自由主义与美国对外政策

近年来,在美国对外政策思想研究中,国内外学界的关注目光偏重于新保守主义,在一定程度上忽视了自由主义思想,从而落后于美国政治和对外政策舆论方面的某些变迁趋向。本文回顾了自由主义的历史,认为自由主义与现实主义、“杰克逊主义”并列为美国外交思想传统的三大主题,至今在美国仍具有广泛的舆论市场,并在其对外政策中起着重要作用。     

美国对外政策精英集团

美国对外政策精英集团由政府精英、经济精英和知识精英三部分组成,在政府、公司和思想库三类组织中行使国家、市场和社会的功能,这三类精英群体共同制定和确立了美国的对外政策.作为对外政策最终决策者的政府精英,由于相似的教育背景、共同的安全和外交经历,日益形成了排他性的圈子.     

美国公共外交中智库的功能与角色

随着各国智库数量的急剧增多及其显性影响力在全球范围迅速提升,国内外学界对智库及其在国际关系和公共外交中发挥的重要作用给予了越来越多的关注和讨论。本文从公共外交的视角来探讨美国智库的功能和角色,指出其在美公共外交中发挥着开展"二轨"外交、提供政策建议与智力支持以及构建政策理念与价值观传播网络的重要作用。     

美国"转型外交"再思考

2006年初,美国基于布什政府对外战略与政策实践的教训与经验,提出“转型外交”,意在加强外交手段在实施美国对外战略中的作用。但由于全球唯一超级大国身份所决定的美国在动用武力方面的内在冲动,军事力量仍是美国维护国家利益的基本手段。“转型外交”实际上服务于美国的全球战略和国家安全战略,也服务于以军事实力维护国家利益的战略取向。     

美国单边主义:传统、历史与现实的透视

单边主义是国家对外政策行为方式之一,曾因布什政府在其外交实践中的身体力行而一度备受国际关系学界的关注.实际上,单边主义并不仅仅是布什政府的时兴之作,美国对外政策的孤立主义思想传统、杰克逊主义历史先例以及当前单极世界体制的现实均与其有着某种内在的因果关系,这决定了它在冷战后美国外交中地位的日益凸显.在思想传统、历史先例和单极体制的综合影响下,单边主义有可能成为日后美国对外政策行为的常态.     

“美国外交中的道德主义”研究综述

在国际关系领域，美国是一个非常独特的国家。美国不仅因为长期作为超级大国，其对外政策影响了世界每个角落，还具有独特的外交理念，即对道德原则的推崇和遵循。可以说，道德实质性地影响了美国对外关系中的每项重大决策，参与塑造了其他国家对美国对外政策及美国本身的理解。     

党派争端与美国对外政策

美国政治制度的核心是两党制.民主、共和两党往往假国家利益之名,从各自狭隘观点出发,肆意歪曲事实,以维护本党派的政治利益,在对华关系问题上,表现尤为明显.两党争斗、相互牵制,制约着美国的对外政策走向.但党派纷争也能使美国公众得以借助政党势力影响外交决策.     

美国国会对美国中东政策的作用和影响

美国国会在美国对外关系中拥有重要的发言权,在以总统为主导的美国对中东政策制定体系中有重要的政策影响力,在美国对中东政策和外交上起着不容替代的作用.     

美国例外论是美国霸权主义对外政策的思想基础

今年9月，俄罗斯总统普京撰文批评美国对外政策的“美国例外论”，引发美国官方及媒体专栏作家的反弹。长期以来，推行霸权主义一直是美国的基本对外政策，其思想基础就是“美国例外论”。“美国例外论”思想早在美国建国时就产生并指导美国对外扩张的“天命论”思想，为美国对外推行帝国一霸权主义政策辩护。冷战结束后，美国一超独大，更加无视一切国际法，接连发动对外侵略战争，或滥用联合国安理会决议扩大动武范围，或抛开联合国安理会采取单边主义行动，或打着民主旗号干涉别国内政，奥巴马更是肆无忌惮地利用现代技术监控各国政治、外交、经济和军事情况，在反恐中不顾主权国家的反对杀害无辜平民，把美国自己制造的金融和经济危机转嫁其他国家，等等。美国对外政策的思想基础——“例外论”，理应受到国际社会的批评。     

