新“日美防卫合作指针”何以令人忧虑

新“日美防卫合作指针”何以令人忧虑刘江永１９９７年９月２３日，日美两国最终完成了１９７８年“日美防卫合作指针”的修订，发表了一项“新指针”。这将对下世纪日美关系的性质及日本的防卫政策产生重大影响，在日本国内外引起普遍忧虑。一、“新指针”使日美同盟发生...     

东亚安全形势与日本安保政策调整

东亚安全形势总体稳定。日本刻意渲染东亚威胁特别是"中国威胁",迎合美国"亚太再平衡"战略,对安保政策进行战后以来的大幅调整。主要内容包括重构国家安保顶层设计;调整防卫理念,增强自主防卫力量;修改"武器出口三原则"、步步解禁集体自卫权,颠覆战后专守防卫政策;调整对外安保关系,加强日美安保同盟,构筑地区多层安保框架等。日本安保政策的调整具有深远影响。首先,在重塑与加强自身防卫的同时,打造出战后以来日本最具危险性的政军体制,使日本成为东亚安全中突出的不稳定因素。其次,不利于中日安全互信的建立,复杂和恶化了中日关系及中国周边安全环境,使东亚本就存在的安全困境更为恶化。最后,使日美同盟从防御/威慑的内向型同盟转变为威慑/进攻的外向型同盟。日本防卫政策的调整在加强美国对东亚安全事务干涉与掌控能力的同时,也提升了日本的自主性与主导性,日本不正常的"国家正常化"又前进了一步,最终将破坏日美同盟及美国的东亚安全战略。     

2011年日本军情综述

2011年日本军事发展的主要特点是：推进防卫力量改革,增设新的军事机构;加快武器装备发展,重点发展海空装备;放宽“武器出口三原则”,推行武器出口新标准;强化“西南方向”兵力部署,战略重心逐渐南移;拼抢“新疆域”战略制高点,加快太空军事化进程;自卫队执行多样化任务,防卫力量作用日趋增大;日关恢复“2＋2”战略磋商,深化和发展日美同盟;加强双边和多边安全合作,积极介入南海问题。     

日本的"自主防卫"与日美同盟发展趋势

自主防卫是日本脱离美国、脱离日美同盟的独立倾向在军事领域的表现。早在20世纪50年代初期,日本就出现了"与吉田茂国防建设思想相对立的关于国家防卫问题的政策主张--自主防卫论",即主张废除日美安全保障条约,重建军队,依靠自己的力量保卫国家。但由于在当时环境     

竞争时代日本多维度联合防卫力战略构建及其影响

日本新防卫战略把日本的防卫力量从传统的海陆空领域扩展至多维度的太空、网络以及电磁波等新领域,重视各领域之间的彼此融合防卫。作为一个综合性防卫战略,它强调从平时到"有事"各阶段之间、自主防卫与日美同盟及多层次安保合作之间、"前方战场"和"后方体制"之间的综合防卫。为实现"跨领域作战",日本提出了优先项目和强化重点,侧重在太空、网络、电磁波等新领域内获得并强化相关防卫能力。同时日本也加强提升传统领域内的海空能力、导弹防御及防区外打击能力,并对自卫队的体制进行相应调整。新防卫战略与"印太构想"融合,进一步深化了日本立体跨域防卫体系。日本"多维度联合防卫力量"新战略具有深刻的竞争时代背景,为配合美国军事战略调整并强化日美同盟、对竞争时代安全情势的判断与主动应对、积极加入全球军事变革下新领域内的激烈竞争、更好地应对岛屿争端及加强海洋防卫等现实问题,这是日本谋求构建新防卫战略的深刻动因。该日本新防卫战略产生的影响包括:日本的防卫自主或更难实现、进一步改变战后日本的安全战略基点、在新安全领域引发竞争及不利于构建良好的中日建设性安全关系等。对此,中国需进一步增强本国综合性实力,积极推动日本对华安全释疑,扩大中日防卫交流与安全对话,增进两国的安全互信。     

