means that in the future, China and the United States will inevitably compete for the right to speak on the issue of "human rights" in the international arena.

On economic and human rights issues, most Americans support a tough stance on dialogue | Source: Pew poll

Regrettably, China does not seem to have fully realized the importance of telling an otherwise wonderful "human rights story" from the universal value of "human rights". On the one hand, China has made great contributions to the cause of human rights, but we have not been able to tell China's "human rights story" well; on the other hand, we have also failed to expose the hypocrisy of the American version of the "human rights story". As a result, China has always been at a disadvantage in this global competition for ideology and discourse power. The key is that we fail to understand the interlinkages between trade and human rights from a global perspective, and to understand the different versions of human rights theories and their interlinkages. Especially since the reform and opening up, we have completely accepted the first-generation human rights theoretical narrative of the world imperial system dominated by the United States, ignoring or forgetting the world contribution made by the socialist tradition upheld by China in the second-generation human rights theoretical narrative. Therefore, if China wants to compete with the United States for the right to speak on human rights, it must first understand how the United States uses the interaction between trade and human rights to build a world empire, and fundamentally understand the “roots of American behavior.” [3] On this basis, we can gain self-confidence from a global perspective, further develop the traditional socialist human rights theory and human rights narrative, so as to hold high the banner of “human rights” in global affairs and win the public opinion war of human rights discourse.

 

▍ "Empire of Free Trade": The First Generation of Human Rights Theory

 

As we all know, what we call human rights theory today originated from the philosophy of the Enlightenment, specifically from the theory of the state of nature, the theory of natural rights and the social contract theory. These theories have established the basic framework of modern constitutional government, rule of law and even democracy. It should be noted that the theory of rights at that time was called "natural right", which emphasized the legitimacy of "natural persons" as animals in the natural state to do whatever they wanted; and "natural persons" became "citizens" once they joined the social contract. , they can only enjoy the "rights under the law" enacted by public power, that is, "civil rights". In this sense, there are only "natural rights" or "civil rights" and no "human rights". Because a "natural person" is an animal, not a "human" in the civilized sense; and once a natural person becomes a human being, he is under the constraints of public power and becomes a specific "citizen" of each country.

According to the theoretical thinking of the Enlightenment philosophy, people in the natural state will transition to different political states under different social conditions, and will inevitably enjoy different "civil rights" according to different legal systems. That is to say, the natural rights of human beings are the same, but the "civil rights" enjoyed by different countries and ethnic groups are different. The civil rights of primitive society, nomadic people, agricultural society and commercial society are undoubtedly different, not to mention the civil rights of different religions and civilizations. Therefore, if we truly uphold the philosophical tradition of the Enlightenment and "bravely use reason", we will not accept various "slang words" such as "there was no freedom, human rights, the rule of law, constitutionalism and democracy in ancient China" popular in today's mainstream academic circles. There is no need to focus on criticizing the so-called "Westerncentrism". This means that the political debates we face today cannot simply be attributed to the "East" vs. "West" debate, but stem from the different traditions initiated by the philosophy of the Enlightenment. To resolve this debate, we must use our reason to understand the history and future of mankind based on the philosophy of the Enlightenment.

As far as 18th century Western Enlightenment philosophy is concerned, the human rights discourse was constructed to justify an unprecedented state of life emerging in European history. This is the kind of social life that has been spreading and expanding since the Great Discovery of Geography, such as market exchange, free flow, private property, contractual spirit, urban life, etc., driven by the rise of global commercial trade in Western Europe. This socioeconomic state and way of life had a huge impact on the feudal and religious order in Europe, the imperial order in the East, and the social order of the primitive people in the newly discovered lands. Western Enlightenment thinkers called this new way of life "civil society", or "bourgeois" way of life, or more generally "capitalism". Since then, the “civil society” and capitalist order in Western Europe, the feudal order and religious order in Eastern Europe, the agricultural imperial order in the East, and the primitive order in America, Africa, and Oceania have coexisted on the global geographic map. Linking these different civilizational orders, once divided in different geographical spaces, gave birth to the original globalization picture. At this time, in the face of the primitive society in the newly discovered space, the rising West had a huge advantage and turned the former into a colony; but in the face of the powerful and wealthy Eastern Empire, Europe was at a distinct disadvantage, racking its brains to think about how to use business and gunboats squeezed into the "Eastern Trade Circle" that has existed for centuries. It was with the help of gunboats and the silver and cheap products obtained by colonizing Africa and the Americas that Western Europe barely got the "ticket" to join the "Eastern Trade Circle". [4] However, after the 18th century, two major events in Europe profoundly changed the historical picture of globalization.

First, Britain took the lead in completing the Industrial Revolution through a long-term mercantilist strategy. The industrial revolution changed the global pattern. Britain used gunboats to open the trade gates of the eastern empire, and opened up the vast market of the eastern empire with the help of cheap industrial products, thus turning these regions into its own raw material origin and sales market. The United Kingdom gradually changed from a European hegemon to a global hegemon, and finally became the sole world hegemon after defeating its continental rival Napoleon's Empire in the 19th century. In order to bring the whole world into the British-dominated trading system, the United Kingdom began to promote the theory of "free trade" globally. While the UK became a global center of industry and trade, London also became a global financial center, and the pound replaced silver. This means that the global economic hegemony has shifted from the Eastern world to the West, and from China to the United Kingdom. The global economy and power structure have undergone a historic shift. In the end, Britain established the first world empire that expanded to the whole world - "the empire of free trade". It is also in the context of the rise of world empires and the global power shift driven by the Industrial Revolution and free trade that we can understand Chinese history after 1840.

Second, the revolutionary contribution of the French Revolution in the ideological field. In the 18th century, Britain and France competed with each other on a global level for a long time. The British gained enormous colonies and wealth through maritime trade, while France had long been hampered by a continental-oriented agricultural policy that prevented the British from expanding globally in commerce. In this sense, the French Revolution can be said to be an over-the-top mental reaction to the humiliation suffered by France worldwide. Driven by this spirit, not only the passion of the Great Revolution was produced, but also the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen", an important document after the Great Revolution. This document developed the abstract generalization of Enlightenment philosophy to the extreme, and was the first to put forward the concept of "human rights". This concept is different from the understanding of "natural rights" by Enlightenment thinkers, but elevates the rights of human beings as animals in the state of nature to human rights. But more importantly, "Human Rights" provides the standard and scale for measuring "human" and "non-human". Specifically, Europeans elevate their capitalist way of life as "human", thereby potentially seeing other peoples in other geospatial and civilized orders across the globe as "inhuman" or "savages"; correspondingly, Europeans The capitalist way of life means "civilization" and the other way of life means "barbarism". Since it is "barbaric," not only is colonialism justified, but racism and the Holocaust are also justified. The modern "barbarism" in Europe actually stems from the Europeans' invention and monopoly of the concept of "human rights", which in turn monopolized the jurisdiction of "human" and "inhuman".

The rise of Europe has achieved a perfect combination of the economic and social life of "trade" dominated by the British Empire and the expression of the value concept of "human rights" dominated by French philosophy. The "civil rights" formed in the specific social form, institutional system and way of life of trade-driven capitalism enrich the specific content of "human rights", the core of which are private property rights, market exchange rights, free trade rights, and The limited government and constitutional rule of law formed by safeguarding these rights. This is the logic of human rights theory in the Whig narrative that we have learned so well today. Once the "civil rights" under such specific historical conditions are regarded as "human rights", or even the yardstick for dividing "human" and "inhuman", "civilization" and "barbarism", then in the eyes of Europeans , the primitive societies of Africa and America were still in a "barbaric" state, while China, India and These eastern societies with long historical cultural traditions and social and political systems but failed to enter the capitalist way of life are still in the "uncivilized" stage. Colonial conquest and economic, social and political and cultural transformation of these "savages" and "uncivilized people", and incorporating them into the world imperial system of global capitalist commercial trade is undoubtedly the "salvation" of these peoples and regions—— This is regarded by European human rightsists and humanitarians as a historical destiny consciously borne by white people, and it is "the burden of white people" (Kipling). From this, we can understand why European liberals who advocate human rights can be imperialists at the same time. [5]

It is through the implicit division between "human" and "inhuman", "civilized" and "barbaric" that human rights theory becomes a legitimate ideology that promotes the wanton expansion of the world empire of global commerce and trade. It is in the context of the construction of world empires that "trade" and "human rights" began to work together, with "trade" representing the "hard power" of Western capitalism and "human rights" representing the "soft power" of Western capitalism, jointly promoting Western capitalism and the expansion of the capitalist world empire. We call this human rights theory that matches the world empire of free trade "the first generation of human rights theory". Modern man's freedom", or "negative freedom" as Berlin calls it.

