《中苏联盟:国际史》奥斯汀·杰西尔德著

IF 0.7 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
Ya-Feng Xia
{"title":"《中苏联盟:国际史》奥斯汀·杰西尔德著","authors":"Ya-Feng Xia","doi":"10.1162/jcws_r_01136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Rust argues that the United States overplayed the salience of Communist ideology in international relations while downplaying the history, people, and politics of individual states. U.S. officials in the 1950s tended to reduce the complexity of relations within and among foreign countries to a zero-sum game in which a country was either lost to or won from an international Communist conspiracy efficiently directed by the Soviet Union (p. 18). This challenged Phnom Penh’s overarching security concerns, which had developed independent of global Cold War imperatives and were instead focused on the local rivalry with Saigon and Bangkok. The Eisenhower administration’s reluctance to oppose South Vietnam’s plotting against Sihanouk, whose neutralist tint was deemed less pertinent to U.S. interests, was in agreement with Washington’s desire to maintain Saigon as “a strong anti-Communist bastion in Southeast Asia” (p. 200). Therefore, Cambodia and United States seemed to have reached an impasse in which visions of neutrality and independence from below clashed with the seemingly all-engulfing zero-sum calculus from above. Rust’s book is a valuable, well-researched, and lucidly written case study demonstrating the pitfalls that can develop in diplomatic relations between a superpower and a small state when local imperatives and global interests are mismatched. The added value Rust provides to our understanding of the Cold War’s spread into locales hitherto thought of as insignificant is that it puts similar experiences in perspective. As I read Rust’s findings with rapt interest, I could not help but draw parallels with my earlier study of the Soviet Union’s involvement in the Horn of Africa. The Soviet Union, like the United States, had to deal with rival local actors that almost invariably put their own narrowly defined interests above and before vague and broadly drawn global prerogatives, more often than not managing to elevate the status of their localized cleavages into international crises. Although Rust’s new book may not add much in the way of novel interpretations of the studied period—for that, see Kenton Clymer’s The United States and Cambodia 1870– 1969: From Curiosity to Confrontation (RoutledgeCurzon, 2004) and The United States and Cambodia, 1969–2000: A Troubled Relationship (RoutledgeCurzon, 2004)—it undoubtedly enriches our knowledge by offering clear and concise analysis of primary material that will interest not only students of Indochina but also those who seek to develop a wider understanding of center-periphery relations during the Cold War.","PeriodicalId":45551,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cold War Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Sino-Soviet Alliance: An International History by Austin Jersild\",\"authors\":\"Ya-Feng Xia\",\"doi\":\"10.1162/jcws_r_01136\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Rust argues that the United States overplayed the salience of Communist ideology in international relations while downplaying the history, people, and politics of individual states. U.S. officials in the 1950s tended to reduce the complexity of relations within and among foreign countries to a zero-sum game in which a country was either lost to or won from an international Communist conspiracy efficiently directed by the Soviet Union (p. 18). This challenged Phnom Penh’s overarching security concerns, which had developed independent of global Cold War imperatives and were instead focused on the local rivalry with Saigon and Bangkok. The Eisenhower administration’s reluctance to oppose South Vietnam’s plotting against Sihanouk, whose neutralist tint was deemed less pertinent to U.S. interests, was in agreement with Washington’s desire to maintain Saigon as “a strong anti-Communist bastion in Southeast Asia” (p. 200). Therefore, Cambodia and United States seemed to have reached an impasse in which visions of neutrality and independence from below clashed with the seemingly all-engulfing zero-sum calculus from above. Rust’s book is a valuable, well-researched, and lucidly written case study demonstrating the pitfalls that can develop in diplomatic relations between a superpower and a small state when local imperatives and global interests are mismatched. The added value Rust provides to our understanding of the Cold War’s spread into locales hitherto thought of as insignificant is that it puts similar experiences in perspective. As I read Rust’s findings with rapt interest, I could not help but draw parallels with my earlier study of the Soviet Union’s involvement in the Horn of Africa. The Soviet Union, like