后冷战时代东北亚安全困境论析/

2019-04-05 00:17:13

安全 security 困境 Japan dilemma



“安全困境”是现实主义国际关系理论的核心概念之一,是国际关系中的常有态势。早在公元前5世纪古希腊历史学家修昔底德就对这一情形有所描述。20世纪50年代初,美英学者赫兹和巴特菲尔德正式提出这一概念,由于美苏两个超级大国爆发冷战、对峙乃至军备竞赛,以及现实主义和新现实主义在国际关系理论界居主导地位,“安全困境”在战后国际关系中发挥着显赫的作用。本文从理论梳理入手,并运用这一理论分析后冷战时代的东北亚地区安全局势。
本文第一部分主要是探讨安全困境的基本理论机理。通过对安全困境的界定、类型、产生原因、能否消除的分析以及理论反思,认为安全困境的由来与首要特征是无政府状态下国家间的不信任与恐惧。那么,一国为保障安全而采取的措施,意味着降低了其它国家的安全感,成为另一方为之忧虑的根源。因此,一个国家即使是为了防御的目的而扩充实力,也会被其它国家视为需要做出反应的威胁所在;而这种反应又使前者确信,它是有理由为自己的安全担忧的,从而形成了“作用—反作用”的恶性循环。就目前而言,消减安全困境的最佳方式是构建制度(机制),形成一定的准则与规范,让参与者互惠互限。
第二部分是本文的主体,主要是阐述了东北亚安全困境的现实,并分析造成这一困境的原因与后果。
就现实而言,朝鲜与韩国是该地区最典型的一对安全困境:双方的互不信任导致相互担忧来自对方的攻击,韩国通过与美国的联合军事演习及武器现代化来慑服北方;朝鲜通过发展军备特别是试图发展核武器,来增加同美韩要价的筹码,获取自身的“安全”。而各自的行为又使对方相信其担忧是有道理的,从而形成安全上的恶性循环。中国与日本之间的安全困境体现在国民感情、军事安全、钓鱼岛争端以及双方谋求大国地位等四个层面。日本加强同美国的联盟关系,推动质量建军,大力发展和引进先进武器。而中国出于维护自身安全的考虑,也必然做出一定反应。日本与朝鲜的安全困境主要集中于:朝鲜发展导弹、核武器问题以及日本对待侵略历史问题。朝鲜由于自身经济实力相对不足,为避免在同对手打交道时陷入被动,常常在军事上采取主动。美日则一直把朝鲜的导弹试射与核武器发展计划作为它们采取行动的直接借口,而这一作法更加加剧了朝鲜的不安全感。
造成东北亚地区困境的因素主要包括以下几个方面:
历史因素,日本的侵略战争给东亚各国留下了痛苦的记忆,而今,日本又未能彻底对此进行反省,一个没有彻底肃清军国主义遗毒并有尚武传统的民族,怎能让邻国对它产生信任?而发生在半个多世纪前的朝鲜战争,不仅没有解决朝鲜的民族统一问题,反而加剧了双方的分裂,加深了双方的不信任。
外来因素,美国的存在给这一地区增加了许多变数。美国在东亚强大的军事存在以及严密的组织协调网络给该地区有关国家构成了巨大的战略压力,也在一定程度上刺激了安全困境的成形。
现实因素,大国崛起对现状可能带来的冲击。历史上,没有一个老霸主不是通过战争来维护其主导权的,也没有新霸主不是通过战争来获得世界中心国家地位的。中日都属崛起中的大国,美国在这一地区的优势地位正在面临挑战,同时中日之间也存在竞争。
机制因素,长期以来,东北亚地区安全保障主要以双边军事同盟及双边交流的形式体现出来,缺乏普遍性的安全机制。尽管各国都在倡导建立这种机制,但它们均从自身利益出发,争取在新安全机制中占据重要地位。种种矛盾的存在使该地区建立合作机制任重而道远,因而潜藏着相互防范、军备竞赛的可能。
地理因素,东北亚独特的地理环境也是安全困境产生、加剧的一个重要因素。朝鲜半岛处于大国的夹缝中,它无论倒向哪一方,都会恶化另一方的安全困境;日本的岛国以及资源奇缺的特征,使它对海上运输线以及对海洋的控制显得十分敏感。而中国有着太多的海陆邻国,在一定程度上抵消了物质实力的增长。
东北亚安全困境产生的最大后果是刺激了该地区的军备竞赛。后冷战时代东北亚各国军费陡增,纷纷更新军事装备,出现了“逆裁军”现象。同时,出现了美日韩与中朝俄两大安全利益协调体,组成协调体的各方有着较多的共同安全利益,并通过协调使自身的利益得以实现。
第三部分是对策与前景。介绍了东北亚现存的几种安全对话形式,总的说来目前的安全对话形式是政府间对话不发达(仅有东盟地区论坛),而第二轨道对话则刚刚起步。虽然目前建立次区域安全保障机制时机尚未成熟,但这并不等于说各国可以放弃努力。东北亚各国应当着眼于长远利益,告别习惯思维,增信释疑、共同努力,变相互减损的安全为各方共同的安全。