美日同盟的裂痕

美日同盟一直是战后美国亚太战略的核心,但这一同盟建立在美国的军事控制上,以牺牲日本的自立为前提。冷战后美日同盟重新定义,有不断强化的趋势。然而在这种表象之下,潜藏着美日不可调和的战略冲突。日本寻求独立外交与防卫的愿望越来越强烈。中国的崛起以及中日经济的融合为寻求自立的日本提供了难得的历史性机遇。日本的未来在于与包括中国在内的亚洲寻求和解。     

日本安保政策的新发展与影响

日本以"自主防卫"为目标从内外两个维度加大调整安保政策的广度和深度。对内,推进政策突破,确立"可战"体制;强化防卫力量建设,构筑"能战"实力;培育国民"爱国意识",养成"愿战"心理。对外,强化日美同盟,建立地区安保伙伴关系网络,拓展与欧洲国家的安保关系。日本以应对朝鲜核导问题与中国崛起为借口,驱动"自主防卫"成为国内共识,并以此获得国际社会的"理解"。日本对美国安保承诺抱有疑虑,对"美国优先"导致在亚太地区可能产生的权力空隙暗藏觊觎之心,其"自主防卫"欲望亦受刺激而进一步膨胀。日本以"自主防卫"为目标的安保政策将颠覆战后亚太地区秩序的基础,对日美同盟、地区安全形势等产生深刻影响。     

试论日美关系的复杂性

日美关系并不和谐。从同盟的悖论角度看,日美关系表现了复杂性的特征。具体包括在安全保障领域的相互依赖,经济贸易领域的相互竞争和战略选择领域的相互猜疑。相互依赖包括两国互相需要和互相配合,日本需要美国保护,美国需要日本分担防卫责任。相互竞争主要源于两国经济缺乏互补,因此摩擦是结构性的,TPP之争是两国战后经济摩擦的继续。互相猜疑主要表现在战略选择方面,旧金山媾和之后,美国虽然结束了对日本的直接占领,但是一直使用着冲绳等军事基地,日本受到了控制。日本的民族主义者一直想摆脱美国寻求自主外交。     

美日同盟关系新透视--《美日安全同盟》介评

美日安全同盟一直是美国在亚太地区最为完整和最为牢固的军事同盟。自 2 0世纪 90年代中期以来 ,面向 2 1世纪 ,特别是在“9·11”的新背景下 ,美日军事同盟走向何处已成为亚太地区安全事务中最引人注目的关注点。由外交官特德·奥修斯撰写美国普雷格出版社于 2 0 0 2年 6月出版的新著《美日安全同盟关系 :为何重要并且如何加强同盟》①在“9·11”后的反恐背景下解读了美日安全关系的发展状况 ,并对其未来走向进行了分析。首先 ,该书对美日在东亚的利益进行了界定。一是在俄罗斯和东南亚地区。俄处于“美日防卫合作新指针”涵盖的“远东”…     

美日安全合作:从地区走向全球

美日同盟是美国维持亚太秩序的重要基石,也是日本外交政策的基轴,随着中国的崛起,美日双方已然意识到原有的同盟框架难以应对来自中国的挑战。为此,美日通过制订新的《美日防卫合作指针》,强化美日同盟,加强双方在全球范围内的安全合作。然而,美日安全合作同时也面临着质疑与否定,在美日两国内,长期以来一直存在着对美日同盟的争论。未来美日安全合作将如何发展,不仅取决于日本的安全感知,更取决于美国在国内国际新形势下将会采取的战略。由于美国新任总统特朗普一以贯之的对日负面认知,使得日本政府和国民对于特朗普的对日政策不抱期待。然而,特朗普上台后并不会撤走驻日美军,更不会让美日同盟解体,同时,商人出身的特朗普并不反对自由贸易,其反对的是无法贯彻其意志的自由贸易。因此,在特朗普总统任期中,其特有的个性和自信,将会使未来美国的对日政策打上"特式"烙印,这为美日关系的发展增加了许多不确定因素,美日同盟可能面临新的危机。     

NATO's nuclear addiction – 12 steps to ‘kick the habit’

The article argues that NATO is a nuclear-addicted alliance. It focuses on how the addiction developed, the damage caused by the addiction and ways in which it may be overcome. After outlining the origins to NATO's nuclear addiction, the article turns to the recent defence and deterrence posture review (DDPR), which is seen as a classic example of ‘addict behaviour’ spoiling the best chance NATO has had for overcoming its addiction. The article offers an assessment of the DDPR, portraying the outcome of the process as not only a lost opportunity, but unfortunately also as a position that limits the possibilities for reaching a constructive agreement on the important question of the remaining non-strategic nuclear weapons based in Europe. The article ends by suggesting 12 steps for NATO to overcome its addiction, although it is acknowledged that the DDPR has severely restricted NATO's room for maneuver leaving only a slim chance for ‘complete recovery’.     

