"重返"还是"重构":试析当前美国亚太战略调整

从国务卿希拉里·克林顿的“前位外交”讲话到总统奥巴马的亚洲四国之行，美高层近期高频度、高姿态涉足亚太，加紧推进其“重返亚洲”战略。某种程度上，“重返亚洲”这一概念并不准确，因为美国从来就没有离开过亚洲，美国当下的种种努力应是整合旧资源、运用新方式、施展巧实力来“重现凸显”美国在该地区的战略存在及主导优势，通过“重构”亚太地区的安全（同盟）体系、经济体系和多边机制确保美国在该地区的领导地位。面对当前国际体系的变局和变数，有必要全面、深入地审视美国亚太战略调整的“大棋局”。     

中国周边外交中的中印战略合作

在亚洲,印度作为新兴大国和印太大国的作用被美国重新发现和定义,印度战略地缘平衡手特性也随着美国亚洲再平衡战略的展开得到强化。就印度而言,一方面,外交中＂战略自主＂的传统使其对美国的要求显得有所节制和保留;另一方面,现实中印度的＂东向＂政策与中国向西发展在战略空间上形成重叠,这使印度对中国在南亚和东南亚部分地区的存在有所担心和疑虑,印度国内部分战略认识也强调不能忽视中印关系中的竞争性。     

美国的亚太战略

<正>奥巴马政府上台以来,美国政府官员和相关的智库学者陆续发表一系列讲话和研究报告,反映了美国政府的亚太战略变化。一、美国亚太战略调整美国调整了对亚太地区的战略,主张主动适应亚洲的变化并着力从多边机制上塑造亚洲的未来。     

新世纪以来美国海洋战略调整及其对中国的影响述评

冷战结束后,美国一超独霸。为巩固和拓展其全球海洋利益,美国调整了自己的海洋战略,强化对全球海洋的实际管控。特别是新世纪以来,美国加强了在西太平洋海域的存在和制海权的掌握。本文探讨了美国海洋战略在政治、经济、军事安全领域的主要表现及其基本特征,初步分析了美国海洋战略调整和新动向对我国海洋权益产生的重要影响。     

美国的中东政策:延续与变化

中东战略是美国全球战略的组成部分。以2017年以来美国在中东实际采取的行动为视角,可以看出美国战略收缩的态势未变,"轻足迹"的战略路径未变,真正变化的是特朗普政府的行事风格。特朗普鲁莽的政策风格必然会恶化中东地区形势,使矛盾更加复杂,解决起来更加困难。     

金融危机与美国霸权战略的调整

经济是政治的基础，金融是霸权的基础。金融危机削弱了美国综合实力，使美国霸权战略不得不进行一系列调整：在经济领域，实施经济优先的战略方针，推动霸权战略的“国内化”转向，夯实美国在世界政治经济中的霸主基础；在国际政治领域，加速推进“转型外交”进程，倡导多边主义和国际协作；在军事领域，采取相对收缩的军事战略，适时调整海外军事布局，全力应对国际金融危机。     

美国人工智能战略:目标、手段与评估

作为新一轮科技革命中最为关键的前沿领域,人工智能已经成为大国竞争的战略制高点,也因此成为当今美国的战略布局重点。从目标看,美国人工智能战略是国内外战略环境与战略竞争对手认识基础上的多维组合,其中维持人工智能技术的全球领导地位为首要关切。从手段看,美国利用组织机构,特别是新成立的人工智能安全委员会进行统筹,借助人才培养、私营部门、政府支持与国际合作四大块的综合措施来促进美国的人工智能战略发展。从评估效果看,基于人工智能的技术线和应用线两方面考察,美国人工智能战略依然存在资金问题、与私营企业的适配度问题、人才培养与移民政策问题、伦理道德制约以及与中国的战略竞争等问题。研究美国人工智能战略布局对中国有着重要启示。     

美国战略重心东移背景下中国的安全环境及战略应对

冷战结束后美国战略重心东移日渐突显 冷战时期美国的全球战略重心是在欧洲。1989年美苏冷战结束,国际战略格局、美国的国际地位以及全球和亚太地区形势都发生了重大变化,各大国都加紧调整自己的对外战略。伴随着欧洲苏联集团的崩溃,美国的全球战略重点逐渐由重视欧洲大陆而变为东移亚太地区。     

以攻为守:美国“战略东移”的战略本质评析

美国全球战略重心“东移”亚太，或者说美国“转身亚太”（the pivo tto Asia）是目前国内外学界、战略界热议的战略性话题。在美国搞战略东移已经从战略计划转变为政策现实的情况下，搞清楚美国战略东移的性质或者说战略本质，就成了搞战略分析、尤其是分析亚太战略态势以及中美关系性质及其形态的起点和首要问题。只有搞清楚美国战略东移的性质或者说战略本质，才能澄清美国战略东移引起或折射出的一系列战略表象以及美国对华政策趋向，妥善谋划战略对策。     

美国对外战略是如何出台的?

