本文選題：美印核合作 + 朝鮮核問題�。� 參考：《中國社會科學(xué)院研究生院》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：2006年美印核協(xié)議不僅削弱了國際社會的核不擴(kuò)散機(jī)制，而且破壞了核不擴(kuò)散政策的一貫性。美國推行與印度開展核合作的政策，其目的在于通過印度牽制中國，進(jìn)而繼續(xù)維持其世界霸主地位。 美國的上述舉動(dòng)不僅廣受責(zé)難，而且對解決伊朗及朝鮮核問題產(chǎn)生了很大的消極影響。美國對印度的核容忍政策使朝鮮找到借口持續(xù)研發(fā)核武器，可以說這一負(fù)面事件使得朝鮮相信，只要他們堅(jiān)持不放棄核武器的研發(fā)，就能夠作為核武器擁有國獲得認(rèn)可。今天，美國不可能像認(rèn)可印度一樣認(rèn)可朝鮮擁有核武器，因?yàn)橛《群统r在國際社會中地位不同，戰(zhàn)略價(jià)值也相應(yīng)存在差異。不過在朝鮮核危機(jī)日趨嚴(yán)重后，從美國的態(tài)度及美國政府人員提及朝鮮擁有核武器時(shí)的相關(guān)言論看來，美國有可能出于本國戰(zhàn)略利益關(guān)系，改變其對朝鮮的核政策。 如果美國對朝鮮的核政策發(fā)生變化，那么很可能是像對印度一樣對其采取容忍的態(tài)度，或把朝鮮由無核化國家轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)椴粩U(kuò)散核武器國家。預(yù)計(jì)日后美國的對朝鮮核政策將在美中關(guān)系及美朝關(guān)系發(fā)展變化的影響下，呈現(xiàn)出不同的局面。如果美國像對印度一樣認(rèn)可或默認(rèn)朝鮮擁有核武器，人們就會因此擔(dān)憂全球范圍核擴(kuò)散加速，并在東亞引起相應(yīng)的核多米諾反應(yīng)。 在此期間，朝鮮通過從廢燃料棒中提取钚、濃縮鈾、以及三次核試驗(yàn)持續(xù)加強(qiáng)本國的核能力，特別是朝鮮的第三次核試驗(yàn)更使朝鮮核問題進(jìn)入了新局面。今天朝鮮炫耀核能力時(shí)，不再像過去只將其作為與美國談判的籌碼，而是把加強(qiáng)本國的核能力看作確保其體制穩(wěn)定的最佳手段，2012年4月朝鮮把“擁有核武器”寫入修訂后的憲法之中。今天，朝鮮已聲稱其不再是剛剛跨過核門檻的國家，而是擁有足夠?qū)嵙�、名副其�?shí)的核武器擁有國。 朝鮮核問題不僅是美朝兩國之間的問題，它也可能導(dǎo)致包括朝鮮半島在內(nèi)的東北亞地區(qū)局勢不穩(wěn)定，并可能動(dòng)搖NPT體制根本。今天，不論國際社會是否認(rèn)可朝鮮擁有核武器，都必須針對擁有核武器的朝鮮樹立新的無核化戰(zhàn)略。在過去朝鮮核問題日趨嚴(yán)重的20余年期間，以聯(lián)合國為首的國際社會針對朝鮮采取了各種制裁措施，但這些制裁措施未能成功阻止朝鮮擁有核武器，這可能主要是因?yàn)橄嚓P(guān)國家對朝鮮核問題的目標(biāo)及利害關(guān)系存在差異，特別是美國奧巴馬政府推行的“戰(zhàn)略性忍耐”政策反而可能為朝鮮提供了增強(qiáng)本國核能力的時(shí)間和機(jī)會。 今天，相關(guān)國家應(yīng)針對朝鮮問題制定“朝鮮無核化”目標(biāo)，并堅(jiān)決不能在與此目標(biāo)相關(guān)的方面進(jìn)行任何妥協(xié)。如果施加壓力及實(shí)施制裁不能阻止朝鮮的核威脅，反而加強(qiáng)了朝鮮的核能力與導(dǎo)彈能力，那么現(xiàn)在就到了需要采用“通過對話解決問題”原則的時(shí)代。如果要更換過去以制裁與壓迫為主的政策，使朝鮮參與對話，，就需要韓國發(fā)揮積極主動(dòng)的作用。另外，韓國也應(yīng)該積極考慮同時(shí)推進(jìn)解決朝鮮核問題及促進(jìn)南北關(guān)系改善的相應(yīng)戰(zhàn)略。 在朝鮮技術(shù)上已成為核武器擁有國的現(xiàn)實(shí)情況下，有必要通過成立以韓美中為中心的“國際協(xié)商組織”，制定解決朝鮮核問題的整體計(jì)劃。國際社會應(yīng)該改變過去通過美朝秘密接觸推進(jìn)6方會談的老辦法，通過國際協(xié)商組織提出統(tǒng)一的對朝鮮問題的看法，并加強(qiáng)各國在制定朝鮮政策方面的合作。在朝鮮為確保本國體制生存而執(zhí)著于核武器的情況下，目前一味等待的戰(zhàn)略無法從根本上解決朝鮮核問題。為使朝鮮再次參與對話，韓國、美國和中國必須盡早樹立創(chuàng)新、綜合的對朝鮮戰(zhàn)略。
[Abstract]:In 2006, the United States and India nuclear agreement not only weakened the nuclear non-proliferation mechanism of the international community, but also undermined the consistency of the nuclear non-proliferation policy. The United States carried out a policy of carrying out nuclear cooperation with India, with the aim of holding China through India and continuing to maintain its hegemony in the world.
The actions of the United States are not only reproach, but also have a great negative impact on the resolution of the nuclear issue of Iran and North Korea. The United States' nuclear tolerance policy on India has made the DPRK find an excuse to continue to develop nuclear weapons, which can be said to have led North Korea to believe that as long as they do not give up the R & D of nuclear weapons, it can be used as a nuclear weapon. Today, it is impossible for the United States to recognize North Korea's nuclear weapons like India, because India and DPRK have different positions in the international community and the corresponding differences in strategic values. It seems that the United States may change its nuclear policy toward North Korea in the light of its strategic interests.
If the United States changes its nuclear policy to North Korea, it is likely to take a tolerant attitude to India, or change North Korea from the denuclearization to the non proliferation nuclear weapon states. As the United States, like India, recognised or defaulted on North Korea's nuclear weapons, people would be worried about the acceleration of global nuclear proliferation and the corresponding nuclear Domino reaction in East Asia.
