古杰拉尔主义及其对印度外交的影响

1996年6月至1998年大选,是印度联合阵线政府执政时期。联合阵线政府执政时期不长,在国内发展方面建树不大,但在外交政策方面却提出了具有深远影响的主张,被称为“古杰拉尔主义”,这标志着印度外交思想和外交政策从此进入了一个新的时期。本文拟就“古杰拉尔主义”这一印度的外交政策和思想及其印度外交的影响作些探讨。     

民主模式转型与印度外交政策趋向

随着新经济改革的实施,在诸多因素的影响下,印度民主政治模式也在发生潜移默化的变化。随着印度教民族主义政党的崛起、地方权势不断壮大、中央权势不断萎缩,印度"去中央化"政治格局明显;为支撑经济发展,政府颁布实施了宽松的政策,促进了私营经济的迅速发展,从而为商业利益集团的壮大创造了条件;为捍卫自身的权益,低种姓势力不断扩大在印度民主政治中的影响。在此情形下,由"国家主义"向"多元主义"转变的印度民主模式在其外交政策的制定中扮演重要角色。本文从民主模式转型视角探究印度外交政策的趋向,既能增进对印度政治制度的理解,也能为人们从学理上探究一国国内政治与外交政策的关系提供可鉴分析范式。     

中国-印度-尼泊尔三边主义超越地缘政治的倡议

中印关系被广泛认作是一种地缘政治上的力量均势关系或是亚洲两个正在崛起的大国之间的对抗关系。在这一背景下,作者从尼泊尔的角度阐述中国、印度和尼泊尔之间的三边合作设想,探讨中印之间竞争与合作的主要变化趋势,认为这些变化趋势在某些领域可能会向它们的邻居尼泊尔提供持续获益的机会。当代尼泊尔外交政策思路中最有趣的一点就是尼泊尔努力在三边框架范围内扮演促成中印协作关系的催化剂角色,从而使尼泊尔自身的地理位置成为一种优势,并使尼泊尔自身获得体面的中等区域国家的地位。从理论上讲,这一想法可以使尼泊尔从冲突一线的前哨转变为国际枢纽的角色。     

伊朗莱希政府的保守性务实主义外交

伊朗莱希政府上台后不断调整外交政策,其取向日益明显,主要表现在深化周边缓和外交、坚定“向东看”、加强与全球反美国家的关系,以及疏远与西方国家的关系。美国特朗普政府的“极限施压”和拜登政府的打压政策加速了伊朗国内政治的保守化,并与莱希本人的保守政治倾向结合在一起,是伊朗外交政策保守化的直接原因。同时,伊朗伊斯兰政权力图通过经济增长增强政治合法性,但美国制裁和新冠疫情使伊朗在民生方面面临很大困难。伊朗政治、经济发展中的难题是莱希政府推行务实外交的重大压力。莱希政府的外交政策在保守性的大框架中强调务实主义,以求解决紧迫的民生问题。这种保守性务实主义外交政策在很大程度上维护了伊朗的国内稳定,推进了伊朗与阿拉伯国家的和解,并加速了中东地区国际格局的演进。     

印度“东向政策”的目标及其进展

20世纪 90年代初 ,印度对外交政策进行了较大调整 ,确立了以东盟国家为目标的“东向政策” ,和以西亚、中亚及海湾国家为目标的“西进路线”。近年来 ,“西进路线”的推行障碍重重 ,而“东向政策”却成效显著。进入新世纪以后 ,印度加快了“东向”步伐 ,与东盟各国的关系得到迅速发展 ,印度与东南亚各国在各个领域的合作取得了明显的进步。国内学术界对印度的“东向政策”已有一些研究 ,本文将继续探讨这个问题。一、近年来印度东向政策所取得的进展印度推行东向政策 ,最初是出于政治和经济利益考虑 ,希望加强与东盟国家的联系 ,吸引投资 ,…     

21世纪印度对非能源外交

印度与非洲隔海相望,历史联系紧密,早在殖民时期就建立了友好关系。冷战结束后,印度外交政策重心转向欧美,逐渐淡化了与非洲关系。然而,印度在联合国“人常”的失败,刺激了其加强与非洲的关系,以获取政治利益。与此同时,印度国内严峻的能源短缺制约了其经济发展。因此,新世纪以来,印度以能源为突破口,开展了一系列对非外交活动,以实现其能源进口多元化战略和大国梦。     

近年来印度对外关系的发展及其对中印关系的影响

在将南亚邻国作为外交政策首要的情况下,印度继续深化“东向”政策,重点发展与区域外大国关系,同时提出“连接中亚”的新外交理念,不断发展与中欧和非洲国家的关系.印度对外关系呈现全方位、多层次、有重点的发展趋势,其既可能对中印关系带来合作的机遇,也可能使中印关系蒙上阴影,但合作的潜力远大于冲突,实现双赢的可能性更大.     

