2025年的一轮中美交手后，特朗普更换了怎样的隐蔽"打法"？美国对国际秩序的破坏是否是永久性的？ 面对不确定的国际局势，中国该如何清醒应对，信心与底气来源于何处？针对以上话题，观察者网在新 春之际对话了知名美国问题专家金灿荣教授。 观察者网：这次我们编辑部策划了一个专题，叫"新大陆与旧地图：全球体系的认知重启"。其中提出一 个判断：世界可能正从"相互依存的地球村"，走向一个多中心、多规则、多联盟的碎片化时代。对于这 样的描述，您怎么看？这种"碎片化"的判断是否已经形成较广泛的共识？还是说，这只会是一个短期的 过渡现象？ 金灿荣：这个世界应该讲正在发生巨变。习主席讲世界进入"百年未有之大变局"，而且是一个现在进行 时。所以，现在就给这个世界做一个定性的描述，我觉得还早了一点，还不能下最终结论。 我们只能说，变化中确实出现了一些趋势，可以讨论。但这个世界最后会走向什么形态，现在还不好 说。但有一点我比较确定：我们正在熟悉的那个世界，正在消失。我们熟悉的是什么世界？就是二战后 的国际秩序。这个二战后的国际秩序，在整个人类国际关系史上，其实是一个例外，而不是常态。 从美国"退群"联合国到特朗普筹办"和平委员会"，听命 ...

Core Viewpoint - A new large-scale military conflict involving the United States and Israel against Iran is imminent, with significant military preparations underway and negotiations at a standstill [2][30]. Group 1: Military Preparations - The U.S. and Israel are reportedly planning a coordinated attack on Iran, targeting its ballistic missile program, the Revolutionary Guard, and potentially its leadership [3][30]. - Israel has raised its military readiness, anticipating retaliation from Iran even if Israeli forces do not directly participate in the attack [4][30]. - The U.S. is mobilizing military assets, including bombers and refueling aircraft, to the Middle East, with Trump indicating a willingness to use the Diego Garcia military base for strikes against Iran [6][30]. Group 2: Negotiation Stalemate - The negotiations between the U.S. and Iran are characterized by an unbridgeable gap, with the U.S. demanding Iran abandon its nuclear program entirely, including civilian aspects [11][36]. - The U.S. aims to weaken Iran significantly, potentially leading to a situation similar to Venezuela, which Iran is unlikely to accept [11][36]. Group 3: Iranian Response - Iran is preparing for potential conflict by deploying military forces in the Strait of Hormuz and enhancing its defensive capabilities, including fortifying nuclear facilities [12][38]. - The Iranian leadership has expressed readiness for martyrdom, indicating a high level of commitment to resist U.S. aggression [39][14]. Group 4: Implications of Conflict - The likelihood of conflict is high, with the potential for a prolonged military engagement rather than a quick resolution [16][22]. - The Iranian regime is in a precarious position, facing existential threats from U.S. demands and the possibility of military action [21][46]. - The situation reflects broader geopolitical tensions, with the potential for regional escalation involving groups like Hezbollah and the Houthis [39][22].

Core Viewpoint - The recent ruling by the Panama Supreme Court declaring the concession rights of China’s Long Jiang He Ji as "unconstitutional" has been celebrated by some U.S. politicians and media as a significant victory in curbing Chinese influence, reflecting Washington's geopolitical arrogance and interference in commercial cooperation [1][2]. Group 1: Geopolitical Context - The U.S. has historically viewed the Panama Canal as a strategic asset, despite officially transferring control in 1999, and has repeatedly expressed intentions to regain control over it [1]. - The ruling raises questions about its independence, given the U.S. pressure on Panama to eliminate Chinese influence [1]. Group 2: Economic Implications - Long Jiang He Ji has operated the ports for nearly 30 years, contributing to local development and global free trade, with the U.S. also benefiting from this arrangement [2]. - The focus on the Panama port operations should center on the conflict between free trade and hegemonic practices, as well as the contrast between contractual integrity and power politics [2]. Group 3: Legal and Investment Concerns - The manipulation of commercial contracts by political pressures undermines global investment credibility, leading to fears that no long-term investment is safe within the Western system [2]. - The U.S. is seen as eroding the foundational trust of capitalism by using diplomatic coercion to influence legal outcomes, which could ultimately damage its international credibility and the space for multinational business interactions [2][3]. Group 4: Future Outlook - The Panama Canal, a crucial maritime trade route, is set to undergo global bidding, and there is hope that Panama will demonstrate true independence and provide a fair competitive environment for all participants [3]. - The trend of politicizing economic issues and weaponizing legal tools poses a threat to the international economic order, potentially leading to a breakdown of trust in the rules-based system [3].

