走向伟大复兴的中国地缘战略：国家周边论

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2021.03.2021165

世界地理研究 ›› 2021, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (3): 443-453.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-9479.2021.03.2021165

• 世界政治与经济 • 下一篇

走向伟大复兴的中国地缘战略：国家周边论

胡志丁¹^,²^,³(), 葛岳静⁴, 杜德斌¹^,², 刘玉立⁵^,⁶

^1.华东师范大学全球创新与发展研究院，上海 200062
^2.华东师范大学世界地理与地缘战略研究中心，上海 200062
^3.南方海洋科学与工程广东省实验室（广州），广州 511458
^4.北京师范大学地理学部，北京 100875
^5.青岛大学一带一路研究院，青岛 266071
^6.青岛大学商学院，山东青岛 266071

收稿日期:2021-01-10 修回日期:2021-03-10 出版日期:2021-05-20 发布日期:2021-06-08
作者简介:胡志丁（1986-），研究员，博士生导师，主要从事全球化与地缘环境研究，E-mail：huzhiding2007@126.com。
基金资助:
国家社科重大项目资助(20ZD138)

China's geopolitical strategy on the way to the great rejuvenation: The National Neighborland Theory

Zhiding HU¹^,²^,³(), Yuejing GE⁴, Debin DU¹^,², Yuli LIU⁵^,⁶

^1.Institute for Global Innovation and Development, East China Normal University, Shanghai 20062, China
^2.Institute for Geopolitics and Strategic Geography, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China
^3.Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory (Guangzhou), Guangzhou 511458, China
^4.Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
^5.Institute of Belt and Road, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China
^6.School of Business, Qingdao University, Qingdao 266071, China

Received:2021-01-10 Revised:2021-03-10 Online:2021-05-20 Published:2021-06-08

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

伴随批判地缘政治学的兴起，围绕古典地缘战略理论的争论一度成为学术研究的焦点，而“一带一路”倡议的提出更是激起有关“一带一路”是否是中国当前全球地缘战略的讨论。2019年新冠疫情叠加中美大脱钩使得中国适时调整和制定符合当前整体地缘环境态势的地缘战略迫在眉睫，这关系到“两个一百年”目标和民族复兴能否实现。本文借鉴哲学中的主体间性概念重新解读了古典的地缘战略理论。在归纳总结古典地缘战略理论所具有的固有特征后，反驳了“一带一路”倡议为中国地缘战略的观点。借用古典地缘战略隐含的构建方式，在分析全球地缘环境、中美地缘关系和中国地缘环境后，提出了到21世纪中叶前中国的地缘战略——国家周边论。但是，我们应该承认，无论对中国还是对美国而言，继续围绕中国周边地区的对抗甚至全球尺度的冲突对于双方甚至全球都是不利的。中美必须走出过去历史长河中形成的强国必霸的主体间性的共识，在对话、交流的基础上，实现中美互动实践的良性循环，以此结束当今世界的种种冲突，走向和平发展，构建人类命运共同体。

关键词: 古典地缘政治, 地缘环境, 地缘战略, “一带一路”倡议, 主体间性

Abstract:

With the rise of critical geopolitics, the debate about classical geostrategic theory once became the focus of academic research. The proposal of the Belt and Road Initiative also stirred debate on whether One Belt One Road is China's current global geopolitical strategy. The Covid-19 superimposed on the great decoupling between China and the United States, makes it extremely urgent for China to adjust and formulate a new geostrategy in line with the current overall geo-environmental situation. This is related to the realization of the two centenary goals and national rejuvenation. This paper attempts to reinterpret classical geopolitics, by borrowing the concept of intersubjectivity from philosophy and the research results on intersubjectivity in a variety of specific philosophical morphologies. After summing up the inherent characteristics of classical geopolitics, this paper proceeds to refute the view which holds that China's Belt and Road initiative is its geostrategy. Instead, it analyzes global geo-environment, Sino-American relations and China's geo-environment in the implicit framework constructed by classical geopolitical strategy, and proposes China's geopolitical strategy in the first half of this century called the National Neighborland Theory. However, we should recognize that for both China and the United States, continued confrontation in the Chinese periphery or, worse still, conflicts on a global scale is detrimental to both parties and even the world. Both nations must step out of the intersubjective consensus taking shape in the long course of history that all powers are bound to seek hegemony. Moreover, they shall step further into a virtuous circle of mutual interaction via dialogs and exchanges, so as to terminate conflicts in today's world for the sake of peaceful development, and to construct a community of shared future for mankind.

