注意：此題目原是DSE歷屆試題，但為免侵犯版權，題目經過修改，同學可以按試題之年份及題號自行查閱原題目。以下內容乃K.W.Ho之補習教材，於課堂教授，內容乃配合K.W.Ho之答題方法及風格所製作，同時內容可能有錯誤之處以供在課堂上糾正。非補習學生在未有得到課堂教學的情況下錯誤使用，恕不負責，同學請敬請留意。
【Free】6000頁筆記及60份5**考卷免費使用：按此
Youtube教學：按此
_________________________________________________________________________
原題目題號：DSE-2020-Essay-05
就塑造1946-91年間冷戰的發展而言，評估意識形態分歧與國家利益的相對重要性。
定義意識形態指某一單位﹑團體﹑組織或國家具有共同的思想﹑認識等，共同的觀念主導了其價值和利益取向；國家利益則指一個國家的整體利益，這些利益可以以有形(領土、主權、財富等)和無形(勢力、文化、價值觀等)的各方面表現出來。立場就塑造1946-91年冷戰的發展而言，國家利益明顯較意識形態分歧來得重要。 架構 以下，將從政治、經濟、軍事方面的冷戰發展比較。
主旨句政治方面，意識形態分歧與國家利益兩者均塑造了冷戰的發展。 主項A重要性意識形態方面，由於資本主義國家奉行多黨制，認為權力屬於人民，而共產主義國家則主張一黨專政，認為權力屬於黨所有，故兩大陣營存有必然的矛盾，資本主義國家更恐懼共產主義革命會顛覆其國家，於是積極作出對抗。例如，西歐國家在柏林危機(1948-49年)時憂慮會受到共產蘇聯的攻擊，於是與美國組成了「北約」。及後，蘇聯為了捍衛東歐共產主義陣營的安全，也成立了「華沙公約」(1955年)，最終塑造起兩大陣營對立局面。主項B重要性 國家利益方面，由於蘇聯在過往多次受到德國的威脅，因此對於戰後的德國問題上，堅決要求保持德國的力弱，以防國家利益再受到德國威脅。於1948年英、美、法要求合併西德時，蘇聯就大感不滿，更封鎖西柏林抗議，一方面導致了「柏林危機」(1948-49年)的出現，同時亦導致東、西德長期分裂，陷入冷戰的漩渦之中。
主旨句相比之下，國家利益較意識形態分歧更加重要。 駁論 就意識形態分歧的局限而言，即使共產主義陣營與資本主義陣營存有意識形態分歧，但在利害關係一致的情況底下，雙方仍然存有合作關係。例如，二次大戰受到德國侵害時，蘇聯也與英、美等國家聯合對付德國；在受到日本入侵時，中國國民黨與共產黨更暫停內戰，槍口一致對外。更甚，就因果關係，戰後的冷戰來臨，皆因軸心國戰敗，威脅雙方國家利益的對象消失，才使對抗再現。可見，兩大陣營視國家利益比意識形態更為重要，更加影響了局勢的發展。而且，比較塑造緩和的因素而言，兩大陣營的關係分別於1950年代、1970年代及1980年末多次緩和，但雙方的意識形態分歧尚未消除，而導致緩和的真正原因乃基於國家利益的影響，例如1970年代時，美國因參與韓戰而令到國家經濟面臨困窘，所以美國尋求與共產主義國家改善關係。 小結 因此，國家利益的重要性實凌駕於意識形態分歧。
經濟方面，意識形態分歧及國家利益也對冷戰發展發揮著重大的影響力。資本主義主張自由經濟，以及支持財產私有制，相反，共產主義則實施計劃經濟，而且認為財產應收歸國有。資本主義國家恐懼共產主義的擴張會破壞資本主義的自由世界市場，最終使自己也無法置之度外，故積極抗衡共產主義的傳播，結果形成了雙方的對立出現。例如美國於1947年提出「馬歇爾計劃」，提供130億美元支援西歐國家，以對抗共產主義的擴張。及後，蘇聯為對抗「馬歇爾計劃」，亦提出「莫洛托夫計劃」(1947年)以振興東歐經濟。結果，經濟方面的意識形態差異導致了歐洲經濟分裂成為資本主義與共產主義兩大陣營，互相抗衡。國家利益方面，國家利益一方面塑造了兩大陣營的對立，例如蘇聯深恐東歐國家會被美國的「馬歇爾計劃」的130億美元貸款所吸引，令蘇聯勢力受損，因此於1949年成立了「經濟互助委員會」，以對抗西歐的經濟合作。另一方面，國家利益也導致了冷戰的緩和，例如美、日等資本主義國家需要廉價的原材料、勞動力及廣大的市場，因此在1978年共產中國推行改革開放後，加強與中國的合作，使冷戰的形勢進一步緩和。
