Aiming to forge a “community with a shared future for humanity,” the SCO is intended to be a regional community of common security, economic collaboration and social cooperation.
Promoting construction of a community with a shared future for humanity was identified as a key goal and task of China’s diplomacy in both the report to the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in October 2017 and the Amendment to the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China passed at the first session of the 13th National People’s Congress in March 2018.
The rotating presidency of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) currently rests with China, who will host the first SCO summit since the organization was expanded last year in Qingdao, a coastal city in the eastern province of Shandong. The addition of India and Pakistan to the SCO in 2017 marked a new chapter for the regional multilateral organization.It is meaningful to link the SCO to the goal of buildinga community with a shared future for humanity. As an underlying principle forged by the SCO, the Shanghai Spirit calls for inclusiveness and openness. The enlarged SCO is striving to enhance multilateral cooperation, and China expects support from other SCO member states in building a community of shared future for humanity.
In terms of the relationship between the SCO andthe concept of building a “community with a shared future for humanity,” some misconceptions should be avoided.
First, just because China first presented the idea of building a community witha shared future for humanity doesn’t mean it intends to impose the concept on other SCO member states, nordid it cause a fundamental change in the guidelines of China’s foreign policy. While maintaining its previous diplomatic principles, China is becoming more active and enterprising in international affairs. Nevertheless, it still insists on developing state- to-state relations with partnership or even strategic partnership rather than alliances. China will never interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, but only contribute through “constructive involvement.” Although China will never seek hegemony, it maystill play a leading rolein international affairs, abandoning the “never take the lead” principle that the country adopted just after the end of the Cold War.
Second, building a community with a shared future for humanity doesn’t mean that China is attempting to use the SCO to forge anew order to replace the current world order. China’s attitude toward the current world order is clear: As part of the world order, China isa protector and reformer.The current world order doesn’t belong to the U.S. nor does it involve “peace under the rule of the U.S.,” but is represented by the United Nations and its system as well as other intergovernmental organizations, especially international financial institutions and multilateral trade mechanisms. Despite the fact that the system remains imperfect and has some major defects in terms of equality, representation, fairness and efficiency, the current world order still has the greatest degree of openness, inclusiveness, progress and freedom in human history.
Third, building a community with a shared future for humanity,simply speaking, embodies the realization of global governance. Global governance requires joint efforts from the international community as well as international cooperation based on multilateralism. This is the fundamental reason China proposed building a community with a shared future for humanity. Currently, China is playing an important role in global governance. Since the endof the Cold War, multiple international platformsand mechanisms have been established to address common challenges faced by humankind, and the SCO is one of them.
The concept of a “community with a shared future for humanity” consists of three key components: “community,” “shared future” and “for humanity.” By dissecting the phrase, we can better answer the following questions: What kind of community of shared future for humanity is the SCO? Why is the SCO a community with a shared future for humanity, and how should it perform as one?
First, “for humanity” means the SCO is people-centered. A free world order must be people-oriented. However, this doesn’t mean it should ignore differences between different people. Presently, humanity is a communityof many individual nations which comprise many international organizations, including regional and interregional ones. Geographically, the SCO is a trans-regional organization, representing a new type of regional organization. In this sense, the SCO itself can be seen as a new “region.”
Second, SCO member states, as well as their societies and peoples, are interdependent, with a “shared future.” A result of globalization after the end of the Cold War, the SCO is a group of doers in the world in a region where all countries depend on each other. Interdependence between countries was already a reality in Europe by the 19th century, but not until the second half of the 20th century did humans develop systematic knowledge about such interdependency. Inthe 1970s, American political scientists Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye both discussed “interdependence” from the angle of power. The SCO sets another important example for interdependence between countries and peoples.
Finally, the SCO is a new type of regional community. It sharply contrasts other regional organizations such as the European Union (EU), the African Union and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in termsof origin, aim, structure, institution and priorities, but at the same time shares some similarities with them from the perspective of regional community.
Over the past 17 years since its inception, the SCO has focused on security cooperation, forging an effective cooperative mechanism in the field. The SCO has emerged as a security community. Unlike either NATO based on U.S. hegemony or the EU with common security policy,it is a new type of security community.
What is the nature ofthe SCO as a security community? In my opinion, the SCO represents a regional collaboration mechanism—an international congress system led by major countries such as Russia, China and India and featuring participation from many other smaller nations in Central Asia, South Asia and the Middle East.In particular, the admission of India and Pakistan to the SCO consolidated its nature as a regional collaboration mechanism.