▍ From “Right to Revolution” to “Right to Development”: The Rise and Development of the Second Generation of Human Rights Theory

 

What the French provide for the rise of Europe is not only the abstract concept of "human rights", but more importantly, to give the concept of "human rights" something different from the "negative liberty rights" of commercial trade, that is, equal and active participation in political life. Democracy and freedom, as well as "popular sovereignty" with political dominion, what Constant called "the liberty of the ancients", or what Berlin called "positive liberty". The founder of this theory of human rights is undoubtedly Rousseau. It is on the basis of the right to democracy and freedom and the sovereignty of the people that human rights theory develops the right to democratic revolution, the right to establish an independent state, and the right to independently explore the development path. Marx, Lenin, and Mao Zedong were all heirs of this theoretical tradition, and they continued to develop the people's right to freedom and political autonomy proposed by Rousseau.

European thought often distinguishes between Anglo-American liberalism and continental liberalism, emphasizing that the former is based on so-called empiricism, the latter on so-called rationalism, and so on. This philosophical distinction is also reflected in the difference between two human rights theories and their corresponding development paths: the former is the first generation of human rights theories based on the historical experience of British global commercial trade, and the latter It is a second-generation human rights theory based on the historical experience of the French Revolution, the 1848 Revolution, the European Communist Movement, the Russian Revolution and the Chinese Revolution. The core value of the first generation of human rights theories is freedom, especially the freedom of individuals not to be interfered by political power in the economic field, but the price of this freedom is to create, expand and even solidify social inequality. As a correction to the first-generation human rights theories, the core value of the second-generation human rights theories is the pursuit of equality, the pursuit of equality between people, countries, nations, and even civilizations in various fields. For hundreds of years, the first generation of human rights theories has become a constant dogma in the Whig narrative; the second generation of human rights theories, on the other hand, can constantly explore new possibilities in response to changes in historical circumstances, and therefore are always in development and change.

Although the second-generation human rights theory is constantly developing and changing, its core essence is always the subversion and rebellion of the first-generation human rights theory and the world empire of free trade it promoted. It's just that in different historical eras, the ways of subversion and rebellion are different. In the early days, Marx, Lenin, and Mao Zedong's right to democratic revolution, national self-determination, and independent state-building pushed the colonies or semi-colonies under the European colonial empire system to establish their own countries one after another, leading to the disintegration of the free-trade world empire. The socialist road of equality and national equality, as well as the "right to development" of developing countries, has become an important content of human rights theory. After the "World War II", especially since the end of the Cold War, in the face of the global victory of the world empire of free trade, the Western leftists put forward postmodern theories and post-racism, and turned to the pursuit of equality in the field of cultural and private life, trying to subvert the culture of world empires As a result, the core issue of political life in developed countries has also turned to “identity politics” based on race and gender.

Once we look at the two paths of development driven by two human rights theories, it becomes very clear that the importance of first-generation human rights must be emphasized if the world imperial tradition of free trade from the British Empire to the United States is defended. ; If you oppose the British and American world imperial traditions, emphasizing the republicanism of equality of all or the cosmopolitan and internationalist traditions of the equality of nation-states, it must emphasize the importance of the second-generation human rights theory. Because the first-generation human rights theory was closely integrated with the world imperial system constructed by the United Kingdom; and the greatest achievement of the second-generation human rights theory was to provide ideological weapons for the independence of nation-states after World War II, making the world imperial system (colonial system) ) gradually disintegrated and promoted the formation of a community system (United Nations) of equal sovereign states. The UN Charter not only emphasizes the principles of absolute sovereignty, sovereign equality of states and non-interference in internal affairs, but more importantly, it emphasizes the different understandings of the concept of rights among different civilizations. The two human rights theories and the two global orders they support are always in constant struggle.

Thus, when we understand human rights theories, it is not the discourses at the discursive level that matter, but the historical actions and political practices they promote at the non-discourse level. The same is the "revolutionary right", from a republic system that pursues equality of all people in a country to the United Nations system that pursues equality of nations and countries in a global order. The former is aimed at the autocratic regime established by the intertwining of colonialism and feudalism , the latter is aimed at the world imperial system based on the theory of global free trade. However, if one realizes that the economic basis of the world imperial system is the center-periphery world system of technology, industry, trade and finance,[6] then the colonial or post-development countries in the peripheral zone need to get rid of this inequality The "dependency" of the economic system requires not only the use of political "revolutionary rights" to break away from or even overthrow the world imperial system, but more importantly, it is necessary to grasp the "right to development" based on independent political sovereignty that is in line with the country's actual situation, especially to get rid of The exploitation and oppression of international capital protects domestic industries and markets and promotes domestic economic development. Therefore, after the Second World War, whether it is the theory of protecting infant industries from the United States to Germany, or the theory of planned economy of Marxism, it is very attractive to developing countries or the third world.

In this context, the core concept of the second-generation human rights theory has changed from "the right to revolution" to "the right to development", which emphasizes that developing countries have the same right to develop their own economies as developed countries. Many people refer to the first generation of human rights as "individual human rights" and the second generation of human rights as "collective human rights". But whether it is the "right to revolution" or the "right to development", the cornerstone of the second-generation human rights theory is the people's sovereignty, and sovereignty means political "autonomy" and "independence". Destroy the "revolutionary right" of the world imperial system, emphasizing that each country has the "right to development" to use independent intellectual judgment to choose economic development paths, institutional models and civilizational values. The first generation of human rights theories inevitably produced the theory of the "end of history", that is, human beings have only one path to modernization, and that is to lead to the world empire system, while the second generation of human rights theories inevitably emphasize the theory of "multiple modernity", emphasizing the diversity of development paths and civilizations. Sexuality, emphasizing the "Great Harmony of the World" based on "beauty and commonality".

It is precisely based on the critique of the capitalist world imperial system that under the framework of the United Nations, there has always been a relationship between capitalism and socialism, developed and developing countries, free trade and fair trade (protectionism), and market economy and planned economy. competition and debate around two human rights theories. The game between these two forces is reflected in the two human rights covenants of the United Nations: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights embodies the claims of the first generation of human rights theories, while the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights embodies Advocacy of second-generation human rights theories. Based on the second-generation human rights theories such as the "right to development", developing countries justifiably choose a development path and development model that is different from the Western free market economy, especially emphasizing the positive role of the government in promoting economic development. In this context, even the developed countries that believed in the first generation of human rights theories had to respect the concept of the "right to development" and put forward the discourse strategy of "development economics", but only regarded private property rights, market economy and free trade as the Medicines are provided to developing countries.

 

▍ "The Roots of American Behavior": A Practical Combination of Two Human Rights Theories

 

Since the debate between federalists and anti-federalists during the founding of the People's Republic of China, the United States has always been in "contradiction", so that various theories such as isolationism and cosmopolitanism, idealism and realism, conservatism and liberalism have been formed. Summary of perspective. This kind of contradiction originated from the process of North America's independent statehood and inherited two human rights theoretical traditions in Europe.

