U.S. Grand Strategy Following the George W. Bush Presidency

Debates over U.S. grand strategy have devoted a disproportionate level of attention to the War on Terror itself rather than the evolving strategic environment. Challenges including an impending shift in the balance of power, structural deficits, and divided public opinion will significantly impact the policy options available to government leaders, but they have not been adequately addressed. This article analyzes the options available for U.S. grand strategy following the George W. Bush presidency by relating key U.S. national interests with domestic and international policy constraints on the horizon. The analysis concludes that the United States must adopt a defensive grand strategy to rebuild popular consensus, to prevent further strain on the military, and to consolidate its gains in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, this strategy will require flexible coalitions, not formal international organizations, because of a significant divergence of security interests and capabilities with its European allies.     

Pivot but Hedge: A Strategy for Pivoting to Asia While Hedging in the Middle East

The U.S. government's new emphasis on the Asia-Pacific represents a bold strategic choice that could animate U.S. national security policy for years to come. Yet the United States must balance its rightful new focus on the Asia-Pacific with the volatility that still exists in other areas of the world. The United States should pivot to the Asia-Pacific—but to protect its vital interests, it should also hedge against threats elsewhere, particularly in the greater Middle East. To implement a “Pivot but Hedge” strategy, the U.S. government should do three things. First, it should exercise caution when cutting the defense budget. Second, it should give the military services greater leadership roles in specific regions: naval and air forces should lead in the Asia-Pacific, while ground forces should lead in the greater Middle East. Third, it should maintain expansible, capable, and well-trained ground forces as a hedge against global uncertainty.     

美国《网络空间国际战略》评析

在信息化时代,网络空间承载着国家政治、经济、文化和军事发展与安全的重荷。网络空间存在的黑客攻击、网络犯罪和网络恐怖主义事件层出不穷,因此网络空间安全已上升到国家安全战略的层面,美国政府于2011年5月16日发布的《网络空间国际战略》引起世界各国瞩目。美国《网络空间国际战略》以"共同创造繁荣、安全、开放的网络世界"为基本宗旨,以"基本自由、隐私和信息流动自由"为核心原则,从经济、网络安全、司法、军事、网络管理、国际发展、网络自由等诸方面为美国未来网络安全战略的发展指明了方向。《网络空间国际战略》的出台表明美国政府已将网络安全提升到国际战略的新高度,它隐含着美国谋求网络空间霸权的战略目标,具有引领国际战略新变革和引发网络空间价值观冲突的现实战略效能,它对中美关系的影响和中国的应对之策也是值得认真分析和思考的。     

Conceptions of National Security and American Entry into World War II

During World War II, official definitions of the requirements of United States national security were extended beyond the defense of the western hemisphere to include preventing any single power dominating Eurasia. This article challenges the commonly expressed view that this change was due to a belief that a strategy of continental defense would no longer suffice to protect the physical safety of the United States. The focus is on the period between Munich and Pearl Harbor when U.S policy moved away from the principle of non-involvement embodied in the neutrality legislation of 1935–37. The role in this process of the argument that America’s own safety was dependent upon the European balance of power, particularly because of the dangers posed by the development of aviation and the possible suborning of Latin America, is critically examined. It is argued that the broader conception of America’s security requirements reflected both a consciousness of the unique power of the United States to determine the outcome of the war and an implicit belief that the values and interests for which the nation should be prepared to fight extended beyond physical security.     

Conceptions of National Security and American Entry into World War II

During World War II, official definitions of the requirements of United States national security were extended beyond the defense of the western hemisphere to include preventing any single power dominating Eurasia. This article challenges the commonly expressed view that this change was due to a belief that a strategy of continental defense would no longer suffice to protect the physical safety of the United States. The focus is on the period between Munich and Pearl Harbor when U.S policy moved away from the principle of non-involvement embodied in the neutrality legislation of 1935-37. The role in this process of the argument that America's own safety was dependent upon the European balance of power, particularly because of the dangers posed by the development of aviation and the possible suborning of Latin America, is critically examined. It is argued that the broader conception of America's security requirements reflected both a consciousness of the unique power of the United States to determine the outcome of the war and an implicit belief that the values and interests for which the nation should be prepared to fight extended beyond physical security.     

Military Alliances in the 21 Century: Still Relevant after all These Years?

While military alliances have always been important to the United States, some experts wonder about their future. In today's uncertain security environment, they question whether these alliances may have outlived their usefulness. The author argues that U.S. national security leaders face some difficult choices as they formulate strategy and determine the number and types of collective security arrangements the nation will require to secure its national interests in the future.     

