http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 宋永祐 (검색결과 114 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
-
宋永祐 건국대학교 현대이념비교연구회 1986 現代理念硏究 Vol.4 No.-
중공은 그 자체의 안전보장과 현대화를 추진하는 일이 그의 급선무이다. 그런데 이런 일들이 중공의 자력으로 성취될 수는 없다. 이는 거의 모두 밖으로부터 구해야 할 것들이다. 이런 문제들은 미국 등 서방자본주의국가, 소련 그리고 제3세계국가들과의 관계에서 그 해결책을 얻을 수 있다. 이들과의 관계에 있어 중공은 모두 우호적이고 협조적인 관계를 유지하여야만 그의 목적이 달성될 수 있다.
-
-
-
-
宋永祐 건국대학교 1987 學術誌 Vol.31 No.1
After World War II, the fundamental principle of the United States foreign policy was substituted the anti-Communism, the policy of containment, and globalism for its historical isolationism from world power politics in terms of the changing distribution of power. Since then, the principle had been exhaustively persisted to late 1960s. But the Nixon administration had an assumption to partially reject the American justification for participating in foreign affairs. International politics was not a fight between the good side and the bad side. All the states had the right to exist and possessed legitimate interests, a right as true for Communist as for non-Communist states. A nation, therefore, did not launch crusades against an adversary on the assumption that differences of interests represented a conflict of virture and evil, because anti-Communism had been weakened by the increasing pluralism of the formerly cohesive Sino-Soviet bloc and it would no longer be very useful as a mean of eliciting popular support, since the United States might well be supporting one Communist state against another. The Soviet Union also agreed with the change of the American justification in foreign affairs, and both super-powers began learning to live with other states, defending one's interest and building on shared interest. The cooperative relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union and between east and west had been continued almost to late 1970s. The Soviet Union had military activities and intervention to the Third World in 1970s, but the Carter administration did not undertake any firm measure toward the Soviet Union except for the Carter Doctrine. Carter said that the Soviet activities were not detrimental to vital interests of the United States and he did not wish to discard detente and tried to preserve the essense of detente to oppose aggression and to eliminate the threats to world peace. When Ronald Reagan was inaugurated, detente was repudiated. President Reagan believed and stated frankly and publicly the Soviet leaders were the focus of evil in the modern world and the Soviet Union underlay all the unrest that was going on in the world. He believed that the principal requirement for meeting the Soviet challenge was to adandon the feckless pursuit of detente and to resume a unilateral American reassertion of leadership and a rebuilding of strength and self-reliance. He inclined naturally toward a confrontational attitude toward the Soviet Union and the communist system. President Reagan used to have employed military power in the name of the United States interests and world peace and declared SDI programme and Reagan Doctrine for reasserting US Power on a global scale, confronting the Soviet Union and advocating an increased US military profile in the Third World. The policies have made relations between the United States and the Soviet Union more confrontational and competitive. Therefore, some would like to call it new cold war. The confrontational and competitive programme of the United States toward the Soviet Union was not responsive to the Soviet Union, but was initiatively undertaken by the Reagan administration. The Soviet Union has never had a Policy to threaten to the US interests and world security in 1980s especially. It was in the United States, not in the Soviet Union, that the sharp changes of mood policy characteristics of 1980s can be seen. The Reagan's policies are an unambiguous drive for strategic superiority over the Soviet Union, tied to a general re-establishment of hegemony over world and the US domestic population. But the programme of President Reagan can not influence upon powers, because recent world environment are quite different from 1950s. There is no any nation which makes its foreign policy in terms of ideology and anti-communism. Every nation has diplomatic and economic relations with different social system without antagonism. The Reagan's policy and programme which are specifically directed against the Soviet Union can not lead the world to cold war, and only relations between two superpowers are confrontational and competitive.
-
宋永祐 건국대학교 1981 政法論叢 Vol.16 No.1
미국은 제1차 세계대전을 마치고 채무국으로부터 채권국으로 발돋움하였고, 또 제2차 세계대전후 미국은 단순한 채권국에 머무르지 않고 세계 제1의 부국으로 그리고 제1의 강국으로 승격하였다. 많은 부와 강한 력을 축적한 미국으로서는 이의 활용으로 국제사회에서 그의 우월한 위치를 확고하게 할 필요성을 느끼지 않을 수 없게 되었다. 이렇게 하기 위해서는 부와 력을 활용할 수 있는 계기와 환경이 필요하다. 그러나 제2차 대전 직후 미국은 어떠한 구실이나 환경을 만들 수 있는 준비태세가 되어 있지 못했다. 제2차 대전이 끝날 때까지 미국은 전쟁이 발발하고 전쟁에 개입되었을 때 비로소 대외정책을 갖게 된다. 그것은 장기적인 대외정책이 아니라 군사적 승리를 위한 방책에 불과하였다. 제2차 대전 전까지 미국은 국내개발에 몰두하였고 어떠한 선거에서도 외교정책이 쟁점이 되어 본 일이 없었다. 미국이 건국 이후 제2차 대전까지 장기적이고 치밀한 대외정책을 갖지 않고 살아오게 된 이유 중의 하나는 지극히 실용주의적이며 어떤 사상적인 바탕을 거의 갖지 않고 있었기 때문이다. 그리하여 미국인은 어떤 사상이나 이상 또는 역사적인 전통에 기초해서 행동하는 경우는 매우 드물다. 미국인의 사고와 행위를 지배하는 것은 오직 실용주의뿐이었다. 대외정책도 이러한 범주를 벗어나지 못했던 것이다.
-
-
-
연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
