日本“大国化”

【作者】 程文明；

【导师】 周颂伦；

【作者基本信息】 东北师范大学 ， 日本史， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 本论文旨在对战前日本的“大国化”实践进行回顾的基础上,结合战后以来的日本国家发展道路选择过程,对现今日本正在为之努力的“大国化”做出客观评述。作为战后日本国家发展的历史背景,论文在序章结合近代日本开国后对国家发展道路的选择,对战前日本的“大国化”实践进行了简要的回顾。认为开国后的近代日本明确树立起了一个“大国化”的国家发展目标,它所实践的也是一条“大国化”国家发展道路,而且其“大国”实践表现出了实现方式上的军事侵略性、扩张目标的亚洲指向性和国际上的大国竞争性三点显著特征。作为战后日本国家发展的基点与起点,论文在第一章对战后民主化改革、以及日本摆脱被占领状态并获得“独立”的过程进行了评述。以和平宪法的颁布为标志,战后民主化改革为战后日本确定了和平发展的基调,但美国主导的战后改革保留了天皇的象征性地位,未能彻底抛弃天皇制,加之美国转变对日政策,令日本在未对战争责任做出深刻反省、战前军国主义遗留尚未得到彻底清算的情况下便获得独立,致使战后日本的国家发展深受战前侵略历史的影响。战后初期长期执掌政权的吉田茂依据当时国内外客观形势,以其现实主义思想为基础,为日本确立了一条“重经济、轻军备”的保守“本流”路线。以鸠山一郎、岸信介为代表的极具民族主义倾向的保守“旁流”势力登台后,纠正过于亲美、偏重经济的吉田政权的做法,转“经济中心主义”为“政治中心主义”,战后日本在50年代中后期又奉行了一段保守“旁流”路线,将完善独立体制、重建军备作为了政策重点。由于保守“旁流”政权的“政治中心主义”做法带有否定战后民主化改革成果、复活战前“军国主义”意味,战后崛起的反战和平民主力量联合发起了大规模“安保斗争”,又将日本拉回到“经济中心主义”的“本流”路线上来。其后,保守“本流”政权长期贯彻战后宪法所确定的和平主义发展基调,使日本迅速崛起成为经济大国,并以此提高了自己的国际地位。论文的第二章及第三章的第一部分对这一过程进行了评述。经济“大国化”的过程和经济大国地位的确立使因战败而一度失去的日本人的民族自信得到恢复。与此同时,在国际政治舞台上一味追随美国,只顾埋头发展经济的做法也使日本人被冠上了“经济动物”的不雅称号。两方面相结合,在保守“本流”路线“富国”目标得以实现后,使得主张对战后政治进行“总决算”,弘扬日本优秀民族文化,使日本成为“国际国家”的“新保守主义”路线登场并为80年代以来的保守系日本政府所奉行。“新保守主义”路线是保守“本流”路线与保守“旁流”路线的合流与进一步发展,其实质是综合推进日本“大国化”、尤其是政治“大国化”的国家发展道路选择。冷战结束以来,在这一路线下,日本的“大国化”进程得到不断推进,特别是在军事方面,已经将以“专守防卫”为名装备起来的自卫队派到了海外各地。本论文在第三章第二节和第四章的第一节对对这一过程做出了评述。另外,论文还在这第三章第三节对制衡“新保守主义”路线“大国化”国家发展目标指向的因素做了简单介绍;在第四章第二、三节对“新保守主义”代表人物小泽一郎和安倍晋三提出的“普通国家”论与“美丽国家”政策思想进行了重点评述,认为它们正是“新保守主义”者意欲推动日本“大国化”而抛售出来的“大国化”的国家观。论文第五章摘取与日本军事“大国化”密切相关的内容为重点论述对象,主要通过日美安保同盟关系、日本普通民众以和平宪法为武器进行的“和平诉讼”和战后以来保守系日本政府在军事方面以“解释改宪”等方式不断突破宪法第九条束缚这三个专题事例,对推动、制约日本“大国化”的因素进行了不甚全面的介绍。作为现今日本“大国化”的推动与制约因素,美国可以看作是一枚硬币的两面;为奉行“新保守主义”路线的保守系政党把持的日本政府则明显扮演着积极推动的角色;而在民众层次上,以“和平诉讼”中的那些普通日本人为代表,拥护和平宪法的反战和平民主力量虽没有了社会党的支持,却依然对日本政府的“大国化”努力形成制约,可以说是保障现今日本不再走上“军国主义”道路的最为关键的力量。论文在终章结合战后日本国家发展的道路选择及其推进过程,对比战前日本的“大国”实践,对“新保守主义”路线下的日本“大国化”的特征、前景做出了概括与关注,认为日本的“大国化”存在着坚持和平主义与奔向“新国家主义”两个方向。由于东亚国际政治格局中存在诸多不稳定因素,加之东亚各国与日本之间存在着尚未彻底解决的历史问题,所以,对日本的“大国化”给予足够的关注,对和谐的东亚国际秩序的构建不无现实意义。更多还原