Group 1 - The core concern is the emergence of a "rule-less" world, leading to systemic risks across multiple domains, necessitating international unity to uphold international order and law [1][3][6] - The transatlantic relationship between the US and Europe is deteriorating, with mutual trust at a historical low, reflecting deeper global crises [1][2] - The US's recent foreign policy changes highlight a hegemonic approach, with actions undermining international law and order, pushing the world towards a "rule-less" state [2][4] Group 2 - The post-World War II international order, while not perfect, has been crucial for global peace and trade, but recent shifts in policy by key nations threaten its stability [3][7] - Economic cooperation is being weaponized, with geopolitical tensions disrupting global supply chains and trade, leading to fragmentation of the global economy [4][5] - Multilateral cooperation platforms are facing unprecedented crises due to the withdrawal of hegemonic states, undermining global governance and increasing unpredictability [5][6] Group 3 - The historical context shows that the threat of hegemony has always existed, and current actions by hegemonic powers are causing widespread pain and instability in the international community [6][7] - To prevent a descent into a "rule-less" abyss, it is essential to defend the rule of international law, which is vital for the security and development of all nations [6][7] - The international community must recognize shared risks and work together to resist hegemonic challenges, promoting a more equitable and just international order [6][7]

Group 1 - The core viewpoint of the article discusses the significance of UK Prime Minister Starmer's visit to Japan shortly after his trip to China, emphasizing the economic ties between the UK and both countries, with China being the UK's largest trading partner in Asia at over $100 billion and Japan as the second at several hundred billion [2] - The article highlights the potential discussions between Starmer and Japanese Prime Minister Kishi regarding China policy, indicating a shift in diplomatic narratives between the UK and Japan compared to those with China [3][4] - The article notes that Starmer's political alignment as a center-left Labour Party member may lead to less ideological resonance with the right-leaning Kishi, suggesting that their interactions are more about national interests than shared values [4][5] Group 2 - The collaboration between Japan and the UK on defense matters, particularly in the joint development of next-generation fighter jets, is confirmed, indicating a strategic partnership in military technology [7] - The article outlines Japan's desire for "normalization" in its defense posture, aiming to reduce reliance on the US and enhance its own defense capabilities, which may lead to increased military cooperation with the UK [8] - Historical ties between Japan and the UK are emphasized, noting that Japan has historically viewed the UK as a mentor in military modernization, which may influence current defense collaborations [9][10]

Group 1 - European countries have realized that their focus on China was misplaced, as the real threat came from the United States, which has imposed taxes and sought to dominate resources in Europe [3][29] - In response to this realization, European nations are now turning towards China for cooperation [4][30] - Recent visits from foreign leaders, including those from Canada and the UK, indicate a shift in diplomatic relations, despite past tensions [6][35] Group 2 - Canada has faced backlash in China due to its involvement in the Meng Wanzhou incident and the imposition of high tariffs on Chinese goods, which has severely damaged its image [7][33] - The UK has also strained relations with China through various political maneuvers, but recent diplomatic engagements suggest a potential thaw in relations [8][34] - Both Canada and the UK are now seeking to improve ties with China, with Canada planning to significantly reduce tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles [10][37] Group 3 - China's leadership emphasizes a consistent stance of openness and cooperation, stating that it has never initiated conflict or threatened other nations, contrasting with the actions of some Western countries [14][42] - The Chinese government advocates for a multilateral approach to international relations, urging major powers to adhere to principles of equality and cooperation [15][43] - The recent diplomatic engagements reflect a broader trend of improving relations between China and several countries, as leaders recognize the importance of collaboration over confrontation [18][49]

