強權競爭下的中型國家安全策略：以波蘭與土耳其為例

Middle Powers' Security Strategies and Their Responses to Great Powers: The Cases of Poland and Turkey

10.7015/JEAS.202106_51(2).0004

楊三億(San-Yi Yang)

中型國家 ； 安全策略 ； 波蘭 ； 土耳其 ； middle powers ； security strategies ； Poland ； Turkey

歐美研究

51卷2期（2021 / 06 / 01）

311 - 355

繁體中文

過去研究非強權國家的安全策略多以中小型國家為標的，本研究進一步將焦點集中在中型國家安全策略選擇，分析這一類國家如何在國際強權政策引導下進行回應。本文觀察波蘭與土耳其兩國策略選擇發現：首先，中型國家因具有較強的綜合國力優勢，造就此類國家積極參與國際事務、展現高度自主性。其次，從地緣政治角度來看，離威脅中心越近，中型國家採取扈從一強去抗衡另外一強的策略就越明顯；相反的，離威脅中心越遠，中型國家採取在兩強間擺盪策略就越明顯。最後，強權有求於中型國家，因此對中型國家多採正向回報或高容忍度的反饋方式。

This study explores the security strategies of middle powers and aims at their responses to external environments. This paper argues that: (a) Unlike small powers in international politics, middle powers have more comprehensive national strengths and a more autonomous status. Autonomy for states is a major reason related to middle powers' strategies. (b) Geopolitical proximity and sense of threat will co-define middle powers' security strategies: the closer to the center of threat, the stronger of the sense of threat. (c) Global powers will act to help middle powers' foreign policy in return if middle powers do something to help global powers. One good turn deserves another reflecting this virtuous circle, in some cases. By contrast, a sense of high tolerance of global power for middle powers turnabout were the cases in other regions. We take Poland and Turkey as two examples of middle powers and try to explain their security strategies in accordance with geopolitics.

