中国的崛起与韩国的东北亚战略选择

中国的崛起逐渐成为一个越来越清晰的事实，以至于韩国在制定外交政策时不免要增加对中国因素的考虑。在朝鲜半岛问题上，中国尽量寻求与美国的共同利益，推动半岛的无核化进程，但同时又保障朝鲜半岛政局稳定，维持东北亚地区的和平与稳定。在这一点上，韩国与中国较之与美国拥有更多的共同利益。同时，中国经济的高速增长为韩国经济发展提供了机遇。中国实力不断增强，并与美国在东北亚地区的影响力相互牵制，也为韩国的外交提供了更为广阔的舞台。因此，如果不考虑国内因素的话，淡化美韩同盟、在中美之间采取更加平衡的姿态应是韩国符合逻辑的战略选择。     

中美国际地位变化与韩国的机遇、挑战和战略选择

以经济、军事实力、对主要国际制度的参与和国际影响力为指标,可窥见中美国际地位变化的趋势。作为美国的盟友和中国的战略合作伙伴,韩国在中美国际地位变化中既面临机遇又面临挑战。机遇体现为中国经济的高速发展可带动韩国经济发展;中韩关系改善利于谈判解决朝核问题;韩国可为中美牵线搭桥并借此提升国际地位。挑战包括朝鲜半岛的权力与威胁失衡导致朝核与导弹危机升级,对韩国威胁加剧;中韩伙伴关系和美韩同盟使韩国陷入两难境地;中国实力上升使韩国担忧来自中国的经济与地缘政治威胁。韩国的战略选择基于其面临的机遇和挑战,从在中美之间奉行平衡战略到通过部署萨德和签订韩日《军事情报保护协定》重新加强美韩同盟。     

中韩关系发展的走向、难点与经验

<正>文在寅总统上台伊始,针对韩国外交深处窘境的现实状况进行了一系列的政策调整和外交公关活动,但其外交思路仍以对美外交和美韩同盟为基轴,致力于修复中韩伙伴关系,改善朝鲜半岛南北关系,重构"周边四强合作外交"的基础与框架。文在寅总统试图在最短时间内改变当前韩国外交的周边孤立境地,旨在为重新赢得韩国在东北亚地区"中心国家"的有利地位、为进一步争取朝鲜半岛局势变化的自主权和主导权创造条件、营造环境。这牵动着中韩关系发展、美韩     

调整中的美韩同盟:发展历程、强化动因及其挑战

出于亚太战略考虑和朝鲜半岛国际政治考虑,美韩在不断强化同盟关系。然而,美韩同盟面临多种挑战,美国战略收缩调整和韩国国内政治、社会变动,都将对美韩同盟造成破坏,中美关系变化及东北亚地区一体化发展,是影响美韩同盟关系发展的重要外部因素。鉴于地区局势现状,在未来相当长时期里,美韩同盟仍将保持稳定。美国在强化对韩国影响力的同时,将在同盟框架内适当提升韩国的自主性,韩国也将因此承担更大的安保责任。从更为长远的视角看,韩国将继续追求真正意义上的自主性,这必定会直接削弱美韩同盟关系。随着东亚地区经济一体化的推进,多边合作将成为时代潮流,双边同盟将面临越来越大的挑战。从中长期看,同盟秩序存在的空间会被压缩。     

韩国中等强国外交战略及其对中国的影响

作为东北亚地区的重要国家之一,韩国近年凭借经济上的崛起,有力地拓展了外交上的雄心抱负。一方面,以美韩同盟为核心,不断巩固韩国的国家安全基础,使之成为其整体外交的根基;另一方面,将中等强国外交作为韩国外交的重要一环,在国际和地区事务中发挥了举足轻重的作用。韩国中等强国外交战略对中国完善周边外交布局、改善周边地缘政治环境、运筹大国竞争都有明显的影响。当前如何处理好与韩国的双边关系,既考验着中国外交的智慧,也将对中国周边外交工作发挥重要的作用。     

特朗普外交理念与美韩关系走向

2016年11月9日,唐纳德·特朗普当选为第45任美国总统。2017年5月,韩国共同民主党候选人文在寅当选新一任的韩国总统。两国领导人更替必然对韩美同盟关系如何发展产生影响。特朗普坚持"美国第一"的原则,注重依靠双边同盟构建以军事实力为后盾的亚太秩序,韩国成为特朗普亚太战略的重要支柱,而稳定并发展韩美关系是文在寅总统外交政策的基石。美韩同盟在军事安全领域获得巩固和深化的同时,经贸领域的矛盾也日渐加剧。但总体看,美韩合作的共同利益大于其分歧。美韩同盟的加强会在很大程度上使朝鲜半岛的局势更加复杂化,给东北亚地区的安全环境带来深刻的影响。     

美韩关系中的驻韩美军地位问题

驻韩美军是影响美韩同盟关系的关键因素之一,而作为规范美军法律地位的《驻韩美军地位协定》则是美韩双方争论的焦点问题。围绕军队地位协定谈判,美韩双方的交涉持续了十几年时间,最终,随着韩国在美韩同盟关系中地位的提升,美国同韩国达成妥协,签订了军队地位协定。军队地位协定的谈判过程,一方面反映出韩国在美韩同盟中地位的变化,同时显示美国同韩国签订军队地位协定存在争取韩国支持其越南战争政策的政治目的。冷战结束后,《驻韩美军地位协定》凸显出的不平等性,引起了韩国民众强烈的反美情绪,给关韩同盟关系带来重要影响。     

美韩同盟与未来中韩关系的战略框架

随着中韩关系特别是政治安全关系的发展,中韩关系与美韩同盟之间的矛盾可能更加突出。美国一直对中韩关系的发展保持警惕,而韩国则坚持以美韩同盟为其外交安保政策的基石,这些都是提升中韩关系的深层次挑战。中韩关系要摆脱美国因素是不可能的,未来中韩关系的战略框架也必须与中美韩多边关系框架,甚至是整个半岛的地缘政治框架结合在一起考虑。而且,为了在中美韩博弈中占得先机,中国必须对这种未来战略框架进行前瞻性的规划和设计。本文认为,出于中国及地区整体利益的考虑,半岛的未来既要摆脱基于冷战经验的对抗式两极格局,也不能寄希望于那种多极均势下的脆弱和平。从长远来看,只有包括所有各方在内的地区集体安全机制才是稳定与和平的长久保障。美韩同盟可以成为这一机制的起点但又必须被超越,这就需要相关各方就此达成战略妥协,就地区未来做出彼此可以接受的决定。考虑到中美间的深层次不信任,韩国应该在中美间发挥沟通者而不是均衡者也不是中立者的作用,未来中韩关系应该在这种新背景下予以重新设计和发展。     

建设性并立:构建美韩同盟与中韩战略合作伙伴关系互动的新模式

从1992年中韩建交至今,如何妥善和有效地处理美韩同盟与中韩伙伴关系之间的互动,一直是横亘在中美韩三国间最大的难题之一。尽管不少有识之士曾试图通过建构多边机制以容纳"同盟"与"伙伴",或是努力促成两者在区域安全、经济秩序分别主导的基础上并行不悖地发展;但这些方案最终或归入失败,或束之高阁。文章认为,文在寅时代,美韩同盟和中韩战略合作伙伴关系必须超越"安美经中"的界线,在对等基础上向对方主导的领域渗透,并通过深化中韩军事安全合作和加强美韩经济贸易联系,使美韩同盟与中韩关系达成互补性的"建设性并立"。中国应尝试通过建立中韩战略经济对话机制,推动中韩军事合作的实质性提升,吸引美国积极参与东北亚经济合作,防止中美韩之间矛盾的牵连扩散,并适度照顾到韩国的安全关切,来推动"建设性并立"模式的构建,使中美两大国能够以互补共赢而不是各自为政的方式,共同为朝鲜半岛乃至于东北亚区域秩序提供稳定的规范。     

