南中国海：印度制衡中国的新战略牌

近年来,印度因中印边界争端和中国快速崛起而对中国的恐惧感不断上升。为反制中国战略“威胁”,印度利用南海争端日趋复杂化之机,将南海作为遏阻中国扩大战略影响、牵制中国战略布局的新战略支点,通过加强与南海争端国和域外大国关系,强化自身在南海的实际存在等方式介入南海,使中国的周边地缘政治环境变得更加复杂,增加了中国维护南海权益的难度,对中国在东南亚和印度洋的战略利益形成了挑战。     

美国“重返亚太”战略与印度的角色选择

随着美国奥巴马政府近期提出"重返亚太"战略,印度的地缘战略重要性进一步突显。美国强调印度的角色意义,鼓动印度在亚太地区格局中发挥独特的作用,包括帮助美国制衡中国。印度欲借助提升印美关系增加战略筹码并索取国家利益的最大化,但谨慎回应美国的亚太新战略,寻求符合自身战略利益的理性化政策选择。这似可表明,印美在稳步增强战略合作的同时,结为盟友或印度参与美国主导的多边安全伙伴体系的可能性较小。对美印关系的判断影响对中国战略利益和地区安全环境的认知。本文是对美国"重返亚太"战略对印度的影响、印度的回应和角色选择以及印美在亚太安全格局中的互动的初步探讨。     

美国对华经贸规锁:典型事实、行为逻辑与战略约束

特朗普政府执政后,美国从升级对华关税制裁、重塑国际贸易规则、严控高新技术获取、扩容货币互换协议、打压中国概念股票、推进产业链自主化和"去中国化"六个维度,对中国实施选择性"挂钩"和关键领域"脱钩"的经贸规锁。其行为逻辑,一是为满足国内多元化经济集团的利益诉求,二是基于美国对中国崛起的"威胁认知"和大国战略竞争的"权力逻辑"。从战略约束看,美国开放性利益集团的经济理性、其他经济体的行为取向、中国的结构性国家竞争优势,构成了美国对华经贸规锁的重要制约因素。作为应对,中国需确定"全政府"的战略模式,理解"双循环"的科学内涵,贯彻改革开放的既定方针,重视"一带一路"倡议的战略意义。     

Fostering Security in Southeastern Europe: A Role for the EAPC

China’s regional policy is mainly centred on its efforts to forge a friendly, stable and prosperous neighbourhood. To achieve this end, China has developed an approach combining both partnership bilateralism and tailored regional multilateralism. By and large, China does not consider its neighbourhood as a whole and has been very cautious and hesitant to engage in overarching ‘region-building’. China has relied mostly on soft (attractive) use of power, particularly economic power, supported by cultural and assurance diplomacy, even though diplomatic and economic coercion have been exercised occasionally. China has once again become the biggest economy in Asia. Yet, neither the new power configuration in Asia nor China’s own ambitions point to a return to the old ‘Middle Kingdom’ with China holding a dominant position in its neighbourhood. China will most probably continue to see itself as a self-restrained regional power in the foreseeable future.     

局部等级视角下的东亚安全秩序与中美战略竞争

东亚秩序转型是冷战后国际关系学界争论的重要问题。在回顾既有争论的基础上,本文尝试从局部等级视角切入,分析东亚安全秩序的性质及其转型动力。局部等级体系由体系唯一超级大国领导的地区安全等级与区域内自助国家共同构成。冷战结束以来,东亚地区呈现出典型的局部等级体系特征,并在中国持续崛起的过程中逐步形成了以战略对冲为主要行为模式的安全秩序。尽管当前美国对华政策的对抗性不断增强,但是在局部等级体系下中国坚持战略对冲不但可以有效缓解自身面临的崛起困境,而且有助于防止中美陷入美苏冷战式的集团对抗,以战略对冲为核心特征的东亚安全秩序也将因此得以延续。这些发现一定程度上深化了地区安全秩序和大国竞争的理论研究,同时也有助于中美两国更为有效地管控其在东亚地区的战略竞争。     