1. 朱景鵬 (2008)。〈土耳其加入歐洲聯盟之進程與爭辯〉，《問題與研究》，47, 3: 75-103。(Chu, C.-P. [2008]. A study on Turkey’s EU-membership: Progress and arguments. Wenti Yu Yanjiu, 47, 3: 75-103.) https://doi.org/10.30390/ISC.200809_47(3).0004
   連結：
2. 陳麒安 (2014)。〈重新檢視瓦特的聯盟理論〉，《問題與研究》，53, 3: 87-115。(Chen, C.-A. [2014]. An reappraisal of Walt’s theory of alliances. Wenti Yu Yanjiu, 53, 3: 87-115.) https://doi.org/ 10.30390/ISC.201409_53(3).0004
   連結：
3. 楊三億 (2017)。〈歐洲中小型國家安全政策：策略選擇與轉型〉，《問題與研究》，56, 2: 31-66。(Yang, S.-Y. [2017]. Security policies of European medium and small states: Strategies and transformation. Wenti Yu Yanjiu, 56, 2: 31-66.) https://doi.org/10.30390/ISC.201706_56(2).0002
   連結：
4. 楊三億 (2018)。〈中小型國家的安全策略及其路徑演變：以塞爾維亞、亞美尼亞與烏克蘭為例〉，《政治科學論叢》，78: 105-136。(Yang, S.-Y. [2018]. The security strategies and path development of small and medium-sized states: Case studies of Serbia, Armenia and Ukraine. Political Science Review, 78: 105-136.) https://doi.org/10.6166/TJPS.201812_(78).0004
   連結：
5. 鄭端耀 (2003)。〈國際關係攻勢與守勢現實主義理論爭辯之評析〉，《問題與研究》，42, 2: 1-21。(Cheng, T.-Y. [2003]. Analytical appraisal of defensive vs. offensive realism. Wenti Yu Yanjiu, 42, 2: 1-21.) https://doi.org/10.30390/ISC.200303_42(2).0001
   連結：
6. 盧倩儀 (2010)。〈影響土耳其政府與境內庫德族關係之國際因素〉，《問題與研究》，49, 2: 39-64。(Lu, C.-Y. [2010]. External factors to the changing relationship between the Turkish government and the Turkish Kurds. Wenti Yu Yanjiu, 49, 2: 39-64.) https://doi.org/10.30390/ISC.201006_49(2).0002
   連結：
7. Abbenhuis, M. M. (2013). A most useful tool for diplomacy and statecraft: Neutrality and Europe in the ‘long’ nineteenth century, 1815-1914. The International History Review, 35, 1: 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.2012.737350
   連結：
8. Ackermann, A. (2003). The changing transatlantic relationship: A socio-cultural approach. International Politics, 40, 1: 121-136. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.ip.8800006
   連結：
9. Altunışık, M. (2009). Worldviews and Turkish foreign policy in the Middle East. New Perspectives on Turkey, 40: 171-194. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0896634600005264
   連結：
10. Anastasakis, O. (2004). Greece and Turkey in the Balkans: Cooperation or rivalry? Turkish Studies, 5: 45-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14683849.2004.9687241
    連結：
11. Balcι, A., & Mis, N. (2008). Turkey’s role in the alliance of civilizations: A new perspective in Turkish foreign policy? Turkish Studies, 9, 3: 387-406. https://doi.org/10.1080/14683840802267355
    連結：
12. Behringer, R. M. (2005). Middle power leadership on the human security agenda. Cooperation and Conflict, 40, 3: 305-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836705055068
    連結：
13. Cooper, D. A. (2011). Challenging contemporary notions of middle power influence: Implications of the proliferation security initiative for middle power theory. Foreign Policy Analysis, 7, 3: 317-336. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-8594.2011.00140.x
    連結：
14. Dal, E. P. (Ed.). (2018). Middle powers in global governance: The rise of Turkey. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72365-5
    連結：
15. Dittmer, L. (1981). The strategic triangle: The elementary game-theoretical analysis. World Politics, 33, 4: 485-515. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/2010133
    連結：
16. Elster, J. (Ed.). (1996). The roundtable talks and the breakdown of communism. University of Chicago Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/2502058
    連結：
17. Fels, E. (2017). Shifting power in Asia-Pacific? The rise of China, Sino-US competition and regional middle power allegiance. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1515/sirius-2017-0103
    連結：
18. Glazebrook, G. D. (1947). The middle powers in the United Nations system. International Organization, 1, 2: 307-318. https://doi.org/ 10.1017/S0020818300006081
    連結：
19. Holbraad, C. (1984). Middle powers in international politics. Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-06865-4
    連結：
20. Jordaan, E. (2003). The concept of a middle power in international relations: Distinguishing between emerging and traditional middle powers. South African Journal of Political Studies, 30, 1: 165-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/0258934032000147282
    連結：
21. Kuik, C.-C. (2016). How do weaker states hedge? Unpacking ASEAN states’ alignment behavior towards China. Journal of Contemporary China, 25, 100: 500-514. https://doi.org/10.1080/106705 64.2015.1132714
    連結：
22. Nolte, D. (2010). How to compare regional powers: Analytical concepts and research topics. Review of International Studies, 36, 4: 881-901. https://doi.org/10.1017/S026021051000135X
    連結：
23. Rieber, A. (2015). Struggle over the borderlands. Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 16, 4: 951-959. https://doi.org/ 10.1353/kri.2015.0066
    連結：
24. Robertson, J. (2017). Middle-power definitions: Confusion reigns supreme. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 71, 4: 355-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2017.1293608
    連結：
25. Ross, J. (1989). Neutrality and international sanctions: Sweden, Switzerland and collective security. Praeger. https://doi.org/10.5860/ choice.28-0573
    連結：
26. Schweller, R. L. (1994). Bandwagoning for profit: Bringing the revisionist state back in. International Security, 19, 1: 72-107. https://doi.org/10.2307/2539149
