Evolution of the U.S. Strategy toward China and China’s Peaceful Development

China-U.S. relationship is the most important one between two big powers in the world today. It is both bilateral and global by nature. How to handle this relationship is closely linked with the fundamental interests of the U.S. and China, as well as peace and stability in the Asia Pacific region and even in the world. So, a profound examination of the nature of U.S. strategy toward China and its evolution over the years will help to fully understand the opportunities and challenges China will meet in the course of peaceful development.     

What Strategic Outlook Holds for America in Iraq？

Agreat controversy is stirring up the world opinion over the futuredirection of developments in Iraq,a matter affecting overall U.S.foreign policy and even the international power configuration aswell.An accurate assessment,however,requires analyzing the …     

The Origin and Essence of U.S.Neutrality Policy on the Diaoyu Islands Dispute

It is common knowledge that the focus of the China-Japan dispute over the Diaoyu Islands1 is the question of sovereignty. Some scholars from both home and abroad have defined the issue as one between China and Japan. However, the basis for the Japanese government＇s territory claim2 over the Diaoyu Islands lies in U.S.-Japan backroom deals, and this has meant that the U.S. is also closely connected to the China-Japan dispute over the sovereignty of the Islands. When the U.S. transferred the Diaoyu Islands to Japan, it stated its neutral position over the issue. To date, all the previous U.S. administrations have basically followed this policy, and they often reiterated this policy at moments of intensification in the Diaoyu Islands issue. This means that that even though there is the close alliance between the U.S. and Japan, the U.S. has maintained its neutral position with regard to the sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands, and never taken the view that the sovereignty of the Diaoyu Islands belongs to Japan. The repeatedly reiterated U.S. position of neutrality could be taken as holding no position on the issue of sovereignty, but of having a clear-cut position alongside Japan on the issue of security. Scholars have produced numerous works on the issue of the U.S. position on the China-Japan dispute over the Diaoyu Islands. By reviewing the historical evolvement of the U.S. position in relation to the Diaoyu Islands, this article will systematically investigate the origins of the U.S. neutrality policy, using documentary materials from China, Japan and the U.S..     

Abstracts

1.The Korean Nuclear Issue Tests Obama＇s Asia Diplomacy,.by Shi Yongming, Senior Researcher, China Institute of International Studies and Guest Researcher of CPDS. Obama＇s Asia policy has just shown an outline of its ＂smart diplomacy＂, i.e., on the premise of sticking to the basic strategy, it attaches great importance to strengthening relationship with the newly-emerging powers and seeks to extend the U.S. influence on Asia by means of dialogue and cooperation. However, the Korean nuclear issue, which is very likely to reach a complicated and even dangerous impasse, is now testing Asia policy of the U.S. new administration. The issue is not only a strategic bottleneck that is a reflection of U.S.-DPRK relationship, but also is constrained by Japan and ROK, whose interests are closely related to the changes of the situation, as well as by some political elements in the U.S.     

America''''s Difficulties after the War and the International Political Consequences of the War

The U. S. A will succeed militarily in the Iraq war. However, it is far away from the true meaning of victory in war defined by distinguished strategic thinker B. H. Liddell Hart, even inaccessible. Using Hart's own word, the true victory in war is to attain a better state of peace and improve the quality of life for the survivors after the war is over. What await America after the basic success in Iraq are grave military and political difficulties. Moreover, there may be bigger economic and financial troubles as well.     

U.S. Strategic Predicament in Iraq

The Iraq war is the biggest experimental site of Bushism and the success or failure of the war there has a direct bearing on the spread of Bushism as a strategic model. Hence it is necessary to make a systematic assessment of America's situation in Iraq. The current situation shows that the United has got into an unprecedented strategic haziness. In the security field, U.S. forces have dispatched large number of troops to carry out suppression and won frequent victories,but they are suffering stronger resistances. In the realm of political reconstruction, the democratic process in Iraq is now under in accordance with the prescribed order, but religious contradictions are on the rise, and political structures become more fragile. Over economic reconstruction, the United States has kept increasing input and at the same time appealed to the international community for more assistance. Even though Iraq is faced with difficulties in the reconstruction. Therefore, there is a widening disagreement in America over "whether the U.S. is winning or losing the war in Iraq. "① Based on the major views of experts and scholars from both China and overseas,the author thinks that the following three criteria are important for judging whether the United States has succeeded or failed in pursuing its strategy in Iraq: the feasibility of strategic objectives, balance of objectives and means and adaptability of strategic means. Judged by the above-mentioned criteria, the United States is now landing in a strategic predicament in Iraq.     