Recent Sino-ASEAN Cooperation and Its Regional Impact

Since the year 2000, China and the ASEAN countries have promoted mutual trade and investment, strengthened political trust and increased cooperation in terms of economic aid, security, and cultural and educational exchanges. More and more people are realizing that China poses no threat to other countries. With China 's growing influence in ASEAN, the U.S., Japan, and other big powers have increased their strategic investment in Southeast Asia to try to maintain their long-standing strategic advantage in the region. At the same time, the ASEAN countries are trying to play off these big powers against each other to maximize their own advantage.Ma Yanbing is Research Professor of CICIR. Her research interest is Southeast Asian affairs.     

The Rise of Chinese Power and the Implications for the Regional Security Order

This article examines the reach of China's growing economic and military power in East Asia. It examines the economic and military sources of the rise of China and the implications of the development of Chinese strategic influence on the Korean Peninsula and across the Taiwan Strait. It also considers where in East Asia China has yet to develop greater coercive or deterrent military capabilities, so that the strategic status quo in this area persists, thus establishing the regional strategic boundaries of the rise of China and the emerging U.S.-China great power order in East Asia.     

“东向行动”下印越合作新发展及其对华影响

2014年印度总理莫迪当选后将“东向”政策升级为“东向行动”政策,期望凭借印度在南亚次大陆的地缘优势,寻求南亚霸权的同时,向东扩展自己的战略利益。基于地缘政治和区域战略的需要,越南成为莫迪政府的“东向行动”政策的重要战略支持,两国不断推进多渠道的联系与交往,并逐步发展成为全面战略伙伴关系,在双边和多边层次上加强政治、军事、安全、经济等多方面的合作。尽管印越两国合作是基于战略和安全的现实需要,但由于两国均为中国邻国,且当前两国仍与中国存在着领土争端,因此在战略上相互借力,平衡中国在区域内的影响就成为两国发展伙伴关系的重要目标,印越两国在各领域的合作也在一定程度上对我国的周边安全环境造成了影响。     

The US-Japan Alliance Dilemma in the Asia-Pacific: Changing Rationales and Scope

ABSTRACT

The changes in the US-Japan alliance are taking place in times of a global power shift – a transition from unipolarity to multipolarity – and China’s challenge to the US’ security dominance in the Asia-Pacific. The alliance security dilemma now manifests itself in the rise of ‘entrapment’ concerns for Washington and ‘abandonment’ anxieties for Tokyo. The US increasingly insists on more mutuality in alliance arrangements, while seeking to maintain ambiguity in its defence commitments to Japan. The relative decline of US power and the fluid regional security architecture, however, incentivise Japan to step up preparations for abandonment. Although Tokyo’s hedging strategy contributes to enhancement of the bilateral alliance in the short term, it also paves the way for Japan’s pursuit of strategic autonomy in the medium to long term.     

东北亚战略安全新变化与中国和平发展的理性思考

东北亚战略安全新变化根源于东北亚战略结构的演变。东北亚战略安全新变化导致中国维护国家安全压力增大,面临不同意识形态挑战的压力持续上升,与周边国家合作成本增加,国家合作将更加困难。中国维护东北亚战略安全必须以包容性增长为东北亚战略安全合作发展的前提条件;确保中国经济社会的稳定与发展是维护东北亚战略安全的基础;和平解决朝核危机,维护朝鲜半岛安全是维护东北亚战略安全的关键;发展睦邻友好关系,稳定周边环境是维护东北亚战略安全的必然选择;积极倡导探索建立新的安全合作机制是维护东北亚战略安全的最终归宿。     

中国参与和推动东北亚区域经济合作的战略

东北亚地区对中国有着特别重要的地缘、经济、政治与安全意义。由于东北亚地区有着复杂的地缘关系,这个地区的合作呈现出多重框架、多种机制、多重因素影响的特点。出于地缘经济、政治的考虑,尤其是东北地区发展的战略考虑,中国对东北亚地区的合作采取了积极参与和务实推进的政策。本文主要分析新形势下中国参与和推进东北亚区域合作的战略性思考与选择。     

