印度對(duì)華政策中的美國因素研究（1949-1965）
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-07-21 12:12
【摘要】：本文主要對(duì)1949—1965年間印度對(duì)華政策中的美國因素進(jìn)行歷史考察,對(duì)其產(chǎn)生的效果進(jìn)行評(píng)估,并從中得出某些有益的經(jīng)驗(yàn)或啟示。成為“有聲有色”的世界大國和確立在南亞次大陸的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)地位,是印度獨(dú)立后對(duì)外戰(zhàn)略的總目標(biāo)。為了實(shí)現(xiàn)其戰(zhàn)略目標(biāo),印度推行不依附于任何大國集團(tuán)的不結(jié)盟政策,并試圖組建美蘇之外以印度為首的第三勢(shì)力。而在兩極世界格局下,美國的戰(zhàn)略目標(biāo)是在全球“遏制共產(chǎn)主義的擴(kuò)張”。美國從其冷戰(zhàn)的全球戰(zhàn)略目標(biāo)出發(fā),曾經(jīng)試圖影響印度的對(duì)華政策,但是戰(zhàn)略目標(biāo)的差異和基本政策的不同使印美兩國在對(duì)華政策上分歧嚴(yán)重,美國影響印度對(duì)華政策的效果相對(duì)有限。新中國成立初期,美國在承認(rèn)新中國問題、中國在聯(lián)合國代表權(quán)問題、朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)問題上都積極對(duì)印度施加影響,試圖促使印度與美國為首的“自由世界”站在同一陣線,但是收效甚微。印度不僅拒絕追隨美國,而且及時(shí)承認(rèn)了新中國,并與新中國正式建交;印度還積極推動(dòng)恢復(fù)新中國在聯(lián)合國的合法席位;朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)爆發(fā)后,印度反對(duì)美國將朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)與臺(tái)灣問題、印度支那問題聯(lián)系起來;中國參戰(zhàn)后,印度積極進(jìn)行調(diào)停,尊重中國的意見,并在戰(zhàn)俘遣返問題上一定程度支持中國的立場(chǎng)。印度的對(duì)華友好一方面加強(qiáng)了新中國對(duì)印度的好感,促進(jìn)了中印友好關(guān)系的發(fā)展;另一方面又引起美國對(duì)印度的不滿,制約了美印關(guān)系的發(fā)展,并一定程度推進(jìn)了美國與巴基斯坦的結(jié)盟。西藏問題在新中國成立后成為美國對(duì)華遏制的重要棋子。美國積極插手西藏問題,并極力爭(zhēng)取印度與美國合作。盡管印度不希望中國加強(qiáng)對(duì)西藏的控制,并曾經(jīng)試圖阻止西藏的和平解放。但是,印度與美國在西藏問題上的利益并不一致。印度不僅擔(dān)心美國的插手將使中印的雙邊分歧上升到冷戰(zhàn)的層面,從而損害印度的利益和安全,而且美國從“遏制共產(chǎn)主義”出發(fā)介入西藏問題也有悖于印度的不結(jié)盟政策。因此,印度反對(duì)美國插手西藏問題,并拒絕與美國合作。1954年,美國不顧印度的強(qiáng)烈反對(duì)與巴基斯坦結(jié)成軍事同盟,客觀上使巴基斯坦在南亞的地位得到加強(qiáng),極大地抑制了印度的戰(zhàn)略空間。為抗衡巴美結(jié)盟,印度決定與中國談判解決西藏問題。通過與中國簽訂關(guān)于西藏問題的協(xié)定,印度放棄了英國在西藏遺留的殖民特權(quán),并事實(shí)上承認(rèn)了中國對(duì)西藏的主權(quán)。印度的對(duì)華友好政策由此推進(jìn)到一個(gè)新的階段。隨著美國更深入地插手西藏問題,獲得美國支持和援助的西藏分裂勢(shì)力于1959年3月公然發(fā)動(dòng)了全面的武裝叛亂。中國政府迅速平定叛亂,并加強(qiáng)了對(duì)西藏地方政府的控制。印度試圖使西藏長(zhǎng)期享有“高度自治權(quán)”、在印中之間充當(dāng)“戰(zhàn)略緩沖區(qū)”的幻想徹底破滅,印度認(rèn)為其國家安全受到前所未有的挑戰(zhàn)。西藏叛亂之后,印度對(duì)西藏的政策發(fā)生重大轉(zhuǎn)變。在美國的影響和推動(dòng)下,印度收留了以達(dá)賴為首的西藏分裂勢(shì)力,并準(zhǔn)許其在印度從事分裂中國活動(dòng)。1962年中印邊界戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)之后,印度更是與美國積極合作,共同軍事援助西藏分裂勢(shì)力。同時(shí),印度在聯(lián)合國的立場(chǎng)也發(fā)生重大變化,由原來反對(duì)(至少是中立)聯(lián)合國干涉西藏問題,轉(zhuǎn)變?yōu)榉e極推動(dòng)聯(lián)合國通過干涉西藏問題的相關(guān)決議。1959年西藏叛亂之前,由于中印在邊界問題上的分歧和矛盾還不突出,美國并未有意識(shí)地試圖影響印度的對(duì)華邊界政策。但是,美國亞洲政策推行所造成的印巴對(duì)抗、中美敵對(duì)、美巴結(jié)盟、美印關(guān)系惡化的客觀戰(zhàn)略格局,一定程度促使印度以對(duì)華友好尋求中國承認(rèn)(至少是默認(rèn))印度的邊界主張,以借助中國抗衡巴美結(jié)盟。1959年西藏叛亂后,隨著中印在邊界問題上矛盾的日益突出和激化,美國大規(guī)模增加了對(duì)印度的經(jīng)濟(jì)援助,并開始向印度提供軍事援助。美國力圖借機(jī)加劇印度與中國的對(duì)抗,并推動(dòng)印度與巴基斯坦建立針對(duì)中國的“聯(lián)合防御體系”,最終將印度拉入西方陣營(yíng)。美國的積極支持一定程度推動(dòng)了印度“前進(jìn)政策”的實(shí)施,最終導(dǎo)致1962年中印邊界戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的爆發(fā)。中印邊界戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)爆發(fā)后,美國對(duì)印度政治上的支持、大量的經(jīng)濟(jì)和軍事援助,助長(zhǎng)了印度與中國的對(duì)抗和對(duì)華政策的強(qiáng)硬。但是,美國試圖將印度拉入西方陣營(yíng)的政策目標(biāo)未能達(dá)成�？傮w而言,1949—1965年間,美國因素一定程度影響了印度的對(duì)華政策。但是,這種影響相對(duì)有限。印度和美國在戰(zhàn)略目標(biāo)上存在的巨大分歧、美國南亞政策所面臨的困境、印度國內(nèi)政治經(jīng)濟(jì)的現(xiàn)實(shí),以及中國采取的外交行動(dòng)等制約了美國因素對(duì)印度對(duì)華政策的影響力。正是由于這些因素的制約,美國政策的推行通常未能完全達(dá)到預(yù)期的目標(biāo),有時(shí)甚至向美國期望的相反方向發(fā)展。通過對(duì)這一時(shí)期美國因素在印度對(duì)華政策中影響的研究,說明印度的對(duì)外政策和印中關(guān)系有其自身的發(fā)展邏輯,美國即使在其霸權(quán)的高峰時(shí)期,其對(duì)世界事務(wù)的影響力仍然受制于各種因素,有其限度。有關(guān)國家如何排除干擾,妥善處理彼此的關(guān)系是決定性的因素。
[Abstract]:This paper makes a historical survey of the American factors in India's China policy from 1949 to 1965, evaluates its effect, and draws some useful experience or enlightenment from it. It is the world power of "sound and colored" and the leading position in the subcontinent of South Asia. It is the general goal of India's foreign strategy after independence. To achieve its strategic goal, India has pursued a non aligned policy which is not dependent on any big power group, and tries to form the third forces headed by India outside the United States and the Soviet Union. In the two polar world, the strategic goal of the United States is to "curb the expansion of communism" in the world. India's policy towards China has been ringing, but the differences in strategic objectives and the differences in basic policies