亚太地区安全问题及各方的基本态度

亚太地区安全问题及各方的基本态度燕杨，楚刀一、冷战后亚太地区的安全形势冷战后，亚太地区两极对抗格局瓦解，以多边协调、相互制衡为特征的多极化格局趋于形成，缓和、稳定与发展成为地区形势的主流；国际关系的主轴从军事对抗转向经济竞争与合作，各国为发展经济谋求...     

亚太地区安全问题及各方的基本态度

亚太地区安全问题及各方的基本态度燕杨，楚刀一、冷战后亚太地区的安全形势冷战后，亚太地区两极对抗格局瓦解，以多边协调、相互制衡为特征的多极化格局趋于形成，缓和、稳定与发展成为地区形势的主流；国际关系的主轴从军事对抗转向经济竞争与合作，各国为发展经济谋求...     

奥巴马政府亚太战略调整冲击中国外交与安全

2011年东北亚局势出现了历史性新发展，其中尤以美国亚太战略调整的影响最为深远。“新军事战略”调整全面“转身亚太”；军队转型能全面应对“后后冷战时代”美国军事与防务需要；对来自中国的“威胁评估”重新定位，也是为了保证美国在亚太地区的战略资产（盟友关系）不会流失，还有奥巴马政府出于2012年大选需要而表现出的对华政策强硬。美国“亚太转身”对中国的冲击非常明显，中美在亚太地区的竞争、合作，甚至在某些具体问题上潜在对抗都将进入一个新的时期。     

如何看待美国的战略调整？

美国的战略重心东移是在复杂的背景下出台的新战略，它标志着历时十年的反恐战 争的结束，它也是在财政压力下采取的“瘦身”行动，制衡中国、对中国的防范无疑是一个重要原 因。美国的战略调整是在全球范围内的战略收缩，在亚太地区的战略扩张。为此，美国采取了种种 措施，包括向亚太地区增调部队，加强在本地区的军事存在；强化与盟国的关系；在经济上搞《跨太 平洋伙伴关系协议》，试图为地区一体化制定规范；鼓励别的新兴经济体与中国竞争；努力推广美 国的价值观。但这一新战略的制约性因素不少，美国说起来容易，做起来难。中国既不要把它看成 不得了，也不要看成无所谓；要重视和关注，不允许美国的新战略损害中国的核心利益，同时坚持 和平发展的政策不动摇。     

近年来韩美同盟关系发展变化及未来走势

始于朝鲜战争之后的韩美同盟关系近年来由于朝鲜半岛形势的发展变化及韩国综合国力的提升，处在不断调整中：修改双边军事协定；拟定、完善各类对朝作战预案，巩固并加强韩美联合防御体制；韩军作为韩美联合防御体制的一员，逐渐向独立、自主、平等的伙伴关系转变。在此基础上，可以对韩美同盟关系的未来走势作一些判断：驻韩美军的调整在实质上使得韩美安保体制更加牢固；韩军接管驻韩美军部分防务，为全面接收战时指挥权、建立新型的韩美同盟关系奠定了基础；韩美同盟的发展有助于美国在亚太地区保持其主导下的大国均衡。     

动荡中的国际形势

2012年的国际形势可以概括为乱象纷呈，动荡不已。其中对今后形势演变产生深远影响的事态主要有：美国从战略主动转为被动；欧债危机催生欧洲格局变动；中东乱局愈演愈烈；中国奉行独立自主的和平外交政策，为我国应对复杂的国际形势，维护国家的独立、主权、尊严提供了有力的武器和可靠保证。这种形势的出现是经济全球化深入发展的大背景下，国际上各种矛盾激化的结果，也是国际秩序进入转折的历史时期的必然表现。     

新的亚太均势:美国能成为平衡国吗?

冷战结束后，亚太地区的形势随着两极格局的瓦解而变化，新的力量平衡正在形成。美国是亚太地区最重要的国家，企图在新的地区均势中充当平衡国。然而，美国与亚太地区其他力量相互对比的变化，该地区现存力量结构中的不确定因素，以及新的均势体系与传统的均势体系之间的差别，都对美国的这一企图构成了障碍     

冷战后的日美安保体制与东北亚地区安全

冷战结束后日美两国对日美安保体制进行了重新定义，不仅扩大了军事合作的区域和空间，拓展了军事合作领域和范围，由静态合作变为动态合作；而且还冲破了《日本国宪法》的束缚和绕过国会的监督。该体制主要是针对中、朝等国的，是东北亚地区安全的最大祸患：首先它破坏了大国间的战略平衡，使局势动荡不稳；其次美军继续驻扎该地区造成紧张形势；再次，通过模糊界定“周边事态”为其任意动武提供依据。因此东北亚地区内各国应提高警惕，采取相应措施维护该地区的和平与稳定。     