The European Union and Mutual Assistance: More than Defence

Abstract

The first activation of the European Union’s “Mutual Assistance Clause”, following the 13 November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, demonstrated that this article can be used very flexibly, not just to help defend French territory but also its expeditionary operations. But if flexibility is an asset, improvisation is not. In order to maximise the potential of the clause, the role of the EU institutions needs to be clarified, in addition to that of the member states, and new capacities must be created at the EU level, notably in intelligence and planning.     

美国强大的原因及发展趋势

美国强大的原因可以从势、道、制、术、器与士（即国际格局与国际力量对比、美国的意识形态与核心价值体系、政治经济与社会制度、科技与战略政策制定、经济与军事硬实力、人才培养与储备机制等方面）进行分析。由于新兴国家崛起，美国单极体系已经终结，美国霸权相对削弱，但是美国仍将在相当长的一段时间之内维持“一超”的地位。从劳动生产率、基础科研实力及研发投入、高等教育体系、外资投资环境、人口结构以及新兴产业等因素考察，美国经济长远来看仍具有较大的相对优势。未来美国霸权依然存在，美国二战后所确立的以“结构自由主义”为特征的国际秩序是美国霸权能够持久的最重要的基础，也是二战后西方国家之间的关系能够超越“零和”博弈格局的重要原因。美国对华战略并非遏制，而是“对冲/两面下注”。中美之间存在超越历史上传统大国“零和”博弈的可能，中国领导人提出建立中美新型大国关系的建议反映了这种战略远见。     

波兰总统选举后俄波关系走向分析

2010年7月4日,科莫罗夫斯基当选波兰新一届总统,他将调整前任莱赫.卡钦斯基实行的内外政策。波兰和俄罗斯在历史上就积怨很深,冷战后,波兰加入北约和欧盟,实行疏远、抑制和防范俄罗斯的政策。卡钦斯基对俄的强硬态度以及美波之间在导弹防御系统上进行的合作,引起俄罗斯的强烈不满,两国关系进入冰冻期。科莫罗夫斯基上任后,两国关系有望回暖,但波兰依靠美国提高防御能力、压制俄罗斯的战略不会改变。表面友好、暗中对抗将是俄波两国关系的主旋律。     

IAI library notes

Analytical Techniques in Conflict Management I Manas Chatterji. ‐ Aldershot : Dartmouth, C1992. ‐ 390p. ‐ ISBN 1–85521–221–8

The Chemical Weapons Convention and Arms Control in the Middle East I by Peter Herby. ‐ Oslo : PRIO, c1992. ‐ 127p. ‐ ISBN 82–7288–153–5

The Cost of Europe I edited by Patrick Minford. ‐ Manchester : Manchester University Press, c1992. ‐ xiv, 184p. ‐ ISBN 0–7190–3810–3 (pbk)

Economic Adjustment after the Cold War : Strategies for Conversion I Michael Renner. ‐ Geneva : UNIDIR ; Aldershot : Dartmouth, c1992. ‐ xiii, 264p. ‐ ISBN 1–85521–259–5

The European Rescue of the Nation‐state I Alan S. Milward. ‐ London : Routledge, 1992. ‐ xv, 477p. ‐ ISBN 0–415–08141–6

Fragile Finance : Rethinking the International Monetary System I John Williamson... [et al.] ; edited by Jan Joost Teunissen. ‐ The Hague : FONDAD, 1992. ‐132p. ‐ ISBN 90–74208–02–9

The Helsinki Process and the Reintegration of Europe, 1986–1991: Analysis and Documentation / Vojtech Mastny. ‐ London : Pinter Publishers, 1992. ‐ xxi, 343p. ‐ ISBN 1–85567–060–7

Israele e Palestina : il piano per la pace tra due stati sovrani I Mark A. Heller, Sari Nusseibeh. ‐ Ed. italiana a cura di Giorgio Gomel. ‐ Roma : Valerio Levi Editore, c1992. ‐ 205p.

Military Industrialization and Economic Development : Theory and Historical Case Studies I Raimo Vayrynen. ‐ Geneva : UNIDIR ; Aldershot : Dartmouth, C1992. ‐ 121p. ‐ ISBN 1–85521–286–2

The Nuclear Revolution and the End of the Cold War : Forced Restraint I Godfried van Benthem van der Bergh. ‐ Basingstoke : MacMillan, 1992. ‐ viii, 312p. ‐ ISBN 0–333–58011–7

Politiche della cooperazione a confronto : i modelli di Francia, Germania, Giappone e Spagna. Riflessioni per il caso italiano I Istituto per la ricostruzione industriale ; Paolo Guerrieri, Pier Luigi Malesani, Alessandro Ovi. ‐ Roma : Edindustria, 1992 printing. ‐ 179p.

Ruolo egemonico e modernizzazione in “Medio Oriente”: il dilemma degli aiuti economici americani in Egitto I Armando Salvatore. ‐ Napoli : Editrice Ferraro, c1991. ‐ 155p. ‐ ISBN 88–7271–057‐X     

海权问题与中美关系述论

从近代到冷战时期,海权问题一直是重大战略问题。长期以来,我国在反对美国海洋霸权、维护我国海洋安全进行了不懈的斗争。冷战后,美国的太平洋海权战略安排具有遏制中国作为潜在对手挑战美国太平洋霸权的图谋,并集中体现在美日军事同盟、台湾问题、南海问题等具体领域对中国的海洋主权和海洋权益形成沉重的压力与挑战,对此中国应该引起高度重视。     

Navigating the Unknown: Barriers to Evidence-Based Defence and Security Policy in the European Union

At a time when Europe faces numerous crises, there is a real need for rigorous evidence to underpin effective policymaking. However, a gap between academia and policy creates clear obstacles in the use of evidence in policymaking. Many of these enduring obstacles are manifest in the inherent differences between separate communities: academics have difficulty communicating research in an applicable manner, and policymakers, in turn, tend to focus on operational motivations. The gap widens considerably when foreign, security and defence policy within the complex institutional structures of the European Union is considered. In addition to these well known barriers to evidence-based policy, there are two more obstacles in the defence and security space: sovereignty and dispersed decision-making. A dialogue of best practices must be opened up to broker knowledge in the EU context.     

The hybrid role of the High Representative in the security and defence field: more in 10 months than in the 10 years?

ABSTRACT

Despite a growing “momentum” on European Union (EU) security and defence, there are no academic analyses that aim to systematically assess the role of the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy and Vice President of the European Commission (HR/VP) in these strategic domains. This is surprising given that the HR/VP is one of the central actors in the complex institutional architecture of EU security and defence. To fill this gap in the scholarly literature and to contribute to a more fine-grained analysis of the two post-Lisbon Treaty HR/VPs, the article assesses Ashton and Mogherini’s mandates in these fields. This study is particularly relevant because the HR/VP’s hybrid institutional role may represent a unique analytical angle to investigate a formally intergovernmental sector, strongly shaped also by EU institutions’ authority over defence-industrial policy. Following these considerations, the article looks at how the two HR/VPs managed to navigate both the military and the defence-industrial dimensions of EU security and defence.     

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Defence,Industry and Strategy

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, if ratified by all parties, is likely to have ramifications for the global defence market and the US’ economic and political strategy towards the Asia-Pacific region. Although the TPP excludes a number of defence-related issues such as defence procurement, the TPP’s provisions on technology transfers and intellectual property rights could bolster the US’ military-technology relations with the Asia-Pacific. For Europe, which is excluded from the Partnership, the likely impact of TPP is uncertain and could raise important challenges and opportunities related to Europe’s own defence-industrial relations with the Asia-Pacific and its wider security role in the region.