Assessment on the Trend of U. S. Int''''l Status (II)

Editor's notes: Considerable erosion on U. S. international prestige from worldwide waves and even anti-Americanism since the Iraq war has fueled a controversy among the international academic community over the future of U. S. international status a major issue related to the trends of the world situation as a whole. For further exploration, a one-day symposium of the Experts Forum of our journal was held at China Institute of Contemporary International Relations in Beijing on March 3, …     

Assessment on the Trend of U. S. Int''''l Status(I)

Editor's note: Considerable erosion of U. S. international prestige from worldwide antiwar waves and even anti-Americanism since the Iraq war has fueled a controversy among the internationalacademic community over the future of U. S. international status a major issue related to the trends of the world situation as a whole. For further exploration, a one-day symposium of the Experts Forum of our journal was held at China Institutes of Contemporary International Relations in Beijing on Ma…     

Middle East Transformation from the Perspective of U.S. Middle East Policy

The Middle East, one of the most turbulent regions in the world, has embarked on another round of chaos since America waged the Iraq war in 2003, new players vying to fill the power vacuum, entrenched hatred multiplying with new wounds. Ecstasy turned into agony as Americans watched the war unfold. U.S. think tank researchers and politicians, reflecting on the war and U.S. Middle East policy, urged the Bush administration to adjust the policy and break the strategic impasse. Under grave pressure from home and abroad, the White House finally began to respond. Against this backdrop, the year 2007 witnessed the most intensive and extensive shift of U.S. Middle East policy in recent years and a drastic return of realism in America＇s foreign policy. These policy changes rippled in the Middle East, precipitating policy changes of other powers and transformation of the geopolitical landscape. The Middle East, as we can see, is heading toward a new age of pain and growth.     

Clues to Obama＇s Middle East Policy

Barack Obama＇s assumption of U.S. presidency proclaims the end of Bushism. There might be solution of the Middle East issue. a major favorite turn in the The Middle East issue is an important source of global threats such as rampant international terrorism, high oil prices and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and touches the most sensitive nerves of the United States. For stabilizing the situation in the Middle East and ensuring U.S. strategic interests in the region, the Obama administration will extricate itself from Iraq as early as possible to shift its main anti-terrorism battlefield to Afghanistan, possibly abandon the goal of overthrowing the current Iranian regime to have direct official engagement with it, and give more attention and make greater efforts to the resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.     

EU Power Balance

Intense clashes of interests and collusion of ideas sprang up incessantly among nations over upward sovereignty transfer, interests distribution and maintenance of parity among partners in the course of economic integration. Disparities in size, territory, national strength and development level conceivably often led to tensions and even crises over power distribution. So EU history can be described as one of crises or crisis settlement through reaching a new equilibrium, a significant process for sustained EU stability.……     

尚鸿文英译文

In the nationally televised address at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N. Y. on December 1, 2009, U.S. President Barack Obama announced his decision to make readjustment plan to the new AFPAK strategy. It was done under the difficult circumstances surrounding the selection of choices after a time-consuming weighing up its pros and cons at a time when the U.S is bogged down in the Afghan War and a wide difference of opinions is in existence on the surge inside the U.S. This has come as a revelation about the U.S deep-going considerations and policy directions on the Afghan issue.     

Business as Usual

In the years since 9/11, there is no doubt that the emphasis of U.S. global strategy has been on counter-terrorism and the war in Iraq. During this period of time, the U.S. investment in strategic, political and military resources in the Middle East, Iraq, and the war on terror, which are the top priorities on the list of Bush＇s foreign policy, has been far greater than in any other fields. However, there are some in the U.S. who believe that China＇s rise has been much ignored by the U.S., due to the global war on terror （GWOT）, and that America should, in fact, be focusing more on China, not the Middle East. However, as we see it, China has by no means been ignored by the U.S., neither has China＇s rise been the result of U.S. ignorance.     

