作者：周敏
在中共政治话语体系中，“境外敌对势力”或“西方敌对势力”是一个具有特定历史渊源和政治功能的叙事标签。长期以来，这一概念被频频用于解释各种复杂的政治、经济与社会现象。然而，从现代文明秩序与国际规则的角度审视，这种“敌对”的归因逻辑本身，揭示了特定意识形态与人类社会公认的正常秩序之间的深层矛盾。随着人类社会的发展和中共抱残守缺、日薄西山，越来越孤立于国际社会，中共将自己的失败治理归咎为“境外势力”会越演越烈。
一、 话语建构：外化矛盾与维系合法性
中共将社会矛盾与治理危机归咎于外部威胁，是一种典型的内部政治动员与心理建构机制。当中国社会面临经济转型倒退、制度性失衡或公众舆论质疑时，“敌对势力”叙事能够迅速提供一种简化的解释模型：
（一）转移责任焦点： 将结构性矛盾归结为外部势力的渗透与操纵，从而免除对自身决策失误或体制弊端的反思。
（二）塑造外部威胁： 借由“受害者形态”与“危急存亡”的叙事，激发起民族主义情绪，以此强化社会内部的向心力。
（三）打压异见空间： 将合法的社会诉求、公民表达或专业批评直接与“外部勾结”挂钩，降低对异见言论进行压制时的政治与道义成本。
这种叙事逻辑的本质，是将制度本应自我修正的内部缺陷，异化为外部存亡竞争的零和博弈。这符合中共专制主义的一贯叙事方式，也是它们许多年来“阶级斗争，一抓就灵”的镇压模式。
二、 价值张力：权威主义与普遍价值的冲突
人类社会在经历两次世界大战及冷战后，逐步确立了以《联合国宪章》和《世界人权宣言》为基石的现代国际秩序。这一秩序的核心价值包含：权力制衡、法治原则、人权保障以及信息的自由流通。
当一种政治体制将这些普适性的文明成果斥为“西方意识形态侵蚀”时，实际上是在将其自身置于普遍规则的对立面：
法治与人权的对立： 现代秩序主张权力应受法律约束，公民基本权利不可剥夺；而绝对权力的集中则往往将法律视为统治工具，将个人权利让位于政权安全。
信息开放与封锁的对立： 自由秩序依赖于信息的公开透明与思想的自由市场；而过度依赖“敌对势力”叙事的体制，往往伴随着严格的舆论管控与防火墙建构。
多边合作与阵营对抗的对立： 现代国际秩序强调公约与透明规则下的合作；而以“敌对”为底色的外交哲学，更容易导致国际关系的阵营化与零和对抗。
三、 谁是真正的“敌对势力”？
判断一种政治力量或治理模式是否促进人类福祉，关键在于其对文明秩序与人类共同利益的贡献。从长远视角看，阻碍人类正常秩序发展的力量，往往具有以下特征：
其一，对普遍价值的否认：将人类共同探索出的民主、人权与法治经验斥为“异端”，拒绝接受国际社会公认的监督标准。
其二，对全球规则的工具化：采取“选择性遵守”策略，在经济多边化中获益，同时拒绝履行在人权、政治透明度及国际义务方面的承诺。
其三，对社会自组织能力的摧毁：将公民社会的健康发育视作潜在威胁，削弱社会自我修复与长远发展的根基。
因此，如果一种治理体制将保障公民自由、维护法律尊严、促进思想开放等普遍诉求视为“敌对”，那么真正与现代文明秩序产生隔阂的，恰恰是这种拒绝改变与自我封闭的体制本身。
中共政权将“敌对势力”这一概念频繁使用，不仅反映了它们制度自信的缺失，也构成了对现代国际文明秩序的挑战。人类社会的正常秩序，应当建立在理性对话、规则共识以及对基本人权的尊重之上。唯有超越零和对抗的政治语言，回归以人为本的治理本质，才能真正融入并推动人类文明的发展进程。而中共政权的倒行逆施不可能长久对抗历史的发展，所有不可一世的统治者都注定成为后人的笑谈。
编辑：李晶 校对：熊辩 翻译：戈冰
On “Hostile Forces”
Author: Zhou Min
In the political discourse system of the Chinese Communist Party, “hostile foreign forces” or “hostile Western forces” is a narrative label with a specific historical origin and political function. For a long time, this concept has been frequently used to explain various complex political, economic, and social phenomena. However, examined from the perspective of modern civilized order and international rules, this attribution logic of “hostility” itself reveals a deep-seated contradiction between a specific ideology and the universally recognized normal order of human society. As human society develops and the CCP stubbornly clings to the old ways while sinking like the setting sun, becoming increasingly isolated from the international community, the CCP’s attribution of its failed governance to “foreign forces” will only grow more intense.
