协调与疏离：欧洲对美政策探析

doi:10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2021.02.026

Abstract
Figure/Table
References
Related Citation (9)

Download: PDF (1107 KB) HTML (0 KB)
Export: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

Abstract Since the establishment of their alliance, Europe and the U.S. have differed and coordinated on various policy issues, European policies oscillated repeatedly between coordination and alienation. This paper contends that the interaction between external threats and internal differences between the alliance partners is the main variable that shapes the relations between the two, and forms four different conditions in their alliance: close, relatively close, relatively loose and loose. Europe’s policy toward the U.S. will have different orientations in different situations. The paper specifically examines Europe’s response to the U.S. withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, and verifies that the interaction between external threats and internal differences in the transatlantic alliance is the key factor in determining whether Europe’s policy is coordinated with or deviates from the U.S. on the Iranian nuclear issue. During the Trump era, while Iran’s tough stance occasionally heightened Europe’s sense of threat, the conflicts between Europe and the U.S. on a series of other issues made internal differences dominate. Europe showed more deviations from the U.S. on the Iran nuclear deal. Since Biden took office, the U.S. has made concessions to Europe in economic, trade and other fields to mitigate these same differences. Concepts and methods for dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue under Biden are closer to those of Europe, and the leading role of internal differences has been weakened. At the same time, Iran’s tough response to U.S. pressure by strengthening uranium enrichment capabilities and testing ballistic missiles has enhanced Europe’s sense of external threat has begun to reach a new balance with internal differences, and so the European-American alliance has been developing into a relatively loose relationship, showing more deviation than coordination on the issue of the Iran nuclear deal. The fluctuating nature of European policy toward the U.S. has important implications for China-Europe relations under the background of Sino-U.S. strategic competition. That is, the severity of internal differences between Europe and the U.S. is weakened and policy coordination is increased, but the “China threat” variable in European-American relations does not occupy a dominant position, the coordination between Europe and the U.S. in China policy is limited. Facing the challenges of forming policy on European countries, the conclusions are that China should continue to maintain strategic patience and concentration, and respond in a rational, positive, and moderated way to reduce the differences between China and Europe. China-Europe relations will consequently not fall victim to the context of Sino-U.S. strategic competition. Europe’s ambition to pursue strategic autonomy and to stick to its own position on major issues can not only alleviate the unnecessary contradictions and conflicts between China and Europe, but also reduce the likelihood of the exploitation of these divergences by the U.S.

Key words： Europe Europe-U.S. relationship policy toward the U.S. Iran nuclear deal Sino-U.S. strategic competition coordinating deviating

Received: 02 February 2021

	Service

	E-mail this article
	Add to my bookshelf
	Add to citation manager
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	Articles by authors
	Liu Shengxiang
	Li Yunpeng

Cite this article:

Liu Shengxiang,Li Yunpeng. [J]. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2022, 52(5): 85-103.

URL:

https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2021.02.026 OR https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/EN/Y2022/V52/I5/85

