试论美国对朝鲜托管政策的演变

发布时间：2018-02-16 09:36

本文关键词： 美国战后朝鲜托管政策演变　出处：《延边大学》2010年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】： 目前朝鲜半岛正处于南北分裂的状态,其统一问题关系到整个东北亚地区的稳定和发展,已经成为当前国际社会关注的焦点。朝鲜半岛因其独特的地理位置,在历史上多次成为大国冲突的舞台。朝鲜半岛所处的地缘政治上的因素,使其成为强权政治的牺牲品。从地理位置上来看朝鲜半岛对美国来说是非常重要,美国对朝鲜的控制能有效地遏制战后苏联在东北亚地区的扩张。太平洋战争爆发后,美国开始考虑被日本占领数十年之久的朝鲜战后政治前途问题。一直到太平洋战争结束前的数年中,美国没有接受朝鲜方面关于战后立即独立的要求,而是提出了战后托管朝鲜的方案,对战后朝鲜半岛政治命运产生了巨大的影响,在一定程度上成为朝鲜南北分裂的起因。美国在制定战后朝鲜托管政策中,仅考虑到各大国在朝鲜的利益平衡,进而制定出各大国都能满意的托管政策,对朝鲜的托管政策没有考虑朝鲜人民的意愿,仅以朝鲜人民在日本的殖民统治下,缺乏管理国家的能力为借口,把朝鲜人民排除在战后治理国家之外。二战后,美苏之间的战时同盟关系结束,美苏在全球的势力角逐开始,这对美国的战后朝鲜托管政策实施产生了巨大影响。由于美苏之间的不合作、分歧等导致美国的战后朝鲜托管政策在实施的过程中遭到极大的阻力,最后朝鲜南北部各自建立政权而宣告美国的战后朝鲜托管政策失败。美国战后朝鲜托管政策所具有的局限性,注定了它的失败。作为马克思唯物史观的坚持者,笔者认为,事物的变化发展是内外因共同作用的结果,外因必须通过内因发生作用,内因才是运动、变化、发展的根本因素。因此,要在战后实践美国制定的朝鲜政策,美国就必须从分裂主体的内部因素入手,朝鲜的主体是朝鲜人民,美国的战后朝鲜托管政策,只有正确地将战后朝鲜人民的意愿考虑在内,这才是战后朝鲜托管政策成功的关键,其他大国的意愿只能起到辅助作用。本论文正是基于以上观点,从历史学角度,着手于朝鲜半岛分裂的起因分析,将此问题主要分为美国战后朝鲜托管政策的出台、调整和战后美国托管政策的实施与朝鲜的反托管运动来论证,美国的朝鲜政策是根据其战时战后的国力来制定的,在一定程度上是有他的可行性的,但在他的制定过程和结论中对朝鲜人民的评价一直都甚低,一直都甚少考虑朝鲜人民对战后朝鲜的意愿,是导致美国战后朝鲜托管政策失败的关键。
[Abstract]:At present, the Korean Peninsula is in a state of separation between the north and the south, and its reunification is related to the stability and development of the whole Northeast Asian region, and has become the focus of attention of the current international community. Because of its unique geographical position, Many times in history, the Korean peninsula has become a stage of great power conflict. The geopolitical factors on the Korean peninsula have made it a victim of power politics. Geographically, the Korean peninsula is very important to the United States. American control of North Korea can effectively curb the expansion of the Soviet Union in Northeast Asia after the war. After the Pacific War broke out, the United States began to consider the Korean postwar political future, which had been occupied by Japan for decades. In the years leading up to the end of the Pacific War, the United States did not accept North Korea's demand for immediate post-war independence. Instead, he put forward a proposal to trust Korea after the war, which had a great influence on the political fate of the Korean Peninsula after the war, and to a certain extent became the cause of the division between the North and the South of Korea. In formulating the post-war Korean trusteeship policy, the United States only took into account the balance of interests of the major powers in the DPRK, and then formulated a trusteeship policy that all the major powers could be satisfied with. The United States did not consider the wishes of the Korean people in regard to the Korean trusteeship policy. Just using the Korean people under the colonial rule of Japan and lacking the ability to run the country as an excuse to exclude the Korean people from running the country after the war. After World War II, the wartime alliance between the United States and the Soviet Union ended, and the US-Soviet struggle for power began in the world. This has had a great impact on the implementation of the post-war Korean trusteeship policy of the United States. Due to the lack of cooperation and differences between the United States and the Soviet Union, the United States' post-war Korean trusteeship policy has encountered great resistance in the process of implementation. In the end, North and South Korea established their respective regimes and declared the United States failed in its postwar Korean trusteeship policy. The limitations of the United States' post-war Korean trusteeship policy doomed its failure. As the adherent of Marx's historical materialism, the author believes that the changes and development of things are the result of the joint action of internal and external factors. External causes must act through internal causes, which are the fundamental factors for movement, change and development. Therefore, in order to practice the Korean policy formulated by the United States after the war, the United States must start with the internal factors that divide the main body. The main body of the DPRK is the Korean people, and the United States' post-war Korean trusteeship policy can only take the will of the postwar Korean people into account correctly, which is the key to the success of the post-war Korean trusteeship policy, and the wishes of other major powers can only play an auxiliary role. This paper is based on the above views, from the perspective of history, to analyze the causes of the division of the Korean Peninsula, divided this issue into the introduction of the United States' post-war Korean trusteeship policy. The adjustment and implementation of the post-war US trusteeship policy and the anti-trust movement of the DPRK proved that the US Korean policy was formulated on the basis of its postwar national strength, and to a certain extent had its own feasibility. However, in his formulation process and conclusions, the evaluation of the Korean people has been very low, and very little consideration has been given to the Korean people's will to Korea after the war, which is the key to the failure of the United States' post-war Korean trusteeship policy.
【学位授予单位】：延边大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：K312.5;D871.2

【参考文献】