I. Discourse Construction: Externalizing Contradictions and Maintaining Legitimacy
The CCP’s attribution of social contradictions and governance crises to external threats is a typical mechanism of internal political mobilization and psychological construction. When Chinese society faces economic transitional retrogression, institutional imbalances, or public opinion questioning, the narrative of “hostile forces” can swiftly provide a simplified explanatory model:
(1) Diverting the Focus of Responsibility: Attributing structural contradictions to the infiltration and manipulation of external forces, thereby exempting itself from reflection on its own policy errors or institutional flaws.
(2) Shaping External Threats: Triggering nationalist sentiments by means of narratives of a “victim mindset” and “life-or-death crisis,” thereby strengthening centripetal force within society.
(3) Suppressing Space for Dissent: Directly linking legitimate social demands, civic expressions, or professional criticisms to “external collusion,” thereby lowering the political and moral costs of suppressing dissenting speech.
The essence of this narrative logic is to alienate the internal defects that the system ought to self-correct into a zero-sum game of external existential competition. This conforms to the consistent narrative style of CCP absolutism and is also their suppression model of “class struggle works wonders once grasped” used for many years.
II. Value Tensions: The Conflict Between Authoritarianism and Universal Values
Having experienced two World Wars and the Cold War, human society gradually established a modern international order with the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as its cornerstones. The core values of this order include: checks and balances on power, principles of the rule of law, guarantees of human rights, and the free flow of information.
When a political system dismisses these universal achievements of civilization as “Western ideological erosion,” it is actually placing itself in opposition to universal rules:
The Confrontation Between Rule of Law and Human Rights vs. Absolute Power: The modern order advocates that power should be bound by law and that fundamental rights of citizens are inalienable; whereas the concentration of absolute power often views the law as a tool of governance and subordinates individual rights to regime security.
The Confrontation Between Information Openness and Blockade: The free order relies on openness and transparency of information as well as a free market of ideas; whereas a system overly reliant on the narrative of “hostile forces” is often accompanied by strict public opinion control and the construction of firewalls.
The Confrontation Between Multilateral Cooperation and Camp Confrontation: The modern international order emphasizes cooperation under conventions and transparent rules; whereas a diplomatic philosophy with “hostility” as its underlying tone is more likely to lead to the factionalization and zero-sum confrontation of international relations.
III. Who Are the Real “Hostile Forces”?
The key to judging whether a political force or governance model promotes human well-being lies in its contribution to the civilized order and the common interests of humanity. From a long-term perspective, forces that impede the normal development of human order often exhibit the following characteristics:
First, denial of universal values: dismissing the experiences of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law jointly explored by humanity as “heresy,” and refusing to accept supervision standards universally recognized by the international community.
Second, instrumentalization of global rules: adopting a strategy of “selective compliance,” benefiting from economic multilateralism while simultaneously refusing to fulfill commitments regarding human rights, political transparency, and international obligations.
Third, destruction of society’s capacity for self-organization: viewing the healthy development of civil society as a potential threat, thereby undermining the foundations of societal self-repair and long-term development.
Therefore, if a governance system views universal demands such as guaranteeing civic freedom, upholding the dignity of law, and promoting open-mindedness as “hostile,” then that which truly creates a rift with the modern order of civilization is precisely this very system that rejects change and embraces self-isolation.
The CCP regime’s frequent use of the concept of “hostile forces” not only reflects its lack of institutional confidence, but also constitutes a challenge to the modern international order of civilization. The normal order of human society ought to be built upon rational dialogue, consensus on rules, and respect for fundamental human rights. Only by transcending the political language of zero-sum confrontation and returning to the human-centric essence of governance can one truly integrate into and advance the progression of human civilization. The CCP regime’s perverse actions cannot endlessly resist the development of history, and all overbearing rulers are destined to become laughingstocks for future generations.
Editor: Li Jing Proofreader: Xiong Bian Translator: Ge Bing