东北亚大国关系中第三方因素及地区安全共同治理

中日关系经济上的合作依存度与政治上的纷争摩擦常态化这一结构性的矛盾日趋显现.从更深层次上探究中日政治经济所处的这种分裂状态根源,从本质上讲背后蕴涵着东北亚大国关系中的域外因素:即美国的第三方因素,其对东北亚的和平稳定发挥着特殊作用.东北亚大国在地区的竞争摩擦时常较为突出,但中美日在东亚地区还是蕴涵着许多重大的共同利益.东北亚传统的"管制型"安全模式需向大国共同"治理型"模式转变趋向,意味着大国区域安全治理的权利、利益、责任的平等与分享,地区安全治理是在大国协作框架下的共同治理,应注重大国在地区安全事务中的关键作用.     

The Biden Administration's Policy Toward Southeast Asia: Momentum,Motivation and Challenges

After Biden took office,the United States,on the basis of inheriting the main framework of the Trump administration's Southeast Asia policy,has gradually increased its strategic input in Southeast Asia to expand the depth and breadth of cooperation with Southeast Asian countries.First,consolidate its diplomatic influence.     

从政治层面看演变中的中俄关系

20世纪80年代末90年代初苏联解体、冷战结束后，国际形势发生了新的变化。大国关系也处于全新的构筑之中。其显著的标志是美、俄、中、日、欧盟世界五大力量的相互关系带有根本性的调整。在这种国际环境背景下．中俄两国关系在以往中苏关系的基础上继续发展。逐步确立了中俄两国的战略协作伙伴关系。冷战后的两国关系呈现出三大特点两国关系稳定迅速发展；政治关系重于经济关系；变与不变同时存在。对于中俄关系。在发展趋势上我们要在努力争取长期稳定的睦邻友好合作关系的同时．关注两国关系中的不稳定因素，做到有备无患、未雨绸缪、趋利避害。     

试论中韩战略合作伙伴关系中的美国因素

中韩关系的发展已进入战略合作伙伴关系的高层次阶段,对整个东亚战略新格局的形成起着至关重要的作用。然而,韩国的对华外交却承受着美韩同盟关系的制约,韩国夹在中美之间,左右为难,面临着严重困境。2010年发生的"天安舰事件"和"延坪岛事件"以及2012年发生的"脱北者事件"等,将中韩战略合作伙伴关系中原本隐蔽着的问题暴露在世人的面前,其中之一即是美韩同盟关系与中韩战略合作伙伴关系的内在结构性矛盾。李明博执政期间,美韩同盟有趋强的趋势,导致中韩关系面临着重大考验。韩国外交的根本出路:"须在中美间找准外交平衡点","中美韩‘三国演义’演不好,半岛南北就永无宁日"。为此,韩国需要有更多的独立决策能力,保持自身在两者间的平衡,既与美国保持同盟关系,又与中国发展战略合作伙伴关系。任何倒向美国一边的政策,都会使韩国的战略决策失衡,使中韩战略合作伙伴关系受损。可以期待2012年大选后韩国政府的对美、对华政策会有新的调整,自主性、多元性、平衡性将成为韩国外交的发展方向,将有利于推动中韩战略合作伙伴关系的深化与发展。     

China–Australia strategic partnership in the context of China’s grand peripheral diplomacy

Alongside its rise, China has intensified its relations with countries on its periphery by adopting a “dual-core” strategy in order to create a “Community of Common Destiny”. In this context, China has upgraded its relationship with Australia from “commercial” to “strategic” levels. China’s “dual-core” strategy and the China–Australia strategic partnership reveal not only China’s desire for intensifying its economic interdependence with countries on its periphery, Australia included, but also China’s strategic intention of creating its own sphere of influence in the form of a “Community of Common Destiny”. China wishes to sustain its economic and social progress by restoring the past glory of “Fuqiang” (wealth and power) as it enhances both its “hard” and “soft” power. The intensified economic interdependence may persuade countries on its periphery to avoid being involved in any attempt by China’s competitors to contain its rise.     

