在山东大学举行的"9·11"事件后的国际格局研讨会综述

2001年12月2日,由山东大学欧洲研究中心主办的"9·11"事件后的国际格局研讨会在山东大学举行.来自中共中央对外联络部、中央编译局、山东大学、山东师范大学、江西师范大学等国内部分研究机构和高校的20余位专家学者分别从政治学、经济学、社会学等不同学科视角就"9·11"恐怖袭击事件(以下简称"9·11"事件)对当今国际政治格局的冲击和未来国际关系走向的影响等议题进行了广泛、深入的研讨.     

“9·11”事件15周年:对美国国家战略和全球政策的影响

正"9·11"事件发生后的15年来,美国的反恐效果与其他国家相比是显著的。而"9·11"事件引发的美国国家战略和全球政策的重大转折却仍然深刻影响着美国未来战略目标的确定。2016年美国总统选举中,"9·11"事件所引起的美国政策手段的剧烈变动仍然受到激烈的争论。"9·11"事件的余威犹在,美国虽然在霸权之路上摔了一跤,但它已经迅速回到大国竞争和维持霸权这条国际关系演进的主线上来。因此,"9·11"事件对美国国家战略和全球政策的负面影响不应被高估。     

"9·11"与当代资本主义

"9·11"是当代世界历史性的大事件.它将引发世界经济、政治、社会、文化诸层面的全方位变革,并将影响当代资本主义和21世纪社会主义的发展走势.选择以"9·11"为切入点,对当代资本主义的新变化进行研究,是一个极具挑战性的崭新课题.     

对"9·11"事件后大国关系、世界格局变化的几点看法

关于"9·11"事件及随后进行的反恐斗争和战争给美国全球战略、大国关系及世界格局带来何种影响问题,各国政治家、学者们众说纷纭,仁者见仁,智者见智.其中有一种具有代表性的观点认为,"9·11"事件及反恐斗争促使美国对全球战略做了重大调整,大国关系发生重大或根本性变化,"世界地缘政治格局正在改写","国际秩序出现重建征兆".笔者的看法与上述观点不尽相同.笔者认为,关于"9·11"事件和反恐斗争对当今国际关系产生何种影响问题,应从当前的现实出发,实事求是地进行具体分析,做出恰如其分的估计.     

美国中期选举后对外战略调整态势

在"9·11"事件之后,布什政府确立了以反恐为核心的美国对外战略.     

“9·11”后美国的反恐举措及对中国的启示

<正>2001年9月11日,美国发生了造成近三千人死亡的震惊世界的"9·11"恐怖袭击,随后,美国立刻开始采取了全面的、系统的、综合的、持续的反恐战略,实施各种切实的反恐措施,全力避免恐怖事件再次发生,维护美国的安全。13年来,美国的反恐战略取得了成就,作为一个相对开放、几乎人人持有枪支的大国,"9·11"以来的十几年,美国没有出现过一次造成超过十人死亡的重大恐怖事件,美国人民生命财产的安全得     

美国打击伊拉克存在制约因素

美国在遭到"9·11"恐怖袭击后不久,就将伊拉克列为反恐怖打击的目标之一.美在阿富汗战火尚未熄灭,即扬言下一打击目标是伊拉克.     

全球化时代的文明对话

1998年联合国大会通过了关于不同文明对话的决议,并将2001年确定为"联合国不同文明对话年",这一主张得到世界各国热爱和平的人们的广泛关注和支持.然而,就在开展对话活动之际,在美国发生了"9·11"恐怖暴力袭击事件,这使得"文明冲突论"沉渣泛起,一时间伊斯兰教徒成为恐怖分子的代名词.     

"9·11"梦魇仍困扰美国人

2001年9月11日发生在纽约世贸中心那惊心动魄的一幕,在时隔5年之后的今天仍然是美国人心头挥不去的梦魇.每年的9月,都是美国人痛定思痛之时.回望世贸大厦灰飞烟灭的惊悸会重回每个人的心头.细观美国各机构5年来的民意调查发现,"9·11"对美国人心态影响之深远,从未见丝毫减弱.     

美日同盟的发展轨迹

美日同盟关系经历了冷战时期同盟关系的确立、冷战后美日同盟的"漂流"及调整、"9·11"事件后美日同盟强化的阶段性演化过程.     

Centralization in the Marxist and in the Leninist tradition

The very different positions of Marxists and Leninists on the issue of centralization of political and economic institutions show that, though using the same terminology, they were committed to different ideologies. Leninists were modernizing revolutionaries in underdeveloped countries seeking their rapid industrialization. They relied on centralized revolutionary movements, which, in power, formed centralized bureaucracies that advanced industrialization through mass persuasion, regimentation and terror as well as central planning.Marxists, associated with multifarious labor movements in industrialized countries, hoped to advance and empower the working class. Marx and Engels were vague on the subject of centralization, but condemned bureaucracy and came to favor the decentralization identified with the Paris Commune. Karl Kautsky and Otto Bauer advocated the operation of industry by local governments, cooperatives and trade unions and only minimal state ownership and sharply attacked bureaucracy. Policies of centralization were appropriate to the character and goals of Leninist movements but inappropriate to those of Marxist ones.     

创新党的执政方式

一个政党采用哪种执政方式,归根结底取决于执政党所承担的职能及其所处的执政环境.中国加入WTO后,创新党的执政方式是党应对WTO挑战的关键一着.其最关键的两点是:正确处理党与公共权力机关的关系;正确处理党与民主党派及社会团体的关系,实现党对其他政治组织及社会组织的影响与控制.     

The changes in the migration patterns in the post-Soviet states: the first decade

Following a short-term burst of migration activity after the dissolution of the USSR, the current situation is marked by the unusually low population territorial mobility, defined by both the political and, increasingly, the socioeconomic factors. While this trend indicates some degree of minority accommodation, it also demonstrates the depth of economic crisis and increasing socioeconomic differentiation. Visible also is the disproportionate influence exercised by Russia on the formation of migration flows in the region. Remaining the major recipient of migrants, Russia increasingly plays a role of supplier of labor migrants to the West, and acts as a “bridge” for those attempting to reach Western Europe. Meanwhile, Russia still lacks an effective legislative base, institutional mechanisms, and political will for dealing with the new migration flows.     

Staying the course in Mexico: the role of the US in the drug war, 2006–present

With drug-related violence reaching record levels in Mexico, there has been growing debate over its causes. US and Mexican officials blame many factors, including problems with their strategy in the drug war, fighting among cartels, corruption in police forces, an ineffective legal justice system and US drug demand. In this paper, I argue that the Mérida Initiative, a multi-billion dollar programme of US assistance, is an important additional factor. Drug-related violence increased in the years after the implementation of the Mérida Initiative, declined when Mexican officials paused new programmes in 2012 and increased again as US and Mexican officials implemented new Mérida programmes in the following years. Over the same time period, drug-related homicides and complementary counternarcotics assistance from the US Department of Defense are positively correlated. Using US records, I show that US officials have been willing to overlook the growing violence because they have been more focused on achieving their economic and strategic objectives. I conclude that their actions have played a significant role in increasing drug-related violence while starting an ominous new phase of US imperialism in Mexico.