1930年代日本帝國的戰略選項－－以東北亞地緣戰略條件為核心的觀察

The Strategic Options of the Empire of Japan in the 1930s: Geostrategic Observation of Northeast Asia

2008年由「次貸危機」、「雷曼兄弟事件」所引發的全球「金融海嘯」相當程度上，似乎改變了後冷戰以來美國的單級獨霸形式，全球地緣戰略競逐態勢，亦朝向多元、複雜的情勢發展。然而，深究事件的本質則可發現，在東北亞地區，長期以來的權力競逐歷史發展，以及在地理因素影響下的地緣戰略思維轉換，並未產生結構性的轉變。在此區域中，地緣環境的歷史發展與地理聯繫，透過政治與戰略的實踐，基本上，類同於1930年代的發展型態。區域強權之間，因霸權穩定機制的鬆動，各自在地理與國際權力競逐因素影響下，呈現出國內與國際勢力的交錯影響與針鋒相對。1930年代日本帝國的東北亞戰略選項受限於傳統地緣條件的認知，將東北（滿洲）視為帝國存續的核心地帶，期透過「滿洲」的資源供應與戰略緩衝，建構日本帝國與美國抗衡的基礎。然而陸海地緣環境的異質性，加上協調外交的失敗與國內軍國主義的高漲與戰爭初期勝利引發的盲目，終使帝國東北亞戰略決策轉向戰爭的不歸路。歷史上，在霸權結構鬆動狀況下，地緣權力的競逐經常以慘烈的戰爭作為終結，然而，為因應權力爭奪而創造的「戰略必要性」與「戰爭正當性」更應受到譴責與力圖避免。政客建構「正當性」永遠是政治操作的首選，而學理上的「正確性」或許將是避免災禍的最後防線。

Essentially, the Financial Tsunami in 2008 changed the hegemonic situation of the United States of America in the world since the end of the Cold War. The trend of the global geostrategic development is now complex and full of diversities. However, the nature of geostrategic arrangements, historical competitions in Northeast Asia, under the influence of geographical factors, did not produce a structural change. The geopolitical situation, basically, shows similar development pattern as in the 1930s. In the situation of loosening of the hegemonic stability mechanism, every regional power was trying to increase their influence, showing staggered impacts of domestic and international forces. The strategic options of the Empire of Japan in Northeast Asia in the 1930s, was limited by the traditional understanding of geopolitical. ”Manchuria”, as the heartland, the resource supply and strategic buffer for Empire of Japan, was fundamental when constructing power against the United States. Nevertheless, the heterogeneity of the geopolitical environment of the land and sea, the failure of the coordination diplomacy, and the rising of domestic militarism, forced the empire to face the war. When hegemonic structure became unstable, geopolitical competitions always caused the war. ”Strategic necessity” and ”legitimacy of the war” were always created to response to competitions and these should be condemned and sought to avoid. However, ”legitimacy” has always been the first choice of political manipulation by politicians, ”correctness” in academic thinking will probably be the last line of defense to avoid disaster.