在歐洲、北美、東南亞等地區皆有定期、頻繁的區域對話，對話內容廣泛，不再是過去國家安全、區域安全傳統定義下的「安全對話」。然而區域對話風氣的盛行，在東北亞地區卻嗅不到一絲絲這樣的氣息。東北亞地區由於本身的歷史特殊性與地緣政治的特性，在國際關係上始終是各國利益的錯綜複雜的區域。 東北亞地區國際政治衝突點主要為：領土糾紛、北韓核武危機、中日關係、日人綁架事件。北韓核武危機背後的動機主要是冷戰為結束之前，美國在南韓部署戰術核武瞄準北韓，北韓基於安全考量，於是發展核武計畫，另一原因則是針對日本，北韓視日本為安全威脅，基於歷史因素，北韓將其核武計畫背後目標對準日本。 冷戰結束後的新安全環境，應該要以區域安全考量為核心，東北亞地區主要的安全形勢是美國仍是東北亞地區重要的安全主導者，同時美日聯盟是區域內重要的安全安排，隨者中國的經濟持續發展，中國將在東北亞地區扮演重要角色。多邊協商與合作是解決東北亞地區安全問題最有效的辦法，定期舉多邊對話更可增加行為者之間的了解與互信，多邊主義可以解決區域內危機。東北亞地區多邊合作經驗豐富，雖然多半是非正式的二軌多邊對話經驗，不過非正式的對話多邊機制剛好符合亞太地區的特色，差異性大的亞太國家，或者是在冷戰痕跡深刻的東北亞地區，都以應養成對話習慣，針對區域內的危機熱點例如北韓問題、中日歷史爭議、中美關係、中日東海油源紛爭、日俄領土爭議等問題，都可以藉著多邊對話機制建立信心措施。 目前正在進行中的六邊會談正好替東北亞國家提供一個良好的基礎，雖然目前六邊會談是以解決北韓核武危機為主要，不過在六邊會談裡參與成員對等，並且六邊會談也沒有抹煞美國雙邊同盟的功能，日後東北亞國家應可以以六邊會談為基礎，討論更多區域內安全議題，促進東北亞地區的對話。東北亞地區多邊對話機制的發展可以融入冷戰結束後的新興安全觀念。如此一來反而有利既存的六邊會談進一步發展。 / There is EU as a multilateral forum in Europe. There is ASEAN in Southeast Asia for Asia countries to understand policies of each country and get better transparency. The international relations between Northeast Asia countries have always been complicated and uncertain. However, there is no multilateral dialogue in Northeast Asia. To study the multilateral dialogue mechanism, we must pay attention to Multilateralism. And because of the unique security situation in Northeast Asia after Cold War, we have also to take the cooperative security, common security and comprehensive security into consideration. Thus, we can discuss the possibility of developing a multilateral dialogue mechanism in Northeast Asia. A multilateral dialogue mechanism is a dialoguing forum that three or more countries cooperate with each other under some principles, with habits of practicing, without agenda limits, no participation limit, in order to solve security problems and reduce confrontations. The second North Korea nuclear crisis happened in 2002. The first Six-Party Talks began in 2003 and has hold for four times until now. Six-Party Talks can be viewed as a foundation of multilateral mechanism in Northeast Asia, despite there are still some shortcomings. As long as Six-Party Talks keeps meeting, it is an achievement of dialogue for Northeast Asia countries. Six-Party Talks makes it possible that solving the crisis in a peaceful way and taking the diplomatic way to engage with DPRK. The Japan-US Alliance is the key factor to influence the international politics in Northeast Asia. Basically, the bilateral relations between US and Asia Pacific countries have become a “wheel”. The hub of USA is a key factor of developing a multilateral mechanism or not. To develop a multilateral mechanism in Northeast Asia must cooperate with US and not against its interests in Pacific Asia. Also, Northeast Asia countries have to build their mutual confidence and interests dependence.

