1939年前后的“东亚共同体”:一个历史用语的考察

1938年底开始,为了策动汪精卫等人最终脱离国民政府以削弱中国抗战力量,日本政府两次发表了有关“东亚新秩序”主张的声明,日本的御用文人们随即大肆渲染“东亚协同体”理论,关东军则采用了与“东亚协同体”同音的另外一个词“东亚共同体”.1939年中,为配合在华树立傀儡中央政权,日本政府在对外宣传时使用的仍然是流行语“东亚协同...     

“日本学”与“韩国学”双璧同辉——评《东亚汉文学关系研究》

自1992年中韩建交以来,淡化政治对立、深化经济合作、加强文化交流已经成为东亚国际关系日益明显的趋势。在这样的大背景下,学术界对东亚文化交流、东亚经济一体化、东亚共同体的建立等课题进行了深入研究。对各个学科来说,单独关注中日关系或者中韩关系,已经不能满足学术发展的需要。“日本学”、“韩国学”如果能不断相互借鉴、融合,     

日本的“新亚洲观”与“亚太大厦”

80年代初以来,关于亚太经济区域合作及日本的作用的论述颇多,有各种各样的“圈”、“共同体”构想。作为这个地区至关重要的国家日本的意向,究竟希望出现何种形式的亚太区域合作,一直是令人关注的。日本在提出东亚区域合作的初期阶段,其姿态是以东盟为主体,不突出日本,仅限于经济、文化合作,并一再声明排除政治和军事内容。80年代后期,日本对建立东亚     

东亚共同体笔谈——“国际共同体”意味着什么？

近年来,“东亚共同体”问题已经成了东亚各国学术界不同领域热烈讨论的一个共同话题。不仅如此,东亚各国的商界和政界的精英也参加进来,以不同方式鼓动和推进“东亚共同体”的构建。东亚各国经济上相互依赖的加深固然给“东亚共同体”的构建提供了有利条件,但不可否认,对迅速发展变化的东亚地区前景的担忧,是许多人鼓吹“共同体”意识的另外一种重要推动力量。经过千百年的演进,东亚似乎正处于一个十字路口：是像现在欧洲国家一样,超越民族国家的界限,形成一种新的共同体?还是要重蹈欧洲国家的旧日覆辙,在融成共同体之前也来一番你死我活的较量?无疑,对东亚历史的再认识是我们思考这一问题的起点。目前东亚国家不仅生活在现实里,也徘徊在历史中。东亚国家间关系中时隐时现的矛盾和问题,无不与历史的纠葛纠缠在一起。人们不仅要问：我们构建“东亚共同体”的历史基础有多少?或说历史能给“东亚共同体”的构建带来什么?正是为了解读这些问题,我们组织了这个专栏。应邀参加本专栏讨论的作有在国际学术界声明显赫的“学界泰斗”,也有初出茅庐的青年学子。尽管他们的地位和视角不同,观点差异很大,但思考的主线都是“东亚共同体”的历史经验问题,每一篇章都不乏予读以启迪的真知灼见。我们相信这组章会给“东亚共同体”的讨论注入新的活力,同时也欢迎更多的学界朋友加入到这一问题的讨论中来。“东亚共同体”成功与否恐怕不是取决于对现实的把握,而是取决于对历史的超越。而重新认知和梳理东亚的历史,或许正是我们能够实现这一目标的起点。     

试析中日韩和解与东亚共同体构建的关系

中日韩关系由于历史和领土等一系列问题的影响在波澜起伏中曲折前进,中日韩和解成为影响双边关系的重要问题,并且成为制约东亚一体化的重要因素。本文结合中日韩和解面临的具体问题和东亚共同体构建的具体路径试图分析中日韩和解与东亚共同体构建的互动作用。中日韩和解可以优化三国关系,能够加快东亚经济一体化进程,进而促进东亚共同体的建设。而东亚共同体建设又能成为中日韩和解的现实路径,为中日韩关系健康发展创造条件。     

日本幕末维新期的“三国同盟论”

从历史连续性看,以中日韩三国为主体的"东亚共同体"构想的原生态,可以上溯至日本幕末维新期。胜海舟所主倡的"三国同盟论",应该说与其具有相似的思想特质。该论说的主要内容包括:提倡东亚三国联合对抗西方列强;主张共建强大的海军;互通有无及共同进行学术研究等。今天看来,"三国同盟论"仍然具有一定的进步意义。     

试论日伪的东亚联盟运动

日本侵华战争期间,在日本国内和中国伪政权统治区曾分别形成了规模庞大的东亚联盟运动。东亚联盟运动以“王道主义”为指导理念,以“国防共同、经济一体化、政治独立、文化沟通”为基本内容,从思想上、文化上为日本独占中国、称霸世界的目的服务。日本的东亚联盟以尊重中国的“政治独立”相标榜,比日本国内其他侵略理论和“兴亚”运动更加具有欺骗性。汪精卫伪国民政府的东亚联盟运动则与新国民运动相配合,旨在加强伪政权的统治,为投敌行径制造理论根据。     