Key words: classical geopolitics, geopolitical strategy, the National Neighborland Theory, the Belt and Road Initiative, intersubjectivity

胡志丁, 葛岳静, 杜德斌, 刘玉立. 走向伟大复兴的中国地缘战略：国家周边论[J]. 世界地理研究, 2021, 30(3): 443-453.

Zhiding HU, Yuejing GE, Debin DU, Yuli LIU. China's geopolitical strategy on the way to the great rejuvenation: The National Neighborland Theory[J]. World Regional Studies, 2021, 30(3): 443-453.

图/表 2

参考文献 62

1	江泽民.高举邓小平理论伟大旗帜,把建设有中国特色社会主义事业全面推进二十一世纪. . [Jiang Z. Hold High the Great Banner of Deng Xiaoping Theory for an All-Round Advancement of the Cause of Building Socialism with Chinese Characteristics into the 21st Century.]
2	Lu D. China's "Two Centenary Goals": progress and challenge. East Asian Policy, 2016, 08(02): 79-93.
3	Wang Y. Offensive for defensive: The belt and road initiative and China's new grand strategy. The Pacific Review, 2016, 29(3): 455-463.
4	Blanchard J M F, Flint C. The geopolitics of China's Maritime Silk Road Initiative. Geopolitics, 2017, 22(2): 223-245.
5	National Development and Reform Commission, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China. Vision and actions on jointly building Silk Road Economic Belt and 21st-Century Maritime Silk Road. 2015.
6	Sidaway J D, Woon C Y. Chinese narratives on "One Belt, One Road" in geopolitical and imperial contexts. Professional Geographer, 2017, 69(4):591-603.
7	Aoyama R. "One Belt, One Road": China's new global strategy. Journal of Contemporary East Asia Studies, 2016, 5(2):3-22.
8	Dunford M, Liu W D. Chinese perspectives on the Belt and Road Initiative. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 2019, 12(1): 145-167.
9	Liu W, Dunford M. Inclusive globalization: Unpacking China's Belt and Road Initiative. Area Development and Policy, 2016, 1(3): 323-340.
10	Zhou W, Esteban M. Beyond Balancing: China's approach towards the Belt and Road initiative. Journal of Contemporary China, 2018, 27(112):487-501.
11	Kim Y, Indeo F. The New Great Game in Central Asia Post 2014: The US 'New Silk Road' Strategy and Sino-Russian Rivalry. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 2013, 46(2): 275-286.
12	Jagannath P. Maritime Silk Road and the Indian-China Conundrum, Indian Foreign Affairs Journal, 2014, 9(1): 23-32.
13	Noonan M P. American geostrategy in a disordered world. Orbis, 2015, 59(4): 600-612.
14	Mercille J. The radical geopolitics of U.S. foreign policy: geopolitical and geoeconomic logics of power. Political Geography, 2008, 27: 570-586.
15	Wigell M, Vihma A. Geopolitics versus geoeconomics: The case of Russia's geostrategy and its effects on the EU. International Affairs, 2016, 92(3): 605-627.
16	Holdar S. The ideal state and the power of geography: the life-work of Rudolf Kjellén. Political Geography, 1992, 11(3):307-323.
17	Mamadouh V D. Geopolitics in the nineties: One flag, many meanings. GeoJournal, 1998,46(4):237-253.
18	Christopher J F. On heartland and chessboards: Classical geopolitics, then and now. Orbis, 2015, 59(2): 233-248.
19	Brian B. Global Geostrategy: Mackinder and the defense of the west. New York: Frank Cass, 2005.
20	Owens M T. In defense of classical geopolitics. Orbis, 2015, 59(4): 463-478.
