發(fā)布時間：2018-03-24 17:39

  本文選題：伊拉克　切入點：西班牙　出處：《吉林大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：2001年9月11日,一場重大的恐怖襲擊事件震驚了世界:四架飛機被劫持,并且瞄準了紐約的雙子塔、五角大樓和白宮。這次襲擊使美國意識到其安全正在受到挑戰(zhàn),并意識到其不再對恐怖主義的威脅免疫。美國政府對這次襲擊的反應是,制定了一項名為“全球反恐戰(zhàn)爭”的新政策,其主要目的是消滅國際恐怖主義。這項外交政策是基于對阿富汗(被視為恐怖分子藏身之地)的干涉。在這個計劃中,伊拉克也被納為行動的對象,因為懷疑其擁有大規(guī)模毀滅性武器。這個國家與伊朗和朝鮮一起被美國認為是邪惡的軸心;這些國家的政府傾向于培養(yǎng)和資助恐怖主義。然而,這個政策存在爭議;聯(lián)合國批準對阿富汗采取軍事行動的同時,拒絕了對伊拉克采取軍事行動的提議,相反,聯(lián)合國安理會通過了第1441號決議,這項決議包括了要對伊拉克展開調查,以查明伊拉克政府是否擁有美國宣稱的大規(guī)模毀滅性武器,此外,伊拉克政府必須向聯(lián)合國提交一些文件,以保證其核武器銷毀的真實性。然而,提交這些文件的截止日期并沒有明確的規(guī)定,即使文件成功發(fā)送了,無論如何,其結果也不會像美國政府決定入侵伊拉克的那樣。在歐洲的背景下,西班牙發(fā)布了“八國許可書”,包括歐洲聯(lián)盟(英國、丹麥、波蘭、意大利、葡萄牙、匈牙利和捷克共和國)的成員,他們認為美國入侵是合法的。另一方面,有一些構成了“舊歐洲”的國家例如法國和德國,決定不參加這樣的干涉行動,甚至是持反對意見。2003年,聚集了喬治·沃克·布什、托尼布萊爾及阿斯納爾的首腦會議在亞速爾群島召開,幾天之后,伊拉克入侵行動在未經(jīng)聯(lián)合國的批準下發(fā)生了。除此之外,西班牙人民同樣反對這一決定,一些示威活動在大城市的街道上不斷發(fā)生。在整個背景下,出現(xiàn)了這樣一些問題:是什么推動西班牙在伊拉克問題上支持美國?這種有爭議的決定背后的原因是什么?本文的目的是擺脫傳統(tǒng)方式來解釋這一有爭議的決定,即西班牙外交政策的轉變發(fā)展。本文試圖回答的問題是:為什么西班牙政府決定加入美國在伊拉克的反恐戰(zhàn)爭(2003),盡管這是一個有爭議的決定,并且是一個多數(shù)國內(nèi)民眾反對的決定?由此引申出的問題:非國家行為體在多大程度上影響了西班牙的外交政策?以及西班牙在干預伊拉克之前的外交政策是怎樣的?為了回答這個問題,必須證明的假設是:西班牙政府加入美國入侵伊拉克行動,并因此改變外交政策的一個重要考量因素是可感知到的來自巴斯克分離主義集團的威脅以及美國在其與巴斯克分離派的斗爭中給予援助的重要性。此外,支持這一假設并在論文中展開的論點是:與巴斯克分離派的斗爭是西班牙政府的優(yōu)先考慮事項;與巴斯克分離派斗爭的重要性,使西班牙重新考慮與其他國家的關系,并且越來越向美國靠攏;美國政府提供的用以反擊分離派的援助被認為是有價值的;西班牙擔心,如果西班牙政府最終決定不加入美國同盟,那么美國將撤回援助。本文采用定性方法來證明這一假設,也采用了過程追蹤法,有關資料來自于書籍、學者文章和官方網(wǎng)站。為此,論文中必須增加一些關于采訪和報紙的內(nèi)容。此外,本文所采用的理論是外交政策中的一個概念:非國家行為體對政府在制定和實施外交政策的過程中所起到的影響;在本文背景下,只有一大類非國家行為體會被分析:恐怖主義。本文共分五章,其中第一章是介紹以及最后一章是結論,之后的是附錄和參考文獻。其中一章談及美國在本世紀所采取的主要外交政策之一,在第二章(恐怖戰(zhàn)爭)中將會有所論述。在其中一節(jié),將分析美國的反恐主義戰(zhàn)爭的外交政策:就其主要內(nèi)容和發(fā)展過程進行展開。由于本文的重點是西班牙的決策,所以會有一個部分,闡述西班牙在伊拉克問題上所扮演的角色,和迄今為止西班牙所奉行的外交政策,這是西班牙外交政策中一個不尋常的轉折點,假設一個被認定的事實是西班牙外交政策的主要對象是其他國家,那么美國和西班牙這種同盟關系更多是在特定背景下所促成的。雖然美國多年來一直沒有成為西班牙外交政策的主要焦點國,但是在西班牙的獨裁統(tǒng)治時期,曾有過這樣一個時刻:佛朗哥政府決定與美國合作以換取一些經(jīng)濟貿(mào)易協(xié)議。本文嘗試證明的假設包括非政府行為體在政府中的活動和影響力,因此第三章旨在解釋1996-2004年期間影響西班牙政策的主要非國家行為主體。在第三章第一節(jié)中,講述了巴斯克分離主義集團的歷史,包括其建立的原因和主要目的(特別是巴斯克地區(qū)的獨立性)。此外,還有一節(jié)將分析是誰制定了西班牙的外交政策,以及誰決定參與2003年的伊拉克反恐戰(zhàn)爭。西班牙的制度是如何運轉的,是怎樣在同時擁有一個國王和一個總統(tǒng)的情況下成功運行的,以及議會中的參議院和眾議院有什么樣的職能。因此,這個決定是由政府提出,并根據(jù)1978年西班牙憲法和議會表決多數(shù)通過的。非國家行為體的概念將會在第三章的最后一節(jié)有所闡述。非國家行為體的分類方法有很大差異,其類別也有很多種。然而,本文著重于恐怖主義,主要分析其技術、方法、新的挑戰(zhàn)以及巴斯克分離派怎樣被視為一個恐怖主義組織。在第四章中,將對該假設的一個方面進行研究:美國對西班牙反擊巴斯克分離派所給予的幫助和支持。如果重新定位外交政策的原因是非國家行為體的影響力,那么這兩國為了對抗非國家行為體而采取的妥協(xié)就是推動西班牙跟隨美國的伊拉克戰(zhàn)略的原因之一。首先,必須說明為什么巴斯克分離派是主要威脅,以及為什么西班牙政府決定將其作為議程的優(yōu)先事項之一;與鄰國的疏遠關系,恐怖主義集團的暴行的增加和這一集團迅速卷土重來是其中的一些原因。特別是這可以被認為是對國家安全的威脅:巴斯克分離派試圖獲得西班牙自治區(qū)之一的地位,這一舉動破壞了國家的中央集權和國家統(tǒng)一。這種靠向美國的外交政策的轉變是西班牙受到了一些來自美國部分政府機構的援助。援助主要是情報支持,因為西班牙在打擊恐怖主義的行動中的情報活動并沒有發(fā)揮多大作用。
[Abstract]:In September 11, 2001, a major terrorist attacks shocked the world: four planes were hijacked, and aimed at the Petronas Twin Towers in New York, The Pentagon and the White House. The attack to the United States realized that its security is being challenged, and aware of the threat of terrorism is no longer immune. The U.S. government response to the attack is made a program called "new policy in the global war on terror", its main purpose is to eliminate international terrorism. This policy is based on Afghanistan (regarded as a terrorist hideout) interference. In this plan, Iraq is also satisfied for the action of the object, because of suspected with mass destruction the weapons in this country. With Iran and North Korea are united states that the axis of evil; the