Regardless of the design of the political system or the promotion of commercial expansion, the British Empire has always been an imitation of the founding of the United States. Federalists are the active advocates of the first generation of human rights theory. Internally, they advocated that political power should be restrained through the separation of powers and limited government theory; externally, they always insisted on building a "strong federation" to protect individual freedom, and believed that Americans and American companies could conduct free business and trade around the world. Open up space. They also advocated the establishment of a powerful navy, the federation possessing independent and unified diplomatic, judicial and even executive powers, and even learning from the British mercantilist strategy to protect their own "infant industries", all of which undoubtedly took the British Empire as a model. The political ideal of the Federalists is to imitate the "old way" of the British Empire's free trade empire. Those who advocate this path use the Whig narrative to tell the story of America's liberal tradition. This Whig liberal narrative was further reinforced by the post-World War II narrative of the Atlantic system based on the special relationship between Britain and the United States, and by the Cold War on socialism and the planned economy. In the post-Cold War period, neoliberalism emerged in the United States, systematically criticized the second-generation human rights theory, denied the French Revolution and the continental philosophical tradition, and then denied the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution and the socialist road.

However, in the founding days of the United States, the most powerful spiritual forces stemmed from second-generation human rights theories. The American successor to this theory of human rights advocated the establishment of a free and equal "new world" against the "old world" of the colonial imperial system by means of popular sovereignty and the republican tradition. The United States is often regarded as the representative of the "new world", which is to completely abandon the autocratic rule of European colonialism, establish the political independence of national development with "people's sovereignty", and abandon the world empire established by Europe under the colonial system, and then through independence The "alliance" between equal and equal nations establishes a confederate world system. This actually amounts to taking a "new road" that differs from the European colonial imperialist system. This assertion is particularly evident in the discourse of the anti-Federalists represented by Jefferson. It is on the basis of this tradition that Wilson in the 20th century put forward the concept of the "international alliance" of the "community of great powers", which eventually developed into the later United Nations system. From "World War I" to "World War II", the reason why the United States is the "beacon of the world" is that compared with the European colonialist world imperial system, the independent and equal alliance system of sovereign states advocated by the progressive forces of the United States represents the progress of mankind direction.

 

These two human rights theories and the world political concepts behind them seem to be "contradictory" to each other, but the United States has used them to build a brand new world empire. On the one hand, the United States used the second-generation human rights theory of freedom of nation-building to promote the expansion of the United States to the west, and incorporated the west into the alliance system of the "United Nations of America" ​​in the form of an "alliance". A whole new "continental empire". It is for this reason that Turner worried that the idea of ​​republicanism in the United States would decline with the end of frontier expansion when the frontier expansion to the west was completed. [7] On the other hand, the United States took advantage of the commercial and trade theory in the first generation of human rights and adopted a mercantilist strategy to accelerate the rise of American economic and commercial trade. Especially after the Civil War between the North and the South, the United States has formed a unified domestic market, and the "American system" under the government's industrial protection policy has gradually become complete and strong. [8] The United States finally got rid of its marginal status in the "cotton empire" built by the United Kingdom and became an industrial power, and then a power in global commerce and trade. Throughout the 19th century, on the basis of making full use of these two human rights theories, the United States expanded rapidly in the two geographic spaces of the continent and the ocean, in the absorption of new states and commercial and industrial development, and finally achieved its own rise and development. Get on the world stage.

The United States, which entered the stage of world history in the 20th century, faced the colonial empire tradition in the European "Old World" represented by Britain and Russia. Faced with this situation, two seemingly contradictory human rights theories have formed a new round of delicate combinations. On the one hand, the United States made full use of the ideological legitimacy of the second-generation human rights theory to promote democratic revolutions in nations and countries under colonial oppression, and continuously disintegrated the European colonial imperial system. At this historical juncture, the United States, which has entered the world stage, is also playing a revolutionary and progressive role, just like Russia after the October Revolution. If we do not consider domestic politics, but only consider the understanding of the international pattern, both Wilson and Lenin are the heirs of the French Revolutionary thought, and both promoted national self-determination, national revolution and national liberation movement on the basis of the second-generation human rights theory. Although they have different real-political considerations, they are all ideological subversives of the European colonial imperial system, and both advocate the path of sovereign states moving towards the League of Nations on the basis of independence and equality. It was because of Wilson's America and Lenin's Russia that defended and promoted the second-generation human rights theory that the colonialist, imperialist path of the old European empire lost its legitimacy in the global political concept of that era. After the two world wars, the imperial system of European colonialism began to disintegrate, and a series of colonial or semi-colonial countries gained independence or liberation. According to the cosmopolitan ideal of the Union of Republics, these countries either joined the capitalist alliance system headed by the United States or the socialist alliance system headed by the Soviet Union.

On the other hand, the United States does not require these newly independent countries to be democratic republics completely in accordance with the second-generation human rights theory, and these countries can even be feudal emirates or dictatorships; however, in order to join the alliance system dominated by the United States, these countries must accept The global commercial and trade system constructed by the United States according to the first generation of human rights theories. In other words, the United States has a hidden condition for the countries that join its alliance: it must adopt the free market system emphasized by the first generation of human rights theory, and especially open its business and trade areas to the United States. This is the "open door" policy that accompanies the idea of ​​"national self-determination". In this sense, the reason why socialist countries are regarded as "enemies" by the United States is not because they ideologically claim to overthrow the capitalist world, but because they have chosen public ownership and planned economies.

system, making it impossible for the economic power of American capital and commercial trade to penetrate. It can be seen that the United States has always divided the political "enemy" relationship according to the capitalist concept of the first generation of human rights theory.

To sum up, the first-generation human rights theories and the world empire they promoted have always been the foundation of American politics; while the second-generation human rights theories are often just tools to combat external politics through "national self-determination" and later "color revolutions" opponent. After these countries have undergone national self-determination or regime change, they must adopt a market economic system in order to gain political recognition from the United States; as to whether to establish a liberal democratic government on the economic basis of a market economy, or to graft tribal chieftainship, dictatorship, and religious government, etc. Other forms of superstructure do not matter; as long as its market is open to American capital and commerce and accepts the global economic rules implemented by the United States, it can be incorporated into the global commercial and trade system dominated by the United States and become a quasi-colonial under the domination of the United States. In contrast, countries that adopt planned economies are easily regarded as "enemies" by the United States because they are completely free from interference, infiltration and domination by US economic power. Therefore, the real reason for the "contradiction" in the logic of the United States' political determination of friend and foe is that the United States tries to construct a new type of hidden world empire by alternately using the two human rights theories. This means that we have to go back to the inner logic of world empire to explore the roots of American behavior.

In this regard, Amin offers an insightful observation. He believed that the accumulation of wealth in ancient times mainly relied on the properties of the land. In order to plunder the wealth of other lands, the classical empires often established direct rule through military conquest, and achieved profit extraction and wealth accumulation through tribute and taxation. In order to mask economic exploitation and to justify military conquest, the classical empires developed a monopolistic complex of civilizational and religious doctrines. However, the accumulation of wealth in the capitalist era is often accomplished through capital and trade, and the necessity of military conquest and direct rule is greatly reduced, which means that there is no need for monopoly politically and culturally at all, but the establishment of a similar set of Monopoly's complex doctrine about the global economy. This complex and sophisticated set of economic knowledge, built with concepts, mathematical formulas, and diagrams, is actually also designed to cover up a new type of imperial extraction. [9] In fact, in the process of transitioning from this classical regional civilizational empire to a modern world empire, it is precisely the globalization of commercial trade that makes it possible to control the global world empire through capital and commercial trade. As the first world empire, the British Empire adopted the “formal empire” model of colonialism only when it was compelled to do so. ) mode, to obtain benefits through the "invisible hand" of commercial trade. [11] From this, the evolution history of the art of empire construction is the history of developing from the classical imperial form of direct conquest to the intermediate form of colonialist “indirect governance”, and then to the form of “invisible empire”.