21	Tuathail G Ó. Critical Geopolitics. London: Routledge, 1996.
22	Haverluk T W, Beauchemin K M, Mueller B A. The three critical flaws of critical geopolitics: towards a neo-classical geopolitics. Geopolitics, 2014, 19(1): 19-39.
23	Agnew J, Corbridge S. Mastering space: Hegemony, Territory and International Political Economy. London: Routledge, 1995.
24	Gray C. In defence of the heartland: Sir Halford Mackinder and his critics a hundred years on. Comparative Strategy, 2004, 23(1): 9-25.
25	Sloan G. Halford J. Mackinder: The Heartland theory then and now. Journal of Strategic Studies, 1999, 22(2-3): 15-38.
26	胡志丁, 刘卫东. 论地缘战略的主体间性——兼论中国地缘战略抉择. 人文地理, 2016, 31(3):122-127.
	Hu Z, Liu W. Study on the inter-subjectivity of geopolitical strategy: discuss on the choice of China's geopolitical strategy. Human geography, 2016, 31(3):122-127.
27	Reich W. Three problems of intersubjectivity—and one solution. Sociological theory, 2010, 28(1):40-63.
28	Martin J, Sokol B W, Elfers T. Taking and coordinating perspectives: from prereflective interactivity, through reflective intersubjectivity, to metareflective sociality. Human Development, 2008, (51):294-317.
29	Poon J P H, Cheong P. Objectivity, Subjectivity, and Intersubjectivity in Economic Geography: Evidence from the Internet and Blogosphere. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 2009, 99(3): 590-603.
30	Balkwell J W, Bates F L, Garbin A P. On the intersubjectivity of occupational status evaluations: A test of a key assumption underlying the "Wisconsin Model" of status attainment. Social Forces, 1980, 58(3):865-881.
31	Gillespie A, Cornish F. Intersubjectivity: towards a dialogical analysis. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 2010,40(1):19-46.
32	王晓东. 西方哲学主体间性理论批判. 北京: 中国社会科学出版社, 2004.
	Wang X. Critique of intersubjectivity theory in western philosophy. Beijing: China Social Science Press, 2004.
33	埃利奥特·阿伦森. 社会性动物. 郑日昌,等,译. 北京: 新华出版社, 2001.
	Aronson E. The social animal. Beijing: Xinhua Publishing House, 2001.
34	胡塞尔.胡塞尔选集. 倪梁康,译. 上海:上海三联书店,1977.
	Husserl E. Husserl. Shanghai: Shanghai Joint Publishing Press, 1977.
35	伽达默尔. 真理与方法. 洪汉鼎,译. 上海: 上海译文出版社, 1999.
	Gadamer H G. Truth and method. Shanghai: Shanghai Translation Publishing House, 1999.
36	海德格尔. 存在与时间. 陈嘉映, 王庆节,译. 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店, 2006.
	Heidegger M. Being and Time. Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company, 2006.
37	马丁·布伯. 我与你. 陈维纲,译. 北京: 生活·读书·新知三联书店, 2002.
	Buber M. I and you. Beijing: SDX Joint Publishing Company, 2002.
38	萨特. 辩证理性批判. 徐懋庸,译.北京: 商务印书馆,1963.
	Sartre J P. Critique of dialectical reason. Beijing: The Commercial Press, 1963.
39	阿尔弗雷德·许茨. 社会实在问题. 霍桂恒,译. 北京: 华夏出版, 2001.
	Schütz A. The problem of social reality. Beijing: Huaxia Publishing House, 2001.
40	哈贝马斯.现代性的哲学话语. 曹卫东,译.南京: 译林出版社, 2011.
	Habermas J. Der Philosophische Diskurs der Moderne. Nanjing: Yilin Press, 2011.
41	Müller M. Reconsidering the concept of discourse for the field of critical geopolitics: Towards discourse as language and practice. Political Geography, 2008, 27(3): 322-338.
42	吴国林. 主体间性与客观性. 科学技术与辩证法, 2001, 18(6):4-7.
	Wu G. Intersubjectivity and objectivity. Science Technology and Dialectics, 2001, 18(6): 4-7.
