印度-东盟自由贸易区的缘起、现状及影响

印度-东盟自由贸易区(IAFTA)2010年元旦如期实施,这既是印度-东盟关系史上的标志性事件,又是印度"东向"政策的阶段性成果.尽管当前印度很难从对东盟的货物贸易中获得明显经济利益,但长久来看,印度将有可能收获服务贸易利益与战略利益,它将成功地以IATFA为媒介,实现战略重心的亚洲回归.对此,中国既要有足够的自信又要保持适度的警惕.     

印度国旗与印度民族国家建构变迁

国家象征物的确定是民族国家建构的重要工作之一,而国家象征物的选择与改变则反映的是民族国家建构理念的变迁.印度国旗诞生于反对英国殖民统治斗争期间.1921年甘地主持设计国旗的核心理念是以印穆团结为中心的宗教和谐、教派团结.1931年国大党决议通过的印度国旗反映的是具有甘地色彩的世俗民族主义的民族国家建构理念.1947年印度国旗的形制正式确定,象征着尼赫鲁式国家的建立,其蕴含的民族国家建构理念经历了从甘地世俗民族主义到尼赫鲁世俗民族主义的转变.以国民志愿服务团为代表的印度教民族主义者在独立前就不赞同国大党设计的各版国旗,独立后很长一段时间也拒绝接受印度国旗.但20世纪80年代后,由于印度的政治生态发生变化,印度教民族主义者接受了印度国旗,并将国旗作为政治动员的重要工具.但印度教民族主义者通过出台2002年《印度国旗准则》对国旗的象征意义进行了再解释.印度国旗的形制虽然未发生变化,但其承载的象征意义发生了变化,标志着印度已由尼赫鲁式国家向印度特性国家的转型.从独立前到独立后,印度国旗的形制和象征意义处于不断流变的进程中,这种流变状态实际上反映了印度民族国家建构的变迁进程.印度国旗不断流变的关键动因则是以穆斯林为代表的宗教少数群体的宗教认同与民族国家认同之间的张力.     

印度与阿富汗关系中的中亚因素

中亚地区作为当前地缘政治博弈的中心之一,吸引了众多国家的目光,印度也不例外.其巨大的能源储备、战略性的地缘位置、有待开发的广阔商机都令印度在1998年后执行了明显倾向于积极的政策.尽管印度将中亚作为“扩展的邻国”,但印度和中亚并不直接接壤,于是,连接印度和中亚的阿富汗就成了印度“西北向”战略中的关键一环.美国发动阿富汗战争后,印度对阿富汗展现出积极姿态,不仅恢复了外交关系,而且还全面参与到阿富汗的重建工作中.随着美国撤出阿富汗的最后日期逐渐临近,阿富汗及中亚地区的前景也随之蒙上了一层阴影.确保阿富汗的稳定,反对恐怖主义、极端主义成为印度对阿富汗政策的优先战略目标.作为连接印度与中亚的通道,阿富汗的稳定与否直接关系到印度能否实现在中亚的战略利益.印度近年来在地区和全球的影响力逐步提升,希望能够在中亚地区的“新大博弈”中占有一席之地,以确保本国的国内安全、能源安全并拓展在本地区的经济合作空间.分析和理解哪些因素以及在何种程度上促使印度对作为连接印度和中亚的通道的阿富汗采取积极主动的政策,以及印度在中亚地区有哪些经济和地缘政治利益,是很重要的研究项目.     

印度的外交战略及其在大国关系中的博弈

本文从国际体系发生的结构性变化入手,分析了印度的地缘战略形势和印度在国际体系中所处的地位;阐述了印度的外交战略、外交理念上的"不结盟"与外交实践上的务实性和全方位性;并分析了印度在美、俄、中等大国中的关系以及印度的外交战略对中印关系的影响.     

印度"东向"政策的发展及意义

印度"东向"政策始于冷战结束国际体系经历重大震荡的时期,经过十数年的实施,随着印度力量的发展,已然进入"第二阶段",即在与东南亚恢复和建立合作的平台上,跳出严重限制印度战略选择的次大陆政治局限,向亚太地区扩散,从而使"东向"政策具有更明显的地缘政治与战略选择的导向."东向"政策泛义化与印度追求的全球大国目标密切相关.这对包括中国在内的亚太地区大国显然有着重要的政策意义.     