印度重视发展与东方国家的经济合作

近年,印度政府大力推行经济改革,将过度控制的半封闭式的经济逐渐转变为开放的市场经济,为印度经济的快速发展创造条件。 目前,对外经济开放已成为印度外交政策的中心。经济外交占有重要地位。印度政府领导人近年在各种场合强调要重视经济外交。拉奥总理1992年元旦在国会作的外交报告中,把对外经济合作列为外交政策重点之一。他提出要促进健康的外部经济环境,恢复（经济）发展在世界政治和经济政策演变中的中心和要害地位。拉奥总理1992年6月30日在一次记者招待会上说:“在国外增进印度的经济和商业利益,已成为印度外交的主要关注之点”。     

印度外交政策的历史转换析论

成为“有声有色”的世界政治大国,是印度自独立起就确立的国家战略目标。为实现该战略目标,不同的时代,印度采用不同的外交政策,也取得了不同的政治实效。尼赫鲁时期的外交战略是借助独立于美苏阵营的不结盟外交寻求政治大国地位,但自身国力的贫弱为印度的大国目标蒙上了浓重的理想主义色彩。后尼赫鲁时期的外交战略抛弃了不切实际的不结盟外交,转而依靠军事实力以谋取地区强国地位。然而,这一战略导致地区局势紧张,制约了印度走向世界政治大国的进程。2l世纪以来,印度实现了对非洲外交政策的战略性转换,即从重视硬实力的传统外交政策转向软实力外交。印度从不结盟到软实力外交的历史转换,凸显出以国家利益最大化为中心、以国际环境变换为外在变量、以中国为参照和竞争对象、注重发挥“软硬”合力的特征。     

2004年的南亚形势

2004年的南亚,政治、经济出现少有的好景象:政权过渡平稳;经济快速增长;区域合作加强;恐怖活动减弱。但这种安定繁荣的基础又还不稳固:尼泊尔内战硝烟又起;斯里兰卡和平进程持续僵局;地区的贫困和印巴脆弱的和平进程使区域合作处于较低水平和不稳定状态。一、江山多有易主,政权过渡平稳2004年是南亚的“大选年”。印度、斯里兰卡和阿富汗举行了大选,巴基斯坦和尼泊尔更换了总理。无论是民选还是替换,各国政权过渡都比较平稳,政局没有出现大的动荡。(一)印度辛格政府走出“短命”厄运。5月的印度大选有两个出人意料:一是选前被普遍看好的印度…     

巴特拉伊内阁对发展新时期中尼关系的影响

随着尼联共（毛）副主席巴特拉伊当选为尼泊尔共和国第四任总理,尼内政外交方针都将经历相应的调整。新成立的巴特拉伊内阁对内面临着破碎的政治板块和僵持的和平进程,对外面临着平衡印度制约性影响的外交调整。本文将以尼泊尔国内政治格局和中美印三国为主角的地缘政治博弈为背景,就巴特拉伊新内阁对发展新时期中尼关系的影响予以论述。     

尼泊尔新政府的政策走向及面临的挑战

随着2009年5月25日尼共（联合马列）高级领导人内帕尔宣誓就任尼泊尔联邦民主共和国第二任政府总理，尼泊尔政治危机暂告结束。内帕尔就职已有近3个月，其内外政策初见雏形。本文就内帕尔政府产生的背景、内外政策及面临的哪些挑战进行初步剖析。     

Shielding the Republic: Barack Obama and the Jeffersonian Tradition of American Foreign Policy

President Barack Obama’s foreign policy has confounded critics from both the left and right in American politics. This analysis argues that this is because Obama’s foreign policy exhibits affinities with the least prominent of the four traditions of American foreign policy identified by Walter Russell Mead: the Jeffersonian tradition. In contrast to the more prominent Wilsonian and Hamiltonian traditions, the Jeffersonian tradition exhibits more introverted tendencies that seek to perfect and protect rather than export the virtues of the Republic. The Jeffersonian understanding of foreign policy is, in Walter Lippman’s phrase, primarily the “shield of the republic.” This analysis tracks the influence and implications of this perspective through examination of the Obama Administration’s approach to two prominent foreign policy challenges after 2008: intervention in Libya and the ongoing Syrian crisis.     

