Many countries in the world today are reluctant to go to the "table" of the United States, is it their problem, or is there something wrong with the table itself?
The 60th Munich Security Conference concluded a few days ago, and the participants still have big differences on many issues, and the dawn of global security is hard. During this period, a "table battle" continued to attract the world's most attention.
On February 17, the second day of the meeting, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, German Foreign Minister Baerbock and Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar participated in a panel discussion at the Beyeriche Hotel, where they were held, to discuss the issue of a multipolar world. As the host, Baerbock began by answering the moderator's question on "Why Germany is open to multipolarity in today's world". In the current Western context, this question is not a compliment to Germany, but a question. The so-called logic behind the questioner's question is probably that in the international community, which is already in a state of no-nonsense, multipolarity may make some major powers less worried about external constraints and thus act on their own. Why, then, does Germany welcome multipolarity?
Baerbock's response to this acute question was that Germany hoped that while the world became multipolar, all countries would be "firm, respectful and self-reflective". In other words, multipolarity is not a problem, but the problem is that some countries are not ready to embrace a multipolar world and adjust their thinking and behavior. Among them, when talking about the so-called "firmness" in dealing with wrongdoing, the female foreign minister used a metaphor, suggesting that a multipolar world should be "everyone at the table discussing how to divide the pie on the table", and individual countries should not be allowed to "snatch it away".
Blinken at the MUAN. Source: GJ
However, Baerbock's "dining table" metaphor is like pressing a button, allowing the guests and the audience to revolve around the "table" for the rest of the day. After Baerbock, it was Blinken who answered the question. When asked about the relationship between China and the United States, Blinken first praised himself for the achievements of this year's first national investment and foreign alliances, and then emphasized that the "voluntary alliance and partnership system" is an important comparative advantage of the United States in international competition, acknowledging that even if the United States is as powerful as the United States, it is impossible to meet the challenges of the current era alone. Blinken then shifted gears and said, "In the international system, if you're not at the table, you're on the menu."
As soon as this remark came out, many analysts believed that Blinken's remarks once again showed the tough stance of the United States. And in context, Blinken's "table menu" theory also reflects the anxiety behind the United States. That is, if the United States refuses to participate in multilateral institutions, including the United Nations, and refuses to cooperate with its allies at the multilateral level, then the result will be that the United States will not be able to exert its influence at the multilateral level, and ultimately matters concerning American interests may be decided by other countries in the absence of the United States. The primary purpose of Blinken's metaphor is to "justify" Biden's foreign policy of attaching importance to finding partners and building alliances, refute the rising isolationism in the United States, and reassure European allies who are worried about the possibility of another regime change in Washington and a major change in foreign policy. Second, Blinken's remarks are also a knock on Baerbock, who has just defended multipolarity, implying that Germany or other countries that may become "allies" of the United States cannot "stand alone" in today's international system, and must choose sides, otherwise they will lose their influence on international affairs and their corresponding own interests.
The guests and the audience naturally understood the overtones of the "table menu" theory. Among them, it is Indian Foreign Minister S Jaishankar who is under the greatest pressure. Because of its refusal to completely side with the United States and Europe after the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis, and always maintaining its oil ties with Russia, India has been criticized by many explicit or implicit at this meeting. Therefore, when asked how India can find itself between the BRICS and the West, Jaishankar also borrowed the metaphor of the "dining table", saying that as long as he sits with others and discusses issues, he will add value to the "table" of the international community. Obviously, Jaishankar's remarks are criticizing the US and Europe's attempts to completely isolate Russia diplomatically after the crisis, and emphasizing that India's simultaneous development of relations with the US, Europe and Russia is in the interests of the international community.
Given the consistent diplomatic positions of Germany and India, it is not surprising that Baerbock and Jaishankar disagree with Blinken on the issue of multipolarity and "taking sides". Surprisingly, the most direct criticism of Blinken's "table menu" theory came from Ukrainian MP Oleksy Goncharenko. In the question session, he questioned quite sharply that Ukraine went to the "table" in Budapest and voluntarily gave up its nuclear **, but now it is still on the "menu", and the way out for Ukraine is **? Does the United States want Ukraine to join NATO, or does it prefer Ukraine to regain nuclear **?
Goncharenko's questioning reveals a more important question than not being on the "table": that is, can other countries really avoid the fate of being on the "menu" even if they are on the "table" that the United States expects? Many countries in the world today are reluctant to go to the "table" of the United States, is it their problem, or is there something wrong with the table itself? The "table" controversy at the MUAN meeting also shows that even among its allies, the unipolar world favored by the United States and the "either/or" are not popular.
To borrow Baerbock's words, the United States and the West as a whole need more reflection to truly accept and work with other countries to create a stable, orderly, inclusive and inclusive "dining table".
Produced by Deep Sea Studios.
Written by Xiao He (Deputy Director, Foreign Policy Research Office, Institute of World Economics and Politics, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences).
Edited by Abyssal Sea Starfish Deep Sea Salt.