the United States, had to deal with rival local actors that almost invariably put their own narrowly defined interests above and before vague and broadly drawn global prerogatives, more often than not managing to elevate the status of their localized cleavages into international crises. Although Rust’s new book may not add much in the way of novel interpretations of the studied period—for that, see Kenton Clymer’s The United States and Cambodia 1870– 1969: From Curiosity to Confrontation (RoutledgeCurzon, 2004) and The United States and Cambodia, 1969–2000: A Troubled Relationship (RoutledgeCurzon, 2004)—it undoubtedly enriches our knowledge by offering clear and concise analysis of primary material that will interest not only students of Indochina but also those who seek to develop a wider understanding of center-periphery relations during the Cold War.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45551,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cold War Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cold War Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1162/jcws_r_01136\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cold War Studies","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/jcws_r_01136","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

鲁斯特认为,美国在国际关系中夸大了共产主义意识形态的重要性,同时淡化了个别国家的历史、人民和政治。20世纪50年代,美国官员倾向于将外国内部和之间关系的复杂性降低为零和游戏,在这种游戏中,一个国家要么输给了苏联有效指挥的国际共产主义阴谋,要么从中获胜(第18页)。这挑战了金边的总体安全关切,该关切是独立于全球冷战的需要而发展起来的,而是集中在当地与西贡和曼谷的竞争上。艾森豪威尔政府不愿反对南越对西哈努克的阴谋,西哈努克人的中立主义色彩被认为与美国的利益不太相关,这与华盛顿希望将西贡维持为“东南亚强大的反共堡垒”的愿望一致(第200页)。因此,柬埔寨和美国似乎陷入了僵局,在这种僵局中,来自下层的中立和独立愿景与来自上层的似乎包罗万象的零和计算发生了冲突。鲁斯特的书是一本有价值、研究充分、写得清晰的案例研究,展示了当地方需要和全球利益不匹配时,超级大国和小国之间的外交关系可能会出现的陷阱。《铁锈》为我们理解冷战蔓延到迄今为止被认为微不足道的地区提供了附加值,它将类似的经历放在了正确的角度。当我饶有兴趣地阅读鲁斯特的发现时,我忍不住将其与我早期对苏联参与非洲之角的研究相提并论。与美国一样,苏联不得不与当地的敌对行为者打交道,这些行为者几乎总是将自己狭隘的利益置于模糊和广泛的全球特权之上,往往会设法将其局部分裂的地位提升为国际危机。尽管鲁斯特的新书可能没有对所研究的时期进行太多新颖的解读——为此,参见肯顿·克莱默的《1870-1969年的美国和柬埔寨:从好奇到对抗》(RoutledgeCurzon,2004)和《美国和柬埔寨》,1969年至2000年:一种麻烦的关系(RoutlledgeCurzon,2004年)-它通过对主要材料进行清晰简洁的分析,无疑丰富了我们的知识,这些材料不仅会引起中印学生的兴趣,也会引起那些寻求对冷战期间的中西方关系有更广泛理解的学生的兴趣。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Sino-Soviet Alliance: An International History by Austin Jersild
Rust argues that the United States overplayed the salience of Communist ideology in international relations while downplaying the history, people, and politics of individual states. U.S. officials in the 1950s tended to reduce the complexity of relations within and among foreign countries to a zero-sum game in which a country was either lost to or won from an international Communist conspiracy efficiently directed by the Soviet Union (p. 18). This challenged Phnom Penh’s overarching security concerns, which had developed independent of global Cold War imperatives and were instead focused on the local rivalry with Saigon and Bangkok. The Eisenhower administration’s reluctance to oppose South Vietnam’s plotting against Sihanouk, whose neutralist tint was deemed less pertinent to U.S. interests, was in agreement with Washington’s desire to maintain Saigon as “a strong anti-Communist bastion in Southeast Asia” (p. 200). Therefore, Cambodia and United States seemed to have reached an impasse in which visions of neutrality and independence from below clashed with the seemingly all-engulfing zero-sum calculus from above. Rust’s book is a valuable, well-researched, and lucidly written case study demonstrating the pitfalls that can develop in diplomatic relations between a superpower and a small state when local imperatives and global interests are mismatched. The added value Rust provides to our understanding of the Cold War’s spread into locales hitherto thought of as insignificant is that it puts similar experiences in perspective. As I read Rust’s findings with rapt interest, I could not help but draw parallels with my earlier study of the Soviet Union’s involvement in the Horn of Africa. The Soviet Union, like the United States, had to deal with rival local actors that almost invariably put their own narrowly defined interests above and before vague and broadly drawn global prerogatives, more often than not managing to elevate the status of their localized cleavages into international crises. Although Rust’s new book may not add much in the way of novel interpretations of the studied period—for that, see Kenton Clymer’s The United States and Cambodia 1870– 1969: From Curiosity to Confrontation (RoutledgeCurzon, 2004) and The United States and Cambodia, 1969–2000: A Troubled Relationship (RoutledgeCurzon, 2004)—it undoubtedly enriches our knowledge by offering clear and concise analysis of primary material that will interest not only students of Indochina but also those who seek to develop a wider understanding of center-periphery relations during the Cold War.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信