After entering the 20th century, due to Wilson's propaganda of the second-generation human rights theory, and more importantly, the competition from socialist ideas, coupled with the foundation of the continental empire and the "Monroe Doctrine", the United States can follow the second-generation human rights theory. Under the premise of theoretically promoting the independence of nation-states, take the road of a new world empire of "invisible empire", which requires all newly independent countries to adopt an "open door" policy and accept the market concept of free trade, thereby incorporating it into the capitalism dominated by the United States. world empire system. [12] It is in the construction of this new type of world empire that the two human rights theories and the two policies of "national self-determination" and "open door" are perfectly combined. Among them, the "open door" promoted by the first generation of human rights theories is "body", while the "national self-determination" formed by the second generation of human rights theories is "use". This new type of world empire construction is well reflected in the two seemingly contradictory aspects of the United States after World War II: politically, it fully accepts the second-generation human rights theory and promotes sovereign states to join the United Nations independently and equally. Union system; but economically, dollar hegemony and control over the global economy are constructed through the Blington Woods system. After the "World War II", although European countries, Japan and many other countries are independent sovereign states in legal form, the United States can turn these allies into "vassal states" or "quasi-quasi-states" through economic, financial, technological, information and data methods, etc. colony".

It can be seen that in the new world empire built by the United States, these two contradictory human rights theories have achieved a perfect "body function" coordination: on the one hand, the United States has always held high the banner of "human rights" and waving the "human rights" stick to interfere with other countries , advocates "human rights over sovereignty", and adopts "humanitarian intervention" to destroy the sovereignty of other countries; on the other hand, the United States has incorporated the market and labor released in the aforementioned process into the division of labor of its world empire through the global market system system. This strategy is more obvious and prominent in the post-Cold War era, because the disintegration of the socialist camp means that the United States has lost the power of external constraints and can recklessly accelerate the process of world empire building. Two seemingly "contradictory" human rights theories form a perfect combination of "body and function". On the surface, they promote the republican and cosmopolitan ideals advocated by the second generation of human rights, but in their bones they are world empires supported by the first generation of human rights theories. Therefore, it forms the internal and external structure of "external human rights" and "internal empire", and jointly promotes the construction and global expansion of a new type of world empire, which undoubtedly constitutes the "root of American behavior."

Notes

[1] For a preliminary discussion on world empires, see Qiang Shigong: "The Inner Logic of Super-Large States: Empire and Global Order", in "Cultural Landscape", No. 2, 2019. For a more detailed discussion, see Qiang Shigong: The End of Civilization and World Empire: The Global Legal Order Constructed by the United States, Sanlian Publishing (Hong Kong), 2021.

[2] For the internal contradiction between the world imperial system dominated by the United States and the historical development trend of "One World, One Family" promoted by "deep globalization", see Qiang Shigong: "One World One Family" vs. World Empire: "Deep Globalization" "Globalization" and the Dilemma of Global Governance," Oriental Journal, 2021, No. 4 (coming soon).

[3] Mr. Liu Xiaofeng examined "the origin of American behavior" from the perspective of political philosophy. This article attempts to add some background and content of economic and social history and imperial history as a footnote. See Liu Xiaofeng: "The Roots of American Behavior: Observations from Political History", in "Cultural Landscape", No. 4, 2021.

[4] Gond Frank: "Silver Capital", translated by Liu Beicheng, Central Compilation Press, 2008 edition.

[5] Jennifer Pitts: Turning to Empire: The Rise of British and French Imperial Liberalism, translated by Jin Yi and Xu Hongyan, Jiangsu People's Publishing House, 2012.

[6] Emmanuel Wallerstein: "Modern World System" (Volume 1), translated by You Laiyin et al., Higher Education Press, 1998 edition, p. 462.

[7] Turner: "The Importance of Frontiers in American History", translated by Li Ming, edited by Zhang Shiming, Wang Jidong, Niu Bingbing: "Space, Law and Academic Discourse", Heilongjiang Education Press, 2014 edition.

[8] For the "American system" proposed by Henry Clay (also translated as "the American system" by some translators), see Michael Hudson: "Protectionism: The Secret to the Rise of the American Economy (1815-1914)" ", translated by Jia Genliang, Ma Xueliang, Deng Lang, Huang Yanghua, etc., Renmin University of China Press, 2010, p. 34.

[9] Amin: The Systems of the Ancient World and the Modern Capitalist System, in Andre Gund Frank, Barry K. Giles, eds.: The World System: 500 Years or 5000 Years? ", translated by Hao Mingwei, Social Sciences Literature Publishing House, 2004 edition.

[10] Due to the small territory of the British Empire, in order to control the world empire of global trade, it had to rely on the colonial forms of South Africa and India, which adopted “indirect governance” in geopolitics.

[11] John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson, "The Imperialism of Free Trade," The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1953, pp. 1-15.

[12] For the significance of “Open Doors” in the “grand strategy” of American imperial expansion, see Christopher Lane: The Illusion of Peace: American Grand Strategy since 1940, translated by Sun Jianzhong, Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 2009.

Trade and Human Rights (Part 2)

—— Sino-US competition in the context of world empires

▍ GATT: A compromise between two human rights ideals

 

Through "national self-determination" and "open door", the United States has formed an internal mechanism of combining physical and practical human rights between the first generation of human rights and the second generation of human rights, using the opportunity of the two world wars to promote the United States to inherit the mantle of world empire of the British Empire, And advance it to a new stage of "invisible empire". The United Nations system in the political field and the Bretton Woods system in the economic field formed after the Second World War are the products of these two human rights theories. [1] In the design of the Bretton Woods system, the primary goal of the United States was to destroy the global trade division created by the British Empire's imperial preferential, and to take advantage of the favorable opportunity of the United States to dominate the global economy after the war, requiring that Europe and Asia must take trade and investment A liberal "Open Door" policy so that the United States can gain access to the resources and markets of the entire world, rebuild a world empire of free trade, and achieve what Paul Kennedy called "peace under America." In fact, while the British Empire was shifting from free trade to imperial preferences, the United States was shifting from mercantilism to free trade policy since Roosevelt's New Deal, and this policy change just reflected the change in imperial power.

The British Empire naturally grew into a world empire in a state of "absence of mind", while the United States has systematically studied the success and failure lessons of the British Empire since its founding, and built a world empire through careful planning and design. Therefore, different from the spontaneous formation of the British Empire, which promoted free trade centered on industry and finance, and thus formed an economic system that freely adjusts the balance of payments, the United States had a complete set of systematic plans for building a world empire after World War II. The key to this is how to learn from the lessons that countries adopted mercantilist policies that led the Western world to fall into the "Great Depression" and rebuild a free trade world trading system.

After "World War II", the capitalist world has the right to speak of "trade" (the first generation of human rights), and the socialist camp has the right to speak of "human rights" (the second generation of human rights). The United States originally hoped to design the World Trade Organization to promote free trade in accordance with the first generation of human rights concepts, and signed the famous "Havana Charter". However, it is difficult for newly independent countries that uphold the concept of the second generation of human rights to agree with such a practice of destroying national sovereignty, not to mention that after the Great Depression and two world wars, people are deeply hurt by the disaster caused by laissez-faire economic policies. Even in the United States, due to the influence of New Deal liberalism, people realized that a free economy must be linked to full employment and government regulation, and that the "economic security" of capitalism must be related to the "social security" and "moral security" emphasized by New Deal liberalism link, and even hope to shape the postwar order with the ideas of New Deal liberalism. [2] In this context, the two human rights concepts compromised each other, forming a multilateral negotiation mechanism such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) under the leadership of the United States. Countries are included in negotiations on tariff and trade issues. This compromise organically combines market freedom emphasized by the first generation of human rights theories with government regulation emphasized by the second generation of human rights theories, and is called "the embodied liberalism". [3]

The GATT system was designed to give developing countries moderate space for tariff protection, which was more reasonable than the free-trade world economy of the British Empire. The free trade promoted by the British Empire was set against a backdrop of stark colonialism, with colonies or semi-colonies woven entirely on the fringes of the world system. When the United States proposed free trade, it was an era of anti-imperialist and anti-colonialism driven by the communist movement, and an era of national liberation when the colonies became independent. In this era of sovereign countries pursuing independence and equality, the free trade proposed by the United States must give these countries the right to regulate their sovereignty. Although the United States strives to limit the discussion of the GATT to the technical category of "trade", it hopes to avoid the influence of the second generation of human rights (the right to economic and social development) promoted by the socialist movement, and to isolate "trade" from "human rights" open, but the relationship between the two always exists objectively. This means that the historical environment in which the British Empire built a world empire through free trade is gone forever.