43	Schegloff, E A. Repair after next turn: the last structurally provided defence of intersubjectivity in conversation. The American Journal of Sociology, 1992, 97 (5): 1295–1345.
44	Hu Z, Lu D. Re-interpretation of the classical geopolitical theories in a critical geopolitical perspective. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2016, 26(12): 1769-1784.
45	胡志丁, 骆华松, 葛岳静.经典地缘政治理论研究视角及其对发展中国新地缘政治理论的启示. 热带地理,2014(2): 184-190.
	Hu Z, Luo H, Ge Y. Research perspectives of classic geopolitical theories and their enlightenment for developing China's new geopolitical theory. Tropical geography, 2014(2): 184-190.
46	P J 马歇尔.剑桥插图大英帝国史. 北京:世界知识出版社,2004.
	Marshall P J. British empire. Beijing: World Affairs Press, 2004.
47	斯塔夫里阿诺斯. 全球通史: 从史前到21世纪. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2005.
	Savrianos L S. A global history from prehistory to the present. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2005.
48	安格斯·麦迪森. 世界经济千年史. 北京: 北京大学出版社, 2010.
	Maddison A. The world economy: A millennial perspective. Beijing: Peking University Press, 2010.
49	Mackinder H J. The geographical pivot of history (1904). The Geographical Journal, 2004, 170(4): 298-321.
50	理查德·克罗卡特. 五十年战争:世界政治中的美国与苏联(1941-1991). 北京: 社会科学文献出版社, 2015.
	Crockatt R. The fifty years war: The United States and the Soviet Union in world politics: 1949-1991. Beijing: Social Sciences Academic Press, 2015.
51	Wu Z. Classical geopolitics, realism and the balance of power theory. Journal of Strategic Studies, 2018, 41(6): 786-823.
52	Kelly P. Classical geopolitics: A new analytical model. California: Stanford University Press, 2016.
53	Jones L, Zeng J H. Understanding China's 'Belt and Road Initiative': Beyond 'grand strategy' to a state transformation analysis. Third World Quarterly, 2019,40(8): 1415-1439.
54	Liu W. Joint construction of Green Silks: Social, economic and environmental context. Beijing: Commercial Press, 2019.
55	King C, Du J. Could 'Belt and Road' be the last step in China's Asian economic integration?Journal of Contemporary China, 2018, 27(114): 811-830.
56	Mearsheimer J J. The tragedy of great power politics. New York & London: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.
57	胡志丁,葛岳静,骆华松. 地缘战略制定原则与中国地缘战略. 世界地理研究,2018,27(5):1-11.
	Hu Z, Ge Y, Luo H. Geopolitical strategy formulation principles and China's geopolitical strategy. World Regional Studies, 2018,27(5):1-11.
58	阎学通. 历史的惯性. 北京: 中信出版社, 2013.
	Yan X. Inertia of history. Beijing: CITIC Press, 2013.
59	新华网. 中国与周边国家贸易额超过与欧美贸易之和. . [Xinhua Net. China's trade volume with neighboring countries exceeds the sum of its trade with Europe and the United States.]
60	蒋小荣, 杨永春, 汪胜兰. 1985—2015年全球贸易网络格局的时空演化及对中国地缘战略的启示. 地理研究, 2018, 37(3): 495-511.
	Jiang X, Yang Y, Wang S. Spatial and temporal patterns of evolution of global trade networks during 1985-2015 and its enlightenment to China's geostrategy. Geographical Research, 2018, 37(3):495-511.
61	Steven A. Altman, Phillip Bastian. DHL Global Connectedness Index, 2019.
62	Dalby S. Imperialism, domination, culture: The continued relevance of critical geopolitics. Geopolitics, 2008, 13(3):413-436.