【Abstract】 Based on the review of Japan’s prewar“great nationalization”practice and combined the selecting process of its developing route, this paper comments objectively on Japan’s present“great nationalization”.As the historical background of Japan’s postwar development, the introductory chapter describes Japan’s developmental path’s choice, then it briefly reviews Japan’s prewar practice of“great nationalization”. This paper shows that, after founding Japan, modern Japan explicitly sets up a developmental aim of“great nationalization”, and it also carries on a developmental route of“great nationalization”. Moreover, the“great nation”practice can show Japan’s military aggressiveness in its implementary way, Asian directive property in its expansive goal, and its competitiveness among international great nations.As the basic and starting point of Japan’s postwar national development, chapter one comments the postwar democratized reform, as well as the process of Japan’s independent obtainment by getting rid of being an occupied nation. Japan takes the promulgation of peace constitution as the symbol, and the postwar democratized reform has determined the peaceful developmental way for postwar Japan. However, US’s leading postwar reform has retained the emperor as Japan’s symbolic status, so Japan can’t abandon the emperor system thoroughly. In addition, US transformed its policy towards Japan which makes Japan become independent without making profound introspection on the war’s responsibility or making thorough settlement of prewar militarism, which causes Japan’s postwar national development being influenced too much by its aggressive history.During the postwar beginning period, Shigeru Yoshida, who has been in charge of Japan’s political right for a long time, according to the objective domestic and foreign situation, takes realism as the foundation, and he has established a conservative way called“the mother current”which highlights“heavy economy, light armament”. The conservative“side flows”power, which is full of nationalistic tendency and is represented by Ichirou Hatoyama and Nobusuke Gishi, goes upon the stage to correct Yoshida regime’s ways of too pro-American and too much emphasis on economy, and it turns the emphasis from“the economic centralism”to“the political centralism”. In the late 50s, postwar Japan carries on the“side flows”policy for a period, which puts emphasis on the completion of independent system and reconstruction of armament.“The political centralism”of the“side flows”political power has the meaning of denying the postwar democratized achievement and reactivating prewar“militarism”, therefore the postwar rising anti-war and peaceful democratic power jointly initiates“the security struggle”massively, which also pulls Japan back to“the economic centralism”. After that, the conservative“mother current”political power implements the peaceful developmental policy, which rises Japan rapidly into an economic giant, and improved its own international position. Chapter Two and the first part of Chapter Three comment its developmental process.The process of economic“great nationalization”and the establishment of its economic giant status help the Japanese restore their national self-esteem after the war’s defeat. At the same time, Japan’s way of constant following the US and only developing its economy has gained it an inelegant nickname“economic animal”. After achieving the goal of“richening nation”by keeping“mother current”route, Japan combines the two aspects together, and makes a“new conservatism”route of making Japan“the international nation”, and it becomes the main route for conservative government since 80s, which asserts carrying out postwar political“general accounts”and carrying forward Japan’s fine national culture.“The new conservatism”route is the combination and future development of conservative“mother current”and“side flows”routes, and its essence is to advocate Japan’s“great nationalization”comprehensively, especially the developmental path’s choice of political“great nationalization”. After the cold war, Japan’s“great nationalization”develops very quickly under this route, especially military, which has sent militia to overseas under the name of“specially defend defense”. The second part of Chapter Three and the first part of Chapter Four comment this process.Moreover, in the third part of Chapter Three, this paper also briefly introduces“the new conservatism”route and the developmental direction of“the great nationalization”; the second and third parts of Chapter Four mainly comment the policies of Itchiro Ozawa’s“normal country”and Shinzo Abe’s“beautiful country”, and point out that they are the national views of“the new conservatism”and they want to push forward Japan’s“the great nationalization”.Chapter Five selects the related material of military“great nationalization”as the main commentary object, and introduces the incomplete factors that affect“the great nationalization”by analyzing three subjective examples: Japanese and US Security Union, the Japanese ordinary people’s“peace lawsuit”by peaceful constitution, and postwar conservative government’s“changing the constitution by explanation”in the military aspect to break through the ninth constitution. As the Japan’s promotion and restriction of“the great nationalization”, US can be looked as a coin of two sides; the Japanese government clearly plays a positive role for“the new conservatism”; but in the ordinary people’s point of view, especially people in the“peaceful lawsuit”, they advocate the peaceful constitution of anti-war and peace without the support from social party, which is a restriction of“great nationalization”. That is to say, it is the key force to avoid Japan going on the“militarism”route.The last chapter links the choice of developmental route with its promotional process, comparing with Japan’s prewar“great nation”practice, it summarizes and pays attention to the character and foreground of Japan’s“great nationalization”under“the new conservatism”route, and it points out that Japan’s“the great nationalization”has two directions, one is holding the mission of peace, the other is working on“new nationalism”. Because of the unstable factors in the eastern Asian’s international political pattern and the unsettled historical problems existing between eastern Asian and Japan, paying fully attention to Japan’s“great nationalization”has a realistic meaning to the building of harmonious Asian international order.更多还原