make India and the United States disagree on China's policy on China seriously. The effect of the United States on India's policy towards China is relatively limited. In the early days of the founding of new China, the United States recognized the issue of new China, China was active on the issue of United Nations representation and the Korean War. It tried to influence the "free world" led by India and the United States on the same front, but had little effect. India not only refused to follow the United States, but also recognized the new China in time, and established diplomatic relations with the new China; India also actively promoted the restoration of new China's legal seat in the United Nations; after the outbreak of the Korean War, India opposed the United States. China links the Korean war with the Taiwan and Indochina issues; after China's war, India actively mediates, respects China's views, and supports China's position to a certain extent on the issue of the repatriation of prisoners of war. On the one hand, India's friendship with China strengthens the good sense of new China to India and promotes the development of Sino Indian friendly relations; the other is the other, and the other is the development of the friendship between China and India. It also caused the dissatisfaction of the United States to India, restricted the development of the relationship between the United States and India and promoted the alliance between the United States and Pakistan to a certain extent. The Tibet issue has become an important chessman of the United States to contain China after the founding of new China. The United States has actively engaged in the Tibet issue and strives for India to cooperate with the United States. Although India does not want China to add to it Strong control of Tibet and attempted to prevent the peaceful liberation of Tibet. But India and the United States are not in the same interests as Tibet. India is not only worried that the United States' involvement will raise the bilateral differences between China and India to the cold war level, thus damaging the interests and security of India, and the United States is starting from "cominterism". The entry into Tibet is also contrary to the non alignment policy of India. Therefore, India is opposed to the United States to intervene in the Tibet problem and refuses to cooperate with the United States in.1954. The United States, regardless of India's strong opposition to the military alliance with Pakistan, objectively makes Pakistan's position in South Asia stronger and greatly inhibits the strategic space of India. India decided to negotiate a solution to the Tibet problem with China. By signing an agreement with China on the Tibet issue with China, India gave up the British colonial privileges left in Tibet and in fact recognized China's sovereignty over Tibet. The India's friendly policy towards China was pushed forward to a new stage. In March 1959, the Tibet separatist forces of the United States supported and assisted by the Tibet separatists launched a comprehensive armed rebellion in March 1959. The Chinese government quickly pacified the rebellion and strengthened the control of the local government of Tibet. India tried to make Tibet a "high autonomy" for a long time, and the illusion of "strategic buffer" between India and China. At the end of the disillusionment, India believes that its national security is facing unprecedented challenges. After the Tibet insurgency, India's policy on Tibet has changed greatly. Under the influence and promotion of the United States, India has retained the separatist forces of Tibet, led by Darai, and allowed the India to engage in the Sino Indian border war in the separatist state activities in India in India, and India more. It is the active cooperation with the United States and the common military assistance to the separatist forces in Tibet. Meanwhile, India's position in the United Nations has also undergone major changes. It has changed from the original objection (at least to neutrality) to the United Nations interference in the Tibet issue, and changed to the relevant resolution of the United Nations to interfere in the Tibet issue in the Tibet insurgency in.1959, because China and India were asked on the border. The differences and contradictions in the question are not outstanding, and the United States does not consciously attempt to influence India's policy towards China's border with China. However, the objective strategic pattern of the India Pakistan confrontation, the hostility of the United States and the United States, the alliance of the United States and the Pakistani and the deterioration of the US India relations, to a certain extent, has prompted India to seek China's recognition (at least by default) with the friendship between China and China. India's border claims that, with the aid of China's counterbalance of the Tibet rebellion in the.1959 alliance, the United States increased its economic assistance to India on a large scale, and began to provide military assistance to India. The United States was trying to play an opportunity to combat the confrontation between India and China, and to promote India and Ba Chi. Stan established a "joint defense system" against China and eventually brought India into the Western camp. The positive support of the United States promoted the implementation of India's "forward policy" to a certain extent, and eventually led to the outbreak of the Sino Indian border war in 1962. After the outbreak of the Sino Indian border war, the American political support for India was a great deal of economic and military aid. It helped to boost the confrontation between India and China and the hardship of China's policy towards China. However, the policy goals of the American attempt to pull India into the Western camp have not been reached. In general, the American factors influenced India's policy to China to a certain extent between 1949 and 1965. However, this effect was limited. The strategic objectives of India and the United States were huge. The big differences, the difficulties faced by the American policy of South Asia, the reality of the domestic political economy in India, and the diplomatic action taken by China restrict the influence of the American factors on the policy of India to China. It is precisely because of these factors that the implementation of the American policy is usually not fully achieved the expected goal, and sometimes even to the United States. Development of the opposite direction. Through the study of the influence of American factors on India's policy towards China in this period, it shows that the foreign policy of India and the relationship between India and China have their own development logic. Even in the peak period of their hegemony, the influence of the United States on world affairs is still subject to various factors and its limits. How to exclude the countries concerned. Interference and proper handling of each other's relationship are decisive factors.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華中師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D829.351;D871.2
本文編號(hào)：2135486
[Abstract]:This paper makes a historical survey of the American factors in India's China policy from 1949 to 1965, evaluates its effect, and draws some useful experience or enlightenment from it. It is the world power of "sound and colored" and the leading position in the subcontinent of South Asia. It is the general goal of India's foreign strategy after independence. To achieve its strategic goal, India has pursued a non aligned policy which is not dependent on any big power group, and tries to form the third forces headed by India outside the United States and the Soviet Union. In the two polar world, the strategic goal of the United States is to "curb the expansion of communism" in the world. India's policy towards China has been ringing, but the differences in strategic objectives and the differences in basic policies make India and the United States disagree on China's policy on China seriously. The effect of the United States on India's policy towards China is relatively limited. In the early days of the founding of new China, the United States recognized the issue of new China, China was active on the issue of United Nations representation and the Korean War. It tried to influence the "free world" led by India and the United States on the same front, but had little effect. India not only refused to follow the United States, but also recognized the new China in time, and established diplomatic relations with the new China; India also actively promoted the restoration of new China's legal seat in the United Nations; after the outbreak of the Korean War, India opposed the United States. China links the Korean war with the Taiwan and Indochina issues; after China's war, India actively mediates, respects China's views, and supports China's position to a certain extent on the issue of the repatriation of prisoners of war. On the one hand, India's friendship with China strengthens the good sense of new China to India and promotes the development of Sino Indian friendly relations; the other is the other, and the other is the development of the friendship between China and India. It also caused the dissatisfaction of the United States to India, restricted the development of the relationship between the United States and India and promoted the alliance between the United States and Pakistan to a certain extent. The Tibet issue has become an important chessman of the United States to contain China after the founding of new China. The United States has actively engaged in the Tibet issue and strives for India to cooperate with the United States. Although India does not want China to add to it Strong control of Tibet and attempted to prevent the peaceful liberation of Tibet. But India and the United States are not in the same interests as Tibet. India is not only worried that the United States' involvement will raise the bilateral differences between China and India to the cold war level, thus damaging the interests and security of India, and the United States is starting from "cominterism". The entry into Tibet is also contrary to the non alignment policy of India. Therefore, India is opposed to the United States to intervene in the Tibet problem and refuses to cooperate with the United States in.1954. The United States, regardless of India's strong opposition to the military alliance with Pakistan, objectively makes Pakistan's position in South Asia stronger and greatly inhibits the strategic space of India. India decided to negotiate a solution to the Tibet problem with China. By signing an agreement with China on the Tibet issue with China, India gave up the British colonial privileges left in Tibet and in fact recognized China's sovereignty over Tibet. The India's friendly policy towards China was pushed forward to a new stage. In March 1959, the Tibet separatist forces of the United States supported and assisted by the Tibet separatists launched a comprehensive armed rebellion in March 1959. The Chinese government quickly pacified the rebellion and strengthened the control of the local government of Tibet. India tried to make Tibet a "high autonomy" for a long time, and the illusion of "strategic buffer" between India and China. At the end of the disillusionment, India believes that its national security is facing unprecedented challenges. After the Tibet insurgency, India's policy on Tibet has changed greatly. Under the influence and promotion of the United States, India has retained the separatist forces of Tibet, led by Darai, and allowed the India to engage in the Sino Indian border war in the separatist state activities in India in India, and India more. It is the active cooperation with the United States and the common military assistance to the separatist forces in Tibet. Meanwhile, India's position in the United Nations has also undergone major changes. It has changed from the original objection (at least to neutrality) to the United Nations interference in the Tibet issue, and changed to the relevant resolution of the United Nations to interfere in the Tibet issue in the Tibet insurgency in.1959, because China and India were asked on the border. The differences and contradictions in the question are not outstanding, and the United States does not consciously attempt to influence India's policy towards China's border with China. However, the objective strategic pattern of the India Pakistan confrontation, the hostility of the United States and the