governments of these countries tend to develop and the financing of terrorism. However, this policy dispute; joint China approved to take military action in Afghanistan at the same time, refused to take military action against Iraq's proposal, on the contrary, the United Nations Security Council resolution 1441st passed the resolution, including the investigation of Iraq, to find out whether the Iraqi government has declared U.S. weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the government must submit some file to the United Nations, in order to ensure the authenticity of the destruction of nuclear weapons. However, the deadline for submission of these documents is not clearly defined, even if the file sent successfully, in any case, the result is not like the United States government decided to invade Iraq. In the context of Europe, Spain issued the license ", including the European Union (UK, Denmark, Poland, Italy, Portugal, Hungary and Czech Republic) members, they think that the U.S. invasion of another party is legal. There are some surface, constitutes a "old Europe" in countries such as France and Germany, decided not to participate in the intervention action, even the opposition.2003, George Walker Bush Tony Blair and Aznar gathered, the summit held in Azores, a few days after the invasion of Iraq in action without UN approval occurred. In addition, the Spanish people also objected to this decision, some demonstrations continue to occur in the streets of the city. In the background, the emergence of such questions: what is driving Spain support the United States in Iraq? What is the reason behind this controversial decision? The purpose of this paper is to get rid of the traditional way to explain this controversial decision, the Spanish foreign policy change development. This paper attempts to answer the question: why the Spanish government decided To join the United States in Iraq War (2003), although this is a controversial decision, and a majority of domestic public opposition decision? Thus a problem: the unstate effect of Spain's foreign policy in the extent and how? Spain in Iraq before intervention foreign policy? In order to answer this question, must prove that the assumption is that the Spanish government joined the U.S. invasion of Iraq, one of the important factors and therefore change foreign policy is perceived from the Basque doctrine of separation and the threat of the United States in the group with the Basque separatist struggle assistance importance. In addition, to support this hypothesis and launched in the paper's argument is: with Basque separatist struggle is the Spanish government's priorities; and Basque separatist struggle important Of Spain to reconsider its relations with other countries, and more and more close to the United States; the U.S. government for secession to counter aid are considered valuable; Spain worry that if the Spanish government eventually decided not to join the alliance, then the United States will withdraw aid. This paper uses the qualitative method to prove it that also uses a process tracing method, relevant information from books, articles and the official website of scholars. This thesis must increase some interviews and newspaper content. In addition, this theory is a concept in foreign policy: the influence to non state actors of government diplomacy in the formulation and policy in this paper; in the background, experience is only a kind of non national behavior is