从"满蒙领有论"到"大东亚共荣圈"--对日本殖民扩张主义的再认识

本对从“满蒙领有论”到建立满洲国的原因、背景、过程,以及“大东亚共荣圈”构想的形成、其内容和范围的演变,作了历史的分析,并以此为基础,指出了二的内在联系。本作认为：1、从占有“满蒙”变成建立“满洲国”。是日本军国主义为了实现整个扩张计划而作的策略调整;2、“大东亚共荣圈”的内容和范围．并非一成不变。其演变同二战前国际局势的变化密切相关;3、和赤裸裸的扩张计划相比,“大东亚共荣圈”不仅具有隐蔽性和欺骗性的特征。而且是日本各种侵略扩张的综合体现。     

橘朴的“满洲新国家”自治构想

“九一八”事变后,随着自治指导部的成立,橘朴以其顾问的身份,积极主张“满洲”建立“新国家”,并提出了“分权自治”的国家构想.作为日本近代著名的中国问题研究家,橘朴以中国社会存在着极强的自治传统认知为基础,主张利用中国的家族、行会等传统自治组织的同时,在自治指导部的指导下,实现所谓的“人民生活的保障”,建立在军事上和经济上依附于日本的“满洲新国家”.橘朴的“满洲新国家”自治构想,支持了日本对中国东北的侵略.     

日本侵华的鸦片战略

鸦片战略 以毒制华 “鸦片战略”是日本学术界对第二次世界大战期间,日本在华强制种植并专卖鸦片行为的简称。之所以称其为“战略”,是因为日本制订这个政策时一箭双雕,有极强的目的性和完整的“以毒制华”构想。推行是由当时的军部、特务机关以及政府下属的“兴亚院”负责。兴亚院是日本负责中国被占地区的行政部门,以日本首相为总裁,外相、藏相、陆相和海相为副总裁,后来易名作“大东亚省”。     

新世纪东北亚的区域经济合作问题

世界经济全球化与区域经济一体化进程不断深化,东北亚区域经济合作进入了新的发展阶段。中日韩三国经贸合作演绎着新的进展;金融领域的合作也迈出了新的步伐;图们江次区域合作有了一定的成果。当然,东北亚区域经济一体化发展还存在诸多难题,如何寻找有效的合作途径,这是摆在区域内各国政府面前的一项艰巨的历史任务。     

近代以来日本外交战略的三次转变及其原因

近代以来150年间日本外交战略经历了一个从追求军事崛起到经济崛起,以及再到政治崛起的过程,并且为此而不断调整自己的外交战略。岛国的政治文化、内部指导思想固然是决定其战略转变的主要原因,而不可忽视的是东亚的国际环境亦成为日本对外决策的重要诱因。面对21世纪,军事失败与经济成功正反两方面的历史经验证明,顺应东亚一体化的趋势,实现与亚洲各国的和解,积极、平等地推动地区合作,将是日本外交战略的现实选择。     

Japan’s role conception in multilateral initiatives: the evolution from Hatoyama to Abe

This article examines Japan’s role conception in its multilateral commitments to the Asia-Pacific after the global financial crisis in 2008. The Hatoyama government launched an East Asian Community initiative, which aimed to assume a kingmaker role in creating a new order in East Asia. However, the East Asian Community initiative did not develop due to stress on self-reliance and distance from partnership with the USA. The Abe government sought to play a dual role in its major multilateral commitments. On the one hand, the government sought to play a follower role in enhancing the position of the East Asia Summit with an eye to consolidating the US-based institutional framework. On the other, Abe’s new multilateral initiative of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific represented Japan’s kingmaker role in maintaining a free and open maritime regime, and to keep a liberal and open economic regime under the emergence of the Trump administration.     

日本对东亚直接投资"雁行模式"再思考

20世纪80年代以来日本在东亚地区进行大规模的直接投资,执意要确立梦寐以求的、以日本为领头雁,带动亚洲NIES,由ASEAN和中国作为后盾的“雁行模式”。这种三位一体的投资地区分布和产生结构的梯度转移,虽然在短期内有利于日本在亚洲乃至世界保持经济、技术上的优势,有助于东亚经济的高速增长,但从长期效应来看,由于“雁行模式”所具有的致命缺陷,对东亚等发展中东道国乃至日本本国经济发展以及产业结构的高度化将带来深刻的负面效应。     