中、美關係一直以來都是國際的焦點問題且持續發展變化。自1972年中、美關係開始正常化以來，兩國的關係經常是在進展與停滯、合作與對抗中來回折衝，中、美之間在許多方面存在著矛盾，又在眾多領域裡有著共同利益。冷戰結束後，美國對中國的政策進行了大幅度的調整，新的矛盾與利益也逐漸凸顯出來。諸如人權問題、貿易不平衡問題和臺灣問題等等，皆是當前中、美鬥爭的焦點，但在安全、經濟貿易與科技文化教育和非傳統安全領域等方面又都有著共同的利益。在這種利益與矛盾交織的狀態下決定了雙邊以合作取代對抗的政策基調，也是中、美間在現今國際趨勢下必須的戰略選擇。 朝鮮半島位處陸權國家的心臟地帶與海權國家的邊緣地帶，對陸權國家而言，是連接海洋建立海權的重要跳板，對海權國家來說，則是向陸地擴張勢力的戰略捷徑，而此區域更是中國、俄羅斯、日本、南韓、北韓等權力競逐的主戰場，再加上美國在此經營布局已久，複雜的國際關係在此合縱連橫，時而欣欣向榮充滿希望，時又戰雲密布一觸即發。自朝鮮半島爆發第一、二次朝核危機後朝鮮半島的局勢更加詭譎多變，而朝核議題便如同一顆未爆彈時刻牽動中、美間最敏感的神經，金正日去世後，更增朝鮮半島的不確定性；在此嚴峻的挑戰下，中、美兩國的態度更是動輒得咎。 本文的主要目的於分析中美兩國自冷戰後迄今對朝鮮半島的政策比較，並針對外交、經貿、戰略佈署等方面作一全面探討，並以權力平衡角度分析在中、美共管亞洲的戰略結構下對南、北韓的影響，期能為未來欲從事相關研究的人提供參考。 / Relationship between the U.S. and China has always been one of the most focused issues internationally and it continues to develop and changes its shape as time goes by. Since 1972 both countries normalize their relationships, the U.S. and China had been going back and forth of deciding whether being collaboration or opposition, fits their benefits in a dynamic field. While the cold war ends, United States had made an adjustment by a wide margin on its policy to China, for instance, the Human Rights, Trade Imbalance, and Taiwan are the causes explain how China and the U.S. are constantly in conflict. However, correlates with Security, Economical trading, Technology, Culture, Education and Non-Traditional Land Security, the U.S. and China are aware of the importance of each other. All of the consequences, contradiction, and benefits led China and the U.S. to work together instead of being in battles which can be described “the strategic choices” 2 giants have made in the current international trend. The Korea peninsula locates in the heart of continental countries and at the edge of sea countries. For continentals, the peninsula can be the elevator of establishing its sea-power; and for the ocean authorities, owning the peninsula is one of the fastest strategic shortcut of expanding its power to the land. For decades, the area had been the battlefield for China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and North Korea, and adding the glimpse of the U.S, which makes the peninsula one of the most comprehensive international involvements in the world. Since the 1st and the 2nd North Korean nuclear crisis occurred, the discussion of nuclear weapons in North Korea tangles the sensitive nerves between the U.S and China. As Kim Chong Il dies and leaving all the questions left to rest of the world, the uncertainty of the peninsula had increased; under rigorous challenges in the international community, the attitudes of China and the U.S. can entirely influence the globe. The essay mainly focuses on the analysis of the comparative policies to the Korean Peninsula in between China and the U.S after the Cold War, as well as the probing into Diplomacy, Trade, Deployment for a entire scan, in order to understand the angel of power of balance to mutually manage Asia’s strategic structures and how it can be effective to North and South Korea. The article hopes can provide critical information for scholars in future to attempt related research on sphere in such matter.

