Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

Title: 中國東北亞安全政策的本質與目的:以六方會談為例
Other Titles: The Goal and Essence of China’s Security Policy in Northeast Asia: the Case of Six-Party Talks
Authors: 洪銘德;游智偉
Huang, Ming-Te;Yu, Chih-Wei
Keywords: 六方會談;北韓核武危機;古典現實主義;權力平衡
Date: 2010-01
Issue Date: 2016-07-20 16:11:33 (UTC+8)
Abstract: 隨著中國國力的相對崛起與日本的相對衰弱,中國在北韓核武危機與六方會談為其東北亞安全政策實踐的主要場域,藉由回顧其在北韓核武危機與六方會談中扮演的角色與功能應可回答兩個問題:其一,中國的東北亞政策是否如其所言般,乃以「和諧世界」為綱領?而或仍以現實主義為基本路線?其二,協調召開六方會談究竟是不是中國將開始「有所做為」?而或僅是偶然的結果?本文透過回顧中國在六方會談與北韓核武危機中扮演的角色與比對其對2006年北韓核武試爆與2009年北韓發射火箭的反應差異,認為中國的東北亞政策乃以古典現實主義為基本路線,以權力平衡為工具,分別藉由六方會談與美日安保條約限制北韓核武化的衝擊與可能隨之而來的日本正常化企圖,藉此穩固區域現狀;再者,核武化的北韓亦同時影響中國的安全利益,且其亦刻意維護北韓政權的存續,因此不能因此將之視為中國提供公共財或成為霸權的開端,而是因其安全利益亦同時受到威脅之故。
With the rapid rise of China and the relative decline of Japan, the North Korean Nuclear Crisis and the Six-Party Talks are the main fields for realization of China’s Northeast Asian policy. Reflections on China’s role and functions in the Nuclear Crisis and the Six-Party Talks may help answer two questions. First, is China’s Northeast Asia policy really the practice of the concept of harmonious world, or is still based on the principle of realism? Second, coordinating among parties to the talk, is Six-Party Talks the start of China’s active policy or merely an accidental result? By comparing and contrasting the role which China plays in the North Korean Nuclear Crisis and Six-Party Talks after 2003 and the different response making by China in the North Korean Nuclear Test in 2006 and rocket launch in 2009, what can be concluded in this paper is that China’s Northeast Asia policy is still based on the fundamental principle of classical realism; therefore, the concepts of balance of power and maintenance of status quo are the underlying guidelines hidden in their security policy toward Northeast Asia. In a nutshell, through their performance in the Six-Party Talks, China cannot be regarded as a regional hegemony, because China’s activities in the Six-Party Talks are still mainly interest-oriented rather than hegemony-oriented, so China has no intention to provide the public goods for the purposes of managing crises. Furthermore, in the Six-party talks, China has played a role with the function of coordination, and what they can offer is to harmonize the divergent standpoints held by U.S. and North Korea in crisis. Therefore, Chinese performance in the Six-Party Talks cannot be considered as the signal that China starts to shoulder the responsibility of hegemony in a long-term, but merely an overlap of national interest and responsibility towards the international society in a short-term.
Relation: 東亞研究, 41(1), 77-118
East Asia Studies
Data Type: article
Appears in Collections:[東亞研究] 期刊論文

Files in This Item:

File Description SizeFormat
41(1)p77-118.pdf2448KbAdobe PDF643View/Open

All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

社群 sharing