查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 臺灣當局與1962年中印邊境衝突=The Taiwan Authorities' Response to the 1962 Sino-Indian Border Conflict |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 段瑞聰; | 書刊名 | 南國學術 |
| 卷 期 | 2024:3 2024.09[民113.09] |
| 頁 次 | 頁442-455 |
| 分類號 | 578.193 |
| 關鍵詞 | 蔣介石; 中印邊境衝突; 麥克馬洪線; 聯合國代表權; 反攻大陸; Chiang Kai-shek; Sino-Indian border conflict; McMahon Line; United Nations representation; Counterattack on the mainland; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 本文將對1962年中印邊境衝突時蔣介石和台灣當局的應對進行多維度分析。從歷史的 角度來看,蔣介石一直支持印度獨立,重視與印度的關係,但由於印度承認了中共政權,蔣 開始對尼赫魯感到失望和不信任。蔣介石希望印度放棄中立主義,加入自由主義陣營,以防 止印度加入社會主義陣營。從宏觀的角度來看,中印邊境衝突是在冷戰時期發生的,與古巴 危機有密切關係。中美對立、中蘇對立、印巴關係以及中國、印度與其他亞非國家的關係也 交織複雜。從微觀的角度來看,蔣介石和中共政權都不承認麥克馬洪線,在維護國家主權、 領土完整和國家利益方面二者是一致的。然而,蔣介石和台灣當局的應對具有強烈的“反 共”傾向。蔣介石將美國對印度的支持視為反攻大陸的良機,但美國始終反對蔣反攻大陸。 印度雖然在邊境問題上與中國存在分歧,但支持中共在聯合國的代表權。當時,台灣當局雖 然占據聯合國安全理事會常任理事國席位,但在中印邊境衝突中被邊緣化,無法發揮主導作 用。然而,蔣介石並沒有被動地袖手旁觀,而是表現出對“一個中國”的執著。從中可以看 出1949年以來國共兩黨在維護國家主權和領土完整方面的連續性。 |
| 英文摘要 | The author of this article conducts a multi-dimensional analysis of Chiang Kai-shek and the Taiwan authorities’ response during the 1962 Sino-Indian border conflict. From the historical perspective, Chiang Kai-shek always supported India's independence and valued his relations with India. However, due to India's recognition of the Chinese Communist regime, Chiang began to feel disappointed and distrustful towards J. Nehru. Chiang Kai-shek hoped that India would abandon its policy of neutrality and join the liberal camp to prevent it from joining the socialist camp. From the macro perspective, the Sino-Indian border conflict occurred during the Cold War and was closely related to the Cuban Missile Crisis. The conflicts between China and the United States, China and the Soviet Union, the relations between India and Pakistan, and the relations between China, India, and other Asian and African countries were also complexly intertwined. From the micro perspective, neither Chiang Kai-shek nor the Chinese Communist regime recognized the McMahon Line. They were consistent in maintaining national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and national interests. However, Chiang Kai-shek and the Taiwan authorities had a strong “anti-communist” inclination in their response. Chiang saw the U.S. support for India as an opportunity to retake the mainland, but the United States consistently opposed Chiang’s plans to retake the mainland. Although India had differences with China over the border issue, it supported the Chinese Communist Party’s representation in the United Nations. At that time, although the Taiwan authorities occupied a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, they were marginalized during the Sino-Indian border conflict and could not play a leading role. However, Chiang Kai-shek did not passively stand by; instead, he showed a strong commitment to “One China.” From this, one can see the continuity of the two parties, the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communist Party, in maintaining national sovereignty and territorial integrity since 1949. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。