Compared with the completely open free trade system dominated by the British Empire, the Bretton Woods system both provided space for sovereign states to solve employment and social problems, while preventing these countries from adopting mercantilist policies that endanger the global economic order, thus avoiding the British Empire. Radical free trade led to a backlash against protectionism. It can be said that this is a milder and more rational economic globalization order than the free trade of the British Empire. However, we must realize that the transition of the world economic system from the era of the British Empire to the era of the American Empire actually embodies an important change in the logic of capitalist profit extraction. The main way of capital accumulation in the British Empire is to gain commercial trade advantages through manufacturing advantages, and then obtain financial advantages. In comparison, the way of capital accumulation in the United States after World War II not only relied on the financial hegemony of gold-dollar and later oil-dollar, but more importantly, it once accumulated the advantages of "corporate capitalism" under the pressure of British hegemony - the United States of multinational corporations effectively internalize transaction costs in international trade by integrating global business networks to cope with the impact of global trade liberalization. The most typical example of new corporate governance is the rise of Fordism and Taylorism. The improvement of the company's management efficiency effectively accelerates the company's expansion, and finally forms the new economic monopoly and technology monopoly of multinational companies. [4]

Free trade in the British Empire, as conceived by the Manchester School, was a global commercial network of countless small shopkeepers; free trade in the United States was controlled by a few large multinational oligarchs. The comparison of the two models of profit extraction in the British Empire and the American Empire is perfectly reflected in the debate among Chicago School economists that which of the two models, the market or the firm, is more efficient ultimately depends on which one is more beneficial lower the transaction cost. MNCs internalize market costs in free trade, which is more conducive to reducing transaction costs. These multinational corporations have a monopoly position in the global economy, they have privileges and authority in many sovereign countries (especially third world countries), and can even control the politics and economy of these countries. In this sense, America's desire for free trade is far less strong than that of the British Empire in its heyday, because the trade protection of any sovereign state The policy also favors multinational companies established by the United States in the country, and the profits earned by multinational companies in these countries will eventually flow back to the United States in the form of dollars. As the Chinese complained during the Sino-US trade war, many of the products China exports to the US are manufactured in China by US multinational companies, and the Chinese earn only a small portion of the labor and processing profits.

▍ Two faces of world empire: "free trade" and "fair trade"

 

Although due to the external pressure from the socialist camp and the resistance of developing countries in the GATT negotiation, the ideal of free trade expected by the United States cannot be realized immediately, but the United States has made full use of its economic advantages to continuously promote trade liberalization in the GATT negotiation. To this end, the United States launched "development economics" and "modernization theory" based on this. These theories claim that foreign trade is the "engine" of economic development, emphasizing that only by vigorously developing foreign trade can backward countries stimulate economic growth; because foreign trade can not only accelerate capital accumulation by expanding exports, but also improve industrial structure and achieve coordinated economic development through imports At the same time, it is conducive to the introduction of advanced technologies, production methods, economic systems and cultural concepts. These theories have attracted developing countries to join GATT and agree to lower tariffs and promote free trade as much as possible. [5]

Nevertheless, in this "club"-style negotiating arena, the second-generation human rights theory will inevitably become an ideological weapon for developing countries to fight against developed countries. Whether it is Wallerstein's theory of the world economic system or Amin's theory of dependence and underdevelopment, these left-wing ideological trends, like Marxist theory, have become the third world's criticism of the Western-dominated global economic system in various international occasions, and strive for its own An ideological weapon for development rights. Developed countries believe that developing countries are underdeveloped because their economic and political systems are immature, while developing countries attribute it to an unreasonable global economic order dominated by the West, and even criticize this post-war economic order as "neocolonialism" . The second generation of human rights discourse combined with the global left-wing movement has promoted the "global justice movement" in the field of trade, and "fair trade" has become the demand of developing countries. The reason why developing countries strive for "fair trade" and use "fair trade" to criticize the world imperial order constructed by Western developed countries is that after they joined this order, they did not experience the economic prosperity promised by developed countries, but became more and more trapped. Deprived of status,[6] the economic gap between the developed (North) and developing (South) countries constructed by the Bretton Woods system is getting deeper and deeper.

Since the United States wants to incorporate the vast number of developing countries into its economic system through the economic "club" of GATT and isolate the socialist camp by means of the Cold War, it has to endure the criticism and resistance of developing countries to certain propositions put forward by the United States in trade negotiations. pressure, and more importantly, the challenges posed by the economic revival of the European Union and Japan, driven to win the Cold War. To address these challenges, the U.S. Trade Expansion Act of 1962 gives the president the power to take retaliatory measures on the grounds of "unreasonable" or "unfair" trade. In 1974, the United States further revised the trade law, and put forward the concepts of "fair and harmful" trade and "unfair trade", and called goods that conform to the principles of fair trade but do not meet the standards of U.S. interests as "harmful". This marks a major adjustment in U.S. trade policy: the discourse strategy of trade legitimacy has shifted from emphasizing "free trade" to "fair trade"; Outside the framework, taking advantage of the U.S. economic hegemony and constantly revising domestic trade laws, the government has given the government stronger and stronger trade retaliation and sanctions, forcing other countries to accept various so-called "fair trade" demands put forward by the United States. As a result, the organic interaction between US domestic trade law and GATT and other international laws, and between unilateralism and multilateralism has gradually formed.

"Fair trade" was originally a developing country's criticism of the inequalities caused by "free trade" based on the second-generation human rights theory, but now it has become the United States' intervention in government trade (including subsidies, state-owned enterprises, Labor rights, ecological environment damage, etc.) criticism. On the issue of "fair trade", there are two different understandings, and this difference is closely related to the so-called "substantive justice" and "procedural justice". If "free trade" has a visible objective measure of lowering tariff barriers, then "fair trade" lacks a universally accepted standard, because the strong and the weak have different understandings of fairness. When the strong and the weak compete, the strong emphasize that the competition should start from a common starting line, that is, "fair competition" based entirely on market freedom. Therefore, any government assistance to trade is "unfair trade". "Fairness" is actually the embodiment of the concept of procedural justice in the field of international trade. However, for the weak, this laissez-faire trade is the plunder of developing countries, which will lead to developing countries forever on the fringes of the world system, resulting in underdevelopment due to dependence; therefore, the true "fair trade" The "right to development" of developing countries to use government power to promote economic development must be recognized, so as to achieve equality between countries. Such "fair trade" undoubtedly runs through the concept of substantive justice.

Behind the political game and discourse debate about "fair trade" between the strong and the weak is essentially a disagreement between two generations of human rights theories. In this long debate over "human rights," especially around market trade and national development, liberty and equality, the United States is not always the winner. In the 1960s and 1970s, influenced by the "May Storm" in Europe and the "Cultural Revolution" in China, American campuses launched a huge "Cultural Revolution", a second-generation human rights theory with equality as the core value promoted by socialism. gained global dominance. Compared with the class equality, gender equality, ethnic equality, and international equality shown by socialist countries, the United States is mired in the abyss of widening economic inequality, racial segregation, exclusion of women, and the Vietnam War with foreign countries. Faced with this pressure, in order to compete for the global discourse on human rights issues, the United States, starting from the breaking of racial segregation, promoted the "civil rights movement" involving gender equality, gender liberation, and the protection of the rights of the accused. Since then, the "class left" influenced by Marxism has turned to the "cultural left" under the influence of postmodern thought, and the American Democratic Party has also undergone a fundamental turn. [7]

It can be seen that different countries are talking about "fair trade", but they all give it different connotations according to their own interests. Developing countries often use "fair trade" to strengthen the protection of their internal economic development, and oppose the free trade policies that developed countries try to promote, especially in the face of the impact of global trade liberalization promoted by the "Washington Consensus", "fair trade" It has always been a theoretical tool for the global left to critique this trend. The United States' emphasis on "fair trade" is precisely to crack down on such trade protectionist measures taken by competitors in order to promote free trade. In this sense, "fair trade" is actually a synonym for the United States to ask other countries to open their markets and adopt "free trade". It is a kind of freedom that the United States is forced to choose under the historical background of the second-generation human rights discourse dominated the world. New discourses in the defense of trade policy.