印度的“大国情结”与中国对印战略

"大国情结"不仅是印度外交战略的决定性因素之一,也对其安全观产生了重大影响。中国应充分重视印度"大国情结",积极主动地回应其对华友好面,淡化中印结构性矛盾,力图促成印度在中国崛起的进程中发挥积极作用,或至少避免成为阻碍。     

印度政局与外交态势

2004年大选后国大党上台是印度政局近年来最为重大的变化.大选结果深刻反映了处于改革和快速发展进程中的印度所面临的矛盾,也是对印度奉行的内外政策的一次重要检验.印度人民党的下台,虽然表明其奉行的某些政策缺乏民众基础,但并不意味着改革本身出了大问题,因此也不是一个时代的结束.国大党因以微弱多数胜出而不得不与众多党派联盟,则显示了本届政府内在的不稳定性和中间偏左的特点,这是观察其内外政策的一个重要切入点.     

印度"东进"的战略逻辑及其变迁

印度"东进"是一个战略系统,其要素由南亚地区战略、 从"向东看"到"向东行动"、"印太战略"等构成.南亚地区战略构成了印度"东进"的基础,从"向东看"到"向东行动"体现了印度在"东进"上的心态与行为变化,"印太战略"则更加明确了印度"东进"的战略形态与内容.印度"东进"的战略逻辑由一般性战略逻辑和特殊性战略逻辑构成,这两种逻辑的根本目的都是服务于印度成为世界大国的目标.在它们的共同推动下,印度"东进"的战略逻辑发生了显著变迁,呈现出从普遍排他性到特定排他性、从经济为主到安全建构、从非结盟到结盟行为体、从地区权力到全球权力等方面的变化.印度"东进"对中国的影响显而易见,其逻辑决定了中印关系的互信程度将长期保持很低,甚至是赤字的水平,在地缘政治安全方面也给中国造成一定的压力.     

冷战后印度与东盟关系:调整、发展与趋势

20世纪90年代,适应大国崛起战略的需要,印度的"东向政策"出台。印度的"东向政策"推动了冷战后印度与东盟关系的调整与发展。冷战后的印度与东盟关系的发展呈现"双轮驱动"的态势,一方面印度发展与东盟国家的双边关系,另一方面,依托东盟相关机制,印度发展同东盟的多边关系。未来10-15年,印度与东盟关系的发展将是经贸与安全"齐头并进"的趋势。     

印度的门罗主义评析

受到美国门罗主义的影响,独立后的印度将南亚次大陆和印度洋地区视为势力范围,排斥任何外来力量,以确立印度的主导地位。印度实施门罗主义具有一定优势,同时也面临一些挑战,其进攻性、排他性和独占性决定了印度与其他域外力量之间是此消彼长的"零和博弈"。     

“印太”视域下印日“特殊全球战略伙伴关系”:动力、影响及前景

近年来,随着美国"印太"战略的提出和印度洋战略地位的进一步凸显,印度洋—太平洋地区已经成为世界各大国战略竞争与博弈的重点区域。印度与日本作为影响印太秩序的两支重要力量,两国均提出了自己的"印太"战略构想,并不断加强在印太地区的战略互动。在"印太"地缘框架下,印日战略伙伴关系的内涵得到全面发展,已经升级为"特殊全球战略伙伴关系"。印日战略伙伴关系以共同的"民主价值观"为纽带,在政治、经贸、安全、军事等各领域的合作全面深化,并具有浓厚的制衡中国色彩。在当前国际政治、经济重心向印太地区转移的大背景下,印日战略伙伴关系的强化既是两国各自利益的需求使然,也是对印太地缘政治格局新变化的反应,必将对当前的印太地区秩序产生深远而复杂的影响。面对"印太时代"的到来,中国应与印日共同建立有关印太地区秩序的对话沟通机制,扩大中印日三国在印太地区基于共同利益的战略合作,推进印太命运共同体建设。在当前印太地缘政治兴起与日印战略伙伴关系不断升温的情势下,中国既要密切关注日印战略伙伴关系的发展态势,客观地看待印日在印太地区的战略互动给中国周边外交环境带来的各种风险和挑战。同时也要积极构建中国的"印太"战略,运筹好中日、中印双边关系,以便塑造有利于中国和平崛起的周边安全环境。     

