马岛战争与英美阿关系

发布时间：2018-05-13 05:12

本文选题：马岛战争 + 英国　；参考：《山东师范大学》2008年硕士论文

【摘要】： 当今世界,历史遗留的岛屿主权争端还继续存在着,和平解决这些争端符合当事国人民的愿望和利益。1982年英阿马岛战争在这个领域为世人提供了一个值得借鉴的案例。有关马岛战争的研究一直没有间断,但多数集中在与军事有关的方面。实际上,从历史上看解决国际争端须靠外交而不是单纯的武力。马岛战争相关的外交远比军事斗争复杂、激烈,对国与国间解决领土争端更有借鉴意义。所以,与战争相关的外交之背景、过程、影响值得我们去进行详尽的探讨。而从目前的论著来看,战争期间外交方面的系统研究相对其它专题还比较少。本文试图在吸收国内外研究成果的基础上,将英美阿三方在战争前前后后的外交活动结合在一起考察军事斗争背后的外交过程,以从整体上揭示外交对这场战争进程的影响。文章正文共分六个部分: 第一部分分析战争的起因,英美阿之间相互“鼓励”错觉,进而这种错觉造成了战争。首先英国在马岛问题上的政策过失,导致阿根廷产生武力解决问题的念头,进而导致阿根廷误读了英国的一些举动,坚定了武力夺回马岛的决心。1976年上台的军政府认为英国随着国力的衰退,不会做出激烈反应;况且美阿关系密切,美国即使不支持自己也会保持中立。一系列的错觉促使加尔铁里在1982年3月底作出武力占领马岛的决定。第二部分梳理战争的导火线-南乔治亚事件。南乔治亚事件是一个偶然的事件,但在处理这一事件中,英美阿之间的错觉继续升级。英国尽量保持低调的姿态,以免刺激阿根廷,而阿根廷却误读为英国继续拖延;阿根廷的威胁在英国看来仅仅是口头上的发泄,所以没能辨清即将爆发的战争的信号;美国因为专注于反共战略,没有重视两个盟友之间的争端,而且认为英阿过于为一件小事别扭。第三部分突出美国的调停这条线索,并通过对英阿外交的分析侧面论证美国的调停是公正的。战争尽管在英阿之间进行,但此时英国正在军事准备阶段,阿根廷的战略计划是谈判,所以这是外交为第一战线、军事为第二战线阶段。因此黑格的调停便成为了解战争的主线。事实上,美国是严格的居中调停,双方都是重要的盟友,失去任何一个,对美国的全球战略都不利。英阿外交的主要目标则是争取美国的支持。不过两国的方式不同。英国从侧面影响美国;阿根廷则僵硬地认为美国应该帮助自己或严守中立,这种错觉影响了在黑格调停过程中军政府的决策。最终英国的外交姿态给黑格以良好的印象。而阿根廷的思维错觉却将黑格对自己施加的压力看作美国的偏心,因此越来越对黑格的调停不合作,黑格不得不将谈判破裂的责任推给阿根廷,宣布支持英国。第四部分论述5月1日后,撒切尔夫人选择了战争。撒切尔首相选择战争的主要原因是:4月底,特遣舰队已到达马岛水域,完成军事准备工作;黑格调停失败,美国宣布支持英国。英国一面谈判,一面继续舞动飞机和大炮,对马岛进行不断的轰击,为和谈设置障碍。随着伤亡的增加,国际社会对英国的动机表示出怀疑,呼吁停火的呼声越来越高。在这样的氛围下,阿根廷开始积极配合联合国的调停,做出重大的让步。但时间不允许英国再谈判下去,5月20日是英国定下的谈判的最后期限。之后,“无论用什么办法都不可能制止军事行动了”。第五部分重点分析在5月20后阿根廷的外交战。在军事形势越来越有利于英国的局势下,阿根廷利用英国不愿再谈判的态势主动展开外交,企图利用国际舆论,在外交上打败英国。这个阶段的外交给英国、美国都造成了相当大的压力,使英美之间出现分歧,阿根廷赢得联合国停火决议的投票。不过,这时英国已经孤注一掷,尽管阿根廷的外交已见起色,却无法扭转撒切尔夫人将战争进行到底的态势。英国对决议动用了否决权,迅速地推进战争。6月15日,阿根廷军队投降。第六部分是战争对英美阿关系的影响。虽然英国和阿根廷为福克兰群岛的主权问题而进行了一场战争,但颇具讽刺意味的是战争并没有解决这个问题,主权归属依然在争论中。马岛战争在美英特殊关系发展中是一次重要的事件,使70年代貌合神离的英美关系得到巩固和加强。胜利巩固了撒切尔夫人与里根的个人关系以及英国与美国的大西洋伙伴关系。至于战争对美阿关系的影响,学者都认为美国在战争中支持英国大大损害了美阿关系,但从历史上看,冲突与合作一直是美阿关系的主线,从这种视角分析,美阿关系不是受到损害,而是回到了美阿关系的历史主线上。并且战后阿根廷走上了民主化道路,阿根廷主人变化了,外交路线也会相应调整,所以战争对两国关系影响不能夸大。最后是结论,马岛战争是大西洋主义对泛美主义的胜利。马岛战争首先是大西洋主义的恰当的诠释。在两个盟友的关系无法兼顾的情况下,美国最终全力支持英国。马岛战争是英美特殊关系发展中的一个给养站,战争后两国关系异常密切起来。英美在全球战略中相互提供支持。马岛战争同时又使泛美主义受挫。马岛战争加深了美国与拉美国家之间意识上的鸿沟。马岛战争中阿根廷的失败又是泛美主义的受挫,使泛美主义貌合神离的趋向更加明显。
[Abstract]:In the world today , the sovereignty dispute of islands in history has continued to exist , and the peaceful settlement of these disputes is in accordance with the wishes and interests of the people of the State concerned . In 1982 , the war on the island of Palestine has provided a useful case for the world . In fact , the war - related diplomacy in the island is far more complicated than the military struggle . Therefore , the background , the process and the influence of the war - related diplomacy deserve to be discussed in detail .

