首页> 外文学位 >The two superpowers in China's alliance policy toward North Korea, 1969-1989.
【24h】

The two superpowers in China's alliance policy toward North Korea, 1969-1989.

机译:1969-1989年,中国对朝鲜同盟政策中的两个超级大国。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

This study was undertaken to clarify effects of the differing Sino-Soviet-American strategic relationships on China's North Korea policy during 1969-1989. China's policy behavior toward North Korea was analyzed by historical and quantitative methods of military, political, and economic policies and indicators.; Soviet-American relations were categorized either as detente or conflict, labeling the period of study to be subdivided as follows: Periods 1 (1969-1975) and 4 (1986-1989) U.S.-USSR detente; Periods 2 (1976-1981) and 3 (1982-1985) were U.S.-USSR conflict.; This study had mixed results. Periods 1, 2 and 3 support the hypotheses, whereas Period 4 does not. This was due to the unique characteristics of Period 4--the first appearance of Sino-Soviet-American strategic detente since 1949. Under this situation, China did not have to support North Korea.; Five significant relationships were derived from this study. First, China's trade behavior toward North Korea followed the political behavior. Second, with the exception of Period 4, China tended to support North Korea more during periods of the U.S.-USSR cooperation than during periods of U.S.-USSR conflict. Third, Sino-Soviet relations affected in China's North Korean policy inversely. Fourth, Sino-American relations intervened periodically but significantly, as the third factor, in China's North Korean policy. Fifth, China gave more support to Korean unification than to U.S. troop withdrawal from South Korea.; Quantitative methods were used as an important tool to test or to complement my subjective analysis. Quantified total sum of visitations was not a good indicator of China's support. However, quantitative analysis showed China's celebration of North Korean National Day had a political aspect, whereas her celebration of Sino-North Korea Treaty had a military aspect. China's celebration of the Korean War shows equal support for military and political aspects.; Viewing China's North Korea policy only from the Sino-Soviet rivalry perspective or from North Korea's "equidistance" perspective is not enough. This study suggests the major thrust of alliance theory--the presence of a positive relationship between two superpowers' relations and alliance cohesion--is open to question.
机译:进行这项研究的目的是弄清1969-1989年间不同的中苏战略关系对中国的朝鲜政策的影响。通过军事,政治,经济政策和指标的历史和定量方法分析了中国对朝鲜的政策行为。苏美关系被归类为缓和或冲突,其研究时期分为以下几类:第1时期(1969-1975年)和第4时期(1986-1989年)美苏缓和;第1时期(1969-1975年)和第4时期(1986-1989年)。第2时期(1976-1981)和第3时期(1982-1985)是美苏冲突。这项研究的结果好坏参半。期间1、2和3支持假设,而期间4不支持。这是由于第4时期的独特特征-1949年以来中苏战略缓和的首次出现。在这种情况下,中国不必支持朝鲜。这项研究得出了五个重要的关系。首先,中国对朝鲜的贸易行为遵循政治行为。其次,除了第4时期外,中国倾向于在美苏合作时期比在美苏冲突时期更多地支持朝鲜。第三,中苏关系反过来影响了中国的朝鲜政策。第四,中美关系定期但重要地介入了中国的朝鲜政策,这是其第三个因素。第五,中国对朝鲜统一的支持比对美国从韩国撤军的支持更大。定量方法被用作测试或补充我的主观分析的重要工具。量化的总访问量并不是中国支持的良好指标。但是,定量分析表明,中国庆祝朝鲜国庆节具有政治方面,而她庆祝《中朝条约》具有军事方面。中国对朝鲜战争的庆祝活动显示出对军事和政治方面的平等支持。仅从中苏对抗的角度或从朝鲜的“平等”角度看中国的朝鲜政策是不够的。这项研究表明联盟理论的主要方向-两个超级大国的关系与联盟凝聚力之间存在正关系-值得商question。

著录项

  • 作者

    Choi, Choon Heum.;

  • 作者单位

    The University of Connecticut.;

  • 授予单位 The University of Connecticut.;
  • 学科 Political Science International Law and Relations.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 1990
  • 页码 284 p.
  • 总页数 284
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 国际法;
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号