Adjustment in Expansion

The U.S. election 2004 finally concluded. Bush defeated Kerry and was re-elected U.S. President, though after fierce competition. What global strategy and foreign policy will Bush take in his second term becomes the subject that is hotly discussed. In Bush‘s first term, U.S. government underwent the 9/11 terrorist events. Afterwards, the Bush administration linked anti-terrorism with overthrowing Saddam. Without ample evidence, America launched war against Iraq despite opposition of major member states of the UN Security Council, revealing its clear conservatist inclination and serious unilateral act. Consequently it is predicted that Bush will continue such a policy in his second term and even go further away. However, with regard to the overall situation, Bush will partly restrict his extremely serious unilateral policy and return to an intermediate policy to some extent. This is revealed in the following features.……     

The Maritime Channel in Southeast Asia and China’s Strategic Pivots

With its transition from land power to sea power and the rapid expansion of its national interests, the security of maritime channels has become an important agenda for China. China has shifted its focus from the dilemma of Malacca Strait to the construction of a sea-lane network in its bid to protect its maritime rights and interests. To build its sea power as a strong nation, China should follow its “21st Century Maritime Silk Road” strategy and establish its strategic pivots at harbors at Sumatra Island and Kalimantan Island in Indonesia so as to improve its ability to ensure its navigational safety.     

The Dual Situations of China-U.S. Relations

In recent years, the U.S. administration is, out of its capability and interests, more and more inclined to accept, to a greater extent and from a long-term perspective, a realistic trend that China is rising to one of the world leading powers in a peaceful way. Accordingly, it is continuing its military containment against China, increasing its trade protectionism toward China and stepping up its diplomatic rivalry with China.     

Europe''''s "Division" and Its Implications

Just as France and Germany took an increasingly divergent stand with the United States over the Iraq issue, on January 3rd, 2003, eight countries including Britain, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary made a joint statement in the British Times, appealing to Europe to act in concert with U. S. over the issue of using force against Iraq. This statement had it that it was     

U.S. Policy Towards Southeast Asia

Greater East Asia is expected to be the next theatre for world politics. 1 East Asian cooperation is rapidly developing through the channels of ASEAN Plus Three （APT） and East Asia Summit （EAS）, both driven by ASEAN. Southeast Asia is a region of diverse states and cultures that brings together all the major powers of the Asian-Pacific in a myriad of strategic interests. It is thus an open arena with the potential for a variety of strategic game-playing, options, and uncertain outcomes.2 In recent years, China＇s developing relationship with Southeast Asia has undergone a significant shift as the U.S.＇ distraction elsewhere and neglect of the region have created opportunities for an increased Chinese diplomatic and economic role in Southeast Asia.3 U.S. analysts are concerned about what may lie behind this shift in China-ASEAN relations, how it may affect American interests in the region and how best to react to the changes. Some have expressed concerns that to avoid becoming distanced from the region the U.S. should pay more attention to Southeast Asia, rather than just watching from a distance. This paper attempts to analyze the possible changes of U.S. policy towards Southeast Asia in the current context of East Asian Cooperation and its implications for China.     

New Challenges Ahead

Lu: Just as what we have indicated before, there have been somedramatic changes in international strategic relations in 2003. China hascaught some opportunities in the upheavals: it has increased mutualtrusts with other countries through international engagement and ex-panded its policy space through external cooperation, especially it hasovercome the various difficulties and challenges caused by Iraq War, theKorean Nuclear Crisis and the epidemic disease of SARS. Accordingly,China's secur…     

Major Features of the New Situation and China''''s Foreign Policy

Speaking of "China's foreign policy under new circumstances," there are five features of the new circumstances in my opinion. All these five features will not fundamentally change in accordance with major events such as the Iraq war, and to a certain extent, determine that China's basic foreign policy need not and will not make major adjustments.