1963年印(尼)马对抗与东南亚地区之大国角力

1963年1月印尼因反对英国主导下的马来西亚计划而发起"印(尼)马对抗",在国际冷战背景下相关大国陆续介入,其中美国为防止印尼倒向共产主义阵营以及避免因《澳新美安全条约》而卷入军事冲突,在继续对印尼援助的基础上力主由亚洲国家自行调停解决,但美国政府的继续援助措施遭到包括英、澳、新(西兰)、马等国以及美国国会的强烈反对;英国、澳大利亚及新西兰在支持马来西亚成立和维护西南太平洋地区安全稳定的基础上,坚决反对印尼的对抗政策;日本在美国支持下积极重返东南亚市场,因此希望该地区保持稳定并提出池田斡旋计划;而苏、中两国从两大阵营对立和反帝反殖角度,分别从物质和舆论方面支持苏加诺的对抗政策。通过对印(尼)马对抗爆发期间大国角力问题的探讨,显示出东南亚地区冲突中所包含的冷战与非殖民化、革命与发展、东西方对抗与地缘政治矛盾等诸多复杂因素。     

试论加拿大越战政策从默认到自主的转变——以希伯恩使团活动为中心

越战前期,加拿大默认并配合了美国军事介入越南,但随着美国军事行动日益升级,它逐渐显示出更加自主的和平外交姿态,还试图在美国与北越之间进行斡旋.为此,加拿大派遣希伯恩使团负责沟通双方,并力促和谈.加拿大总理皮尔逊还发表坦普尔讲话,明确反对战争扩大化.加拿大从默认到自主的越战政策,是国际冷战局势重大变化在西方阵营内的折射,预示着加拿大将走向更独立的外交立场.越战时加美关系的演变是西方非对称性联盟固有结构性矛盾的一个缩影.     

《莱特战记》与大冈升平的战争观

大冈升平的《莱特战记》在详细记录太平洋战争末期日美两国军队在菲律宾莱特岛的攻防战的同时,也表达了作家本人对这场战争的看法。他一方面描写了战争的残酷,触及了日军的加害事实,批判了军队机构的冷酷,表明了反对战争的态度。另一方面,他又混淆战争性质,片面强调美国的战争责任,为日军的侵略罪行辩解,从狭隘的民族主义立场出发赞颂日军在战争中的抵抗。他虽然剖析了日军失败的原因,指出了日本军部在战争进程中的失误,但是并没有追究他们发动侵略战争责任的动机。     

抗战时期中共中央南方局外事工作历史考察

抗战时期中共中央南方局根据国际和国内形势的变化,开展了一系列卓有成效的外事活动,富有艺术性地运用了党的统战策略,巩固和拓展了抗日民族统一战线,争取了国际社会对中国抗战和党的敌后斗争的援助与支持,扩大了党的国际影响、塑造了党的国际形象,并对建国后的外交工作产生了重大而深远的影响。因此,考察中共中央南方局外事工作的起源、发展,研究其历史作用有着重要的历史价值。     

论党在抗日战争中的成长及其现实启示

中国共产党在抗日战争中经受住了种种严峻考验,壮大了自己的力量,并逐步走向成熟,为抗日战争的最终胜利发挥了中流砥柱的作用。认真总结党在抗日战争的艰难险境中的成长,我们可以得到如下启示：党要始终代表和维护好中国最广大人民群众的根本利益;党要始终把思想理论建设放在首位,不断推进马克思主义中国化时代化大众化;党要努力加强执政能力建设,不断增强应对复杂局势的能力;党要认真总结历史经验,始终坚持和大力弘扬自身的优良传统和作风。     

越南战争时期美国对柬埔寨中立的干涉(1956-1971)

本文重点探讨在20世纪60年代越南战争期间美国如何干涉柬埔寨的独立和中立,直至最后支持朗诺—施里玛达集团推翻西哈努克政权,而西哈努克又如何在国际冷战环境下争取国家的独立和中立的历史过程,由此揭示国际冷战对小国的重大影响,而小国在大国极端对抗中实际上难以置身事外,甚至难以维持独立和中立的地位。     

历史的选择 人民的选择——纪念中国共产党成立90周年

1840年鸦片战争后，中国沦人了半殖民地半封建社会的深渊。中国人民为了推翻压在自己头上的三座大山，进行了前赴后继的不屈斗争。太平天国运动失败，戊戌变法的失败和中国民主革命失败，证明了这样一个真理，只有中国共产党才能救中国，这是历史的选择，也是人民的选择。     

潮汕海外华侨与抗日战争

潮汕海外华侨在抗日战争中,奋起救亡,宣传抗日;捐资献物,支援抗战;抵制日货,投资建设祖国;回国参战,血洒疆场。他们为打败日本侵略者,争取抗日战争的胜利做出了巨大的贡献。     

Rethinking ‘Rape as a Weapon of War’

One of the most significant shifts in current thinking on war and gender is the recognition that rape in wartime is not a simple by-product of war, but often a planned and targeted policy. For many feminists ‘rape as a weapon of war’ provides a way to articulate the systematic, pervasive, and orchestrated nature of wartime sexual violence that marks it as integral rather than incidental to war. This recognition of rape as a weapon of war has taken on legal significance at the Rwandan and Yugoslav Tribunals where rape has been prosecuted as a crime against humanity and genocide. In this paper, I examine how the Rwanda Tribunal’s record of judgments conceives of rape enacted as an instrument of the genocide. I consider in particular how the Tribunal’s conception of ‘rape as a weapon of war’ shapes what can be known about sexual violence and gender in the Rwandan genocide and what cannot, the categories of victims legally recognised and those that are not, and the questions pursued, and those foreclosed, about the patterns of violence before and during the genocide.

The birth of the memory of Communism: memorial museums in Europe

This article argues that the memory of Communism emerged in Europe not due to the public recognition of pre-given historical experiences of peoples previously under Communist regimes, but to the particularities of the post-Cold War transnational political context. As a reaction to the uniqueness claim of the Holocaust in the power field structured by the European enlargement process, Communism memory was reclaimed according to the European normative and value system prescribed by the memory of the Holocaust. Since in the political context of European enlargement refusing to cultivate the memory of the Holocaust was highly illegitimate, the memory of Communism was born as the “twin brother” of Holocaust memory. The Europeanized memory of Communism produced a legitimate differentia specifica of the newcomers in relation to old member states. It has been publicly reclaimed as an Eastern European experience in relation to universal Holocaust memory perceived as Western. By the analysis of memorial museums of Communism, the article provides a transnational, historical, and sociological account on Communism memory. It argues that the main elements of the discursive repertoire applied in post-accession political debates about the definition of Europe were elaborated before 2004 in a pan-European way.