北韓自1950年代起逐步建立其核武實力，形成對國際社會的嚴重威脅，基於其政權生存與經濟的需要，動輒以核武要脅國際社會換取能源、糧食援助及安全保障。1994年第一次北韓核武危機結束後，由於美國與北韓後續未確實履行核框架協議，從2002年10月北韓承認恢復其核計畫、美國開始停止對北韓供應重油起，北韓動作頻頻，除自2003年1月10日起宣佈退出禁止核子武器擴散條約外，更積極發展核武抗衡美國與國際社會，對相關國家的安全造成莫大影響，並期望藉此獲得所需的政治利益與經濟援助。北韓的行為引起國際關注，視之為第二次北韓核武危機。中共、南韓、日本、俄羅斯及美國對此均投以高度關注，努力謀求解決之道，而中共更是此次核武危機演變與發展的關鍵斡旋角色。 第二次北韓核武危機發生以來，中共對核武問題的解決發生了建設性的作用，各輪會談能夠持續運作，中共以穿梭外交遊走於各國功不可沒，其角色重要而多樣，儼然成為斡旋者、調停者、領導者、防衛者、緩衝器、利益攸關者、平衡者、機制建議者，若依北韓核武危機往良性發展的端倪來看，未來中共更可能兼具經濟支援者、安全保障者和制度監督者的角色。此次的核武危機為中共大國外交提供難得的歷史機運，藉由複雜的危機解決過程，緩和了危機的緊張態勢，更藉由與各國間的互動與合作，獲得實質外交進展，提高了中共的國際影響力，同時這樣的作為也是符合各方利益的最佳選擇。 本文主要包含兩大方向：首先探討第二次北韓核武危機的背景與判斷北韓發展核武的動機，繼之簡述兩次核武危機始末；接著統整自三邊會談、六方會談召開以來之情勢發展及與會各國互動形成的共識共決，分析中共居中的角色與其國家利益之間的關聯性，並研判該議題未來走向。 / Since 1950s North Korea has gradually built up its nuclear weapon capabilities, forming a serious threat to international community. Based on the need of regime survival and economy, North Korea frequently uses nuclear weapons in threatening international community for exchanges of energy, food aid and security assurances. After the end of the First North Korea Nuclear Crisis in 1994, US and North Korea did not actually carry out the Agreed Framework, North Korea confessed to restart its nuclear program in October 2002 while US suspended supplying heavy fuel oil to North Korea. In addition to its withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, North Korea also actively develops nuclear weapons to contend with the US and international community, bringing about huge impacts on the security of relative countries, hoping to exchange for more political benefit and economic assistance. The behavior of North Korea has raised international attention, regarding it as the Second North Korea Nuclear Crisis. China, South Korea, Japan, Russia and the US all pay high attention and work hard to seek for solutions to the crisis. China has played a key role in the evolution and development of the Second North Korea Nuclear Crisis. Since the inception of the 2nd North Korea Nuclear Crisis, China has turned out to be constructively pivotal in solving nuclear weapon problems. The fact that six rounds of talks can take place continuously go to China’s credit, which pursues shuttle diplomacy to coordinate the activities of the other six-party talks participators, playing roles that are important yet various, apparently becoming a mediator, good officer, host, defender, buffer, stakeholder, balancer, mechanism keeper, and, in viewing from the point that North Korea Nuclear Crisis has been developed toward a more positive direction, China will more than likely take key role as economic supporter, security guarantor and mechanism supervisor. This nuclear crisis provides China a rare historical opportunity of big-power diplomacy. Through complex crisis solving process to détente intense situation and the interaction and cooperation among Northeast Asian nations to obtain actual diplomatic progress, the influence of China has soared while such action is the best choice in complying with relative nation’s interests. The study mainly include two directions: At first the background of the Second North Korea Nuclear Crisis be reviewed and the motive of North Korea in developing nuclear weapon be determined. Then how the two nuclear crises began and ended are briefly stated, followed by integration of situation development since the Three-party talks, Six-party talks and the common agreement formed among participating nations. The role of China and relations to its interest is analyzed and thus the future direction of the issues is also carefully studied.

No description available.