    連結：
27. Sweeney, K., & Fritz, P. (2004). Jumping on the bandwagon: An interest-based explanation for great power alliances. Journal of Politics, 66, 2: 428-449. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00158.x
    連結：
28. Tow, W., & Rigby, R. (2011). China’s pragmatic security policy: The middle-power factor. The China Journal, 65: 157-178. https://doi.org/10.1086/tcj.65.25790562
    連結：
29. Wallace, C. J. (2013). Japan’s strategic pivot south: Diversifying the dual hedge. International Relations of the Asia-Pacific, 13, 3: 479-517. https://doi.org/10.1093/irap/lct011
    連結：
30. Walt, S. M. (1987). The origins of alliances. Cornell University Press. https://doi.org/10.7591/9780801469992
    連結：
31. Walt, S. M. (2009). Alliances in a unipolar world. World Politics, 61, 1: 86-120. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043887109000045
    連結：
32. Wu, Y.-S. (2005). From romantic triangle to marriage? Washington-Beijing-Taipei relations in historical comparison. Issues and Studies, 41, 1: 113-159. https://doi.org/10.7033/ISE.200503_41(1).0004
    連結：
33. Yang, S. Y. (2017). Quo Vadis? Borderland states’ security strategy in Europe and Southeast Asia. Tamkang Journal of International Affairs, 21, 1: 53-90. https://doi.org/10.6185/TJIA.V.21.N1.P53P90
    連結：
34. 包宗和、吳玉山 (編) (2009)。《重新檢視爭辯中的兩岸關係理論》。五南。(Bao, T.-H., & Wu, Y.-S. [Eds.]. [2009]. Revisiting theories on cross-strait relations. Wu-Nan Book.)
35. 吳玉山 (1997)。《抗衡或扈從：兩岸關係新詮》。正中書局。(Wu, Y.-S. [1997]. New explanation on cross-strait relations: Balancing or bandwagoning. Chen Chung Book.)
36. 紀舜傑 (2016)。〈土耳其的國家認同－東方與西方的推拉〉，《台灣國際研究季刊》，12, 1: 1-18。(Ji, S.-J. [2016]. National identity in Turkey: Tug of war between East and West. Taiwan International Studies Quarterly, 12, 1: 1-18.)
37. 范盛保 (2016)。〈土耳其史觀的外交政策〉，《台灣國際研究季刊》，12, 1: 97-115。(Fan, L., S.-P. [2016]. Turkish foreign policy: A historical perspective. Taiwan International Studies Quarterly, 12, 1: 97-115.)
38. 薛健吾 (2016)。〈抗衡或扈從：14個歐亞國家對俄國外交政策選擇的再檢視〉，《東吳政治學報》，34, 3: 121-178。(Hsueh, C.-W. [2016]. To balance or to bandwagon? Revisiting the fourteen newly independent states’ [NISs] foreign policy choices toward Russia, 1992~2009. Soochow Journal of Political Science, 34, 3: 121-178.)
39. 顏建發 (2016)。〈從土耳其的區域戰略環境評價土中關係〉，《台灣國際研究季刊》，12, 1: 117-134。(Yan, J.-F. [2016]. An appraisal of the Turkey-China relations in light of Turkish regional strategic environment. Taiwan International Studies Quarterly, 12, 1: 117-134.)
40. Arnett, D. (2008). Problems of perception and vision: Turkey and the U.S. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 7, 1: 13-23.
41. Central Intelligence Agency. (2020). The world factbook. Retrieved October 1, 2020, from https://www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/
42. Davis, N. (1997). Europe: A history. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/004711789701300412
43. DeYoung, K., Ryan, M., & Fahim, K. (2019, November 13). Trump offers trade deal, sanctions workaround to Erdogan for better U.S.-Turkey relations. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/
44. East, R., & Pontin, J. (1997). Revolution and change in central and Eastern Europe. Pinter Publishers. https://doi.org/10.5040/97814 74287470.ch-005
45. European Parliament. (n.d.). Treaty of Nice. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/about-parliament/en/in-the-past/the-parliament-and-the-treaties/treaty-of-nice
46. Eurostate Commission. (2019). First populationi estimates. https://ec. europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9967985/3-10072019-BP-EN.pdf/e152399b-cb9e-4a42-a155-c5de6dfe25d1
47. Gilley, B., & O’Neil, A. (Eds.). (2014). Middle powers and the rise of China. Georgetown University Press.
48. Hale, W., & Özbudun, E. (2009). Islamism, democracy and liberalism in Turkey: The case of the AKP. Routledge. https://doi.org/10. 1093/jis/etr045
49. Karsh, E. (2011). Neutrality and small states. Routledge.
50. Kuzniar, R. (Ed.). (2001). Poland’s security policy, 1989-2000. Scholar Publishing House.
51. Larson, D. W. (1991). Bandwagon images in American foreign policy: Myth or reality? In R. Jervis & J. Snyder (Eds.), Dominoes and bandwagons: Strategic beliefs and great power competition in the Eurasian Rimland (pp. 85-111). Oxford University Press.
52. Markowski, R., & Edmund, W. L. (2001). Transformative paths in Central and Eastern Europe. Instytut Studiow Politycznych Polskiej Akademii Nauk.
53. McCurdy, D. (2008). Turkish-Iranian relations: When opposites attract. Turkish Policy Quarterly, 7, 2: 87-106.
54. Özdal, H., Özertem, S. H., Has, K., & Demirtepe, M. T. (2013). Turkish-Russian relations in the Post-Cold War period: Current dynamics. International Strategic Research Organization.
55. Ravenhill, J. (Ed.). (2011). Global political economy. Oxford University Press.
56. Snyder, G. H. (1990). Alliance theory: A neorealist first cut. Journal of International Affairs, 44, 1: 103-123.
57. Williams, A., &Powell, S. (2019, August 31). U.S. to help Poland, Ukraine disconnect from Russian gas. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/
58. Yalcin, H. B. (2012). The concept of ‘middle power’ and the recent Turkish foreign policy activism. Afro Eurasian Studies, 1, 1: 195-213.
59. Zhussupova, D. (2019, September 17). Uzbekistan joins Turkic Council. The Astana Times. https://astanatimes.com/

1. 楊三億(2023)。避險策略下的議價：土耳其對俄烏戰爭之外交政策走向。軍事社會科學專刊，23，3-22。