Some often confuse “collaboration” with “coordination.” In fact, “collaboration” is farmore complicated than “coordination” and can exert long-term effects on world peace. The first and most successful international collaboration system so far has been the Concert of Europe, which was the primary driver of a “Century of Peace” in 19th-century Europe. The essential component of the system was a European congress system, which was even acclaimed by some as a “civilizational achievementof the 19th century.” Austro- Hungarian economic historian and sociologist Karl Polanyi elaborated on the topic in his book The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time.
At the end of World War II, the United Nations, with an aim to eliminate wars globally, and the European Community that eyed preventing wars regionally, were founded and quickly became international collaboration systems that made the Concert of Europe obsolete. Then, the EU was formed on the basis of the European Community. It still inherited the nature of its predecessor: replacing war with peace and hostility with solidarity. The long- held dream of “lasting peace” in Europe eventually arrived under the framework of the EU. For this reason, the EU was awarded the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize.
As global governance becomes a major topic inthe research of international relations, some scholarsargue that the Concert of Europe marked the origin of global governance in the 19th century. The expansion of SCO membership testifies toa boost in the organization’s sustainability and complexity. It is noteworthy that the enlarged SCO is also facing increasing internal conflict and instability. For instance, conflict between India and Pakistan remains, the U.S. army has yet to completely retreat from Afghanistan, the Iranian nuclear issue is one of the severest threats to global nuclear nonproliferation (second only to the Korean Peninsula nuclear crisis in terms of severity) and the world is still gasping for a fundamental solution to the long-term standoff between Iran and the U.S. In this context, some scholars believe that the legacy of the Concert of Europe should remain inspiring for the promotionof world peace in the 21st century, as a theory on global governance to avoid war and prevent conflict.
The SCO, whose rolewas once ignored, has also introduced new topics that demand attention such as international maritime issues. The China-proposed Belt and Road Initiative integrates land and maritime issues concerning the SCO. Holding the SCO summit in the coastal city of Qingdao is intended to remind people of the importance of maritime issues in the SCO collaboration mechanism.