试析新世纪越南与印度军事合作的举措和原因

越南与印度长期保持着友好关系,两国关系在2007年发展为战略伙伴关系后得到不断深化。而新世纪以来,两国出于各自战略利益以及遏制中国的考虑,在军事领域的合作呈现出了蓬勃发展的趋势,备受世人瞩目。     

中印构建命运共同体的内涵、困境与可能性

中国和印度同为发展中国家,近年来迅速崛起受到世界关注,但由于战略和认知差异、边界问题、巴基斯坦问题以及域外大国的干扰等因素的影响,两国关系不断下滑。印度借助自身实力的增长和美国"印太战略"实施,不断挑起与邻国的矛盾,特别是加大力度与中国竞争,与其他国家一起制衡中国。在此背景下,中印命运共同体建设将面临巨大的困境和挑战。同时,中印在命运共同体构建过程中也存在认知偏差和"单向构建"的问题。不解决这些问题,中印要构建命运共同体将十分困难。近期,边界问题仍然是双方误解和矛盾加深的"爆发点",也是中印命运共同体构建的难点,这使得中印的博弈还会继续。但由于中印合作对双方、地区乃至世界影响巨大,和平共处、共同发展符合双方的共同利益。从博弈论中的"懦夫博弈"和"重复博弈"视角来看,博弈的策略会影响彼此的行为和偏好,而目前双方有避免热战的共同点,也有加强非传统安全领域的合作空间,未来双方构建命运共同体仍然存在可能性。中印双方应把握机遇,相互调整行为与偏好,不断增加构建命运共同体的正能量,以促进互利共赢、共同发展。     

Strategic Reassessments: Aid and Bureaucracy in Australia-India Relations 1951–1970*

Australia-India relations during the Cold War years were tense. The dominant argument in the current literature that explains this tension is the Nehru-Menzies dissonance, which resulted in fundamentally opposite readings of the Cold War. However, the role of Australian aid to India has been understudied in the bilateral relations literature. India was the largest receiver of Australian aid between 1951–1969, but in 1969, there was a marked decrease in this aid as Indonesia replaced India as the main aid recipient. By drawing on archival material, this article suggests an additional explanation for the dramatic change to the Australia-India relationship. By examining the role of Australian ministers and senior bureaucrats, this paper argues that between 1951–1969, Australia’s aid to India was driven by its strategic interests in India. However, by 1966 Australia’s strategic interests in India became tenuous due to the souring of United States-India relations, primarily because of the stresses of the Vietnam War. Thus, a sizeable cut in Australian aid to India was made in 1969 and the subsequent decision to make Indonesia the foremost beneficiary of its aid was a result of strategic reassessments in Australian foreign policy, to adhere more closely to United States (US) interests in Asia.     

Multialignment and Indian Foreign Policy under Narendra Modi

This article examines India’s emerging approach to foreign policy: multialignment. It argues that since the mid-2000s India has developed multialignment as a means of achieving what it perceives as its core interests and ideals in international relations. Characterised by an emphasis on engagement in regional multilateral institutions, the use of strategic partnerships, and what is termed ‘normative hedging’, multialignment is being utilised to boost India’s economic development and national security, as well as to project influence and promote its values. The article traces the emergence of this strategy during the governments of Manmohan Singh and its implementation and extension by the new government of Narendra Modi. It analyses the key arguments that have been presented in its favour and the ways in which it was been put into practice. It concludes with a brief assessment of multialignment as a strategy, as well as the prospect that it will deliver the dividends expected by India’s foreign policy elite.     

The US-India Nuclear Pact: Policy,Process, and Great Power Politics

Abstract

This article examines the process through which India and the United States made their bilateral civilian nuclear energy cooperation pact a reality. Using the levels of analysis approach, this article examines the factors that were instrumental in shaping up the nuclear agreement as well as the negotiating process as it evolved in the United States and India with a special focus on how political leaderships in the two states managed domestic opposition to the pact. Subsequently, this article locates the US-India nuclear agreement in the context of the broader theoretical debate in international relations over the role of international institutions in global politics and argues that the successful conclusion of the agreement highlights the importance of strategic considerations in driving the nonproliferation priorities of great powers.     