United States, the alliance of the United States and the Pakistani and the deterioration of the US India relations, to a certain extent, has prompted India to seek China's recognition (at least by default) with the friendship between China and China. India's border claims that, with the aid of China's counterbalance of the Tibet rebellion in the.1959 alliance, the United States increased its economic assistance to India on a large scale, and began to provide military assistance to India. The United States was trying to play an opportunity to combat the confrontation between India and China, and to promote India and Ba Chi. Stan established a "joint defense system" against China and eventually brought India into the Western camp. The positive support of the United States promoted the implementation of India's "forward policy" to a certain extent, and eventually led to the outbreak of the Sino Indian border war in 1962. After the outbreak of the Sino Indian border war, the American political support for India was a great deal of economic and military aid. It helped to boost the confrontation between India and China and the hardship of China's policy towards China. However, the policy goals of the American attempt to pull India into the Western camp have not been reached. In general, the American factors influenced India's policy to China to a certain extent between 1949 and 1965. However, this effect was limited. The strategic objectives of India and the United States were huge. The big differences, the difficulties faced by the American policy of South Asia, the reality of the domestic political economy in India, and the diplomatic action taken by China restrict the influence of the American factors on the policy of India to China. It is precisely because of these factors that the implementation of the American policy is usually not fully achieved the expected goal, and sometimes even to the United States. Development of the opposite direction. Through the study of the influence of American factors on India's policy towards China in this period, it shows that the foreign policy of India and the relationship between India and China have their own development logic. Even in the peak period of their hegemony, the influence of the United States on world affairs is still subject to various factors and its limits. How to exclude the countries concerned. Interference and proper handling of each other's relationship are decisive factors.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華中師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D829.351;D871.2
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條
1 卞秀瑜;朝鮮戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)期間印度對(duì)華政策與其大國戰(zhàn)略[J];臨沂師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2005年01期
2 唐玉華;20世紀(jì)50年代初印度對(duì)華政策:一種建構(gòu)主義解讀[J];暨南學(xué)報(bào)(人文科學(xué)與社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年01期
3 林利民;新中國成立初期美國分離西藏政策的出籠與破產(chǎn)[J];歷史教學(xué)問題;1998年03期
相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前6條
1 程早霞;美國中央情報(bào)局與中國西藏(1940s-1972)[D];東北師范大學(xué);2009年
2 王昊;冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)期美國對(duì)印度援助政策研究（1947-1971）[D];華東師范大學(xué);2008年
3 陶瑩;冷戰(zhàn)時(shí)期印美關(guān)系研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2008年
4 郭永虎;美國國會(huì)與中美關(guān)系中的“西藏問題”研究（1987-2007）[D];東北師范大學(xué);2007年
5 唐玉華;權(quán)力、安全、經(jīng)濟(jì)利益與冷戰(zhàn)后的美印關(guān)系研究[D];暨南大學(xué);2007年
6 隨新民;中印關(guān)系的社會(huì)認(rèn)知研究[D];外交學(xué)院;2005年
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條
1 劉蘊(yùn)鋒;印度思想庫及其對(duì)華政策主張研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2009年
2 梁國韜;變化中的調(diào)停者：新中國建國初期印度在中美關(guān)系中的作用（1950-1955）[D];外交學(xué)院;2008年
3 張汝松;論冷戰(zhàn)后的印度對(duì)華政策[D];山東師范大學(xué);2008年
4 劉麗麗;美國中央情報(bào)局與達(dá)賴集團(tuán)叛亂[D];山東大學(xué);2008年
5 張國軍;中印關(guān)系中的美國因素[D];北京語言大學(xué);2007年
6 趙春風(fēng);國家身份視野下的中印關(guān)系研究[D];貴州師范大學(xué);2007年
7 陳會(huì)娟;中印邊界爭(zhēng)端中的地緣因素[D];四川大學(xué);2006年
8 李立之;美國國會(huì)干涉西藏問題研究[D];暨南大學(xué);2006年
9 蔣洪勇;戰(zhàn)俘問題與朝鮮停戰(zhàn)[D];華中師范大學(xué);2005年
10 蔣英;中印關(guān)系中的“西藏問題”研究[D];四川大學(xué);2005年
，本文編號(hào)：2135486
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/shekelunwen/waijiao/2135486.html
最近更新
教材專著