In the meantime, North Korea has continued to strengthen its nuclear capabilities by extracting plutonium from waste fuel rods, enriching uranium, and three nuclear tests, especially the third nuclear tests in North Korea that have made the North Korean nuclear issue a new situation. Today, North Korea is no longer just a bargaining chip with the United States as it used to be a bargaining chip with the United States, but to strengthen its own country. As the best means to ensure the stability of its system, North Korea wrote the "nuclear weapons" into the revised constitution in April 2012. Today, North Korea has claimed that it is no longer a country that has just crossed the nuclear threshold, but has enough strength to have a real nuclear weapon state.
North Korea's nuclear issue is not only a problem between the United States and the DPRK, it may also lead to instability in the Northeast Asia, including the Korean Peninsula, and may shake the NPT system fundamentally. Today, no matter whether the international community recognise North Korea's nuclear weapons, it must set a new denuclearization strategy for North Korea with nuclear weapons. The international community, headed by the United Nations, has taken various sanctions against the DPRK over the past 20 years, but the sanctions have failed to prevent the DPRK from having nuclear weapons. This may be mainly due to the differences in the targets and interests of the relevant countries on the Korean nuclear issue, especially the Obama administration of the United States. The strategy of "strategic patience" may provide North Korea with time and opportunities to enhance its nuclear capability.
Today, the relevant countries should set the "Korean denuclearization" target on the Korean issue and do not make any compromise on the related aspects. If pressure and sanctions do not prevent North Korea's nuclear threat, it will strengthen the nuclear and missile power of the DPRK, and now it is necessary to use "through dialogue". It is necessary for Korea to play a positive and active role in the dialogue, and South Korea should also actively consider the corresponding strategy to solve the North Korean nuclear problem and promote the improvement of North and South relations if the policy of replacing the past with the policy of sanctions and oppression is to be replaced.
With the fact that North Korea has become a nuclear weapon state in technology, it is necessary to set up an overall plan to solve the North Korean nuclear issue through the establishment of the "International Consultative Organization" as the center of the United States and the United States. The international community should change the old ways of advancing the 6 party talks through the secret contact between the United States and the DPRK, and put forward a unified international consultation organization. In order to take part in the dialogue, Korea, the United States and China must set up innovation as soon as possible. In order to make the DPRK participate in the dialogue again, the Korean, the United States and China must set up an innovation as soon as possible. The North Korea strategy.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國社會科學(xué)院研究生院
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D815.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 曹樹金;;朝核危機(jī)根源的建構(gòu)主義分析[J];遼東學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會科學(xué)版);2012年01期

2 張璉瑰;;朝鮮核問題現(xiàn)狀與美國責(zé)任[J];東北亞學(xué)刊;2012年02期

3 樸鍵一;朝鮮核問題及其未來走向[J];當(dāng)代亞太;2003年03期

4 司樂如;;美印中三角關(guān)系互動(dòng)與國際格局[J];當(dāng)代亞太;2007年10期

5 沈秋歡;;美國對印度、朝鮮核政策的比較研究:建構(gòu)主義的視角[J];東南亞南亞研究;2009年03期

6 劉思偉;;印度外交政策制定:以印美民用核合作協(xié)議談判為例[J];東南亞南亞研究;2010年02期

7 任飛;;印度核政策探析[J];東南亞南亞研究;2010年03期

8 劉洪洋;陳登勇;;簡析朝核問題對中國安全的影響及對策[J];法制與社會;2010年01期

9 龔克瑜;;中國在朝核問題上的國家利益、作用和前瞻性思考[J];國際觀察;2008年05期

10 趙品宇;;淺析美國核不擴(kuò)散政策的深層悖論——以美印核關(guān)系為案例[J];國際論壇;2008年01期

本文編號：1830922