美国思想库对美国“一个中国”政策的影响

【作者】 张春；

【导师】 孙哲；

【作者基本信息】 复旦大学 ， 国际关系， 2006， 博士

【摘要】 在对美国外交政策影响的诸多因素中，思想库极为重要，但关注的人相对较少。作为一种独立的研究机构，思想库的目的在于指导研究并得出独立的与政策相关的知识。思想库的发展经历了从追求学术可信度向追求接近权力核心转变的过程。今天，大多数思想库都非常关注其政策建议能否得到采纳。因此，美国思想库可以被看作是观察美国对外政策走向的风向标。自中华人民共和国成立后，美国的“一个中国”政策经历了一个从无到有、从坚持到动摇的过程。到目前为止，美国“一个中国”政策已经演变为包括“三大支柱”，即“一个中国”原则、和平解决与两岸对话。相应地，美国思想库在美国“一个中国”政策的“三大支柱”上都发挥着影响。具体而言，美国思想库影响美国“一个中国”政策的长期趋势表现为：(一)总体而言，学术型思想库对美国“一个中国”政策具有中期和长期的影响，如坚持“一个中国”原则、坚持两岸对话等；游说型思想库的影响更多是短期性的，如对台军售；而合同型思想库由于其特殊的背景则既可能有中长期的影响、也会有短期性的影响，尤其明显的是对未来美国如何介入可能的台海战争的方案。(二)由于美国政治的右倾化，美国思想库总体上在事实性议题上更多地倾向于台湾方面，如是否支持台湾“拓展国际空间”的努力、对大陆是否“威胁”台湾安全的认定等问题上；而在规范性问题上，只有学术型、合同型思想库更多地倾向于中国大陆，而游说型仍倾向于台湾方面，如是否坚持“一个中国”原则、是否促进两岸对话等问题。(三)不同类型的思想库对美国国内政治的敏感度是不同的：合同型思想库发挥影响的渠道最为稳定，学术型思想库次之，游说型思想库对美国政局的变化最为敏感。当然，美国思想库对美国“一个中国”政策的影响存在三个方面的制约因素：因议题不同而必然存在的思想库之间、思想库内部的意见分歧，美国思想库发挥影响的国内政治空间，以及美国思想库发挥影响的国际空间或者说中美台关系的总体框架等等。这对中国开展更为有效的对美外交而言，不无启发。更多还原

【Abstract】 Of many factors influencing the American foreign policy making, the role of American think tanks is the most important but least appreciated one. As independent institutions, think tanks are intended to conduct research and produce independent, policy relevant knowledge. Think tanks have developed from pursuing academic credibility to approaching power core. Today, most think tanks focus their attention on the adoption of their policy prescriptions. Thus, American think tanks can be thought as the weather vane indicating the direction of the U. S. foreign policy making.America’s "One China" policy has been grown out of nothing, from persistence to vacillation, since the founding of the People’s Republic of China. After being carried out for one decade, America’s "One China" policy has been undermined by the evolution of international structure, American domestic politics, and think tanks themselves. Now America’s "One China" policy includes three pillars, that is, the "One China" principle, peaceful resolution, and cross-strait talks. Accordingly American think tanks have always played a role in the above three aspects.To be specific, the long-term trends of American think tanks’ role in America’s "One China" policy are manifested in the following.Generally speaking, academic research think tanks have exerted mid-term and long-term impact on America’s "One China" policy, such as insistence on the "One China" principle and cross-strait talks. The influence of policy advocacy think tanks is short-term, for example, on the issue of arms sale to Taiwan. Because of their special relationship with America government, however, governmental contract think tanks’ influences can exert short-term, mid-term or long-term influence especially on the issue of how the United States will intervene in the potential cross-strait war.Secondly, because of the rising conservatism in American domestic politics, almost all of American think tanks prefer Taiwan to mainland China on those substantive issues, such as whether the U. S. should support Taiwan’s efforts of "exploring international space", how the United States should define mainland China "threats" against Taiwan’s security, etc. On those normative issues such as whether the United States should stick to its "One China" policy, whether the United States should promote cross-strait talks, academic research and governmental contract think tanks prefer mainland China while policy advocacy think tanks prefer Taiwan.Thirdly, different types of think tanks have different degrees of sensitivity to the changes in American domestic politics. Governmental contract think tanks are less sensitive because of their stable channels with the government while policy advocacy think tanks are most vulnerable. Academic research think tanks are in between.At the same time, there are three limits to American think tanks’ influence on America’s "One China" policy. They are disagreements among and inside think tanks on specific issues, the domestic environment of American politics, and the international structure, or more precisely, the triangular relationship of Beijing, Washington, and Taipei. This suggests that there is still much room for diplomatic operation in terms of China’s US policy.更多还原