【作者】 冯志伟；

【导师】 韩铁；

【作者基本信息】 南开大学 ， 世界史， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 南非共和国是一个多种族的国家,主要有土著人、白人、“有色人”和以印度人为主体的亚洲人。从十七世纪中叶到二十世纪末,南非一直存在着种族歧视与隔离。特别是代表阿非利卡人右翼的国民党1948年上台后,出于文化、传统、经济利益和政治等方面的考虑,白人政权把南非历史上一直存在的种族歧视推行到极致,即施行种族隔离制度,根据一个人的肤色来决定其政治、经济、社会等权利。这理所当然地遭到了南非国内非白人的坚决反对和世界各国人民的谴责。本文就是对1948至1991年美国对南非种族隔离制度的政策进行的考察。第二次世界大战之前,美国与南非之间关系就相对密切,但主要是经济方面的往来。第二次世界大战以后,美国和南非这两个同样是多种族的国家在种族政策方面却走上了不同的道路。美国努力走向种族融合,而南非则是千方百计地把不同种族隔离开来,极力推行种族隔离制度。南非种族隔离制度成为两国关系中最重要的议题。美国在这一时期对南非种族隔离制度的政策可以分为以下三个阶段。第一个阶段是从1948到1960年,即美国对南非种族隔离制度实行“中间道路”政策的时期。美国政府在这一时期对南非种族隔离制度的政策面临着一种“两难困境”:一方面,出于道义、国际宣传和国内种族关系的考虑,它不能不反对南非的种族隔离制度;另一方面,出于对苏冷战等方面的需要,它在冷战中希望加强与南非这个“坚定”的反共盟友的关系。在这两难之间,杜鲁门与艾森豪威尔美国两任政府对南非种族隔离制度采取了所谓的“中间道路”政策,即在对南非种族隔离制度表示口头反对的同时,又对国际社会干预南非种族问题进行抵制。第二个阶段是从1961到1984年,美国对南非的种族隔离制度采取了有限制裁的政策。二十世纪五十年代后期,大量非洲国家获得民族独立、苏联在第三世界攻势的加强、美国国内民权运动的发展和南非国内局势的动荡,使得肯尼迪政府在六十年代初开始调整美国对南非种族隔离制度的政策,使之发生了重要转变,即从在南非种族问题上拒绝采取施压行动,转向赞成对南非采取有限制裁。1963年,肯尼迪政府对南非实行了自愿武器禁运,这是美国为促使南非改变其种族政策所采取的第一个具体施压行动。约翰逊上台后,继续了肯尼迪政府对南非种族隔离制度的政策,并有所加强。它扩大了美国对南非自愿武器禁运的范围,并在经济上采取少许限制美国和南非之间经济联系的措施。这样,美国对南非实行有限制裁的政策框架基本形成。此后的尼克松、福特和卡特政府在美国对南非种族隔离制度的政策问题上,继续奉行有限制裁政策。它们在政治上谴责种族隔离制度,在军事上实行自愿武器禁运,甚至走向了强制性武器禁运,但是坚决反对对南非实行经济制裁。不过,由于这几届政府所处具体的历史背景不同和各自理念的差异,它们对南非种族隔离制度的政策也存在差异。尼克松和福特政府比较偏重于维持美国和南非的交流,而卡特政府则比较强调限制美国和南非的关系。其最终目标依然是在与南非这个冷战中的盟友保持来往的同时,以有限制裁的温和手段促使南非通过渐进性改革废除为美国所难以接受的种族隔离制度。里根总统在其第一届任期内对南非种族隔离制度实行的所谓“建设性参与”政策,仍然不离有限制裁的巢臼。不过,里根政府比起卡特政府来说,在谴责南非种族隔离制度上远为消极,而在促进美国和南非的经济联系以及减少对南非武器禁运的限制方面则不遗余力。尽管如此,里根政府依然不敢取消美国对南非实行的武器禁运。第三个阶段是从1985年到1991年,即美国对南非的种族隔离制度实行“全面”制裁的时期。二十世纪八十年代中期,由于南非政府顽固坚持种族隔离制度和严厉镇压国内黑人的反种族隔离运动,南非国内的局势陷于动荡之中。这样,里根政府对南非种族隔离制度的“建设性参与”政策遭到了失败。迫于美国国内反种族隔离组织和广大公众的压力,里根政府不得不在1985年对南非实行了较为广泛的制裁。然而,随着南非国内局势的持续恶化和美国国内反种族隔离的舆论愈来愈强大,国会中主张对南非实行更严厉制裁的议员终于占据上风,推动美国国会在1986年通过了全面反种族隔离法。这样,美国对南非种族隔离制度的政策发生了重大转变,即从长期坚持的有限制裁政策转向“全面”制裁。美国对南非种族隔离制度的“全面”制裁直到1991年南非政府对种族隔离制度进行实质性的改革后,才由布什政府宣布取消。在美国政府于1980年代中期改变政策的同时,南非国内局势由于黑人反抗与白人政权残酷镇压的恶性循环而陷入动荡之中。1989年9月上台的南非德克勒克政府认识到,种族隔离制度是南非国内动荡的根本原因,它严重阻碍了南非经济的发展。于是,德克勒克政府在1990年开始改革,废除了种族隔离制度,使南非的历史从此翻开了新的一页。毫无疑义,南非之所以能够和平废除存在了三百多年的种族隔离制度,主要是南非广大黑人长期坚持不懈的斗争的结果。但是,国际社会对南非种族隔离制度的坚决反对和数十年来一直为废除种族隔离制度所努力的世界反种族隔离运动也起到了很大的作用。作为超级大国的美国,它自二十世纪八十年代中期开始对南非实行的制裁对南非种族隔离制度的废除也起到了一定的促进作用。不过,战后美国政府对南非种族隔离制度的政策始终具有两面性,即在不得不对南非种族隔离制度表示谴责甚至采取某些制裁措施的同时,又以制裁不会促进南非白人政权放弃种族隔离制度为借口,长期顽固抵制国内外要求对南非实行全面制裁的压力。后者显然是出于对苏冷战和维护美国在南非各种利益的需要。因此,我们在承认美国政府对南非种族隔离制度的谴责和它所采取的制裁措施对南非种族隔离制度的废除起了一定作用的同时必须指出,美国长期以来反对和抵制国际社会对南非种族隔离制度采取更为强硬态度的做法,实际上纵容甚至支持了南非的种族隔离制度,可以说是导致南非人民反对种族隔离制度的斗争旷日持久的原因之一。这对于一贯标榜人权、民主、自由的美国来说,不能不说是一个外交上的悲剧。而悲剧的根源就在于:当美国所鼓吹的“自由”、“民主”和“人权”和它的实际利益发生冲突时,它选择的往往是后者。更多还原

【Abstract】 South Africa is a multi-ethnic nation comprised of indigenous people, white, colored, Indians and other Asians. Since the mid-17^th century, racial discrimination and segregation had ever been in existence here until the end of 20^th century. Especially when Afrikaner right-wing representative of the National Party took office, for the sake of cultural, traditional, economic and political considerations, he carried racial discrimination to its extreme, the Apartheid system, which means one’s political, economic, social and other rights are determined by his color or skin. This, of course, met with domestic non-white resistance and opposition from other countries. This paper is to study the United States’ policies on South Africa’s Apartheid system in the historical context of cold war, and its impact on the abolition of the system.There existed a relatively close relationship between the United