朝鮮半島由於地理位置特殊，在戰略上極具重要性，長久以來一直為列強覬覦爭奪之地。第二次世界大戰之後，朝鮮半島亦籠罩在兩極對峙的氣氛裡，首先是南北韓的分裂，而韓戰的發生，使美蘇在東亞地區的對抗局面更為激化，冷戰時期的朝鮮半島遂成為東亞地區內兩極對峙氣氛最為明顯的「火藥庫」，因而獲得「東方的巴爾幹」的稱號。隨著東歐變天、蘇聯瓦解，雖然冷戰時期的兩極對峙局面已不復見，國際瀰漫一片和解氣氛，然而東亞地區並未因此脫離冷戰的陰影，尤其是朝鮮半島的南北對抗依然持續、北韓引發的核武危機更使東亞地區陷入隨時可能爆發衝突的臨界點。由於朝鮮半島的局勢不僅攸關區域安全，亦與東亞列強間的權力平衡息息相關，後冷戰時期朝鮮半島已然成為國際關注的焦點，不論是區域傳統強權──美國與俄羅斯，抑或東亞新興的力量──中共與日本，皆極力爭取在朝鮮半島事務的發言權，一方面確保自身國家利益，另一方面更意圖在區域內發揮影響力，提升國際地位。 綜觀諸強權對朝鮮半島的政策，以美國最為大眾所知，各種期刊與學者論著足以證明美國影響之深度與廣度。中共與日本的參與和影響，亦有諸多學者研究，然而關於俄羅斯與朝鮮半島關係之研究卻少之又少。事實上俄羅斯在冷戰前後對於朝鮮半島的政策有相當幅度的變化，也是朝鮮半島穩定局勢的重大變數之一。從冷戰時期為與美國制衡、確保區域強權地位，極力與北韓維持密切關係，並刻意斷絕與南韓的接觸，到八０年代為求內部經濟發展，極力塑造周邊環境的穩定，開始與南韓接觸，乃至蘇聯解體後為求取經濟資源向南韓一面倒、以及1996年之後為維持在朝鮮半島的影響力而採取「等距離外交」，皆對朝鮮半島局勢產生相當程度的影響。基於意識型態與國家利益，對朝鮮半島所採取的政策因時而異，筆者欲就後冷戰時期俄羅斯的朝鮮半島政策作一番通盤整理，將莫斯科在朝鮮半島政策上的變化加以分析。 本文主要目標係探討後冷戰時期俄羅斯對朝鮮半島的政策，因此對於冷戰時期蘇聯對兩韓的政策著墨不多，僅以少部分篇幅對戈巴契夫主政前各蘇聯領導人的朝鮮半島政策作一番概述，提供讀者了解莫斯科當局在決定對兩韓政策時的歷史背景。筆者除了對葉爾欽時期俄羅斯對朝鮮半島的政策詳細加以整理與歸納之外，由於朝鮮半島的安全穩定攸關東亞區域的安全，並涉及周邊列強的國家利益，筆者認為在探究俄羅斯朝鮮半島政策時，亦須對美國、中共、日本的朝鮮半島政策有基本認知，因此亦以一個章節來討論列強在此地的競逐與制衡。俄羅斯長期以來為維持周邊環境的穩定，推動亞太安全不遺餘力，而朝鮮半島事務是當前俄羅斯最能發揮區域影響力的議題，本文亦將探討俄羅斯朝鮮半島政策對亞太安全的影響，諸如兩韓統一、核武問題皆在研究範圍之內。 本文共分七章，第一章為緒論，第二章先概述冷戰時期朝鮮半島的地緣政治與蘇聯的關係，並以蘇聯領導人作為區隔，就戈巴契夫主政前蘇聯與兩韓的關係加以探討。第三章分析戈巴契夫新思維對蘇聯亞太政策產生的衝擊，並分析朝鮮半島在戈氏新思維當中扮演的角色，此外更詳述戈巴契夫時期對朝鮮半島政策的調整。第四章為本論文的主要章節，筆者先就俄羅斯內部自蘇聯解體後持續進行的對外政策激辯過程加以概述，分析俄羅斯對外政策的重大變化，並探究朝鮮半島政策受到的影響，以及俄羅斯與南北韓關係的發展；其次筆者就俄羅斯1996年之後對朝鮮半島政策的調整過程加以分析，「等距離外交」的執行與障礙亦為研究重點。第五章係討論有關朝鮮半島周邊列強在此地的競逐與制衡，筆者分別就美國、中共與日本的朝鮮半島政策加以論述。第六章俄羅斯對兩韓統一與核武問題的立場有詳細說明，此外讀者亦可自本章得知俄羅斯朝鮮半島政策與亞太安全的關聯，第七章為結論。 第一章　　緒論 第一節 研究動機與目的..................................1 第二節 研究方法與限制..................................2 第三節 論文架構........................................3 第二章 冷戰時期蘇聯的朝鮮半島政策 第一節 二次大戰結束後的東亞局勢與韓國的處境...............5 第二節 蘇聯的東亞政策與朝鮮半島地緣政治...................6 第三節 第二次世界大戰結束後蘇聯與南北韓的關係............11 第三章 戈巴契夫時期蘇聯的朝鮮半島政策 第一節 戈巴契夫「新思維」與俄羅斯外交政策之轉變..........33 第二節 戈巴契夫初期蘇聯對朝鮮半島的政策..................42 第三節 蘇聯對兩韓政策之轉變..............................45 第四章 葉爾欽時期的朝鮮半島政策 第一節 蘇聯解體與俄羅斯對外政策大辯論.................69 第二節 「新東方政策」與朝鮮半島..........................74 第三節 俄國對兩韓的等距離外交............................96 第五章 朝鮮半島周邊其他列強之角逐 第一節 美國朝鮮半島政策……………………………………..131 第二節 中共朝鮮半島政策……………………………………..145 第三節 日本朝鮮半島政策……………………………………..161 第六章 俄羅斯朝鮮半島政策與亞太安全 第一節 俄羅斯對兩韓統一之看法………………………………175 第二節 俄羅斯對核武問題之立場………………………………182 第三節 俄國朝鮮半島政策對亞太安全之意義………………..192 第七章 結論…………………………………………………………..213 參考書目……………………………………………………………………217 / Summary Based on the specialty of its location, the Korean Peninsula has been extremely important on strategy, and the surrounding major powers have fought for it for a long time. After the World War II, the Korean Peninsula was also under the atmosphere of confrontation like other regions and the Korean War made the confronting situation more irrigated. Although the international society has been filled with reconciliation since the sudden change of Eastern Europe and the disintegration of the Soviet Union, East Asia didn’t get rid of the shadow of the Cold War. The situation of confrontation between North and South on the Korean Peninsula has still existed, and the nuclear crisis caused by DPRK made the East Asia Region involved in a critical point, at which various of conflicts would burst out at any time. The situation of the Korean Peninsula not only affects the regional security, but also concerns about the balance of power among the East Asian major powers. In the post-Cold War Era the Korean Peninsula has