analyzed: terrorism. This paper is divided into five chapters, the first chapter is the introduction and the last chapter is Conclusion after the appendix and reference. Chapter one on one of the main foreign policy adopted by the United States in this century, in the second chapter (terror) will be discussed. In one section, the analysis of American counter-terrorism War foreign policy: its main content and development process. Because the focus of this paper is Spain's decision, so there will be a part of this, Spain played in Iraq's role, and so far the foreign policy pursued by Spain, this is an unusual turning point of Spanish foreign policy, assuming a facts is the main object of Spanish foreign policy the other countries, then the United States and Spain of the Alliance is more facilitated in the specific context. Although the United States over the years has not become the main focus of the Spanish foreign policy In China, but in Spain during the dictatorship, had such a moment: Franco government decided to cooperate with the United States in exchange for some economic and trade agreements. This paper attempts to prove the hypothesis includes the activities and influence of non-governmental actors in the government, so the third chapter aims to explain the main effect during the 1996-2004 years of non national behavior Spanish policy. In the first section of the third chapter, describes the history of the Basque separatist group, including the reason and the main objective (especially the independence of the Basque area). In addition, there is a section analysis who made Spain's foreign policy, and who decided to participate in the 2003 Iraq war on terror in Spain. The system is how to operate, is the successful operation of how to have a king and a president in the case, and in the parliament house and Senate What kind of functions. Therefore, this decision is proposed by the government, according to the 1978 Spanish Constitution and parliament by majority vote. The concept will be non state actors in the last section of the third chapter in this paper. Some classification methods of non state actors are very different, the category also has a lot of kinds. However, this paper focuses on the analysis of the major terrorism, technology, methods, new challenges and Basque Sezession how is regarded as a terrorist organization. In the fourth chapter, we will study one aspect of the hypothesis: the United States granted to Spain to counter Basque Sezession help and support. If the reasons for re positioning of diplomacy the policy is non state actors influence, so the two countries to fight against non state actors to compromise is to promote one of Iraq's strategic reason to follow the United States Spain at first, To explain why Basque secession is a major threat, and why the Spanish government decided to take it as one of the priorities of the agenda; with its neighbors alienated relationship, increased violence and terrorist groups in the group quickly comeback are some of the reasons. Especially, this can be considered a threat to national security: Basque Sezession try to get one of the Spanish autonomous region status, a move undermined the centralization and unity of the country. This change to the foreign policy of the United States is Spain received aid from the United States government agencies. Some aid is the main intelligence support, because the Spanish intelligence activities in combating terrorism and did not play much.