相比之下，國家利益的重要性大於意識形態分歧。就因果關係而言，意識形態分歧所導致的對立建基於國家利益。資本主義國家恐懼共產主義的擴張會破壞資本主義的自由世界市場，原因乃基於資本主義家怕自由市場不斷收窄，最終使貿易對象不斷減少，令國家利益受損，結果才展開對抗。例如，美國怕西歐市場受到共產主義蠶食後，使其貿易國減少，故才推出「馬歇爾計劃」援助西歐。因此，國家利益才是雙方對抗的根本性因素。而且，就意識形態的局限性而言，許多國家會擺脫了意識形態的影響力，基於國家利益而進行合作。例如共產波蘭於1975年基於經濟利益而要求美國提供貸款購買糧食與機械；波蘭、匈牙利、捷克等東歐國家於1980年代起為刺激經濟發展而加強與資本主義的歐共體合作，推動雙方的貿易發展，從而塑造起冷戰的中後的緩和局面。可見，意識形態分歧並不足以解釋冷戰的發展，事實上，國家利益有著更大的重要性。
軍事方面，意識形態分歧與國家利益同樣具有重要性。意識形態分歧方面，由於共產主義理論中，經過無產階級打倒資本主義階級的階段後，便可以推翻資本主義政體，從而晉身社會主義體制，故共產主義積極於世界各地擴張，例如蘇聯成立共產國際，推崇國際共產主義革命，包括扶植中國共產黨(1921年)和朝鮮共產黨(1925年)的成立，結果導致往後國共內戰(1946-49年)與韓戰(1950-53年)的出現，使地區性戰爭此起彼落。同時，資本主義國家亦深恐國際共產主義革命而支援同一陣營的派系，例如美國提供軍事援助於國民黨及透過聯合國派軍以協助南韓，最終塑造出冷戰的敵對局面。國家利益方面，國家安全是國家利益的重要一環，尤其是當1945年美國研發出原子彈後，原子彈的毀滅性殺傷力令蘇聯深感恐懼，怕受到美國的攻擊。因此，蘇聯積極研發原子彈，於1949年也試爆原子彈。至蘇聯成功研發後，美國也深恐蘇聯的原子彈會進一步威脅到美國的國家安全，故繼而積極研發出氫氣彈(1952年)。最終，惡性的軍備競賽基於國家安全的考量下而興起，塑造出冷戰的軍事陰霾。
相比之下，意識形態分歧的重要性不及國家利益。就地區性戰爭而言，援助國以國家利益為主要考量。例如在希臘內戰(1945-49年)中，蘇聯在1944年與英國達成《百分比協定》，放棄了希臘的利益而換取東歐的勢力範圍，因此未有介入希臘內戰以支援希臘共產派系。此外，在越戰(1961-76年)中，儘管美國一開始有大量派軍介入越戰，但隨著美軍在越戰中屢屢受挫，嚴重拖垮了美國經濟，美國在利益考量底下也放棄再派兵支持南越。可見，國家利益的考量絕對在意識形態之上。就軍備競賽而言，在意識形態未有改變的情況底下，兩大陣營也達成了多次的裁軍協定，例如1963年美、蘇簽訂了《禁止核試條約》，此乃基於古巴導彈危機(1962年)令雙方均深恐核子戰爭會摧毀己國，因而嘗試進行裁軍。至1980年代，蘇聯經濟陷入困窘，也積極嘗試與西方進行裁軍以減低軍費開支，例如達成《中程導彈裁撤條約》(1988年)和《歐洲常規裁軍條約》(1990年)等。可見，國家利益較意識形態分歧更塑造出冷戰的發展。
總括而言，1946-91年間的冷戰發展經歷了高潮起伏的變伏，在各方面均展現出了對抗和緩和的局面。對於解釋冷戰的發展而言，意識形態分歧實存有頗多局限，其重要性遠遠不及國家利益重要。
Assess the relative importance of ideological difference and national interest in terms of shaping the development of the Cold War in the period 1946-91.