"Free trade" and "fair trade" are just two different faces of the United States in different situations in the historical process of promoting world empire, and both are useful tools in the U.S. trade policy toolbox. The United States can define what "fair trade" is based on its own interests at any time, and choose to use "free trade" or "fair trade" as its justification for different objects and situations. For example, the United States adopted a laissez-faire policy during the Reagan period and once restored the idea of ​​"free trade". However, in his second term, the huge foreign trade deficit made Reagan quickly turn to "fair trade". It was Reagan who formally proposed the concept of "free and fair trade" in his "Trade Policy Action Plan" in 1985, and formed a trade counter-attack group, which laid the foundation for the discourse strategy and legal logic of the United States to deal with trade issues later. In the post-Cold War era, the United States used unipolar hegemony to accelerate the pace of world empire building: on the one hand, it used neoliberal doctrine to expand its economic power; on the other hand, in order to ensure the ability of the United States to control the global economy, the Clinton administration even "Economic security" is the primary goal of U.S. foreign policy, and it has publicly declared "fair trade" as part of a national economic strategy to expand trade. In a word, "free trade" and "fair trade" are two parallel tracks for the US to build a world empire, both aimed at combating competitors and ensuring US control over the world economy: on the one hand, "free trade" is used to attract and control development China, on the other hand, uses "fair trade" to meet the challenges of the EU, developed countries in East Asia and even emerging economies such as the "BRICS".

What is more noteworthy is that in the context of the construction of world empires, there is a trend of confluence between the globalization right wing that advocates "free trade" and the globalization left wing that advocates "fair trade". The right wing of globalization uses the proposition of "free trade" to require other countries to remove various non-tariff barriers (such as subsidies, dumping, etc.) in order to achieve the goal of global trade liberalization; the left wing of globalization requires that global trade must strengthen labor, environmental protection etc. to protect human rights. However, the labor protection and environmental protection emphasized by the left wing of globalization will undoubtedly greatly increase the cost of export products of developing countries, which will eventually weaken the competitiveness of industrial products of developing countries in global trade. In March 2021, the West attempted to ban China's Xinjiang cotton from entering global trade through human rights discourses such as "forced labor" and "genocide" to achieve the goal of winning the trade war through "human rights" issues. The globalization left, like the globalization right, is objectively weakening the power of sovereign states, but the globalization right builds a world empire, while the western left in the context of globalization accepts this "world empire". Attempts to transform the "Empire" into a "Great Harmony World" through the resistance of the "people". [8] In this sense, the right wing and the left wing of the United States can often form beneficial cooperation in the debate on "free trade" and "fair trade". Just like the two faces of the Trump administration and the Biden administration, the former mainly focuses on Trade, the latter highlighting human rights, has become two antagonistic and synergistic forces in America's construction of world empire. The reason why the United States can switch freely between "free trade" and "fair trade" lies in the fact that the world empire it has constructed enables it to have "absolute sovereignty" that transcends international law, and can put the domestic law of the United States above international law.

▍ The Neoliberal World Empire: Trade and Intellectual Property

 

Since the issue of "unfair trade" was raised in the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, with the increasing trade frictions, the United States has continuously revised its trade laws to strengthen the US president's ability to act unilaterally outside the GATT, forming the so-called "unfair trade". General Section 301", that is, the U.S. Trade Representative may, under the authority of the President, take unilateral punitive and retaliatory measures against any other country's violation of "fair trade" that harms U.S. interests. It is based on the "General Section 301" that the United States repeatedly launched trade wars against Japan in the 1970s and 1980s to combat Japanese manufacturing challenges to the United States. In 1985, the United States forced the yen to appreciate against the dollar through the famous "Plaza Agreement", which solved the trade friction between the United States and Japan from the fundamental level of finance. Since then, the Japanese economy has entered a long-term recession. At the same time, the United States also launched a "Super 301 investigation" against Japan. In 1989, the two countries signed the "U.S.-Japan Structural Trade Barrier Agreement", which not only required Japan to open its domestic market, but also forced Japan to revise its domestic economic policy. For Japan, a sovereign country, these two agreements are undoubtedly "unequal treaties" that "suffer their rights and humiliate the country". The unilateral punitive retaliation by the United States has worked not only because Japan’s export-oriented economy has long been embedded in the world economic system dominated by the United States, but more importantly, Japan has been integrated into the world imperial order of the United States as a “vassal state”. [9]

Faced with the challenges of emerging countries in the manufacturing and trade fields, the United States has continuously strengthened its unilateral action capability of various "301 investigations" on the grounds of "fair trade", while on the other hand, it has tried to consolidate its dominant position in the GATT negotiation. , forming a dual-track interactive framework for promoting international law with domestic law. In this regard, linking intellectual property issues with trade issues and using "fair trade" discourse to incorporate intellectual property rights into GATT negotiations is undoubtedly a new strategy for the United States to strengthen the world imperial system since the 1980s.

Since its independence, the United States has realized that the secret to European imperial hegemony lies in the rise of technology-driven manufacturing. For this reason, the founders of the United States actually included intellectual property protection clauses in the constitution, which seems to be the only one in the constitutions of all countries in the world. The US government has been an "enterprise country" from the very beginning. With the help of trade protection policies, the US government has always vigorously promoted technological progress and industrial development, and finally ushered in the second industrial revolution. During the two world wars, European scientists took refuge in the United States, and the United States quickly reached the pinnacle of global technology. The famous "Science: The Endless Frontier" report before the end of World War II further laid the foundation for winning the Cold War with the power of science and technology. After encountering industrial challenges from the European Union and Japan in the 1970s, the United States realized that it must maintain its dominant position in the high-tech industry by strengthening technological innovation and intellectual property protection. In 1979, President Carter formally proposed a national development strategy for the protection of intellectual property rights and formulated a series of laws to protect intellectual property rights.

However, the vast majority of countries, especially developing countries, oppose the technological monopoly of developed countries. But without the recognition of the international community, it is impossible for developing countries to abide by the rules of intellectual property protection that mainly safeguard the interests of developed countries. To this end, the United States tried to bring the issue of intellectual property protection into the GATT negotiation, making it an international law recognized by all developing countries. In 1988, the U.S. comprehensively revised Section 301 of the Trade Act, which clearly defined violations of U.S. intellectual property rights as "unfair trade" and authorized the U.S. President to set up a special office to initiate investigations into countries that engage in such acts until the lawsuit is filed. trade sanctions. This is called a "special Section 301." Since then, the Office of the US Trade Representative has become the spokesperson for intellectual property protection of multinational companies, and has launched intellectual property investigations on countries around the world, especially emerging economies. Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Southeast Asia and China have all been investigated and harvested, and a series of Intensive IP negotiations.

In order to further publicize the legitimacy of intellectual property protection, the concept of "knowledge economy" has been widely publicized by the media. The wealth myth of Microsoft President Bill Gates has become a symbol of the knowledge economy, and intellectual property rights have thus become a "new human rights". The United States is trying to use the new intellectual property rules to bring the world's major economies into its imperial system of intellectual property. In the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations, the United States used the "Special Section 301" as a backstop for threatening sanctions, and in the final stage, intellectual property, an issue that had nothing to do with trade and was not originally planned for the negotiation, was included in the negotiation agenda, and finally in 1994 Sign the famous Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The TRIPS Agreement violates the GATT principle of national autonomy and adopts a "one-size-fits-all" approach, which undermines the freedom of countries to decide their own IPR protection legislation.

Sovereignty, setting minimum standards of intellectual property protection that all countries must accept.