States and the South Africa before World War II, but mainly the economic relations. After the war, United States and South Africa, these two multi-ethnic countries in the race policy embarked on different roads. The United States had been going its way toward racial integration, while South Africa had been doing everything possible to set apart different nationalities vigorously implementing the apartheid system. South Africa’s Apartheid system became the most important issue in the relations between the two countries. During the period the United States’ policy on South Africa’s Apartheid system can be divided into four stages.The first stage ranges from 1948 to 1960, which is the middle road period of the United States’ policies on South Africa’s Apartheid system. Because of the fierce confrontation between the Soviet Union and the United States, although the United States did not agree with South Africa’s Apartheid system, the United States needed the support of South Africa. In this dilemma, the Truman administration and the early Eisenhower administration took the middle road policy, that is, on the one hand, they didn’t approve of apartheid system, on the other hand, they fought against international intervention of South Africa’s so-called domestic racial issue. Then, in favor of the United Nations the right to interfere, but they declined to condemn South Africa’s apartheid regime. Finally, although in favor of the condemnation of apartheid system in South Africa, they refused to put pressure on South Africa to take any action.The second period lasts from 1961 to 1984, during this period the United States’ policies on South Africa’s Apartheid system had a great shift from the indifference to the start of limited sanctions against South Africa. With a large number of African nations gaining independence, the strengthening of Soviet Union’s offensive in the third world, the development of civil rights movement in the United States and the turmoil in South Africa, out of America’s interests, Kennedy administration began to adjust its practice on South Africa’s racial issue. In 1963 John F. Kennedy forged a voluntary arms embargo against South Africa, which was a first concrete act to force South Africa to change its racial policy. After taking office Johnson administration continued the policy of the Kennedy Administration, and enhanced, and expanded the scope of the voluntary arms embargo on South Africa and take a little restrictive measures on economic. The United States began to implement limited sanctions on South Africa; the United States’ policies on South Africa’s Apartheid system had an important change.The Nixon - Ford and Carter administrations stressed under the limited sanction to communicate and restrict with South Africa. In the meantime, though the Nixon -Ford and Carter administrations were confronted with different historical backgrounds, their polices on South Africa’s racial system changed within the following scope, from political condemnation, economic restriction, military arms embargo to the forced military arms. Each American government had his own way to force South Africa to change its racial policy, for example, some emphasized restricting its relations with South Africa such as jimmy Carter; and some focused on communication with South Africa such as Nixon and Ford. But their final goal was to force South Africa to abandon its unacceptable racial policy.Reagan’s first term reduced and weakened the condemnation