been an international focus, concerned by both the traditional regional powers, such as U.S.A. and Russian, and the new powers, such as PRC and Japan. All the surrounding nations are trying to have the floor in the Korean Peninsula affairs, not only to secure their own national interests, but also to produce a marked effect in the region and promote national status. The intent of the thesis is trying to study Russia’s policy toward the Korean Peninsula in the post-Cold War Era. In order to introduce the historical background of Moscow’s policy making toward Korea, the thesis is classified into several parts according to various Kremlin leaderships. After a series of arrangement and analysis, we can find that Moscow’s policy toward the Korean Peninsula since 1945 has been influenced by the changes of the international environment, but also by the development of domestic politics and economy in Russia. In addition, the latter affects Moscow’s foreign policy in the post- Cold War Era much more than the former. Based on the need of democratic policy and economic reform after the disintegration of Soviet Union in 1991, Russia decided to approach the West to get political and economic support. Therefore, getting along with ROK, which has democratic experience and strong economic capability, while cutting original ties with DPRK gradually, is the best choice for Moscow. As for ROK, Russia’s influence on DPRK can promote direct dialog between the two sides, and then secure the peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula. Under the consideration of economy and politics, Russia and ROK accordingly established formal diplomatic relations on September 30, 1991, and the bilateral relationships has been developed smoothly. On the other hand, based on the differences of political structure and economic system, Russia and DPRK have departed for a long distance. Although Moscow insisted to develop full-scale relations with ROK without regarding to the objection of DPRK, the achievement of developing relations with ROK couldn’t fit the expectation of Russian people. The bare economic situation hadn’t been improved, and at the same time, Russians felt be treated as a debtor by ROK. Based on the poor economy and the declining nation status in the international society, Russia had been filled with a conservative atmosphere since 1993. The extreme complaint about the domestic and external affairs provoked the Communism and Nationalism, and the foreign policy inclining to the West suffered from fierce critics. Judging from the distribution of the Duma in 1993 and 1995, we can easily find the dramatic change of Russian domestic politics. To preserve national interest and dignity, Kremlin decided to change its policy toward the Korean Peninsula in 1996. The former policy inclining to ROK has been given up, and Moscow makes efforts to regain close relationships with DPRK while developing normal ties with ROK to maintain Russia’s importance and floor not only on the Korean Peninsula, but also in East Asia affairs. In addition, keeping in touch with DPRK and providing any possible assistance will prevent the sudden collapse of Pyongyang Government, which might result in dramatic turbulent in the region. In short, maintaining close ties with North and South at the same time not only promote peace and stability in the region, but also fit Russia’s national interests.