冷戰(zhàn)后周邊大國的對朝政策比較研究
發(fā)布時間：2019-03-02 12:09
【摘要】：冷戰(zhàn)結(jié)束后,國際格局呈“一超多強(qiáng)”的發(fā)展趨勢。在此背景下,朝鮮半島作為冷戰(zhàn)遺產(chǎn),危機(jī)不斷。相比較半島南部的韓國,朝鮮由于外部封鎖和自身體制的原因,遲遲不能融入國際社會,成為“苦難行軍”的特殊國家。中國、美國、俄羅斯、日本作為能夠影響國際格局的四大力量,都被深刻卷入朝鮮半島事務(wù)當(dāng)中,它們的對朝政策也深刻影響著東北亞的地區(qū)局勢。四大國對朝政策目標(biāo)在政治、經(jīng)濟(jì)、安全三大領(lǐng)域各不相同,在政策資源的擁有上存在著顯著差異,在政策手段偏好上也相差甚遠(yuǎn)。中國側(cè)重于實(shí)現(xiàn)睦鄰友好的政治目標(biāo),在手段上傾向于政治手段;美國更關(guān)注于雙重規(guī)制的政治目標(biāo)和無核化的安全目標(biāo),在手段上則更偏好于使用軍事手段和經(jīng)濟(jì)制裁;俄羅斯的首要政策目標(biāo)在于實(shí)現(xiàn)俄朝傳統(tǒng)友好關(guān)系,借機(jī)恢復(fù)其在遠(yuǎn)東地區(qū)的影響力,操作上也以政治手段為主;日本總體上優(yōu)先考慮安全目標(biāo)的實(shí)現(xiàn),在操作上則以經(jīng)濟(jì)制裁和武力恫嚇為主,政治對話為輔。這種政策目標(biāo)與政策手段的迥異,使得四大國對朝政策難以協(xié)調(diào)。即便是在四大國共同考慮的安全目標(biāo)——朝鮮核問題上,各國的優(yōu)先事項、手段方式也存在著較大差異,導(dǎo)致了四大國對朝政策只能圍繞著有限目標(biāo)展開有限合作。在以朝核問題為代表的半島事務(wù)上,由于四國政策目標(biāo)與朝鮮自身關(guān)切的嚴(yán)重脫節(jié),美國與朝鮮又堅守權(quán)力政治難以自拔,四大國之間缺乏戰(zhàn)略信任又加劇了有限合作的脆弱性。從而導(dǎo)致四大國在對朝政策上往往陷入獵鹿博弈的困境,甚至出現(xiàn)朝鮮政策走向調(diào)動四大國的政策變化的局面。中國作為朝鮮半島事務(wù)的利益攸關(guān)方,應(yīng)當(dāng)致力于維護(hù)傳統(tǒng)權(quán)益、規(guī)避潛在風(fēng)險,對朝政策也應(yīng)適時調(diào)整,增強(qiáng)外交的效力和信度,并通過預(yù)防外交促進(jìn)中朝關(guān)系向正常國家間關(guān)系轉(zhuǎn)型,實(shí)現(xiàn)國家利益的優(yōu)化與拓展。
[Abstract]:After the end of the Cold War, the international pattern shows the development trend of "more than one super strong." In this context, the Korean Peninsula as a cold war legacy, the crisis continues. Compared with South Korea in the southern part of the peninsula, North Korea, because of its external blockade and its own system, has been unable to integrate into the international community and become a special country in the "march of suffering". China, the United States, Russia and Japan, as the four major forces that can influence the international situation, have been deeply involved in the Korean Peninsula affairs, and their policies towards the DPRK have also profoundly influenced the regional situation in Northeast Asia. The policy objectives of the four major countries are different from each other in politics, economy and security. There are significant differences in the ownership of policy resources and the preference of policy means. China focuses on the realization of good-neighborly and friendly political goals, and favors political means by means, while the United States pays more attention to the political objectives of dual regulation and denuclearized security objectives, and favors the use of military means and economic sanctions in terms of means. The primary policy goal of Russia is to realize the traditional friendly relations between Russia and North Korea, to take the opportunity to restore its influence in the far East, and to operate mainly by political means. Overall, Japan prioritizes the achievement of security objectives, operating mainly by economic sanctions and force intimidation, supplemented by political dialogue. This policy goal and policy means are very different, making it difficult for the four big countries to coordinate their policies towards the DPRK. Even on the North Korean nuclear issue, a security goal considered jointly by the four powers, there are great differences in their priorities and ways of means, leading to limited cooperation between the four countries in their policy towards the DPRK around limited objectives. On Peninsula affairs represented by the North Korean nuclear issue, because of the serious disconnect between the objectives of the four-state policy and the concerns of the DPRK itself, the United States and North Korea have yet to cling to power politics and cannot extricate themselves from it. The lack of strategic trust among the four powers exacerbates the fragility of limited cooperation. As a result, the four major countries often fall into the dilemma of deer hunting game on their policies towards the DPRK, and even appear the situation that the North Korean policy tends to mobilize the policy changes of the four major countries. As a stakeholder in Korean Peninsula affairs, China should strive to safeguard its traditional rights and interests, avoid potential risks, adjust its policy towards the DPRK in due course, and enhance the effectiveness and reliability of its diplomacy. And through preventive diplomacy to promote the transformation of Sino-Korean relations to normal inter-state relations, to achieve the optimization and expansion of national interests.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D815;D831.2
