時間:2015-2-13 11:06:40  作者:轉載  來源:轉載  查看:1024  評論:0
內容摘要:The Multiplicity of Asia Whatis an Asian Regional Order? 什么是亞洲秩序? Thehistorical European order had been self-contained.England was,unt...

The Multiplicity of Asia
Whatis an Asian Regional Order?
Thehistorical European order had been self-contained.England was,until the earlytwentieth century, able to preserve the balance through its insular positionand naval supremacy.Occasionally, European powers enlisted outside countries tostrengthen their positions temporarily-for example, France courting the OttomanEmpire in the sixteenth century or Britains early-twentieth-century alliancewith Japan –but non-Western powers,other than occasional surges from the MiddleEast or North Africa, had few interests in Europe and were not called on tointervene in European conflicts.


Bycontrast, the contemporary Asian order includes outside powers as an integralfeature: the United States, whose role as an Asia-Pacific power was explicitlyaffirmed in joint statements by U.S. President Barack Obama and ChinesePresident Hu Jintao in January 2011, and Chinese President Xi Jinping in June2013; and Russia, geographically an Asian power and participant in Asiangroupings such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation,even if ovethree-quarters of its population lives in the European portion of Russianterritory.


TheUnited States in modern times has occasionally been invited to act as abalancer of power.In the Treaty of Portsmouth of 1905,it mediated the warbetween Russia and Japan;in World War 2,it defeated Japans quest for Asianhegemony. The United States played a comparable Asian role during the Cold Warwhen it sought to balance the Soviet Union through a network of alliancesstretching from Pakistan to the Philippines.


The evolving Asian structure will have to take into account a plethora of statesnot dealt with in the preceding pages. Indonesia, anchoring Southeast Asiawhile affirming an Islamic orientation,plays an increasingly influential roleand has thus far managed a delicate balancing act between China, the UnitedStates, and the Muslim world. With Japan,Russia, and China as nerghbors, theRepublic of Korea has achieved a vibrant democracy bolstered by a globallycompetitive economy, including leadership in strategic industries such astelecommunications and shipbuilding. Many Asian countries-including China-viewNorth Koreas policies as destabilizing but regard a collapse of North Korea asa greater danger.South Korea on its part will have to deal with increasingdomestic pressures for unification.


In theface of Asias vast scale and the scope of its diversity, its nations havefashioned a dazzling array of multilateral groupings and bilateralmechanisms.In contrast to the European Union,NATO,and the Commission onSecurity and Cooperation in Europe, these institutions deal with security andeconomic issues on a case-by-case basis, not as an expression of formal rulesof regional order . Some of the key groupings include the United States, andsome, including economic ones, are Asian only, of which the most elaborated andsignificant is ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. The coreprinciple is to welcome those nations most directly involved with the issues athand.


Butdoes all this amount to an Asian system of order?In Europes equilibrium, theinterests of the main parties were comparable, if not congruent ,A balance ofpower could  be developed not only inpractice-as is inevitable in the absence of hegemony-but as a system oflegitimac that facilitated decisions and moderated policies. Such a congruencedoes not exist in Asia, as is shown by the priorities the major countries haveassigned to themselves.While India appears mostly concerned with China as apeer competitor, in large measure a legacy of the 1962 border war, China seesits peer rivals in Japan and the United States. India has devoted fewermilitary resources to China than to Pakistan, which, if not a peeer competitor,has been a strategic preoccupation for New Delhi.


Theamorphous nature of Asian groupings is partly because geography has dectated asharp dividing line between East Asia and South Asia throughouthistory.Cultural, philosophical, and religious influences have transcended thegeographic dividing lines, and Hindu and Confucian concepts of governance havecoexisted in Southeast Asia. But the mountain and jungle barriers were too impenetrableto permit military interaction between the great empires of East Asia and SouthAsia until the twentieth century. The Mongols and their successors entered theIndian subconinent from Central Asia, not through the Himalayan hign passes,andthey failed to reach the southern parts of India. The various regions of Asiahave geopolitically and historically pursued distinct courses.


Theregional orders constructed during these periods include none based onWestphalian premises.Where the European order embraced an equilibrium ofterritorially defined “sovereign states” recognizing each others legal equality, traditional Asian political powers operated by more ambiguous criteria. Untilwell into the modern era, an “inner Asian” world influenced by Mongol Empire,Russia, and Islam coexisted with a Chinese imperial tribute system; the latterreached outward to the kingdoms of Southeast Asia, which entertained Chinasclaims of universality even as they practiced a form of statecraft deeplyinfluenced by Hindu principles received from India that posited a form ofdivinity for monarchs.

在這些時期,地區秩序的構建沒有受到 過威斯特伐利亞體系的影響。歐洲秩序是建立在一群地區領主的平衡上的,他們都承認彼此平等的合法地位;而亞洲的傳統政治建立在更加模糊的標準上。直到進入現代前,真正的亞洲是蒙古帝國、俄國、伊斯蘭和一個中華帝國的朝貢體系共存的世界;后者向外擴展到東南亞諸國,雖然治國方法深受印度教影響同樣假設國王有神性,但東南亞諸國還是接受了中國建立的世界體系。

Nowthese legacies are meeting, and there is far from a consensus among the variouscountries about the meaning of the journey they have taken or its lessons fortwenty-first-century world order. Under contemporary conditions, essentiallytwo balances of power are emerging:on in South Asia, the other in East Asia.Neither possesses the characteristic integral to the European balance of power:a balancer,a country capable of establishing an equilibrium by shifting itsweight to the weaker side. The United States(after its withdrawal fromAfghanistan) has refrained from treating the contemporary internal South Asianbalance primarily as a military problem. But it will have to be active in thediplomacy over reestablishing a regional order lest a vacuum is created, whichwould inevitably draw all surrounding countries into a regional confrontation.


評論者:      驗證碼:  點擊獲取驗證碼
copyright©2010 All Rights Reserved 版權所有:四川省國際和平與發展研究中心
power byApp之家
rb88官网 热博sbt体育| 热博手机版| 热博体育在线| BTI体育| rb88热博电竞手机版| rb88热博电竞平台| rb88热博电竞手机版| 热博88| 热博| 热博rb88| rb88热博电竞手机版| 热博体育官网| BTI体育|