China’s rise as a strategic challenge and opportunity: India’s China discourse and strategy

The simultaneous rise of China and India is one of the most important developments in contemporary world politics. Given their steadily growing power and aspirations and China’s more assertive posture in Asia, the management of China’s rise is one of the major challenges for India’s foreign policy. However, India is often said to have no guiding strategic framework for its China policy, which is seen as incoherent and reactive. This article, by contrast, shows that India has an evolving China strategy and that the alleged inconsistencies in India’s China policy are rather the result of an ambivalent image of China. Drawing on constructivism and discourse analysis, the article identifies the dominant perception of China in India’s foreign policy discourse and the resulting foreign policy strategy. In a next step, the article analyzes the China policy of the Congress-led UPA Government and investigates whether it conforms to the strategic policy frame of the dominant China discourse.     

Overlapping regionalism and cooperative hegemony: how China and India compete in South and Southeast Asia

This article examines the phenomenon of overlapping regionalism in South and Southeast Asia. Theoretically it rests on Thomas Pedersen’s ‘ideational-institutionalist realism’ approach. We argue that in the two sub-regions under study the proliferation of regional organizations has been greatly stimulated by hegemonic and counter-hegemonic dynamics involving Asia’s largest powers, China and India. We claim that sceptical world views highlighting vulnerability, victimization and national survival are deeply entrenched in the mental maps of the regions’ foreign policy elites. Regional institution building is thus informed by the tenets of realism. We trace how and why China and India seek to establish ‘cooperative hegemonies’ by building regional institutions for incorporating their neighbours into their sphere of influence while keeping rival powers at bay, and also show why smaller states in the region join these regional fora.     

Conceptualizing regional powers’ geoeconomic strategies: neo-imperialism,neo-mercantilism,hegemony, and liberal institutionalism

This article argues that geoeconomics, defined as the geostrategic use of economic power, has become an increasingly important feature of regional powers’ strategic behavior. Yet, we still lack analytical tools to identify and compare regional powers’ geoeconomic strategies. The article marks a first attempt to develop a typology for differentiating potential geoeconomic strategies that regional powers may pursue in dealing with their corresponding regions. It merges the regional power focus with a geoeconomic perspective, producing the following four ideal-typical strategies: neo-imperialism, neo-mercantilism, hegemony, and liberal institutionalism. This new typology serves as a conceptual device for creating analytical differentiation between regional powers and the range of possible geoeconomic strategies pursued by them. The paper discusses ways in which the new typology may contribute to our understanding of regional powers’ foreign policy conduct and to the emerging geoeconomic research agenda. While the purpose of the article is not to test any specific hypothesis or to empirically analyze cases, brief case study vignettes will be presented for illustrative purposes, looking particularly at Brazil, the EU, Germany, and Russia.     

Soft power,strategic narratives,and state identity: Re-assessing India-Afghanistan relations post-2011

In 2011, India and Afghanistan signed the Strategic Partnership Agreement that delimited cooperation in economic, social, political, and cultural areas. It depicted the rise of Indian soft power influence. However, the extent to which India garners strategic influence in Afghanistan through soft power remains contentious. This article contends that India’s soft power effectiveness in Afghanistan post-2011 can be fully grasped only via the construction and reception of India’s regional power identity negotiated at the sites of: “civilization,” “democracy,” and “economic-military” enabling India to provide a regional leadership that can forward both India and Afghanistan’s mutual interests. Examining soft power via the constructivist-discursive framework of collective identity strategic narrative, this article compares India-Afghanistan relations in periods 2011–14 and 2014–17. The former formalized strategic partnership agreement and the latter marked continuation of the agreement albeit through domestic political transitions in both countries. This article demonstrates that the Indian soft power influence in Afghanistan between 2014 and 2017 has increased markedly.