“Security dilemma” is one of quintessential concepts in realism international relations theory, and is frequent situations in interstates relations. In 5 century B.C., ancient Grecian historian Thucydides had ever described this case. In the early 1950’s, American and Britain scholars John Herz and Herbert Butterfield formally put forward this concept. Because of the cold war between America and Soviet, at the same time, realism and neorealism lying in the leading position of international relations theory academia, security dilemma plays eminent role in interstate relations after World War Two. This dissertation begins with the analysis of theory, and utilizes it to analyze the security situations of northeast Asia in the post-cold war era.
The first part of this dissertation mainly discusses the basic theoretical mechanism of security dilemma. Through the definition of security dilemma, the analysis of its type, produce reasons and the possibility of elimination as well as theoretical rethinking, the origin and the primary feature of security dilemma are believed as the distrust and fear among counties under anarchy. So, the measure that a country adopts for ensuring safety signifies to reduce the safe sense of other countries, becomes the source of their worrying. Therefore, even if a country expands its power for the purpose of defense, it will render the others to feel more insecure and compel them to prepare for the worst. This situation will result to the vicious circle of “action-reaction”. So far, security regimes (mechanism) constructed are the best way of eliminating security dilemma, forming certain norm and specification, making participators get mutual benefits and limits.
Second part is the main part of this dissertation. It elaborates mainly the reality of security dilemma in northeast Asia, and analyses the consequence and reason that causes this dilemma.
As far as reality is concerned, there is a classical security dilemma between South and North Korea. Mutual distrust results in worrying about the attack from the other’s opponent. Consequently, South Korea modernizes its weapons and attends the joint military maneuver with America. North also develops advanced weapons especially nuclear weapon to get itself “safety”. At last, the vicious circle is formed on safety. The security dilemma between China and Japan embodies on 4 aspects: national affection, military safety, Diaoyu Islands and seeking great power position. In order to get favorable opportunity, Japan strengthens the alliance relations with U.S. and promotes the development of military force. Based on protecting its security, China will make the certain reaction correspondingly. The security dilemma between Japan and North Korea concentrates on the former’s treating aggression in history and the latter’s development of missile and nuclear. Because of its economy strength relative weak, North Korea often adopts initiative behavior to avoid passive when it deals with its opponent. At the same time, U.S. and Japan make use of North Korea’s deed as direct excuse of their actions. This practice has much more aggravated the unsafe sense of North Korea.
The reasons of producing security dilemma are mainly following:
Historical factor, the aggression war of Japan has left the memory of pain to East Asian countries, today, Japan can not carry out self-examination thoroughly for it, how could make its neighbor trust a nation that does not eliminate militarism thoroughly and has military tradition? In addition, the Korean War broke out before half much century, not to solve national unification, but to aggravate the split and distrust in both sides.
Exterior factor, the existence of America has increased a lot of undetermined factors to this area. The powerful military existence and tightly coordinative network have formed huge strategic pressure to some relevant countries in this area, and have also stimulated to form security dilemma.
Realistic factor, the rise of great power will bring to impact on the present situation. In history, there are not old hegemony defending its domination no through war, and not new hegemony getting world central position no through war, either. China and Japan are rising great power, therefore, the American advantage position is being faced with challenge in this area, on the other hand, there are competition between China and Japan.
Mechanism factor, form long term, northeast Asia safe guarantee is mostly embodied with bilateral military alliance and communication, lacks the general safe mechanism. Though every country proposes to establish this kind of mechanism, their proposals are based on their interest, and striving to occupy important position in the new safe mechanism. The existence of various contradictions makes this area fill with brambles to establish cooperation mechanism. Consequently, there are a lot of danger, such as guarding mutually and the possibility of arm race.
Geographical factor, the special geography environment is an important factor of security dilemma in northeast Asia. Around Korean peninsula, there are four great powers, whichever power gets this area, it will aggravate others’ security dilemma. As an insularity and lack of source country, Japan pays close attention to sea transportation line and control sea power. China has too much sea and land neighboring countries, which offsets the increase of material strength to certain extent.
The biggest consequence produced by the security dilemma of northeast Asia stimulates the arm race in this area. In the post-cold war era, a lot of countries increase the military expenditure, update military equipment, and appear de-disarmament phenomenon. At the same time, there are two security benefit coordinative bodies: U.S.-South Korea-Japan and China- North Korea-Russia. Each side of these bodies has more common security benefits, and realizes its benefit through coordination.
The part three is countermeasure and perspective. At present, there are some security dialogue forms in this area. In a word, the form of intergovernment is underdeveloped (only ARF), and the second orbit dialogue just starts. Although the opportunity, which establishes regional safe guarantee, is not ripened, it is not equal to say that countries can give up effort. Northeast Asian countries should stress long-term benefits, say goodbye to accustomed thoughts, increase trust and eliminate doubt, make joint efforts, convert the security reduced mutually into the common security.