Group 1 - The Chinese representative at the UN Security Council urged Japan to confront its historical actions and take responsibility through concrete actions [1][2] - The representative highlighted that the victory in World War II upheld the baseline of human civilization and led to the establishment of the current international legal system [1] - Concerns were raised regarding Japan's Prime Minister's recent statements linking Taiwan to Japan's "survival crisis," which were seen as a potential signal for military intervention [1] Group 2 - The representative emphasized the need for international unity and cooperation to strengthen the rule of international law, especially in light of rising unilateralism and power politics [2] - There is a call to uphold the principles and purposes of the UN Charter and to maintain the authority of international law [2] - The Chinese side expressed its commitment to work with other countries to promote a community with a shared future for mankind and contribute to strengthening international law and promoting world peace and development [2]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the implications of the United States' actions on global governance and international law, highlighting concerns over the erosion of multilateralism and the potential for increased global instability due to unilateral actions by the U.S. [1][3][4] Group 1: U.S. Actions and Global Governance - The U.S. has withdrawn from 66 international organizations, indicating a shift towards unilateralism and a challenge to the multilateral system centered around the United Nations [4] - The establishment of a "Peace Committee" by the U.S. to address global conflicts, with over 20 countries signing on, suggests an intention to create alternative frameworks that may undermine existing multilateral institutions [4] - The rhetoric from U.S. officials, including the dismissal of international law, reflects a dangerous precedent that could destabilize the current international order and threaten the sovereignty of nations [3] Group 2: The Importance of Multilateralism - Despite criticisms of the multilateral system, its dissolution would lead to greater chaos, as there would be no central authority to address global issues [5] - The challenges faced by the United Nations are often due to the obstruction by powerful nations rather than its inherent inefficacy, emphasizing the need to support and strengthen multilateral institutions [5] - A call for unity and cooperation among nations is essential to counteract hegemonic practices and uphold the principles of international law as outlined in the UN Charter [3][5]

Group 1 - The article highlights the backlash against Trump's unilateral foreign policy, particularly regarding the Greenland acquisition plan and proposed tariffs on French goods, which have led to a significant shift in European attitudes towards the U.S. [1][3] - European nations, including Denmark and the EU, have taken concrete actions in response to Trump's threats, such as increasing military presence in Greenland and initiating retaliatory measures against U.S. products worth €93 billion [1][3] - The article notes a strategic shift in Europe, moving from passive responses to active countermeasures, indicating a desire for greater autonomy in defense and foreign policy [3][5] Group 2 - The article discusses the growing rifts within NATO, as even traditional allies like the UK have begun to openly criticize Trump's actions, leading to a diplomatic trust crisis [5][10] - Canada and Mexico are also responding to U.S. policies with military preparations and public opposition, reflecting a broader regional discontent with Trump's approach [7][8] - The article emphasizes that Trump's foreign policy has not only failed to stabilize international relations but has also weakened the U.S.'s position as a global leader, with NATO's unity increasingly challenged [8][10] Group 3 - Domestically, Trump faces rising tensions, including conflicts with state governments and public protests, exacerbated by economic pressures from his high tariff policies [10][12] - The article points out a rare bipartisan consensus forming against Trump's policies, posing a significant threat to his political standing as midterm elections approach [12] - Trump's approval ratings have plummeted to 36%, indicating a disconnect between his administration's actions and the public's perception of economic conditions [12]

Group 1 - The United States announced a 10% tariff on goods imported from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the UK, the Netherlands, and Finland starting February 1, with a threat to increase it to 25% if an agreement on the "complete and thorough purchase of Greenland" is not reached by June 1 [1] - This action is characterized as an extreme manifestation of unilateralism and power politics, violating international law based on the principles of the United Nations Charter and undermining the current international order [1] - Greenland, as an autonomous territory of the Kingdom of Denmark, has clear legal and historical grounds for its sovereignty, and the U.S. perception of foreign territory as a commodity reflects a colonial mindset [1] Group 2 - European countries have united in condemnation of the U.S. tariff threats, with a joint statement from the eight affected nations expressing that such actions could lead to a dangerous cycle and damage transatlantic relations [2] - French President Macron and Swedish Prime Minister Kristersson have explicitly criticized the U.S. threats as unacceptable and tantamount to extortion, while the Netherlands labeled the behavior as improper [2] - The European Parliament has frozen the approval process of a previously agreed trade deal with the U.S., and several EU countries are considering imposing tariffs on U.S. goods worth €93 billion or restricting U.S. companies' access to the EU market as a countermeasure [2]