How Japan matters in the evolving East Asian security order

This article argues that Japan matters crucially in the evolving East Asian security order because it is embedded both in the structural transition and the ongoing regional strategies to manage it. The post‐Cold War East Asian order transition centres on the disintegration of the post‐Second World War Great Power bargain that saw Japan subjecting itself to extraordinary strategic constraint under the US alliance, leaving the conundrum of how to negotiate a new bargain that would keep the peace between Japan and China. To manage the uncertainties of this transition, East Asian states have adopted a three‐pronged strategy of: maintaining US military preponderance; socializing China as a responsible regional great power; and cultivating regionalism as the basis for a long‐term East Asian security community. Japan provides essential public goods for each of these three elements: it keeps the US anchored in East Asia with its security treaty; it is the one major regional power that can and has helped to constrain the potential excesses of growing Chinese power while at the same time crucially engaging with and helping to socialize China; and its economic and political participation is critical for meaningful regionalism and regional integration. It does not need to be a fully fledged, ‘normal’ Great Power in order to carry out these roles. As the region tries to mediate the growing security dilemma among the three great powers, Japan's importance to regional security will only grow.     

Japan's response to China's rise: regional engagement, global containment, dangers of collision

Japan and China's ability to manage their bilateral relationship is crucial for the stability of the East Asian region. It also has a global impact on the security and economic development of other regions. For just as China's rise has inevitably involved an expansion of its global reach, so Japan's responses to the challenges posed by China have increasingly taken a global form, seeking to incorporate new partners and frameworks outside East Asia. Japan's preferred response to China's regional and global rise in the post‐Cold War period has remained one of default engagement. Japan is intent on promoting China's external engagement with the East Asia region and its internal domestic reform, through upgrading extant bilateral and Japan–China–US trilateral frameworks for dialogue and cooperation, and by emphasizing the importance of economic power to influence China. Japan is deliberately seeking to proliferate regional frameworks for cooperation in East Asia in order to dilute, constrain and ultimately engage China's rising power. However, Japan's engagement strategy also contains the potential to tilt towards default containment. Japan's domestic political basis for engagement is becoming increasingly precarious as China's rise stimulates Japanese revisionism and nationalism. Japan also appears increasingly to be looking to contain China on a global scale by forging new strategic links in Russia and Central Asia, with a ‘concert of democracies’ involving India, Australia and the US, by competing for resources with China in Africa and the Middle East, and by attempting to articulate a values‐based diplomacy to check the so‐called ‘Beijing consensus’. Nevertheless, Japan's perceived inability to channel China's rise either through regional engagement or through global containment carries a further risk of pushing Japan to resort to the strengthening of its military power in an attempt to guarantee its essential national interests. It is in this instance that Japan and China run the danger of a military collision.     

近代日本的国际秩序观与外交取向

明治初期,维新政府中枢就已深刻地了解到日本所置身的国际社会和国际形势,确立起包括对自己和世界进行重新定位以及日本未来发展方向在内的国际秩序观。近代日本国际秩序思想中的上下秩序认识与欧洲近代国际秩序思想的二重原理体系如出一辙,并在明治维新后迅速与国家政权结合起来,最终确立起对欧美屈从,对东亚邻国强硬的双重外交路线。     

U.S. and Japanese Foreign Direct Investment in East Asia: A Comparative Analysis

East Asia has led the world in economic growth and export expansion in recent decades. The phenomenal rate of economic growth among the so‐called “four little tigers”—Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan—enabled them to achieve newly industrializing country (NIC) status in the 1980s, followed by Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand. Earlier studies explained the development from the government‐led development paradigm, or the so‐called the statist approach. Scholars also argue that foreign direct investment (FDI) played an important role in the economic development, thanks to technology transfers. Kojima and Ozawa and later Kohama, however, argue that Japanese FDI help East Asian economies while U.S. FDI do not because Japanese technology transfer practices are appropriate for East Asian countries but not the United States'. Thus, we revisit the issue of East Asian economic development and test the economic effects of FDI from the United States and Japan. Using a Barro‐type growth model, we test the effects of FDI from the United States and Japan on economic growth in East Asian NICs. We find that FDI from both the United States and Japan helped economic growth in the “four little tigers,” but not in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand.     

China and East Asia: An Appraisal of Regional Economic Integration

Three Taiwan-based economists evaluate regional economic integration in East Asia, using trade indicators to analyze the degree of trade concentration among East Asian nations, and employing the gravity model to identify key factors influencing bilateral trade flows among them. China is expected to play a key role in East Asia's economic development, and empirical analysis for the period 1990-2005 indicates that East Asia has already evolved into a trading block, expected to become one of three dominant blocks in the global economy. The study, which highlights the key role played by geographical distance and market size, suggests that the impact of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) for East Asian trade will remain limited in the future. Journal of Economic Literature, Classification Numbers: F15, F31, O53, P33. 7 tables, 41 references.