An ideology is a system of ideas and beliefs shared within a unit, group, organization or country that influences their values and preferences, while national interest refers to the overall interest of a nation that can be represented tangibly (territory, sovereignty and wealth) or intangibly (influence, cultures and values). In shaping the development of the Cold War in the period 1946-91, national interest was clearly more important than ideological differences. This essay is going to compare the two in political, economic and military aspects.
Politically speaking, both ideological differences and national interest shaped the development of the Cold War. As for ideological differences, capitalist countries adopted multi-party system and believed that power belonged to the people, while their communist counterparts upheld one-party dictatorship and believed that power belonged to the ruling party. Such differences led to inevitable conflicts between the two blocs, and capitalist countries took active countermeasures against communist revolutions lest their regimes be overthrown. For example, Western European countries established the NATO北約 with the United States out of fear of Soviet attacks during the Berlin Crisis柏林危機(1948-49), and in response, the Soviet Union also established the Warsaw Pact華沙公約(1955) to protect the safety of the Eastern European communist bloc. These measures eventually shaped the confrontation between the two major blocs. As for national interest, as the Soviet Union came under German threat for several times before the Second World War ended, it insisted on keeping Germany weak with post-war arrangements to safeguard its national interest. Therefore, when Britain, America and France decided to unify West Germany in 1948, the Soviet Union was greatly upset and imposed a blockade on West Berlin in protest. This countermeasure led to the Berlin Crisis柏林危機(1948-49) and, more importantly, the long-standing division between East and West Germany under the context of the Cold War.
In comparison, national interest was more important than ideological differences. In terms of the limitations局限 of ideological differences, the capitalist and communist blocs still cooperated with each other in some respects despite their ideological differences as long as their interests aligned. For example, the Soviet Union joined Britain and the US in the fight against Germany during the Second World War, and the Kuomintang and Chinese Communist Party suspended their civil war to focus on resisting Japanese invasion. Also, in terms causality因果, it was the defeat of the Axis Powers軸心國 and the resulting lack of common enemies posing a threat to national interest that led to the recurrence of confrontation between the two blocs and the emergence of the Cold War after the Second World War. It was clear that national interest was more important than ideological differences and had greater impact on the development of the Cold War. In addition, in terms of the factor leading to easing of tension緩和, there were several times when tension between the two blocs eased in the 1950s, 1970s and late 1980s, but their ideological differences never really disappeared and the true reason behind the easing of tension was national interest. For instance, in the 1970s, the US faced economic difficulties due to its involvement in the Korean War韓戰 and thus sought to improve its relations with communist countries. Therefore, national interest did have greater importance than ideological differences.
Economically speaking, both ideological differences and national interest played a role in shaping the development of the Cold War. Since capitalism was all for free economy and private ownership while communism advocated planned economy and state ownership, capitalist countries worried that communist expansion would eventually jeopardize the capitalist free market and thus made active efforts to contain the spread of communism, which led to the confrontation between the two blocs. For example, in 1947, the US introduced the Marshall Plan馬歇爾計劃 that gave more than US$13 billion in aid to Western European nations with a view to containing communism. In response to the Marshall Plan, the Soviet Union also introduced the Molotov Plan莫洛托夫計劃(1947) to stimulate economic growth in Eastern Europe. As a result, such economic ideological differences led to the split of Europe into the capitalist and communist blocs that confronted each other. As for national interest, it shaped the confrontation between the two blocs. For instance, the Soviet Union established the COMECON經濟互助委員會 against Western European economic cooperation in 1949 out of fear that Soviet influence would dwindle if Eastern European nations were attracted by the US$13-billion loan from the American Marshall Plan. Also, national interest led to easing of tension during the Cold War. For example, capitalist countries such as the US and Japan needed low-cost raw materials, cheap labor and huge markets and therefore strengthened their ties with communist China after the Reform and Opening Up改革開放 in 1978. Such cooperation reduced tension during the Cold War.