<正>在考察第二次世界大战后美国对外关系时,人们会发现美国时不时会推出新的外交战略。奥巴马政府也不例外,推出了"亚太再平衡"战略。鉴于美国超级大国的国际地位,其对外战略调整往往会引发全球和地区内一系列联动效应,因而引发人们的高度关注。二战后美国对外战略:调整与变化对外战略是指主权国家在对外关系中较长时期内带有全局性的谋划。所有具体的外交政策举措则是围绕对     

东亚峰会与东亚一体化

2005年12月12日-14日,东亚系列会议在马来西亚首都吉隆坡举行.第11届东盟首脑会议、第九次东盟(10 1)领导人会议、第九次东盟与中日韩(10 3)领导人会议和首届东亚峰会(10 6),一场接一场,令东亚国际政治舞台呈现出一派热火朝天的景象.随着首届东亚峰会的召开,在东亚系列会议的基础上,一个公共外交平台已渐显雏形,一种大外交的新气象在亚洲日益昌隆.     

Housing in Asia

Housing as a Basic Need. By Regional Institute of Higher Education and Development. Hong Kong: Maruzen Asia, 1982. Pp.253. ISBN 962 220 111 3.

A Place to Live: More Effective Low‐Cost Housing in Asia. Edited by Yue‐man Yeung. Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 1983. Pp.216. ISBN 0 88936 371 4.

People, Poverty and Shelter: Problems of Self‐Help Housing in the Third World. Edited by R. J. Skinner and M. J. Rodell. London: Methuen, 1983. Pp.xi + 195. £6.50. ISBN 0 416 30960 7.

Management of Sites and Services Housing Schemes: The Asian Experience. By P. J. Swan, E.A. Wegelin and Komol Panchee. Chichester: Wiley, 1983. Pp.xi + 150. £10.50. ISBN 0 471 90072 9.     

Keeping Central Asia stable

Contrary to optimistic assessments on the stabilising impact of the US troop deployment in Central Asia, the long‐term prospects for regional stability are far from certain. The American entry into Central Asia has complicated the geostrategic dynamics of the region and engaged the three great powers and regional players in intense rivalry for influence and leverage. If there was ever a ‘Great Game’ at play in the post‐Soviet era, it is now. The convergence of the great powers on Central Asia was justified in terms of anti‐terrorism. The toppling of the Taliban in Afghanistan may have secured its northern neighbours from an imminent threat, but the direct involvement of US forces in Central Asia is not likely to contribute to regional stability in the long run.     

Central Asia and regional security

This paper aims to analyze the politico-military cooperation among the Central Asian countries viewed as a key factor in ensuring the regional security. Today, the geopolitical tension in the surrounding regions, the worsening situation in Afghanistan, as well as intraregional socio-economic problems directly affect the security situation in Central Asia. In this regard, the question arises as to how well the Central Asian states are able to meet these challenges. The analysis of the situation in the region in the 1990s and at the beginning of the new century shows that attempts have been made to establish a regional security system based on military cooperation among Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. However, unregulated interstate relations in Central Asia, the lack of political will to cooperate with leaders of neighboring countries and the combination of external and internal threats have contributed to the creation of a regional security system based on the multilateral structures with the involvement of external actors.     

Perilous presidentialism in Southeast Asia?

ABSTRACT

Regional patterns have long been crucial to debates about presidentialism starting with the Latin American cases in which presidential systems were seen to have contributed to political instability. This special issue examines four cases of presidentialism in Southeast Asia. Both the ‘first’ wave of the presidentialism literature which focuses on ‘pure’ cases of presidentialism, and the ‘second’ wave, which concentrates on a complex mixture of presidentialism and other institutions, are relevant to Southeast Asia. Among ‘pure’ presidential systems, the Philippines appears to provide support to ‘the perils of presidentialism’ thesis given the collapse of democracy there several decades ago and periodic instability since then. But Indonesia, despite ostensibly having the additional institutional perils of multipartism, has proved stable. Among the hybrid cases of presidentialism, both Myanmar and Timor Leste have forged elite accommodation through creating presidential-style institutions, including one considered particularly unpromising for achieving political stability in the literature. Because presidentialism has been associated both with elite accommodation and stability as well as political conflict and instability, the Southeast Asia cases do not clearly demonstrate the dangers of presidentialism. They point instead to the relative lack of explanatory power of this institutional arrangement in understanding political stability.