本文編號：2433039
[Abstract]:After the end of the Cold War, the international pattern shows the development trend of "more than one super strong." In this context, the Korean Peninsula as a cold war legacy, the crisis continues. Compared with South Korea in the southern part of the peninsula, North Korea, because of its external blockade and its own system, has been unable to integrate into the international community and become a special country in the "march of suffering". China, the United States, Russia and Japan, as the four major forces that can influence the international situation, have been deeply involved in the Korean Peninsula affairs, and their policies towards the DPRK have also profoundly influenced the regional situation in Northeast Asia. The policy objectives of the four major countries are different from each other in politics, economy and security. There are significant differences in the ownership of policy resources and the preference of policy means. China focuses on the realization of good-neighborly and friendly political goals, and favors political means by means, while the United States pays more attention to the political objectives of dual regulation and denuclearized security objectives, and favors the use of military means and economic sanctions in terms of means. The primary policy goal of Russia is to realize the traditional friendly relations between Russia and North Korea, to take the opportunity to restore its influence in the far East, and to operate mainly by political means. Overall, Japan prioritizes the achievement of security objectives, operating mainly by economic sanctions and force intimidation, supplemented by political dialogue. This policy goal and policy means are very different, making it difficult for the four big countries to coordinate their policies towards the DPRK. Even on the North Korean nuclear issue, a security goal considered jointly by the four powers, there are great differences in their priorities and ways of means, leading to limited cooperation between the four countries in their policy towards the DPRK around limited objectives. On Peninsula affairs represented by the North Korean nuclear issue, because of the serious disconnect between the objectives of the four-state policy and the concerns of the DPRK itself, the United States and North Korea have yet to cling to power politics and cannot extricate themselves from it. The lack of strategic trust among the four powers exacerbates the fragility of limited cooperation. As a result, the four major countries often fall into the dilemma of deer hunting game on their policies towards the DPRK, and even appear the situation that the North Korean policy tends to mobilize the policy changes of the four major countries. As a stakeholder in Korean Peninsula affairs, China should strive to safeguard its traditional rights and interests, avoid potential risks, adjust its policy towards the DPRK in due course, and enhance the effectiveness and reliability of its diplomacy. And through preventive diplomacy to promote the transformation of Sino-Korean relations to normal inter-state relations, to achieve the optimization and expansion of national interests.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D815;D831.2
【引證文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 袁學(xué)哲;21世紀(jì)初中國朝鮮半島政策研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2013年
，本文編號：2433039
本文鏈接：http://www.sikaile.net/shekelunwen/waijiao/2433039.html
最近更新
教材專著