进出口贸易总额比重	2000	2005	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
同亚洲占比	0.58	0.57	0.53	0.52	0.53	0.53	0.53	0.53	0.53	0.52	0.52
同非洲占比	0.02	0.03	0.04	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.04	0.04	0.04
同欧洲占比	0.18	0.18	0.19	0.19	0.18	0.18	0.18	0.18	0.18	0.18	0.18
同拉丁美洲占比	0.03	0.04	0.06	0.07	0.07	0.06	0.06	0.06	0.06	0.06	0.07
同大洋洲占比	0.02	0.02	0.04	0.03	0.03	0.04	0.02	0.03	0.04	0.05	0.04
同北美洲占比	0.17	0.16	0.14	0.14	0.14	0.14	0.16	0.15	0.15	0.15	0.15

进出口贸易总额比重	2000	2005	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018
同亚洲占比	0.58	0.57	0.53	0.52	0.53	0.53	0.53	0.53	0.53	0.52	0.52
同非洲占比	0.02	0.03	0.04	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.05	0.04	0.04	0.04
同欧洲占比	0.18	0.18	0.19	0.19	0.18	0.18	0.18	0.18	0.18	0.18	0.18
同拉丁美洲占比	0.03	0.04	0.06	0.07	0.07	0.06	0.06	0.06	0.06	0.06	0.07
同大洋洲占比	0.02	0.02	0.04	0.03	0.03	0.04	0.02	0.03	0.04	0.05	0.04
同北美洲占比	0.17	0.16	0.14	0.14	0.14	0.14	0.16	0.15	0.15	0.15	0.15

战略环境	战略内涵
全球地缘环境	按国家综合实力，全球正在由一超多强向两极格局转变；在全球经济贸易往来中，正在形成以北美、欧盟和中国与周边国家之间的三大地区经贸格局；全球化深化是以北美、欧盟和中国与周边国家之间的三大地区的一体化深化为助推的，而非全球层面。
地区地缘环境	长期以来，中国50%以上的对外贸易在亚洲地区；中国周边既是中国经济利益集中地区，也是矛盾冲突凸显地区；中国海陆兼备的特点和中国海军的实力，意味着中国权力辐射集中地区仍是中国周边地区。
博弈主体	中国与美国
博弈空间、领域与策略	中美全球大博弈，全领域竞争，但是空间仍集中于中国周边地区，竞争领域主要在科技与金融市场；美国实施对华的全政府战略，中国淡化政治军事冲突，突出经济领域合作，推动包容性全球化。
国家周边论空间范围	小周边：与中国边境直接接壤的国家大周边：中国权力辐射极限
实施措施	加快推进中国与周边国家之间的六大经济走廊建设，全面提升与周边国家之间的互联互通；夯实和深化与中国周边国家全领域的合作；搁置争议，以经济领域合作提升国家间的相互依赖与政治信任；确保在军事领域最为核心技术层面与美国抗衡实力

