“安全困境”析论——兼谈“先发制人战略”与进攻性现实主义的关系

An Analysis of the “Security Dilemma:” the Relationship between the “Preemptive Strategy” and Offensive Realism

“安全困境”概念源自于霍布斯悲观的“自然状态”理念 ,自其运用于国际政治研究以来 ,不论防御性现实主义还是新制度自由主义 ,乃至近年来发展迅速的进攻性现实主义都承认它的真实性。但是 ,新自由制度主义认为可以通过“囚徒困境”博弈来解决“安全困境” ,防御性现实主义认为能部分地运用“囚徒困境”博弈来解决“安全困境” ,而进攻性现实主义则认为不能用“囚徒困境”博弈来解决“安全困境”。进攻性现实主义强调在安全困境中国家不可能通过制度和合作 ,而只能通过主动进攻和扩张权力 ,乃至通过建立区域霸权来争取本国的安全。但进攻性现实主义却反对布什政府的“先发制人战略” ,因为该战略以建立世界帝国为目的 ,从而模糊了国家的安全目标 ,以致不利于美国在安全困境中谋求真正的安全。

The idea of “security dilemma” comes from the pessimistic Hobbesian concept of “natural state,” which, since its application to the study of international politics, has been recognized as a true description by either defensive realism or neo-liberal institutionalism, or even by the recently spreading offensive realism. However, the school of neo-liberal institutionalism holds that “security dilemma” can be resolved by the game of “prisoner's dilemma,” and defensive realism believes that “security dilemma” can be partially resolved by the game of “prisoner's dilemma,” while offensive realism thinks that the game of “prisoner's dilemma” is no solution. Offensive realism emphasizes that the nation-state in “security dilemma” cannot attain national security through regimes and cooperation. It can only be achieved through offense and expansion of power and even the establishment of regional hegemony. But offensive realism opposes the “preemptive strategy” of the Bush Administration because the goal of this strategy is to set up a world empire and thus obscures the security goal of the nation and is detrimental to America's search for genuine security.