On the basis of absorbing the domestic and foreign research results , this paper attempts to combine the diplomatic activities behind the military struggle with the diplomatic activities of the three parties after the war , in order to reveal the influence of diplomacy on the process of the war .

The first part analyzes the causes of the war and the mutual " encouragement " between the British and the United States , which leads to the war .

First , Britain ' s policy negligence on the island led to Argentina ' s idea of force - solving , which led Argentina to misread Britain ' s resolve . In 1976 , the military government believed that Britain would not react violently with the recession of the country . In 1976 , the United States would remain neutral , even if it did not support itself . A series of illusions prompted the decision by the State of Calcutta to make the seizure of the island by the end of March 1982 .

The second part sorts out the war ' s fuse - South Georgia incident .

South Georgia was an occasional incident , but in dealing with the incident , the illusion between the British and the United States continued to escalate . The United Kingdom tried to maintain a low profile in order not to stimulate Argentina , while Argentina had misread the signal that Britain continued to delay ; Argentina ' s threats appeared to be mere verbal leaks in the UK ; the United States did not recognize the impending war ; the United States did not attach importance to the dispute between the two allies because of its focus on the anti - Communist strategy .

The third part highlights the U.S . mediation , and argues that mediation in the United States is fair through the analysis of British - Arab diplomacy .

The war , though carried out between Britain and Afghanistan , is in the military preparation phase , and Argentina ' s strategic plan is negotiations , so it is diplomacy for the first front , military for the second front stage . The main goal of diplomacy is to win support from the United States .

The fourth part deals with the selection of the war by Mrs Thatcher after 1 May .

The prime minister ' s choice of war is that the Task Force has reached the waters of the island at the end of April to complete military preparations ; the United States declared its support for Britain . On one side , the United States declared its support for Britain . With the increase of casualties , the international community expressed doubts about the motives of the United Nations and called for a cease - fire . In such an atmosphere , Argentina began to actively cooperate with the mediation of the United Nations and made significant concessions .

The fifth part focuses on the diplomatic war in Argentina after May 20 .

Argentina won the United Nations cease - fire resolution by taking advantage of Britain ' s reluctance to re - negotiate in a situation where the military situation is more and more favourable to Britain . The diplomacy in this stage gives Britain and the United States a considerable pressure to cast a vote on the United Nations cease - fire resolution . But then Britain has been desperate to reverse Mrs . Thatcher ' s war on the ground . Britain has used the veto to push forward the war quickly . On June 15 , the Argentine army surrendered .

The sixth part is the influence of war on Anglo - American relations .

Although Britain and Argentina fought a war for the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands , it was ironic that the war did not solve the problem , and sovereignty remained in the debate . The island war was an important event in the development of Anglo - American relations . The victory reinforced the personal relationship between Mrs . Thatcher and Reagan and the Atlantic Partnership between Britain and the United States .

Finally , it is concluded that the island war is the victory of the Atlantic in the Pan - Americanism .

The island war is first the proper interpretation of Atlantic doctrine .

The U . S . ended its full support for Britain in the unlikely event of a compromise between the two allies . The island ' s war was a feeding station in the development of Anglo - American special relations , which was unusually close after the war . Britain and the United States supported each other in the global strategy .

The island ' s war , meanwhile , frustrated the Pan - Americanism .

The island ' s war deepened the gulf between the United States and Latin American countries . Argentina ' s defeat in the island war was also a setback for Pan - Americanism , which made the tendency of panaestheticism to be more obvious .

【学位授予单位】：山东师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2008
【分类号】：K153

【参考文献】