战略环境	战略内涵
全球地缘环境	按国家综合实力，全球正在由一超多强向两极格局转变；在全球经济贸易往来中，正在形成以北美、欧盟和中国与周边国家之间的三大地区经贸格局；全球化深化是以北美、欧盟和中国与周边国家之间的三大地区的一体化深化为助推的，而非全球层面。
地区地缘环境	长期以来，中国50%以上的对外贸易在亚洲地区；中国周边既是中国经济利益集中地区，也是矛盾冲突凸显地区；中国海陆兼备的特点和中国海军的实力，意味着中国权力辐射集中地区仍是中国周边地区。
博弈主体	中国与美国
博弈空间、领域与策略	中美全球大博弈，全领域竞争，但是空间仍集中于中国周边地区，竞争领域主要在科技与金融市场；美国实施对华的全政府战略，中国淡化政治军事冲突，突出经济领域合作，推动包容性全球化。
国家周边论空间范围	小周边：与中国边境直接接壤的国家大周边：中国权力辐射极限
实施措施	加快推进中国与周边国家之间的六大经济走廊建设，全面提升与周边国家之间的互联互通；夯实和深化与中国周边国家全领域的合作；搁置争议，以经济领域合作提升国家间的相互依赖与政治信任；确保在军事领域最为核心技术层面与美国抗衡实力

[1]	贾庆军. 20世纪50年代前美国对南海的地缘认知演变[J]. 世界地理研究, 2022, 31(5): 895-904.
[2]	叶淑兰. 南海地缘战略逻辑演进与南海命运共同体建构[J]. 世界地理研究, 2022, 31(4): 687-699.
[3]	郭卫东, 杜德斌, 李希雅, 夏启繁, 曹宛鹏. 环南海地区与域外国家军品贸易格局特征及地缘战略启示[J]. 世界地理研究, 2022, 31(4): 713-725.
[4]	吴丽君, 朱宇, 颜俊, 柯文前, 林李月. “一带一路”沿线国家或地区间人口迁移的空间格局及其演化特征[J]. 世界地理研究, 2022, 31(2): 249-258.
[5]	姚峪岩, 张翼飞, 金紫洋, 蒋烨. “一带一路”绿色贸易合作与竞争格局研究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2021, 30(4): 792-801.
[6]	刘承良, 杜德斌, 李源. 服务“一带一路”的世界地理课程思政“金字塔”教学模式[J]. 世界地理研究, 2021, 30(4): 873-881.
[7]	胡建梅, 郝杰, 张意博, 张超. 中国对外援助的空间演化分析[J]. 世界地理研究, 2021, 30(3): 454-464.
[8]	李灿松, 陈军, 葛岳静, 陈利军, 张委伟, 张宇硕, 赵亚博. 基于GlobeLand30的缅甸地表覆盖变化及驱动因素分析[J]. 世界地理研究, 2021, 30(3): 478-489.
[9]	葛岳静, 计晶韵, 黄宇. 多尺度视角下的印度地缘环境解析及对中国的启示[J]. 世界地理研究, 2021, 30(2): 223-233.
[10]	叶滨鸿, 程杨, 王利, 杨林生. 后冷战时代国际地缘关系思考[J]. 世界地理研究, 2020, 29(3): 451-459.
[11]	曹宛鹏, 杨永春, 蒋小荣, 李恩龙. 基于产业视角的中国西北五省（区）地级市对“一带一路”倡议的政策响应研究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2020, 29(2): 346-357.
[12]	王海燕. “一带一路”视域下中国与中亚国家地缘经济合作比较研究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2020, 29(1): 18-29.
[13]	张晓平, 高珊珊, 陈明星, 刘卫东. 李希霍芬的中国考察及其当代人文-经济地理学价值刍议[J]. 世界地理研究, 2020, 29(1): 8-17.
[14]	王丰龙, 司月芳. “一带一路”倡议背景下亚投行设立对中国海外投资的影响研究[J]. 世界地理研究, 2019, 28(5): 1-10.
[15]	宋周莺, 韩梦瑶. “一带一路”背景下的中印贸易关系分析[J]. 世界地理研究, 2019, 28(5): 24-34.

走向伟大复兴的中国地缘战略：国家周边论

China's geopolitical strategy on the way to the great rejuvenation: The National Neighborland Theory

RichHTML

PDF

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 2

参考文献 62

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics