从台湾大选看美国对台海两岸的“双遏阻”政策

长期以来 ,美国在台湾问题上一直采取所谓的“战略模糊”政策 ,维持两岸分裂分治的政治局面。这导致陈水扁当局自恃有美国支持 ,在“台独”的道路上越走越远。特别是在2004年台湾“总统”选举前后 ,陈水扁为了谋求竞选连任 ,抛出了“公投”、“制宪”、“建国”等一系列“急独”政策 ,公开了“台独”时间表。中国大陆对此做出强烈反应 ,两岸关系面临空前的危机。美国政府为因应台海局势变化 ,比历史上任何时候都更深地介入了台湾问题 ,动作频频地对两岸采取了“双遏阻”政策 ,以维持两岸不独、不统、不武的局面。所谓“双遏阻”政策 ,就是美…     

从陈水扁宣布"终统"看美对台政策的困境

2006年2月27日,台湾当局宣布正式终止“国统会”与“国统纲领”的运作与适用,“台独”活动进一步升级。美国虽表示反对“废统”,布什政府也多次对台施压,但陈水扁仍一意孤行。美国约束“台独”举措收效甚微的主要原因在于其自相矛盾的对台政策。未来两年,陈水扁将把“宪改”作为其政策主轴,在“法理台独”上越走越远。美国面临两种选择:要么放任“台独”活动导致台海危机甚至中美对抗,要么采取清晰战略遏制“台独”、防止其冲击中美关系的基础。美应立足中美合作与维护亚太安全的战略高度,以新的思路调整对台政策。     

"台独"问题与中美关系

美国长期以来在台海问题上的两面性政策导致"台独"势力的恶性发展,近些年来更是在主张维持台海现状的同时纵容"台独"坐大。美国自认为可以掌控"台独"势力,实际上对"台独"的遏止是有限的,这是当前台海局势潜伏危机的严重所在。     

美国对台政策的战略意图探析

中关建交后，美国为追求利益的最大化而竭力在中国大陆和台湾之间寻求平衡，形成了所谓“双轨政策”。依照常理，美国与中国建交后，应该遵守承诺与中国台湾断绝“外交”关系，但美国仍然与台湾在实际上藕断丝连，最主要的原因就是美国自认为在台湾有着无法放弃的“特殊利益”。从对华战略而言，美国力图通过一个精心策划的平衡的“双轨道”政策以保护它在中国与台湾的利益。其根本政策目标是希望维持海峡两岸的分裂局面，使两岸保持不独不统的状态，从而牵制中国，最大程度地实现美国的政治、经济和战略利益。但是这种“双轨”政策的两面性，决定了其必然存在着种种矛盾和可能承担的风险。     

美国对台政策演变及其特点

美国对台政策是其“一中”政策的组成部分。50多年来,美国出于其国家利益和国际战略需要,在三个不同的历程时期采取了三种不同的对华政策,在对台政策上则从不同时期对华政策的反面表现出其不确定性。美国对台政策的两面性,是台海局势不能缓和的根本原因,也是今后台海局势稳定的最大威胁。     

美国战略界对台政策辩论及其影响北大核心

当前,美国战略界围绕是否坚持战略模糊政策展开新一轮对台政策辩论。主张调整模糊政策、军事介入台海冲突的“保台派”快速兴起,但遭到“弃台派”和“维持现状派”的批判。三大派别都以美国台海利益、维护美国霸权最大化为逻辑起点,但不同的工作经历、意识形态与价值观,加上中美关系与美国政府对华政策变化的影响,导致他们在对台政策上的认知差异。这种政策差异本质上体现了美国战略界对于台湾在美国对华政策中是“战略资产”还是“战略包袱”的不同评估。因其内在缺陷,“保台派”的主张不会成为美官方的正式政策,却将在某些方面修正“维持现状派”的主张,进而影响美国对台政策的走向。     

奥巴马政府的两岸关系政策

美国新政府对台海政策的总体目标仍然是维持两岸关系的现状,即不统不独。美国支持两岸关系改善,其底线是台湾不走向统一的不归路。随着中美关系和两岸关系的积极发展,美国对台海政策积极面将增多,致力于营造三赢局面。     

美国台海政策调整的意涵与走势

近年来美国明显加快了台海政策调整力度,其突出表现是"双重清晰"趋向与"双向遏制"战略更加明显,注重以直接影响台湾民意的方式压缩"台独"操弄空间.这些调整既源于美国战略关注重点的转移及对华政策的变化,也受到两岸不同政策取向的影响,且反映出布什总统本人对陈水扁的反感.在两岸关系出现新局、美国总统选举即将全面展开的背景下,未来美国台海政策的走向虽然还存在着不确定性,但防止两岸关系"过热"、避免台湾向大陆"倾斜"有可能成为其新的关注重点.     

布什政府第二任期"不支持台独"政策评析

文章对布什政府第二任期的“不支持台独”政策进行了分析,认为该政策的双重性非常明显,即美国一方面堵塞“法理台独”的生存空间,另一方面又怂恿“渐进台独”逐步发展。这种双重性主要由两方面原因造成,一是中美关系和美国外交政策议程所需,一是布什总统在政策调整上获得了国会支持。未来三年,美国“不支持台独”政策的双重性特点将更趋明显,这虽然对中美合作遏制“法理台独”较为有利,但对遏制“渐进台独”发展非常不利。     

美国对台湾问题的"维持现状"政策与中国的战略选择

在台湾问题上 ,鉴于两岸关系“不独不统不战不和”的基本格局 ,鉴于中国政府力争和平统一但决不承诺放弃使用武力的坚定立场 ,鉴于美国“控台制华”的战略需要 ,美国政府认为实行“维持现状”政策最符合美国的利益。这一政策具有典型的两面性 ,即 :既宣称恪守中美三个联合公报 ,坚持一个中国原则 ,不支持台湾独立 ,但又与台湾发展实质性关系 ,反对中国对台动武 ,不断向台提供高技术武器装备 ,助长“台独”分裂活动。美国为维持现状 ,虽会对“台独”突破其政策框架的分裂活动进行一定的约束 ,但这个政策的侧重点是阻挠统一 ,以台制华。对此 ,中国应及早谋划有效的对策     

Fresh Thinking on U.S. Engagement with Africa: Probing the Limits of Engagement

The Biden administration faces the opportunity to reset U.S. policy towards Africa and possesses a variety of tools to use in doing so, including traditional diplomacy, economic statecraft, development assistance, and military engagement. With the increased militarization of U.S. foreign policy over the past few decades, there is an unfortunate tendency to default to military engagement when confronted with even remote threats to U.S. national security interests, and Africa is no exception. With vital security interests in Africa, it can be argued that military engagement should be limited in its application and targeted to those situations that do not lend themselves to solution through traditional diplomacy or development assistance.     

Understanding the Unilateralist Turn in U.S. Foreign Policy

How should we explain the recent unilateralist turn in U.S. foreign policy? Some accounts treat growing American unilateralism as a passing aberration attributable to the neoconservative ideology of the Bush administration. This paper, by contrast, traces U.S. unilateralism to the structural effects, at home and abroad, of the end of the Cold War. Internationally, the removal of the Soviet threat has undermined the "institutional bargain" that once guided relations between the U.S. and its major allies. Absent Cold War imperatives, the U.S. is less willing to provide collective goods through strong international institutions and other states are less likely to defer to U.S. demands for special privileges that exempt the U.S. from normal multilateral constraints. Domestically, the end of the Cold War has weakened the ability of presidents to resist the appeals of powerful veto players whose interests are threatened by multilateral commitments. These factors suggest that American unilateralism may have deeper roots and more staying power than many expect.     

U.S. Foreign Aid and UN Voting: An Analysis of Important Issues

Many previous studies assessed the effectiveness of U.S. foreign aid by focusing on voting coincidence rates of all UN votes and found no relationship between U.S. aid distribution and UN voting coincidence rates. Most UN resolutions, however, are simply not important enough for the U.S. to expend its scarce resources in influencing the outcomes. The U.S. government would not be likely to exercise pressure on all UN resolutions but would do so on issues considered vital to America's national interests. If there is any effect from receiving U.S. foreign aid on political outcomes in the UN, it is therefore most likely to emerge in voting coincidence rates on important issues. Using data collected for sixty-five developing countries between 1984 and 1993, a pooled cross-sectional and time-series research design is adopted to examine this hypothesis. Contrary to the argument that foreign aid is an ineffective policy instrument in the pursuit of America's global influence, the currentfindings suggest that the U.S. government has successfully utilized foreign aid programs to induce foreign policy compliance in the UN on issues that are vital to America's national interests.     

The Gwadar Port Issue in Sino-U.S. Relations

Because of its unique geopolitical importance,China's aid to construct Gwadar Port has caused much concern in the U.S. and other countries. The U.S. sees it as strategic expansion in the Indian Ocean and claims that China is intent on using Gwadar Port as a naval base in its "string of pearls strategy." The U.S. and China maintain conflicting interests on this issue. Although Sino-U.S.relations may not be affected greatly in the near future, the negative influence in the long term cannot be ignored.     

Evolution of the U.S. Strategy toward China and China’s Peaceful Development

China-U.S. relationship is the most important one between two big powers in the world today. It is both bilateral and global by nature. How to handle this relationship is closely linked with the fundamental interests of the U.S. and China, as well as peace and stability in the Asia Pacific region and even in the world. So, a profound examination of the nature of U.S. strategy toward China and its evolution over the years will help to fully understand the opportunities and challenges China will meet in the course of peaceful development.     

Foreign Policy Orientation, Strategic Interaction, and the Initiation of International Crises

In recent years, scholars studying U.S. foreign policy and the diversionary use of force have begun to focus more attention on when foreign regimes time crises with the U.S. Many argue that U.S. domestic conditions play a role in this. I argue that these models should take into consideration the foreign policy relationship between foreign governments and the U.S. I develop a theory of crisis initiation that considers the foreign policy orientation of states that may initiate a crisis with the U.S., and second, when the crisis may occur. I argue that by virtue of their foreign policy orientation, some regime leaders will be more likely than others to initiate a crisis with the U.S. Those regimes that are either closely aligned with the U.S. or closely identified with anti-U.S. interests will be much more likely to initiate crises with the U.S. than those whose foreign policy interests do not lead to such intimate ties of friendship or enmity. I develop and test hypotheses predicting what regime characteristics will be predictive of crisis initiation and when such crises are likely to occur. The results demonstrate that regime type matters more than U.S. domestic conditions in predicting where and when crises involving the U.S. will take place.     

奥巴马治下美国“大中东”政策前瞻

奥巴马治下的美国对外政策的重点仍将是“大中东”。从伊拉克撤军，与伊拉克在政治、经济和安全关系协议方面作出规划，以解决美国在伊拉克长期利益和军事存在；可能与伊拉克进行谈判．但难度很大；中东和平进程有可能取得进展；阿富汗和巴基斯坦将成为美国的反恐重点地区；中国因素会受到越来越多的关注。     

The Politics of Threat Perception and the Use of Force: A Political Economy Model of U.S. Uses of Force, 1949–1994

A growing body of empirical research addresses the influence of domestic political and economic circumstances on the use of force. Most models explain the use of force as a function of various domestic and international demands for military force. This article uses data on U.S. uses of force between 1949 and 1994 to test a model that also considers the influence of these conditions on the supply of this policy instrument. Conditions that have complementary demand and supply effects—making military force both more useful and less costly to employ—are associated with frequent U.S. uses of force in the postwar era. These conditions include high unemployment, strong investor confidence, wartime presidential election years, and the absence of ongoing wars. Some of these same conditions contribute to a motivated bias in international threat perception, leading U.S. decision makers to perceive more opportunities for the use of force when it is most convenient for them to employ it.     

Mortgaging Security for Economic Gain: U.S. Arms Policy in an Insecure World

Similar to other consumer sectors of the global economy, the transfer of advanced conventional weapons and military technologies has entered the globalization process, a process that has qualitatively and quantitatively altered the composition and structure of U.S. national security policymaking. By injecting the decisionmaking process governing arms transfers into the global market place, U.S. policy makers must now reconcile maintaining economic competitiveness within the global system without jeopardizing U.S. national security interests. By subordinating national security interests to global economic imperatives, U.S. decisionmakers are at risk of mortgaging the political, societal, and security welfare of its citizenry for profit.     

The Confluence of Domestic and International Interests: U.S. Policy Toward Cuba, 1998–2001

This article examines the confluence of forces at work to shape U.S. policy toward Cuba since the late 1990s. Our approach examines four key factors involved in policymaking toward Cuba in this period: (1) the entry of new interest groups into the Cuba policy process and an "entrepreneurial" Congress; (2) the executive's constitutionally based interests; (3) bureaucratic interests; and (4) pressure from outside the United States. We examine U.S.–Cuba policy by describing each determinant in isolation and then by looking at the dynamic interaction among them, showing how they are linked together. In doing so, we argue that an analysis including multiple factors better explains U.S. policy toward Cuba than one that focuses on a single factor such as the power of the Cuban-American community.