The ‘Demand-Side’: Avoiding a Nuclear-Armed Iran

This article examines the historical record of “nuclear rollback” and the motivations for Iran's apparent pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability in order to identify the broad principles that should guide U.S. and international efforts to resolve the nuclear crisis with Iran.¹ The author argues that Iran, like all states, seeks security and respect. For many Iranians, the past three decades provide proof that such security and respect can only be attained with a strategic nuclear deterrent. In 2009, if the United States can show Tehran a genuine path to security and prestige that does not require nuclear weapons, Tehran might give it serious consideration. However, if the United States and the international community fail to address Iran's legitimate need for security or its desire for international respect, Bowman believes it may only be a matter of time until Iran obtains a nuclear weapons capability.     

Who Cares about the Weather?: Climate Change and U.S. National Security

Is climate change a national security threat to the United States? This question remains a subject of debate in academia and has received renewed emphasis in the policy community. Even taking a narrow definition of national security, climate change already constitutes a national security threat to the United States, both in terms of direct threats to the country as well as its broader extraterritorial interests. While some of these purported threats—abrupt climate change and sea-level rise—have been overstated by advocates, several concerns, mostly related to the effects of extreme weather events on the United States and its strategic interests overseas, are sufficient enough that they already constitute security threats. That climate change potentially poses a direct threat to the U.S. homeland and its overseas interests suggests the subject warrants serious attention.     

大国安全与地区发展的悖论?——基于冷战早期美拉关系的考察

为了遏制共产主义的发展,战后初期美国积极在西半球编织反共防务安全体系。与此相比,美国对拉美国家的经济援助需求消极怠慢,对它们所面临的经济发展问题视而不见,采取了“贸易而非援助”的经济政策,激化了美拉矛盾。20世纪五六十年代,一些拉美国家实行了国有化和土改等民族主义改革,并同苏联加强贸易往来,反美反独裁的游击运动风起云涌。在美国看来,这与其在西半球的经济安全和反共战略相悖。为了化解危机,美国一方面以反共和集体安全为名,对“敌对”政权进行军事干预,另一方面也在不断调整自身政策,加大对拉美国家的经济援助力度。不论怎样,谋求和巩固在西半球的霸主地位始终是美国制定拉美政策的根本目的,安全和稳定是其维护的主要利益。在理论上,只有拉美国家的深层经济发展问题得到有效解决,才能消除不稳定的隐患,所以,美国国家安全与拉美地区发展是并行不悖的。但在现实中,由于拉美国家的既得利益集团与美国关系密切,美国不可能切实推进拉美国家的经济改革,同时美国又常以安全防务政策化解由经济发展引发的拉美问题,这种立场上的偏差注定了美国提出的经济改革方案的“无效性”,而仅仅是一种权宜之计。     

在国际评级市场竞争中扩大中方话语权的对策

信用评级业是维护国家金融主权和经济安全的重要力量,中国信用评级业正开拓国内与国际两个市场,在高度垄断的全球信用评级市场力争扩大国际话语权。而美国评级机构不断加大向其他国家渗透,还借助中国被收购公司的分支机构,迅速将触角伸展到全中国,直接或间接从事所有评级和相关业务。为扩大我国信用评级机构的市场份额,中方应培育扶持民族信用评级机构,设计科学的评级指标体系,加强评级机构行业自律和内部管理制度的建设,依赖自己的力量维护国家金融安全。     

U.S. Strategy in a Transitioning Middle East: Reviving ‘State Responsibility’

In light of the uncertainty surrounding the Middle East stemming from the Arab Awakening, and the inability of Washington to shape the process of transition, U.S. decision- makers must rethink their strategy for the region in general and for counterterrorism in particular. Reducing U.S. involvement in the region and letting the dust settle will serve American interests better and allow for building healthier relations with Middle Eastern countries. At the same time, since the risk of negative effects on neighboring states that accompany transition must be kept in check, the United States, together with other powers, should lead the international community in reviving the principle of “state responsibility” as a productive way to reduce spillover of conflicts and even provide incentives for actors in the region to limit violence.     

中美对朝政策竞争与合作的态势分析

中美两国在朝鲜问题上,既有着无核化与防扩散、维护地区稳定等方面的共同利益,也在朝鲜意识形态、无核化的方式等问题上存在着冲突性利益。利用SWOT模型比较中美两国的对朝政策,可以明晰两国的内部优、劣势和外部机遇与挑战。如果中美两国只注重自身优势与机遇,即中国强调和平稳定的重要性,美国强调无核化的迫切性,将增大两国政策的竞争性,不利于合作的展开。中美两国对朝政策竞争的根源在于崛起国与霸权国之间的结构性矛盾,中国意图维持地缘安全的缓冲区与经济发展的前沿地带,美国则希望以此牵制新兴大国。美国遏制地区大国的企图和对朝鲜安全关切的忽视是中美合作难以取得进展的主要原因。如果中美两国能够正视两国间的冲突性利益,降低获得对方支持的心理预期,将会有效防止地区局势和双边关系的波动。针对不稳定的朝鲜半岛局势,中美之间应加强安全对话,构建地区危机管理机制,避免因朝鲜半岛问题发生恶性竞争和诱发正面冲突。     