At that time, many developing countries were not clear about the intellectual property strategies of US multinationals. When the United States lured developing countries to accept the TRIPS agreement with the opening of agricultural markets, many developing countries thought that although they suffered in the industrial field, they could at least benefit in the agricultural field. But what they don't know is that oligarchs in the fields of biology, pharmaceuticals, and genes in the United States have monopolized various patented technologies, so that planting and breeding in traditional agriculture are under the control of these multinational oligarchs. The global intellectual property protection promoted by the TRIPS Agreement means the dawn of a new era. After the era of industrial capitalism, in which industrial capitalists control labor and surplus value, and the era of financial capitalism, in which bankers control capital, securities, and bonds, capitalism enters the era of capitalism. The new stage, the era of "information capitalism" in which abstract intellectual property rights are controlled by information oligarchs like Apple, pharmaceutical oligarchs like Pfizer, and biological oligarchs like Monsanto has arrived. These multinational corporations that control knowledge and information "collect rents" from users, just as medieval feudal landlords who controlled land collected rents from tenant farmers. [10]

It is important to note that in the final stages of the TRIPS negotiations, the Cold War is over. The socialist camp that once supported developing countries disintegrated, and socialist theory and the second generation of human rights discourse also declined. In its place was a worldwide conservative revolution, the first generation of human rights theory under the background of classical liberalism began to fully revive, and in the new historical environment, neoliberalism, a revival of classical liberalism, was formed, with the background of left-wing. New Deal liberalism draws a line. Neoliberalism not only revived the first generation of human rights theories, but more importantly, transformed the second generation of human rights theories with the first generation of human rights theories, and used the concept of economic liberalization to promote political democratization and liberalization of cultural values, destroying The original core propositions of the second generation of human rights theories, such as people's sovereignty, national equality, and socialism.

It can be seen that the end of the Cold War and the neoliberalism supported by the "Washington Consensus" have combined unprecedented liberalization in the economic, political and cultural fields, providing new prospects for the world empire built by the United States. The United States can finally kick away the respect for national sovereignty and government autonomy contained in the Bretton Woods system, put aside the national sovereignty protected by the second-generation human rights theory, and shape a more thorough world empire entirely in accordance with the principles and logic of neoliberalism. It is in the historical process of the United States accelerating the construction of world empires in the post-Cold War era that the functions of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have undergone fundamental changes, from institutions that stabilize global finance to super-sovereign institutions that the United States manages world empires. At the same time, the GATT, which once served as a multilateral negotiation and negotiation mechanism for sovereign countries, has also been thrown into history and replaced by a brand-new governing body, the World Trade Organization (WTO). Compared with GATT, the biggest difference of the WTO is that it has a strong dispute settlement mechanism, so it has become the law enforcement agency of the world empire above sovereign states, and has become a symbol of "world rule of law". As a result, the WTO, along with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, has been ridiculed as the "Unholy Trinity" for the United States to build a world empire. It is in this neoliberal world empire planning that "human rights over sovereignty" and even "humanitarian intervention" have become a powerful tool for the United States to destroy the sovereignty of other countries and incorporate them into its world empire. The United States launched the "third wave of democratization" in the name of "human rights protection", and proposed the "Greater Middle East Democracy Plan" to transform the Middle East in the name of "war on terror"; in order to promote democratization in other countries and regions, the United States even launched "color revolutions" "This new form of warfare has transformed its world empire into a so-called "democracy empire" or "human rights empire". [11]

 

▍ "The Chinese Way": The Reconstruction of the Human Rights Community and Human Rights Theory

 

In modern times, China was forced into the European-dominated world system and began to shift from an agricultural country to a modernized path of developing commerce and industry, so that from the very beginning, China was defined as a semi-colonial on the fringes of the world system. It means that modern China had to accept the fate of "dependence and underdevelopment". To change the marginal position and the fate of dependence, political independence must be achieved first. Only in this way can protectionist measures be adopted to promote industrialization, achieve national prosperity and strength, and move towards the center of the world system. Therefore, political independence, political autonomy, and global anti-hegemony have always been closely linked with changes in the world system.

How can newly independent countries promote their own industrialization? One is the market economy and capitalist road taken by Turkey and India, and the other is the socialist road taken by the Soviet Union and China. The former attempts to promote the industrialization of the country under the Western-dominated world system, adopting the mercantilist strategy implemented by the rise of Western powers. However, the mercantilist development strategies of the Western powers are premised on war. If there is no preparation and capability for war, the mercantilist strategy cannot be successful. Moreover, despite their political independence, Turkey and India are still unable to escape their dependence on the West, and ultimately cannot escape their dependence on the Western-controlled world system. On the contrary, the socialist road has seen through the dependence and comprador of the country’s bourgeoisie to the world system from the very beginning, so it chose to rely on the working class and even the peasantry to obtain complete political independence, and even dared to use war with Europe and the United States that maintain the world system. The great powers confront each other and dare to bear the pressure and consequences of the Western powers cutting off their relationship with the world economic system economically. The two camps confronted at the political and military level during the Cold War were also two different economic systems, in which the Western capitalist system adopted a policy of blockade, restriction, isolation and encirclement of the socialist camp.

It is from the perspective of the world empire system that we can understand the choice and fate of China's two paths in the struggle for national independence and liberation since the 1911 Revolution. The key is not whether China wants to join the world system, but what kind of identity and status it will take. Join this system, and political identity and status depend on economic and military strength. In this sense, the new China after 1949 entered a critical moment in history when both crisis and opportunity coexisted. The "crisis" stemmed from the political and military suppression from the world imperial system. Only through tests like the War to Resist U.S. Aggression and Aid Korea, the Sino-Indian border self-defense counterattack, and the Vietnam-Aid War to Resist the U.S. can mean that China has gained independence in the world system. political status; "opportunity" lies in the fact that national liberation and national rebirth have given China the confidence and ability to embark on the road of independent development and industrialization, completely getting rid of the dependent character and marginal status stipulated in the world system, and helping China move towards the world system. The center has laid a solid foundation. The socialist planning system adopted after the founding of the People's Republic of China was a road that did not rely on the capitalist world system, and quickly "leap forward" from a backward agricultural country to industrialization. The development path of "industrialism". At this time, China was still a backward agricultural country, unable to obtain sufficient and cheap raw materials through global commercial trade or colonization, but had to go beyond the stage of completing resource accumulation and knowledge accumulation through commerce, and directly develop modern industry, and from the very beginning, it was the development of national defense and heavy industry. , the difficulty can be imagined. This "heavy industry" development strategy has cost China a huge price, but it has also achieved great success. It has quickly changed China's long-term colonial and plundered status, and has become a global power in a "triangular game" with the Soviet Union and the United States.

However, this development strategy takes the second generation of human rights theories to the extreme and will inevitably inhibit the first generation of human rights theories. In the long term, this situation is not sustainable. In the context of the Cold War, the Western world exported the first generation of human rights concepts to socialist countries in order to dismantle the industrialization efforts of socialist countries. This means that socialist countries must recognize the achievements of the first generation of human rights theories and return to the world system promoted by globalization after they have achieved successful industrialization. In this process of return, the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries completely lost the independence of their political sovereignty due to their political failure. They accepted the "Washington Consensus" launched by the world empire, the industrial capacity was directly destroyed, and the entire country was rewoven into the on the fringes or semi-peripheries of the world imperial system. In the process of rejoining the world system after the reform and opening up, China has always maintained its political independence, thus maintaining its autonomy in the choice of economic development strategies.

It is against this background that we see that China's economic development strategy after the reform and opening up has always included two processes: on the one hand, integrating into the world system as soon as possible, fully absorbing external knowledge, funds, systems and laws to develop and strengthen itself, Speed ​​up the establishment of a market economic system that is in line with the world; on the other hand, always take advantage of political autonomy to formulate independent development strategies. For example, the Chinese government has always maintained financial governance to avoid being manipulated by Western financial capital after joining the world system; the Chinese government insists on formulating a step-by-step development strategy, especially in the field of trade, initially aiming at "earning foreign exchange through exports", and rebates through exports and a series of policies to promote the export of primary products, and use the foreign exchange earned to introduce high-tech; and with the development of the economy, in recent years, the Chinese government has made full use of the manufacturing advantages accumulated in the "heavy industry" stage, accelerated industrial upgrading, and promoted China's development in the industry. The continuous upward movement in the global technology industry chain is gradually posing a challenge to the advantages of the US technology industry and its dominant world imperial system. This is the root cause of today's China-US competition.