In comparison, national interest was more important than ideological differences. In terms of causality因果關係, the confrontation triggered by ideological differences could be attributed to national interest. The reason why capitalist countries worried about the spread of communism was that they feared that the free market would shrink and they would have fewer trading partners if more and more countries became communist. In order to protect their national interest, these capitalist countries started the confrontation. For example, the US introduced the Marshall Plan out of fear that it would have much fewer trading partners if communism prevailed in Western Europe. It was therefore clear that national interest was the fundamental cause of the confrontation. In addition, in terms of the limitations局限 of ideological differences, many countries cooperated with each other for the sake of national interest despite their ideological differences. For instance, communist Poland requested loans from the US for food and machinery out of concern for economic interest in 1975. Also, in order to promote economic growth, Eastern European countries such as Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia strengthened their ties with the capitalist European Community, which facilitated trade development between the two sides and contributed to the easing of tension in the mid-late stage of the Cold War. It was clear that ideological differences alone could not explain the development of the Cold War and national interest was in fact more important.
Militarily speaking, both ideological differences and national interest had considerable importance. As for ideological differences, capitalist regimes, in communist theories, could be overthrown and become socialist once the proletariat brought down the bourgeoisie. For this reason, communists made active efforts to spread communism across the world. For example, the Soviet Comintern共產國際 promoted the international communist revolution by supporting the establishment of the Chinese Communist Party中國共產黨(1921) and the Communist Party of Korea鮮共產黨(1925), leading to regional wars such as the Chinese Civil War (1946-49) and the Korean War (1950-53). Also, out of fear of the international communist revolution, capitalist countries stuck together and supported each other when in need. For instance, the US provided military assistance for the Kuomintang and sent troops through the United Nations to South Korea. Such assistance eventually shaped the confrontation during the Cold War. As for national interest, national security was an important component of national interest. After the successful invention of atomic bomb by the US in 1945, the Soviets were shocked by its devastating effects and feared that the US would use the weapon against them. Therefore, they also devoted themselves to inventing atomic bomb and finally tested their first atomic bomb successfully in 1949, which in turn made the Americans worry about their national security and prompted them to invent the hydrogen bomb氫氣彈 in 1952. As a consequence, a vicious arms race took place due to concerns for national security and shaped the military development of the Cold War.
In comparison, ideological differences were not as important as national interest. In terms of regional wars地區性戰爭, participating nations provided assistance out of concern for national interest. For example, in the Greek Civil War希臘內戰(1945-49), the Soviet Union did not send troops to support the Greek Communists because it signed the percentages agreement百分比協定 with Britain in 1944 to give up Greece in exchange for its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe. Also, in the Vietnam War越戰(1961-76), the US got heavily involved in the war in the early stage, but it soon suffered setbacks that overwhelmed its economy and finally decided to withdraw its support for South Vietnam out of concern for its interest. It was very clear that national interest was put above ideological considerations. In terms of arms race軍備競賽, the two blocs reached several disarmament agreements without either side changing its ideology. For example, in 1963, the US and the Soviet Union signed the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty禁止核試條約, which signified a disarmament attempt prompted by the fear of nuclear war arising from the Cuban Missile Crisis古巴導彈危機(1962). In the 1980s, the Soviet Union suffered economic adversity and thus made disarmament attempts with the West to reduce its military expenditure, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty中程導彈裁撤條約(1988) and Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe歐洲常規裁軍條約(1990). It can therefore be concluded that national interest played a more significant role than ideological differences in shaping the development of the Cold War.
In conclusion, the development of the Cold War in the period 1946-91 was full of ups and downs and demonstrated confrontation as well as easing of tension in different aspects. In explaining such development, ideological differences had many limitations and was thus far less important than national interest.
Comentários