论日本“西南防御”与中日关系

自21世纪以来,日本逐渐将防御重点由东北转向西南,其中明显带有防范与遏制中国的战略意图。通过调整防卫体制与深化日美同盟,日本正在形成事实上的"西南防御"战略。2010年版《防卫计划大纲》的出台更进一步推动了其强化"西南防御"的战略部署。日本构筑"西南防御"体系的行为,严重削弱了中日两国间的战略互信基础,并对中日关系的发展造成了阻碍。     

联而不盟:国际安全合作中的准联盟理论

准联盟是指两个或两个以上国际实体在次级安全合作方针之上形成的安全管理模式,它与联盟、松散联盟、联合和协约等范畴之间存在类别上的差异。准联盟成员出于安全合作目的聚合力量,却不为安全合作签订正式盟约,体现出"联而不盟"之特点。准联盟构建的隐性逻辑是安全共同体、政治共同体、经济共同体、认知共同体或价值共同体意识的形成。后冷战时期,准联盟外交日趋频繁,这对当今世界的联盟体系将产生"侵蚀"作用。随着中国国家利益的内涵与外延不断丰富和扩展,准联盟将成为其维护安全、提高地位和拓宽海外利益的重要借助手段。     

The scientific‐technological revolution,the forces of nature,and Marx's theory of value

ABSTRACT

Worker and environmental alliances are critical to advancing economic and environmental transformation, yet they have been very challenging to promote and sustain. This article analyzes these difficulties by providing a class analysis of “divide and conquer” strategies instigated by capitalist firms to subvert worker/environmental alliances. It situates the relationship between workers, environmentalist and capitalist firms in two historical contexts, namely of Keynesian welfare state capitalism and neoliberal capitalism. It highlights some contextual factors that shape “divide and conquer” strategies of capital—particularly the paradigm of economic growth characteristic of these historical periods. The conclusion contemplates some of the possibilities that a post-capitalist economy might provide for workers and environmentalists to rethink economic and ecological agendas without the distorting influence of the “divide and conquer” strategies employed by capitalist firms.     

American Views of Europe

America’s diplomacy towards Europe has passed through two broad historic phases. A first, isolationist phase, determined in part by America’s need to maintain its domestic multinational consensus, was replaced, after World War II and under the Soviet threat, by a policy of hegemonic engagement. The Soviet collapse opened a new era forcing a reinterpretation of America’s role in Europe and the world. Four different narratives have emerged: triumphalist, declinist, chaotic or pluralist. If a unipolar American role seems unlikely to persist, American decline is all too possible. A new hegemonic replacement seems unlikely, which makes the pluralist narrative plausible and desirable. This multipolar world will require an adaptation of the Western alliance and a new way of thinking about interstate relations. Confederal Europe, for its experience in bargaining and conciliation, might have much to offer to the new plural world order.     

The United States,Japan and the aerospace industry: from capture to competitor? 1

Abstract

For all its success in other high-technology sectors, Japan has largely failed to develop a strong aerospace sector. Its leading firms do not market finished aircraft and, in stark contrast to other sectors, the aerospace industry features a trade deficit with the United States. Japanese firms seem trapped as suppliers of components and sub-assemblies, mainly for the US industry. The general explanation for this state of affairs is that the Japanese industry has been effectively ‘captured’ by the United States; Boeing in particular dominates the sector and has effectively locked the Japanese firms into a relationship where moving up the value chain is difficult. This relationship may be changing. Japan's government has placed renewed emphasis on developing Japan's aerospace sector, while matters are evolving at the corporate level too, with Boeing's relations with Japan revealing a steadily increasing work share for the Japanese industry. The rise of Asia as an important market, and technological change making aerospace more like other manufacturing industries, presents Japanese firms with new incentives and opportunities beyond the US relationship.     

亚太地区安全结构转型与东盟的角色

冷战结束后,亚太地区的安全结构经历了巨大的变化,特别是当前中关两国在亚太地区发生"权力分享"乃至"权力转移"之际,亚太地区安全结构的调整尤为显著。一方面,以美国为枢轴的"同盟型"结构经历了由"轮辐体系"向"网络化"的转型,形成了新的同盟、准同盟和潜在同盟的层次化布局;另一方面,以中俄为代表的新兴经济体在强化原有的"协作型"安全架构的同时,又通过"一带一路""欧亚联盟"等战略性倡议重塑亚太乃至整个欧亚大陆的地缘战略态势。作为亚太地区安全结构中的"第三股力量",东盟通过对一系列多边安全机制的建设,既为两种大国主导的安全架构提供了对话平台,也已成为实现未来亚太地区整体性安全架构的可行性路径之一。与此同时,由于大国战略竞争的加剧,逐渐侵蚀了东盟聚合力、中立性乃至在整体性安全架构中的"中心地位"。未来亚太地区安全架构的解构和重构需要中关找到新的战略共识,并对东盟的中心地位进行"再确认"。     

Why do they want American Nukes? Central and Eastern European positions regarding US nonstrategic nuclear weapons

This article analyses the potential motivations behind the opposition of a number of Central and Eastern European States (CESs) to the withdrawal of US deployed nonstrategic nuclear weapons (NSNWs) from Europe. It shows why CES governments obtain no military benefits from the deployed NSNW; it argues CES are unlikely to truly see them as a promising bargaining chip; it suggests CES can derive only limited prestige from US-deployed weapons and the contrasting norm of ‘nuclear disarmament’ likely offers a more attractive option; and it assesses potential bureaucratic interests as improbable to play a decisive role. In contrast, the article proposes a more nuanced elaboration of the transatlantic ‘linkage’ argument. It maintains CES have significant motives to keep the United States involved in Europe, shows how they are likely to mistrust US commitment pledges, and argues they are prone to use the NSNW debate as a convenient instrument (within a limited toolbox) towards locking in the US foothold on the continent.     

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。     

Public affairs,issues management,and political strategy: opportunities,opportunities, and more opportunities

This paper begins where Professor Windsor left off and enumerates some other areas in which academic research could be profitably pursued for both intellectual and practical gain. The tone of Professor Windsor's paper is pessimistic, and lays out in detail some of the obstacles to research; but these are not insurmountable. Some key areas that can be explored to the benefit of researchers and practitioners are in self‐regulation, the initiative process, term limits (a relatively recent phenomenon and not particularly well known outside of the USA), and in alliance building, constituency statutes, and links to stakeholder theory and action. Each of these additional areas is addressed in this presentation. Copyright © 2001 Henry Stewart Publications