“Rediscovery”, “Reinvigoration” and “Redefinition” in Perpetuity: Australian Engagement with India 1983–2011

For the past twenty‐five years Australia's bilateral relationship with India has been typified by an ongoing process of “rediscovery”, irrespective of whether Labor or Liberal administrations have steered foreign policy. This article explores the reasons why this might be the case by analysing Australia's foreign policy approaches to India spanning the period 1983 to 2011. It interrogates various Labor and Liberal strategies that have been mobilised to “reinvigorate” the relationship and searches for reasons why they have only been partially successful in strengthening Australia's rapport with India. The authors draw upon discussions with strategic affairs editors of India's major daily newspapers and current affairs journals to gain insights into Indian impressions of Australia from a political and foreign policy perspective.     

印度的港口导向型发展战略及其影响

《萨格尔马拉国家远景规划》于2015年5月25日被印度联合内阁批准通过,并于2016年4月在孟买首届"海事印度峰会上发布。这一规划是印度中长期发展战略,也是印度海运部的旗舰项目,其核心是"港口导向型发展"战略,主要确定了四大支柱,即港口现代化、港口互联互通、港口导向工业化、沿海社区发展。这一规划的实施对印度制造业的推进将是革命性的,将以最小的基础设施投资降低进出口和国内贸易的物流成本。规划的影响也将是深远的,通过优化货物运输来降低物流成本,提升原材料、技能、配套基础设施和现有产业集聚的竞争力,以吸引世界制造业向印度转移;要通过适当的政策和机构干预,支持和加强港口导向发展,为印度经济发展提供动力;促进港口主导的经济社会发展和对外合作,是该国印度洋战略的重要依托,会对印度洋战略形成有利支撑;印度的新海洋战略与其东向行动政策配合,还会大大拓展印—太战略空间,将加强印太合作、夯实印太战略。因此,我们应深入研究中印发展战略,在两国领导人引领下建立两国互信机制,对接印度港口导向型发展战略,与印度联手参与孟中印缅经济走廊地区的港口建设。加强国际地区问题协调、引领建立地区非传统安全合作机制,共同开发南亚、东南亚、中东、非洲国家第三方市场。     

The “Indo-Pacific”—New Regional Formulations and New Maritime Frameworks for US-India Strategic Convergence

This article argues three things. First, it argues that at the conceptual level there has been a strategic rediscovery of a maritime regional framework, the Indo-Pacific. Second, it argues that at the policy level there is a significant regional security convergence, a degree of strategic balancing, between India and the United States in this Indo-Pacific. Third, it argues that at the causal level there is a common maritime challenge from China faced by India in the Indian Ocean and by the United States in the Pacific Ocean, a common Indo-Pacific strategic challenge which is generating this significant US-India naval convergence. In order to deal with such matters, the article looks at the strategic discourse employed around the concept of the Indo-Pacific, and the related maritime assets deployed in the Indo-Pacific by the United States and India.     

The Puzzle of India’s Relations with “Central Eurasia”

ABSTRACT

India’s relations with Afghanistan and the post-Soviet countries of Central Asia have contributed to the growing interest in the country’s rise. By treating them together as “Central Eurasia,” the discourses of Indian foreign policy invoke a contiguous geopolitical locale bound to India by a shared past. Yet, despite the strategic articulation of a manifest Central Eurasian region, the article uncovers a puzzle of bifurcation in India’s foreign policy reflecting distinct operationalizations of India’s cultural capital in its relations with Afghanistan and the Central Asia republics. The comparative analysis indicates that prior historical experience becomes a compelling strategic context for the continuous framing and reframing of the country’s foreign policy space, which reveals India’s shifting perceptions of international order, self-identity, and global roles. India’s interactions in Central Eurasia offer a good illustration of the crossroads that New Delhi’s foreign policy is facing – either keep on proliferating discourses that spin yarns of the international influence of its historical capital or develop proactive diplomatic strategies that deliver the international status that India desires.