美国对外政策中的文化规范功能

冷战结束后 ,文化在国际关系和对外政策中的作用受到学者们的普遍关注。本文从文化的规范功能的角度出发 ,分析美国对外政策中的道义与利益及其关系。作者认为 ,文化的规范功能在对外政策中表现为文化限定了国家对外政策可选择的范围 ,只有符合或至少不悖于国家文化价值观的对外政策才会被社会民众所接受。对于美国这样一个既有浓厚的宗教信仰传统 ,又具有讲求实效的务实精神的国家 ,文化的规范功能在美国对外政策中体现为理想主义与现实主义的结合。理想主义为美国的对外政策赋予道义上的目标和意义 ,现实主义使道义目标在实施中符合美国的现实利益 ,美国历史上最成功的对外政策就是道义与利益的完美结合。     

Challenging U.S. Policymakers' Image of an Isolationist Public

A persisting question in international studies is whether academic research can have an impact on the making of foreign policy. Much research has shown that policy decisions can be greatly influenced by misperceptions, just as much as by objective factors. The article describes an effort by academic researchers to challenge U.S. policymakers' image of an actor in the U.S. foreign policy process—the American public. The study's focus was a widely held assumption in the U.S. foreign policy community that the American public in the wake of the Cold War was entering a renewed phase of isolationism, similar to the interwar years. The study first interviewed policy practitioners on their perceptions of the public, then performed a comprehensive review of existing polling data, and finally conducted new polls with input from policymakers themselves. The net result of the elite interviews and the analysis of public attitudes revealed a significant gap in all areas, which is presented in synopsis. Interviews with policy practitioners reveal two key dynamics that could well contribute to policymakers' misreading the public: a failure to seek out information about the public and a tendency to assume that the vocal public is representative of the general public. Indications that the study did have some impact on the thinking of policy practitioners are discussed in the conclusion.     

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.     

The Growing Role of States in U.S. Foreign Policy: The Case of the State Partnership Program

States can and do play an important role in contemporary U.S. foreign policy. This article will discuss the growing role of states through an investigation of the State Partnership Program (SSP). The SSP pairs state National Guards with the militaries of other countries through U.S. military engagement programs. The state-level National Guard then becomes the primary site for implementing U.S. military engagement programs. Both a federalism and decision-making perspective, however, are unable to recognize this role. The decision-making bias of foreign policy analysis affords states a limited international role and minimal influence in shaping the policies of the government toward other countries. An implementation perspective, however, reveals a growing role of states carrying out U.S. foreign policy, including the "high politics" of national security issues. States give decisions meaning through the practice of policy implementation. A detailed case study of the Maryland–Estonia partnership illustrates how an implementation perspective can recognize a growing role of states in shaping U.S. foreign policy.     

American Asia Policy and the U.S. Election

This article reviews post-Cold War U.S./Asia policy and its potential electoral impact even as the United States selects its future foreign policy leadership and course of direction. This essay is presented in three parts: the first focuses on the U.S. security architecture in the Asian region, a brief second section on the relevance of recent changes in regional political economy, and the third attempts to determine how this emerging economic-security model might dovetail with perceived American political interests at a time of national resolution.     

新一届美国政府对外政策及影响前瞻笔谈

近年来,世界多极化趋势不断发展,美国主导的全球秩序开始显露坍缩征兆。然而,美国仍然保持着当今世界唯一的超级大国地位,其内政外交政策选择一直具有全球性影响。特朗普政府实施的"美国优先"政策对全球秩序造成了严重冲击,特别是对华发动极限施压性的"贸易战"和战略竞争,使中美关系发生严重倒退。特朗普政府随心所欲、极端强硬的执政风格,不仅招致很多国家的激烈批判和反对,在美国国内也引起了巨大争议。美国大选已经落下帷幕,尽管现任总统特朗普仍然没有承认和接受败选事实,但美国政府更迭已经无可逆转。新一届美国政府将采取什么样的对外政策?我们将如何应对美国因政府更迭而发生的政策调整?为加强对美国对外政策的前瞻研究,2020年11月5日,本刊编辑部联合吉林大学经济学院、现代国际关系研究所、东北亚研究院、东北亚研究中心、美国研究所等单位召开了"美国大选后的世界格局与中美关系"学术研讨会,10位专家做了会议发言。本刊选择其中3篇和另外1篇投稿摘要刊发,希望能够促进对美国新一届政府内政外交政策的前瞻性研究。     

The Role of Ethnic Interest Groups in U.S. Foreign Policy: The Case of the Cuban American National Foundation

The role and range of activities of ethnic interest groups in U.S. foreign policy has received relatively little scholarly attention, though in the wake of the Cold War analysis of their activities has increased. The case of the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF) during the 1980s suggests, however, that ethnic interest group activity is not new and may be far more complex than our standard conceptualizations allow. We review the literature on the role of ethnic interest groups in U.S. foreign policy and assemble some common assumptions and arguments about their origins, roles and relations with the government, and the conditions that favor their success. Then we examine origins of CANF, its web of relationships with government even during the Cold War, and its role as a near co-executor of policy. We conclude by assessing what the CANF case suggests about standard views of the roles of at least some ethnic interest groups in the process of making U.S. foreign policy, including the need to see how the state may try to use and sponsor such groups to further its policy goals.     

失去的十年：美国中东战略失败的理论探讨

十年前的“9·11”事件极大地改变了美国国际关系理论的走向,以“文明冲突论”为外交政策的理论指导,推行“武力反恐”和“民主改造”政策,引发伊斯兰世界反美情绪高涨。美国与伊斯兰世界的矛盾原本是二战后美国主导的世界经济秩序造成南北贫富悬殊的政治经济矛盾,而美国新保守主义却从唯心主义的思维方式出发,过高估计自身力量推行“大中东民主”,使得美在冷战后本有可能进一步巩固中东地位变得影响力大不如前。奥巴马上台后,虽然明确放弃布什时期“文明冲突”理念,努力缓解伊斯兰的反美情绪,但已很难超越中东已有的现实,十年错误路线导致的“外交后遗症”不是“灵巧外交”短期内所能挽救的。     

大选年、大辩论、大变革——美国对外政策回顾与展望

奥巴马在布什政府对外政策使美国深陷战略困境、美国经济濒临衰退边缘、选民普遍思变的情势下高票当选美国总统。美国大选年历来也是美国共和、民主两党及战略研究界围绕美国政府内外政策展开的辩论年。作为2008年美国大选年和大辩论的结果奥巴马入主白宫，必将对美现行外交政策进行大变革。总的趋势将是：从单边主义走向多边合作，从先发制人和滥用武力趋向谈判对话与和平磋商。     

Bush: The Sequel

This article examines the likely foreign policy initiatives of the U.S. under the leadership of George W. Bush. The new president has outlined a fairly thorough critique of America's international behavior in the 1990s. Because a leader's public statements arguably serve to persuade various audiences and to build support for policy change, the article takes Bush's words quite seriously—along with those spoken or written by his closest foreign affairs advisors. Bush intends to abandon the so-called Clinton Doctrine and deploy national missile defenses. He is critical of American policies toward China and Russia, but has not presented bold new initiatives toward those powers. Under the rubric of "compassionate conservatism," Bush may alter U.S. relations toward the Global South in some interesting ways. The president and his advisors often purport to be realists, but the article demonstrates that their own words belie this claim as they often justify policies based on ideals rather than the pursuit of power.     

American foreign policy: A look ahead

The author reviews recent foreign policy achievements of the U.S. government. Relations with PRC and USSR are seen as having set the stage for further lessening of hostilities. The strong centres of power emerging in Europe and Japan are seen as requiring new frameworks for increasing cooperation, particularly in the areas of military deterrence vis‐à‐vis adversarial power centers and in the establishment of new and more equitable monetary and trading relationships. Relations with Third World countries are discussed. A large thrust of American foreign policy in the coming years is seen as devoted to the creation of a stable international system which is less dependent on the contribution of the United States.