of apartheid, reduce the restrictions of the arms embargo on South Africa and expand ties with South Africa’s "constructive engagement" policy, hoping that this would expelled the communist from Southern Africa and to promote the domestic reform of racial policy in South Africa. However, the Government of South Africa apartheid and stubbornly adhere to the policy of apartheid and undermining the stability of the region, making the Reagan administration’s "constructive engagement" failed.The third period is from 1985 to 1991, during this period the United States’ policies on South Africa’s Apartheid system had a great shift from the limited sanctions to comprehensive sanctions against South Africa. In the mid-1980s, long-time resistance by the non-white large-scale activities in South Africa, together with the rise of anti-apartheid movement in the United States caused the American Congress to take the initiative on this issue and forced Reagan administration in September, 1985 to impose limited economic restrictions on South Africa, which changed America’s common practice towards South Africa’s racial system in the past several decades of years, that is resolute resistance and opposition to impose economic restrictions on South Africa. Thanks to Reagan administration’s negative resistance and South Africa’s white regime’s intransigence, American Congress in October 1986 overturned Reagan’s veto and passed a comprehensive anti-apartheid, therefore starting comprehensive restrictions on South Africa and pointing out the requirements that South Africa should be met in order to stop this restriction.Confronted with non-white resistance and economic difficulties domestically, foreign condemnation and sanctions, African President FW de Klerk who came to power in 1989, recognized that apartheid system wouldn’t work, and started to take measures to abolish it in February, 1990, thus South Africa entered a new historical chapter.There is no doubt that South Africa peacefully repealed the deep-rooted apartheid system for more than 300 years mainly by domestic effort. But the world’s anti-apartheid movements also played a very active role in its abolition for the past few decades. As world’s great power, the United States took the connivance attitude, but it also played some active role in it.From the United States’ policies on South Africa’s apartheid system of this period, it can be seen, for a long time, out of the cold war towards the Soviet Union and to safeguard their interests in South Africa the United States, despite condemned the apartheid system of South Africa and also imposed an arms embargo on South Africa, has been stubbornly resisted calls of the imposition of economic sanctions against South Africa from home and abroad. Although until the mid-1980s, the United States government was forced to impose economic sanctions on South Africa, but implemented negatively and rejected the UN Security Council resolutions of imposing economic sanctions against South Africa. It can be said that the United States’ policies on South Africa’s Apartheid system is actually long term condoned and even supported the system of apartheid system in South Africa. To the United States foreign policy which has been advertised on human rights, democracy, freedom of, this can not be said a tragedy. The root cause of this tragedy lies in when moral, human rights, freedom, democracy conflict with the interests, the United States often opt for the latter.更多还原