Compared with the failed transitions of the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries, the success of China's transition lies in the fact that it did not completely abandon the second-generation human rights theory in a gesture of surrender like they did. While re-accepting the first-generation human rights theories, China has always adhered to the ideals and beliefs of the second-generation human rights theories and perfectly combined the two. From this point of view, the core essence of "socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics" is the perfect combination of the first-generation human rights theories and the second-generation human rights theories. The reform and opening up just caught up with the United States’ comprehensive revival of the first-generation human rights theories against the backdrop of neoliberalism sweeping the world. The first-generation human rights theories and the strategy of “connecting with the world”, which advocated full integration into the world imperial system, have become China’s mainstream ideology. . However, with the rise of China and the strategic transformation in the "critical decade" between China and the United States,[12] China's mainstream ideology will inevitably turn to the full revival of the second generation of human rights and the socialism it promotes, and to rebuild on this basis Human Rights Theory.

 

As revealed in the previous part, both the US's own national construction and the US's foreign strategy of world empire are the combination and application of the two human rights theories. [13] Then, what is the difference between the internal assembly and specific application of the two human rights theories in the United States and China?

Briefly summarizing the discussion in the previous article and this article, we can see that since the development of modern human rights theory in Europe, modern people have formed five “ideal types” around the concept of human rights. One is the Adam Smith-style British model in history, which formed a laissez-faire model according to the first-generation human rights theory. Internally, it was a parliamentary system dominated by the merchant class, and externally, it was a world imperial system of free trade. The second is the Stalin model in which Rousseau's theory of "general will" was developed to the extreme in the Soviet era, and a comprehensive planned control model was formed in accordance with the second-generation human rights theory. "Empire System". The third is the EU model that maintains a balance between the two types of human rights theories, adopting a democratic socialist economic and social policy internally and an equal alliance system externally. The fourth is the American model. The two human rights concepts are in a state of constant struggle, mutual promotion, and alternate leadership. Eventually, after the "World War II", a system with the first generation of human rights theories as the "body" and the second generation of human rights theories as the "use" was gradually formed. World Empire mode. [14]

Since the founding of New China, in the process of two human rights theories intertwined and alternately dominated, a new model with the second-generation human rights theories as the "body" and the first-generation human rights theories as the "use" is gradually forming. At the domestic economic and social policy level, China will undoubtedly uphold the socialist concept promoted by the second-generation human rights theory, reconstruct and improve our economic, social, political and cultural systems in accordance with the "people-centered" human rights theory, and at the same time As an organic part of the socialist system, free property, market economy, and free trade give full play to the enthusiasm of the government and the market, equality and freedom, the second-generation human rights theory and the first-generation human rights theory. At the level of global order, based on the second-generation human rights theory, China respects the rights of different countries and civilizations to explore a path of modernization that suits their own reality, advocates giving full play to the positive role of the United Nations system, and promotes various equal alliance systems to play an active role in global governance It is necessary to carry out institutional construction around a community of shared future for mankind, so as to adapt to the inevitable development trend of "deep globalization".

It can be seen that the competition between China and the United States today is a competition based on different human rights theories and practices. Since modern times, the two human rights theories developed in the West have always been in a tense struggle, and Chinese practice is exploring a development path that allows the two human rights theories to form a perfect combination. This is not only due to the historical experience of China's great achievements in human rights. More importantly, it stems from the Chinese wisdom of seeking the "middle way". In the tradition of Chinese civilization, human rights are not the dominant concept. Human rights are ultimately subordinate to the order of heaven. Only in the order of heaven can the rights protected by each human rights theory find its place and define its own boundaries. In China, the two human rights theories can be used interchangeably under specific circumstances, changing with the circumstances, overcoming the either-or binary thinking inherent in Western fundamentalism, so that the market and the government, capital and the people can be perfectly combined, To jointly serve the construction of the Chinese order and a community with a shared future for mankind.

In this sense, the rise of China is bound to reconstruct the theory of human rights. In the struggle for international discourse power and the promotion of global governance, China should always take the initiative in human rights discourse and criticize the human rights disaster brought about by the world imperial order promoted by the United States. The unfettered capital forces under the world imperial system have brought about human rights issues such as class oppression and racial oppression in Western countries. More importantly, at the international level, this world imperial order anchors the Western and non-Western center-periphery structures that have developed over the past few hundred years, with the United States grabbing global wealth for its self-interest without assuming responsibility for global governance, resulting in The trend of "de-globalization" is now making waves around the world. Narrow nationalism, populism, and protectionism are resurgent in many countries, and conflicts in the international community are intensifying. The rise of China is precisely based on the second generation of human rights theory, through international community consultation, dialogue and regional integration, to solve the governance problems brought about by the decline of the world empire, to promote the next wave of globalization, to jointly build "One World, One Family" and share " The Great Harmony of the World". [15]

Notes

[1] [13] [14] See Qiang Shigong: "Trade and Human Rights (Part 1): World Empire and "The Roots of American Behavior", in "Cultural Landscape", No. 5, 2021.

[2] See John Ikenberry: The Liberal Leviathan, translated by Zhao Minghao, Shanghai People's Publishing House, 2013.

[3] See Andrew Lang: World Trade Law and Neoliberalism: Reshaping the Global Economic Order, translated by Fan Jian and Wang Jinling, Law Press, 2016.

[4] For related discussions, see Geovani Ariki: "The Long 20th Century", translated by Yao Naiqiang, Yan Weiming, Han Zhenrong, Jiangsu People's Publishing House, 2011.

[5] David Harvey: "New Imperialism", translated by Chu Lizhong and Shen Xiaolei, Social Science Literature Publishing House, 2009 edition, pp. 46-47.

[6] Luke Martel: "Globalization from the Perspective of Sociology", translated by Song Yan, Liaoning People's Publishing House, 2014, p. 235.

[7] See Richard Rorty: "Building Our Country", translated by Huang Zongying, Life·Reading·Xinzhi Sanlian Publishing House, 2014 edition.

[8] See Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri: Empire, translated by Yang Jianguo and Fan Yiting, Jiangsu People's Publishing House, 2008; Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Multitude, Penguin Books, 2005; Michael Hart, Antonio Negri: "The World of Great Harmony", translated by Wang Xingkun, Renmin University of China Press, 2016 edition.

[9] After Trump took office as the US president in 2017, Robert Lighthizer, who served as the US Trade Representative more than 30 years ago, launched the "General Section 301 investigation" against Japan and forced Japan to sign the "Plaza Agreement", was re-appointed as the Trade Representative, and launched a "Section 301 investigation" against China. However, the China Lighthizer is facing this time is not a vassal state of the United States, but a truly independent sovereign state.

[10] For a detailed discussion of the TRIPS negotiation and the intellectual property issues arising therefrom, see Peter Davhouse and John Braithwaite: "Information Feudalism", translated by Liu Xuetao, Intellectual Property Press, 2005 edition.

[11] Qiang Shigong: The End of Civilization and World Empire: The Global Legal Order Constructed by the United States, Sanlian Publishing (Hong Kong) 2021 Edition, Chapter 2.

[12] Qiang Shigong: "Sino-US "Key Decade" - "New Roman Empire" and "New Great Struggle"", in the 9th issue of Oriental Academic Journal.

[15] See Qiang Shigong: "One Family in the World" vs. World Empire: "Deep Globalization" and the Dilemma of Global Governance," Oriental Journal, 2021, No. 4 (coming soon).

This article was originally published in the 5th and 6th issues of 2021 and 2021 of "Cultural Landscape". - Sino-American Competition in the Context of World Empire. The article only represents the author's own point of view, welcome to share, media reprint please contact this public account.