冷战后韩国国家战略的调整与评估

冷战结束后，朝鲜半岛的“冷战孤岛”地位反而愈加凸显，这促使金泳三、金大中、卢武铉、李明博四届政府继续奉行“富国强兵”战略的同时，也对安全、发展、外交、统一四大战略维度进行了调整和“提升”。总体来看，在安全方面，依托韩美同盟，发展自主国防，以应对多重威胁；在发展方面，对内改革，对外合作，力求成为东北亚经济中心国家；在外交方面，试图扮演“平衡者”角色，谋求发挥地区主导作用；在统一方面，通过缓和求安全，以安全促发展，希望在民族共荣的基础上实现国家统一。从韩美、中韩、韩日、韩朝四组双边关系，对四届政府国家战略的设定与运作进行空间审视和绩效评估后指出：韩国的国家战略目标宏伟，而战略资源不足，导致其战略成果有限。     

试论外国院外集团活动及其对美国对外政策的影响

美国作为全球唯一的超级大国 ,其对外政策关系到世界各国和国外利益集团的切身利益。各种代表国家和集团利益的外国院外集团为维护各自国家、民族和集团的利益 ,通过委托美国游说公司和具有特殊背景的人作为代理 ,在美国设立官方、民间机构 ,争取美国内具有共同利益的特殊集团的支持等方式进行院外活动 ,影响美国对外政策。因此 ,外国院外集团成为影响美国对外政策的重要因素 ,对美国对外政策的调整变化起着至关重要的作用     

Taiwan's Strategic Options and the US

This article assesses Taiwan's strategic options in relation to the US. From Taipei's perspective, the first strategic option is to maintain the interest of the US and this is largely done by emphasizing the threat posed by a rising China. The second strategic option relates to gaining more support from the US through highlighting the island republic's democratic credentials. Importantly, limitations exist in Taiwan's strategic options in part because they are subject to positive responses from the US as well as reactions from China. For Taipei, a middle power, the key therefore is achieving an optimal mix of strategies while overcoming any deficiencies in order to enhance its national security.     

Becoming a “Good Nixon Doctrine Country”: Political Relations between the United States and Singapore during the Nixon Presidency

The Nixon Doctrine, which devolved US troops from direct involvement in Asian conflicts but gave priority to military sales and economic assistance, was considered by some commentators to be an inefficacious foreign policy approach that did little to serve US interests in Asia during the Cold War. Using Singapore as a case study, this article demonstrates that Richard Nixon's foreign policy approach improved US‐Singapore relations significantly from 1970 onwards. After a period of flirtation with the Soviet Union during 1968–72, Singapore came to be labelled a “good Nixon Doctrine country” by the US government in 1973. Through the sale of US military equipment and economic assistance, Singapore and the US cultivated bilateral ties that endured after the withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam in 1973 and the fall of Saigon two years later.     

制度距离、文化差异与中美贸易摩擦中的权力因素——基于1980~2018年美国对外贸易争端数据的定量研究

中美贸易摩擦是体系压力和美国国内因素共同作用的结果。基于1980~2018年美国对外贸易争端数据的定量研究,文章采用面板负二项模型对中美两国间的制度距离、文化差异和相对实力差距的缩小等结构性变量,以及美国国内政治等单元层次的中介变量、贸易和投资等渠道变量,对中美贸易摩擦的影响进行了实证考察。研究认为,中美间军事、经济和科技实力差距的缩小即相对实力分布的变化会显著强化美国作为守成大国对中国作为崛起大国发起贸易摩擦的可能性;中美两国间的政治、经济制度距离和文化差异或价值观的不同也会显著影响中美两国间发生贸易摩擦的可能性,同时,与美国政治关系良好、在制度和文化上与其接近的国家并不必然意味着与美国贸易摩擦的减少;美国国内不同政治行为体、社会行为体的利益诉求、政策偏好,与贸易的交互效应一起,会进一步增加中美两国因实力差距的缩小、制度和文化(观念)差异等体系因素或结构性变量所引发的贸易摩擦发生的概率;经济因素依然是决定中美贸易摩擦的基础性因素,中美贸易失衡、中国对美直接投资的迅速增加以及中国对美国市场渗透率的提升、美国国内经济绩效的波动、美国国内收入不平等程度的加剧,与贸易的收入分配效应一起,也会显著提升两国间发生贸易摩擦的可能性。     