In addition, the SCOshould serve as bothan economic and social community. It still needsto do better at enhancing economic cooperation. The SCO will become a stronger organization when it becomes a real economic community. After all, economic growth is the foundation of development for all countries. SCO member states have also carried out cooperation in the exchange of nongovernmental organizations and on other social issues. For instance, these countries regularly participate in the SCO People’s Forum and think tank forums on public policy and engage in cooperation in areas like education, science, culture, health and sports. All of these are pushing the SCO towards a social community.
Positioned at a new starting point, the SCO needs to redefine itself. With the organization’s rotating chairmanship this year, China has provided a new definition for the SCO: a community with a shared future for humanity—namely, a regional community of common security, economic collaboration and social cooperation.
上合组织与“人类命运共同体”
中国正在努力争取上合组织其他成员“支持推动构建人类命运共同体”。这几天，在青岛，人们能轻易看到“促进团结合作，构建命运共同体”的宣传标语。到底怎么看上合组织与“人类命运共同体”之间的关系、上合与“人类命运共同体”是何关系？
一、消除误解才能预判正确
在上合组织与“人类命运共同体”的关系上，本文认为，人们应该避免不必要的误解。
第一，中国并不要求上合组织其他成员（包括正式成员国、观察员国以及对话伙伴国三类）都完全认同“人类命运共同体”的提法，也无意让“人类命运共同体”成为上合组织的唯一指导思想。
第二，中国提出“人类命运共同体”，并不意味着中国外交政策的指导思想发生了根本性改变，而是在延续中国以往外交政策原则的基础上，变得更加积极进取。中国仍然奉行“不结盟”，但是中国追求“结伴”——伙伴关系，甚至是“战略性伙伴”；中国仍然奉行“不干涉（别国内政）”，但中国尝试“建设性地介入”；中国仍然明确“不称霸”，但是，与冷战刚结束时中国的“不带头”不同，不带头并不意味着中国在国际事务中不发挥“国际领导”作用。
第三，“人类命运共同体”并不意味着中国试图推动上合组织变成一种与现有世界秩序不同的替代性的世界秩序。对待现有世界秩序，中国的态度是明确的，那就是，中国是现有世界秩序的一部分，是现有世界秩序的维护者，也是现有世界秩序的改革者。现有世界秩序不是“美国的世界秩序”（American World Order）——“美国治下的和平”（the Pax Americana），而是联合国及其联合国体系，以及其他政府间国际组织（尤其是国际金融组织和多边贸易体制）代表的世界秩序。这一秩序尽管不完美的，而且存在许多重大问题，例如其公正性（包括代表性）、合理性（包括效率）仍然有待改进，但却是截止目前为止人类历史上最为开放的、包容的、进步的、自由的世界秩序。
第四，简要地说，“人类命运共同体”就是全球治理的实现。全球治理是国际社会的集体行动——依据多边主义的基本原则进行的国际合作。这就是中国提出的“人类命运共同体”的本意。中国正在加强在全球治理中不可或缺的作用。上合组织是冷战结束后解决人类面对的共同挑战的国际集体行动的一个层次、平台和机制。
二、上合为人类之间的“相互依存”提供了一个重要案例
如果把“人类命运共同体”一词拆分为三个概念：“人类”、“命运”和“共同体”，那么，我们就可以更好地回答以下三个问题：
第一，上海合作组织是什么“人类命运共同体”？第二，上海合作组织为什么是“人类命运共同体”？第三，上海合作组织如何是“人类命运共同体”？
“人类”说明上合组织是以人为中心或者以人为本的。这样理解“人类”是十分重要的。自由的世界秩序就是以人为中心的。但是，仅仅理解到这里是不够的。强调“人类”并不是要忽略“人类”之间的差异性。“人类”目前分成一个个的国家（一个个单一的共同体），一个个的国家又组成了一个个的国际组织，包括在地区和跨地区层次上的国际组织——地区组织和地区间组织（inter-regional organizations）。在地理意义上，上合组织实际上是一个跨地区间组织。但这一跨地区间组织也可以理解为一个新的地区组织，因为上合组织本身可以看作一个新的“地区”。
上合组织内部各国、各个社会、各民族等之间在“命运”上具有相互性，尤其是“相互依存”（interdependence）。上合组织是冷战结束后全球化的产物，是全球化的相互依存的世界中的一个集体行动者（a collective actor）。“相互依存”早在19世纪的欧洲就是基本的现实。但是，对“相互依存”（interdependence）的系统（科学）认识却推迟到了20世纪后期。上合组织为人类之间的“相互依存”提供了又一个重要案例。美国政治科学家，如基欧汉（Robert 0. Keohane）和奈 （Joseph S. Nye），在20世纪70年代从权力（power）角度研究了“相互依存”。
上合组织也是要走向地区共同体（the regional community）的。这如同欧盟、如同非盟、如同东盟。从起源、宗旨、构成、机构、优先任务等角度看，上合组织与欧盟、非盟、东盟等很不同。不过，上合组织与欧盟、非盟、东盟等又一样，也是地区共同体。一句话，上合组是新型的地区共同体。