1 张健：《欧美关系的新变化及前景》，《现代国际关系》2009年第6期，第29-34页。
2 金玲：《欧美关系重塑：构建从盟友到伙伴的新平衡》，《国际问题研究》2021年第2期，第49-67页。
3 金玲：《阿富汗危机与欧美关系的疏离态势》，《当代世界》2021年第11期，第38-42页。
4 周荣耀、姜南、金海：《世界历史——战后西方联盟》，南昌：江西人民出版社，2011年。
5 Mearsheimer J. J.， “Back to the future： instability in Europe after the Cold War，” International Security， Vol. 15， No. 1 （1990）， pp. 5-56.
6 朱绍中、赵亚鹏：《平衡至上，国家利益至上——析德国默克尔政府的对美政策》，《德国研究》2006年第4期，第10-15页。
7 美］斯蒂芬·沃尔特：《联盟的起源》，周丕启译，北京大学出版社，2007年。
8 Sorokin G.， “Arms， alliances and security tradeoffs in enduring rivalries，” International Studies Quarterly， Vol. 38， No. 3 （1994）， pp. 421-426.
9 孙德刚：《国际安全之联盟理论探析》，《欧洲研究》2004年第4期，第39-53页。
10 美］汉斯·摩根索：《国家间政治——权力斗争与和平》，徐昕等译，王缉思校，北京：北京大学出版社，2006年。
11 美］理查德·尼克松：《1999：不战而胜》，王观声、郭健哉、李建英等译，北京：世界知识出版社，1997年。
12 尹继武：《联盟信任的生成机制》，《国际政治科学》2008年第4期，第35-78页。
13 沈志华：《冷战的再转型：中苏同盟的内在分歧及其结局》，北京：九州出版社，2013年。
14 赵学功：《朝鲜战争与英美关系》，《史学集刊》2004年第2期，第47-54页。
15 赵学功：《英国、美国与朝鲜战争》，《冷战国际史研究》2006年第1期，第1-33页。
16 赵学功：《十月风云：古巴导弹危机研究》，天津：天津人民出版社，2009年。
17 Yost D. S.， “U. S. military power and alliance relations，” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science， Vol. 517 （1991）， pp. 80-93.
18 美］亨利·基辛格：《白宫岁月：基辛格回忆录》（第一册），方辉盛、赵仲强、吴继淦等译，上海：上海译文出版社，2016年。
19 加拿大］诺林·里普斯曼、［美］杰弗里·托利弗、［美］斯蒂芬·洛贝尔：《新古典现实主义国际政治理论》，刘丰、张晨译，上海：上海人民出版社，2017年。
20 Josef J.， “European-American relations： the enduring crisis，” Foreign Affairs， Vol. 59， No. 4 （1980）， pp. 835-851.
21 殷桐生主编：《德国外交通论》，北京：外语教学与研究出版社，2010年。
22 美］A·W·德波特：《欧洲与超级大国》，唐雪葆等译，北京：中国社会科学出版社，1986年。
23 宋芳：《“北约过时论”的历史演变与现实意涵》，《国际观察》2020年第3期，第130-156页。
24 Geranmayeh E.， “The coming clash： why Iran will divide Europe from the United States，” https：//ecfr.eu/wp-content/uploads/ECFR-236_-_Why_Iran_Will_Divide_Europe_From_The_US_GERANMAYEH.pdf，2017-10-25.
25 O’Reilly A.， “Trump says ‘European Union is a foe’ to US ahead of summit with Putin，” 2018-07-15， https：//www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-says-european-union-is-a-foe-to-us-ahead-of-summit-with-putin， 2021-11-07.
26 Riddervold M. & Newsome A.， “Transatlantic relations in times of uncertainty： crises and EU-US relations，” Journal of European Integration， Vol. 40， No. 5 （2018）， pp. 505-521.
27 Osiewicz P.， “EU-Iran relations in the Post-JCPOA period： selected political aspects，” https：//pressto.amu.edu.pl/index.php/pp/article/view/13171/12869.pdf， 2018-06-26.
28 尹斌：《软实力外交：欧盟的中东政策》，北京：光明日报出版社，2010年。
29 Baczynska G.， “EU heads discuss bold-or-fold strategy toward Trump tariffs，” 2018-05-16， http：//www.mining.com/web/eu-heads-discuss-bold-fold-strategy-toward-trump-tariffs/， 2021-11-14.
30 赵晨：《欧盟外交：主权时刻》，见周弘、黄平、田德文主编：《欧洲发展报告（2018~2019）》，北京：社会科学文献出版社，2019年，第57-65页。
31 法］阿尔弗雷德·格罗塞：《战后欧美关系》，刘其中、唐雪葆、付荫等译，关在汉校，上海：上海译文出版社，1986年。
32 焦一强、王四海：《美俄退出〈中导条约〉及其对欧洲安全与地缘政治的影响》，《俄罗斯研究》2020年第5期，第109-143页。
33 J?rvenp?? P.， Major C. & Sakkov S.， “European strategic autonomy： operationalising a buzzword，” https：//icds.ee/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/ICDS_Report_European_Strategic_Autonomy_J%C3%A4rvenp%C3%A4%C3%A4_Major_Sakkov_October_2019.pdf， 2019-10-28.
34 赵晨：《“蛮实力”阴影下的欧美关系》，见吴白乙、周弘、陈新主编：《欧洲发展报告（2019~2020）》，北京：社会科学文献出版社，2020年，第148-158页。
35 Brzozowski A.， “Europeans brace for fallout from Soleimani killing，” 2020-01-06， https：//www.euractiv.com/section/global-europe/news/europeans-brace-for-fallout-from-soleimani-killing/， 2020-11-17.
36 汪波：《欧盟中东政策研究》，北京：时事出版社，2010年。
37 杨成玉：《反制美国“长臂管辖”之道——基于法国重塑经济主权的视角》，《欧洲研究》2020年第3期，第1-31页。
38 McFall C.， “Countries part of Iran nuclear deal claim US cannot force sanctions on Iran，” 2020-09-01， https：//www.foxnews.com/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-signatory-countries-claim-us-cannot-force-sanctions-on-iran， 2022-02-17.
39 冯存万、林宇薇：《北约应对新冠疫情的政策调适——兼论后疫情时代的北约发展趋向》，《边界与海洋研究》2021年第5期，第5-19页。
40 Flamini R.， “U.S.-Europe relations： is the historic trans-Atlantic alliance still relevant？” CQ Researcher， Vol. 22， No. 12 （2012）， pp. 1-17.
41 Calleo D. P.， “The Atlantic Alliance in a global system，” Asia Pacific Review， Vol. 14， No. 1 （2007）， pp. 72-89.
42 Lamy P.， “An isolated China is a more dangerous China，” https：//www.cer.eu/sites/default/files/bulletin_141_article1_PL.pdf， 2021-11-29.