【學位授予單位】：吉林大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D855.1

【相似文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 時殷弘;全球性交往、互相依賴和非國家行為體[J];歐洲;2001年05期

2 鄭賢君;全球化對公民社會權保障趨勢的影響——國家中心責任向非國家行為體過渡的社會權保障[J];首都師范大學學報(社會科學版);2002年02期

3 李金祥;;非國家行為體的分類[J];當代世界;2008年05期

4 賈修磊;;非國家行為體的緣起[J];當代世界;2010年04期

5 任侃健;;論對非國家行為體的越境打擊[J];研究生法學;2011年06期

6 王新生;;論社會權領域的非國家行為體之義務[J];政治與法律;2013年05期

7 徐步華;;非國家行為體的影響及其限度[J];理論月刊;2014年05期

8 蘇長和;非國家行為體與當代國際政治[J];歐洲;1998年01期

9 鄭賢君;;非國家行為體與社會權——兼議社會基本權的國家保護義務[J];浙江學刊;2009年01期

10 王金梅;;非國家行為體與主權國家在國際氣候治理中的互動[J];法制與社會;2011年09期

相關會議論文 前1條

1 李金祥;蔡佳禾;;理解世界政治中的非國家行為體：性質和定義[A];2007年江蘇省哲學社會科學界學術大會論文集（下）[C];2007年

相關重要報紙文章 前6條

1 常政;權力大未來[N];中華讀書報;2012年

2 尤文虎 杜亞峰 軍事科學院世界軍事部研究員、總參某部翻譯;全球核秩序正日趨脆弱[N];中國國防報;2010年

3 陳向陽;建設和諧世界的戰(zhàn)略思考[N];學習時報;2006年

4 上海國際問題研究所副所長 楊潔勉;安全環(huán)境發(fā)生變化[N];人民日報;2001年

5 上海國際問題研究院海洋與極地中心國際法博士 程保志;北極治理，“人類共同利益”所系[N];文匯報;2012年

6 本報記者 王爾德;中國角色與世界鏡像[N];21世紀經(jīng)濟報道;2013年

相關碩士學位論文 前4條

1 JAMAL AIT LAADAM;非國家行為體在對外政策制定過程中所扮演的角色[D];吉林大學;2016年

2 Maria Begona Ballester Penalva;西班牙的伊拉克戰(zhàn)略：國家安全還是國際團結？[D];吉林大學;2017年

3 尹舒陽;簡論“無公認行為體”的形成及國際承認[D];蘭州大學;2011年

4 謝櫻;上海城市外交研究[D];上海外國語大學;2012年

，

本文編號：1659339