艾森豪威尔处理苏伊士运河战争危机的经验及其对奥巴马政府的启示

1956年10月,以色列在美国总统大选前8天,不顾艾森豪威尔政府预先劝诫,在英、法两国幕后策划下,对埃及发动先发制人的打击。艾森豪威尔总统为此采取一系列行动,如诉诸联合国、启动对以经济制裁、甚至威胁驱逐其出联合国,最终实现被他称之为"侵略者"的三方无条件停火撤退。艾森豪威尔成功的范例给2012年面临同样难题的奥巴马提供了一些历史经验:美国的外交不能被一个小盟国所捆绑,即便他们曾是美国的"铁杆"朋友。美国只有坚持公正、理性与原则,且在冲突中支持受害者,才能最大程度上维护美国的利益与形象,并最终使美国成为中东最具有决定性的外部力量。     

United States Hegemony and the New Economics of Defense

Liberal theory asserts that the need for cost-effective, technologically advanced weapons requires the United States to acquiesce to increasing defense globalization even as this restrains U.S. power. Realist logic dictates that the United States should resist defense liberalization to retain its self-sufficiency. This is a false choice; the United States encourages defense globalization in order to extend its international political influence. This paper proposes an alternate theory of technological hegemony that explains the U.S. policy of massive R&D investment in both the late Cold War and the current era of American preponderance. Modern weapons' complexity and economies of scale tend to produce monopolies, and the value chain for the production of these monopolistic goods is dominated by the systems integration techniques of prime contracting firms. In turn these prime contractors remain largely enthralled by U.S. market power. The United States gains international influence by controlling the distribution of these weapons. Put simply, technology with international political effects is likely to have international political origins.     

陆国忠文英译文

Ever since Sept. 11 events, international situation has undergone remarkable changes. Not only has the United States made major readjustments to its security strategy and foreign policy, but major powers in the world have also adjusted their foreign and security policies in order to adapt to the new development in international situation. In its effort to fight terrorism, the U.S. has to rely heavily on its allies, and in Asia it attaches much importance to the role Japan can play while the latter has given active support to the former in that war. The greater intimacy of the Japan- US relations has become even more outstanding in the recent interrelations of major powers in the Asia- Pacific region. This development and its effect on the international situation deserve to be reckoned with.     

A Doctrine of Contingent Sovereignty

Disengagement of U.S. leadership in recent years has not only emboldened the world's worst actors, it has enabled the emergence of non-state groups such as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) to threaten a new and ominous trend in international affairs—the pursuit of sovereign authority by transnational violent-extremists. Amending both the Clausewitzian “remarkable trinity” to explicitly encompass non-state actors in war and the balance-of-power praxis of Talleyrand to one favoring dynamic repair of failed and failing states in diplomacy, the Doctrine of Contingent Sovereignty proposed in this article provides the requisite tools for bolstering legitimacy of weakened states while simultaneously affording the necessary freedom-of-action for the United States to secure its vital national interests. Analogous to the Monroe Doctrine of the nineteenth-century, which put putative expansionist powers on notice, this new doctrine asserts that the privilege of sovereignty remains contingent upon adherence to accepted international norms of behavior.     

The Potential and Pitfalls of a Zero-Sum Grand Strategy

Grand strategy provides the strategic vision for a state in pursuit of its national interests. The current U.S. grand strategy straddles the line between isolationism and off-shore balancing. Based on the international relations theory of realism, these strategies view international actions as a zero-sum game. In other words, a country can only benefit at the expense of another. The zero-sum logic is clearly articulated in the “America First” strategic documents. It is also apparent in many of the president's speeches and policy actions. While the Trump administration's zero-sum approach has potential to rebalance burdens and level the playing field in such areas of trade, it is fraught with risks and jeopardizes the standing of the United States in the world.     

U.S. and East Asian Integration

the U.S. is directly impacting on the future of the East Asian community. Therefore, finding ways to get along with the U.S. is crucial to the speed, direction, configuration and character of the East Asian community. In this paper, the author has analyzed the interests of the United States in East Asia and its stands towards the East Asian integration. The author concludes that it is to the interest of the United States to make more efforts to further join in the East Asian integration. And East Asia should accept and welcome the American participation.     

Hegemonic order, September 11, and the consequences of the Bush revolution

The striking feature of contemporary world politics continuesto be the disproportionate power position of the United States.U.S. officials consider stability in East Asia to be of vitalimportance, and they have adopted a hegemonic strategy to promoteregional order and serve U.S. interests. U.S. officials arelikely to find the management and completion of hegemony moreproblematic in the years ahead. U.S. power, particularly military,will remain unchallenged. But changes in U.S. foreign policyafter September 11, developments in the world economy, and developmentsin East Asia suggest that the exercise of U.S. power and U.S.relations with states in this all-important region will becomeincreasingly complex and will demand more creative diplomaticefforts.