Denial and Cost Imposition: Long-Term Strategies for Competition with China

China has rapidly emerged as a global power in recent years. If Japan and the US are required to counter the rise of China, long-term strategies will be essential. This article presents an overview of the development of China's military capabilities, provides an overview of the problems that Japan and the US face, and explores the question of what kinds of strategies Japan and the US will require, based on the two concepts of “denial” and “cost imposition.” Then, examples of “denial” or “cost imposition” measures that Japan and the US are capable of adopting are given together with points to consider when employing such strategies. The article recommends that Japan and the US immediately start constructing long-term strategies that give serious weight to the possibility that, eventually, the two countries may fall into a position in the region that is weaker than that of China.     

The US and China in the Malay Archipelago

After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, US measures to improve counter-terrorism and maritime security in the Malay Archipelago, home to the world's largest population of Muslims, have led to a heightened US role and presence in the region. However, this has sparked fears in China over the ability of the US in interdicting vital waterways in a region which China increasingly relies on for its economic development. China has therefore also worked hard to improve relations with states in the Malay Archipelago. The states in the region have responded to the increased Sino-US strategic rivalry by adopting a classic hedging strategy, whereby they hope to reap the benefits of US security assistance and assurances while at the same time engaging with a resurgent China. However, this is a difficult challenge and there are dangers that the deepening US-China strategic rivalry could yet embroil the region in new conflicts.     

Diego Garcia and the United States' Emerging Indian Ocean Strategy

Abstract

As the world's economic and strategic “center of gravity” shifts from the Euro-Atlantic area to the Asia-Pacific, the Indian Ocean is emerging as an increasingly critical trade and energy conduit. This region has long been a strategic backwater for the United States. Moreover, unlike in other critical subregions of Asia, the United States lacks significant host-nation bases and is unlikely to acquire them. The British territory of Diego Garcia, whose location and political reliability give it significant strategic utility, is thus central to US power projection in the Indian Ocean littoral region. The US military's approach to Diego Garcia reflects an implicit Indian Ocean strategy that seeks to establish a flexible and enduring presence within a critical and contested space. However, Washington needs to move toward an explicit Indian Ocean policy that views the region holistically rather than narrowly viewing separate US Pacific Command, US Central Command, and US Africa Command theaters.     

US Extended Nuclear Deterrence and Nuclear Order: An Australian Perspective

Abstract

This article addresses the question of how US extended nuclear deterrence might endure in a shifting Asia-Pacific where the traditional nuclear order underpinning the credibility of US security guarantees is deteriorating. The Australian case study demonstrates how periods of nuclear order and disorder can inform a state's attitudes toward the credibility of extended nuclear deterrence. Australia's interest in a nuclear weapons capability from 1956 to 1972 was symptomatic of a period of nuclear disorder. This interest declined from the early 1970s due to changes in both the global and regional environments where the proliferation and use of nuclear weapons was relatively contained. This emerging, recognizable nuclear order diminished the interest in an indigenous nuclear weapons capability and led Canberra to rely on US extended nuclear deterrence. This order has remained fairly robust for more than 30 years. However, beyond 2012, we may yet witness a breakdown in this order. This will generate a much greater interest by US allies in the operational aspects of US extended nuclear deterrence.     

In the Aftermath of the Storm: US Foreign Policy in the Wake of 9/11 and its Implications for the Asia-Pacific region

In the following article, Kurt M. Campbell, senior vice-president and director of the International Security Program (ISP) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Washington, DC., and Yuki Tatsumi, ISP research associate at CSIS, explore the changes that have taken place in US foreign policy since the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and how such changes might be reflected on its policy toward the Asia-Pacific region. They point out that the US will shift its focus to security at home and war on terrorism abroad. In the short-term, US focus will deviate from Northeast Asia to Southeast, Central and South Asia, but as the region will continue to be strategically important, the US will remain engaged in the region. It is up to the countries in the Asia-Pacific to ensure that the US engagement in their region is not dominated by unilateralism and excessive preoccupation with the war against terrorism.