Think Tank Involvement in Foreign Policymaking in the Czech Republic and Poland

Studies on foreign policy think tanks have too often remained disconnected from the analysis of foreign policy outcomes. Yet, investigating the development, functions and influence of think tanks can provide valuable insights into the context in which foreign policy is formulated. The Czech Republic and Poland represent interesting comparative cases in this regard: while Polish think tanks are more numerous and tend to be better placed in international rankings, they are less involved in the policymaking process than their Czech counterparts. This contrast has mainly to do with the sociology of foreign policy elites and the role of political parties in both countries.     

Ethnicity,political survival,and the exchange of nationalist foreign policy

How does leadership’s desire for political survival in ethnically heterogeneous democracies affect the probability of states exchanging nationalist foreign policy? I define nationalist foreign policy as foreign policy that aims to fulfill national self-governance using a civic or ethnic frame. I argue that civic-nationalist policy disputing the territoriality of one’s own state is more likely, while ethno-nationalist policy favoring the leadership’s foreign co-ethnics is less likely, when the size of the leadership’s ethnic group is small and the level of democracy is relatively high. This is because the leadership, under such domestic conditions, has to mobilize support from other ethnic groups in order to stay in power. Civic-nationalist policy allows the leadership to increase domestic solidarity across ethnic lines and mobilize support from other ethnic groups, whereas ethno-nationalist policy would risk other ethnic groups criticizing the leadership of being ethno-centrist. These hypotheses are supported by quantitative analysis using an original dataset.     

Power, Morality, and Foreign Policy

Despite the vast amounts of rhetoric one hears in the United States on the role of morality in international politics, the nation lacks a coherent position on the appropriate application of morality to foreign policy. History reflects two prominent and contrasting views on the subject. The first is that morality is irrelevant to national foreign policy; the second applies common principles of individual morality—compassion, generosity, forgiveness, benevolence, and tolerance—to interactions between states. Though elements of each are evident in the Bush administration's foreign policy, the limits on them restrict the efficacy of either. As the application of morality to foreign policy becomes both more necessary and more difficult, prudence and decency—more than self-righteousness or power—should provide the primary inspiration for American foreign policy.     

India as a democracy promoter? New Delhi's involvement in Nepal's return to democracy

According to the theory of ‘democratic peace’, India, as the largest democracy in the world and as South Asia's predominant regional power, should be expected to promote democracy in neighbouring countries. However, New Delhi lacks any kind of official democracy-promotion policy, and its past record on democracy promotion efforts in the region is mixed at best. Against this background, the article analyses the substantial role India has come to play in the peace and democratization process in Nepal in the years 2005–2008, asking whether this constitutes a departure from New Delhi's traditional policy of non-interference in its neighbours' internal affairs and a move towards a more assertive approach to democracy promotion. However, the analysis shows that India's involvement in Nepal was the product of short-term stability concerns rather than being an indicator of a long-term change in strategy with the intention of becoming an active player in international democracy promotion.     

Political competition and foreign policy power sharing

In this essay I examine the intersection of domestic and international politics in the formation and conduct of foreign policy. 1 develop a three‐actor model that allows us to specify the incentives for power sharing under different assumptions about the distribution of preferences and capabilities between a government, a domestic opposition, and a foreign state. The model generates several interesting hypotheses about the interaction of policy goals and the willingness of actors to share power. In particular, I show that under certain conditions there are important asymmetries whereby doves may be more willing to share power than hawks. Importantly, this willingness is endogenous to the model and comes from the alignment of preferences in the policy space, rather than from an a priori value for the democratization of foreign policy making. The model also suggests several hypotheses about the circumstances under which states have incentives to meddle in the foreign policy processes of other states.     

Foreign Policy Analysis and the study of Indian foreign policy: a pathway for theoretical innovation?

ABSTRACT

This article proposes that the study of Indian foreign policy and Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) offers a “win-win situation” for scholarship. On the one hand, this bridge-building exercise leads to a better understanding of the making and substance of Indian foreign policy. On the other hand, it advances FPA in both theoretical and empirical terms, thus contributing to overcoming FPA’s US/Western bias and to decentering the field more generally. Framing the argument in terms of levels of analysis, we offer specific contributions to the understanding of foreign policy in areas such as leadership traits, poliheuristic theory, coalition politics, and state-society influences. Moreover, this line of research suggests the contours of a new comparative foreign policy agenda which could emerge from this examination of Indian foreign policy.