过去18年，上合组织主要以“安全合作”（security cooperation）为主，形成了“合作安全”（cooperative security）。这表明，上合组织已经是一种安全共同体（a security community）。这一安全共同体与美国霸权为基础的北约（NATO）不同，与拥有“共同安全政策”的欧盟（EU）不同，而是新型的安全共同体。
三、上合是一种更有效更长效的地区协和
到底该如何看待上合组织作为安全共同体？我的研究结论是，上合组织是一种地区协和（a concert of the regional powers or an concertation by a group）。地区协和，即一些大国（例如俄罗斯、中国，现在加上了印度）主导的、有众多（至少若干个）其他国家（如中亚国家，现在又有了南亚和中东国家）参加的一种国际会议体系（a conference system）。尤其是，在印度和巴基斯坦加入上合后，上合组织的地区协和的本质就更加明显。
在中国，人们不熟悉“协和”，却熟悉“协调”，有时把“协和”误认为是“协调”。实际上，“协和”要远比“协调”复杂、困难；对世界和平，协和更有效，尤其是有长效。
历史上首创的和最成功的国际协和是欧洲协和（European Concerts）。著名的欧洲“百年和平”（1815-1914）正是因为欧洲协和，欧洲协和是几乎整个19世纪欧洲列国（尤其是其中的强国）维持欧洲稳定，尤其是欧洲和平的基本方法。
四、欧洲协和的主要方法是欧洲会议体系。
关于欧洲协和的权威著作汗牛充栋。更有思想家把欧洲协和提升到“19世纪的文明”的高度。卡尔•波兰尼（Karl Polanyi）的《大转变：我们时代的政治经济的起源》一书的第一章《百年和平》对此作了深刻的阐述。
从1914年到1945年长达30年的时间，是19世纪欧洲协和“崩溃”后的“危机”时期。在这一时期，两次世界大战在欧洲爆发。二战后，在全球层次上治理战争的联合国，和在地区层次上预防战争的欧共体，是比19世纪欧洲协和更现代的国际协和。
第二次世界大战结束后逐步形成的欧盟（苏联于1992年正式解体，欧共体在1993年正式升级为欧盟），与19的欧洲协和不同，但仍然继承了欧洲协和的本质。欧盟用和平取代了战争，用团结取代了仇恨。先贤梦想的“永久和平”在欧盟框架下终成。欧盟在2012年获得了诺贝尔和平奖。
五、国际协和，国际关系研究的焦点
最近，随着全球治理研究成为国际关系研究的焦点，有国际关系学者，例如米贞（Jennifer Mitzen）认为，昨天的欧洲协和（Concert of Europe）正是今天的全球治理（Global Governance）在19世纪的“起源”。
进入21世纪，有学者认为，当年的欧洲协和对21世纪的全球和平，仍然是极其有价值的，应该成为21世纪治理战争（包括预防冲突）的全球治理的理论。从2011年到2016年，德国著名国际关系学者、时任法兰克福和平研究院（PRIF/HSFK）院长穆勒教授（Harald Müller）发起了一项名为《21世纪的国际协和：在后大西洋时代促进大国多边主义》（A Twenty-First Century Concert of Powers - Promoting Great Power Multilateralism for the Post-Transatlantic Era）的重大项目。该项目是欧洲三大著名私人基金会资助的10大《欧洲和全球挑战》国际合作研究项目之一。
在这篇研讨会短文中，我无法详细介绍这一法兰克福项目，但建议有兴趣者不要忽略之。我是该项目的主要作者之一。该项目的两大集体成果已经公开出版：一是国际政策报告《21世纪的国际协和》（2014），发表后受到来自欧盟等机构和学者的一些重视；一是学术论文集《大国多边主义和预防大战——争论21世纪的国际协和》(Great-Power-Multilateralism-and-the-Prevention-of-War-Debating-a-21st Century Concert of Powers, edited by Harald Muller, Carsten Rauch, London: Routledge, 2018)。该书刚刚出版，我也是刚收到一册。这是目前关于国际协和的研究前沿。
上海合作组织成员国的扩大不仅代表着该组织的可持续性，而且代表着该组织更趋复杂。值得注意的是，扩大后的上合组织，其内部的冲突或者不稳定因素也在增加。印度和巴基斯坦的冲突在持续。美军仍然在阿富汗。仅次于朝核问题的全球核不扩散问题是伊核问题。美国和伊朗的长期冲突，仍然没有根本解决方案。而特朗普政府在与朝鲜进行有关“无核化”大交易的同时，却退出了奥巴马政府与其他联合国安理会常任理事国、德国和欧盟在2015年谈好的《伊核协议》。
进一步地，一度被人们忽视的上合组织增加了人们不得不重视的新议题，例如海洋国际问题。中国继续推动的“一带一路”，等于把上合组织中的陆海问题结合起来了。在青岛这座中国的世界海洋城市举行的上合组织峰会，也许将提醒人们海洋议题在上合组织协和中的重要性。
今日欧盟、东盟、非盟等远远高于国际协和。这些地区组织也存在内部差异性，但更多的是内部同质性，以及多样性基础上的团结（一体化）。国际协和已经不再适用这些地区组织。
最后，上合组织作为“共同体”，必须是经济共同体，甚至是社会共同体。在经济合作方面，上合组织有待加强。但走向经济共同体，上合组织才更加名副其实，因为毕竟经济是基础。
在非政府组织和其他社会方面，上合组织也有一系列的合作，例如，定期举行的“上合组织人民论坛”，公共政策方面的智库论坛，以及教育、科学、文化、卫生、体育等方面的合作，都在推动上合组织走向社会共同体。
综上所述，站在新起点上的上合组织需要再定义自身。轮值主席的中国为上合组织提供了一个新定义：上海合作组织作为“人类命运共同体”。但是，上合组织是什么“人类命运共同体”？为什么是这样的而不是那样的“人类命运共同体”？本文对作为“人类命运共同体”的上合组织进行了进一步的分析：地区协和的安全共同体、经济合作共同体，甚至是，社会合作共同体。
中文版来源：《更有效更长效的地区协和，上合组织如何链接‘人类命运共同体’？》，载自《华夏时报》。
英文版来源：《中印对话》2018年6月刊。
