相同地缘区位下的不同外交战略选择—蒙古国和尼泊尔的比较研究

发布时间：2018-06-29 23:28

本文选题：外交战略选择 + 国家利益　；参考：《外交学院》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：冷战结束后,受美苏冷战影响的小国纷纷转变本国的外交战略以适应新的国际关系格局。格鲁吉亚倒向西方,选择了积极的西向战略,即使与俄罗斯爆发战争也没有停止加入北约的步伐;处于中蒙之间,在冷战期间被称为苏联卫星国的蒙古国却没有倒向任何一方,选择了“多支点”的大国平衡策略,并逐渐转变为中立政策;处于中印之间的尼泊尔则试图实行“等距离外交”。不愿放弃独立主权,追求国家独立的小国如何选取合适的以保持国家主权独立与完整的策略?为什么两个处于相同地缘区位的小国却选择了不相同的外交战略?对于一个国家来说,地缘区位不仅仅表现为一种自然属性,还影响它在世界政治、军事、战略格局中的地位,也影响到一国的安全战略。处于相同地缘区位的小国往往面临着相似的外部安全环境,具有相似的战略地位和战略价值,因此往往趋向于选择较为相似的外交战略。比如处于两个大国之间的小国,有较大的可能会选择中立或大国平衡战略。本文选取了两个具有相同地缘区位的国家进行研究,一个是处于俄罗斯和中国之间的蒙古国,另一个是处于印度和中国之间的尼泊尔。这两个夹在大国之间的较为弱小的国家,为什么在有限的外交战略选择空间内,选择了现有的对外政策。自建国以来,蒙古的外交战略选择经历了重大变化,从冷战前的向苏联一边倒,到冷战后的“第三邻国”外交战略,再到中立政策。尼泊尔则从依附于印度向“等距离外交”政策转变。通过对蒙古国和尼泊尔的历史与现实的研究与比较,分析并具体论述了这两个相同地缘区位的国家为何选择不同的外交战略。研究得知两国选择不同外交战略的原因包含国家利益,自然地理环境,认知因素以及国家利益与决策偏好等。然而由于笔者储备有限,本文大部分是对知识的梳理与总结,并未提出新知,此为一大遗憾。
[Abstract]:After the Cold War, the small countries affected by the Cold War of the United States and the Soviet Union changed their diplomatic strategies to adapt to the new pattern of international relations. Georgia turned to the West and chose an active westward strategy, and even the outbreak of war with Russia did not stop the pace of joining NATO; between China and Mongolia, known as the Soviet satellite state during the cold war, Mongolia did not reverse to either side. The "multi-fulcrum" strategy of great power balance was chosen and gradually transformed into a neutral policy, while Nepal, between China and India, tried to carry out "equal distance diplomacy". How do small countries that are unwilling to give up independent sovereignty and pursue national independence choose the appropriate strategy to maintain the independence and integrity of national sovereignty? Why did two small countries in the same geographical position choose different diplomatic strategies? For a country, geographical location is not only a natural attribute, but also affects its position in world politics, military and strategic pattern, and also affects a country's security strategy. Small countries in the same geographical location often face similar external security environment, have similar strategic position and strategic value, so they tend to choose more similar diplomatic strategies. A small country, for example, between two big powers, is more likely to opt for neutrality or a big power balance strategy. This paper selects two countries with the same geographical location to study, one is Mongolia between Russia and China, the other is Nepal between India and China. Why do these two weaker countries between the big countries choose the existing foreign policy in the limited diplomatic strategic choice space. Since the founding of the people's Republic of China, Mongolia's diplomatic strategic choice has undergone great changes, from the one-sided orientation of the Soviet Union before the Cold War to the "third neighboring country" diplomatic strategy after the Cold War, and then to the policy of neutrality. Nepal, on the other hand, has shifted from an attachment to India to a policy of equidistant diplomacy. Through the study and comparison of the history and reality of Mongolia and Nepal, this paper analyzes and discusses in detail why the two countries with the same geographical location choose different diplomatic strategies. The research shows that the reasons for the two countries to choose different diplomatic strategies include national interests, natural geographical environment, cognitive factors, national interests and decision-making preferences. However, due to the limited reserves of the author, most of this paper is a summary of knowledge, not a new knowledge, which is a great regret.
【学位授予单位】：外交学院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D831.1;D835.5

【相似文献】