2D1己年国际战略与交全走势分新

2012年国际战略与安全形势将承接2011年出现的新态势向前发展。全球经济发展依旧困难重重，美欧等西方家金融经济危机的政治社会效应更趋突出；中东地区动荡呈长期化趋势；美国将战略重心向亚太转移．导致亚太地区格局重组加速；国际规制将进一步变革重塑，中国扩大参与规制重建和提升国际话语权的紧迫性将进一步上升，与外部世界互动不断面临新情况和新挑战。     

1998年东北亚地区国际战略形势特点

１９９８年东北亚地区形势虽然也受到亚洲金融危机的影响，但整个地区形势总体上保持了稳定发展的良好势头，同时也存在一些潜在的不稳定因素。其特点是：朝鲜半岛局势动中有稳，日美军事合作深入务实，俄罗斯局势仍动荡不稳等     

A FAREWELL TO THE GREAT GAME? PROSPECTS FOR RUSSIAN-AMERICAN SECURITY COOPERATION IN CENTRAL ASIA

Long before 9–11, Russia and the United States found common ground in their efforts to undermine the Taliban government in Afghanistan, despite serious disagreements over policy in other parts of the world. The events of 9–11, however, changed Russian foreign and security policy drastically. One of the most fundamental and controversial shifts came when President Putin chose not to interfere in US negotiations with the Central Asian states to use their airbases for the US war against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Putin also offered to use Russia’s oil reserves as a means to stabilize jittery world markets. In return, Russia gained US support for its bid to pipe Caspian Sea oil over Russian territory. More importantly, the US government gave Russia essentially a free hand in its war against separatist Chechnya. While there are many potential scenarios in highly unstable Central Asia that could serve to sour relations once again, Russia and the United States have an unprecedented opportunity to build trust and cooperation through peacekeeping and problem solving in the region.     

Israel and the Palestinians in a Changing Neighbourhood

The political and strategic landscape of the Middle East and North African region has changed dramatically since late 2010 and the events now loosely defined as the ‘Arab Spring’. The dust has yet to settle in many Arab capitals and 2013 is set to be another defining year for the greater Middle East as regional actors, particularly new Islamist-led governments, take on more direct roles in influencing political, military and social developments in the Arab world. Israel and the Palestinian factions of Hamas and Fatah are not immune to these developments and while progress towards peace has been all but non-existent, change in the region must not necessarily lead to more tensions and conflict. The EU and US should work to establish greater Arab ownership of the diplomatic process, convince Israel that its security is best served by assuming a proactive approach to its changing neighbourhood and strive to harness the new realities in the region to modify the incentive calculus of the major domestic players in the conflict.     

霸权的逻辑：美国亚太安全战略的多边转向

二战后,美国在亚太地区构筑起双边联盟体系,但近年来对于加强多边安全合作更为积极。美国近几届政府在亚太安全战略方面作出了重大调整,从奥巴马政府到拜登政府都在推动双边合作转向多边合作,而为何发生这一转变值得探讨。美国在权力优势明显时,倾向于采取双边合作;当美国权力优势缩小时,更加重视多边合作,其安全合作形式是接近于联盟还是相对松散的安全合作,则取决于外部威胁性质和内部分歧大小。美国亚太安全合作形式的调整取决于中美实力差距、外部威胁变化和成员国分歧,多边形式可以更大范围地进行国际动员,最大程度地维护自身的霸权地位。美国在亚太地区的多边安全合作拥有稳固的合作基础、灵活的多边形式和共同的身份认同,有助于美国调动战略资源和联合应对共同关注的威胁。亚太多边安全合作增强了美国的安全动员能力,冲击了亚太地区秩序,给中国带来较大的安全压力。但不同合作机制也面临合作程度不一、成员战略分歧和合作议题分散的影响,合作进程存在着不确定性。     

奥巴马的中东政策成效不彰中东格局出现新变化

奥巴马就任美国总统后连续推出一系列中东新政，两年多的实践表明，美中东新政的成效不佳，未能实现其战略目标。中东地区四大热点问题难以降温，尽管美国在中东事务中仍居主导地位，但其领导地位正在受到冲击，领导能力逐步衰减，中东政治格局呈现新特点。     

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。     

'Unfortunate Arabia': The United States, Great Britain and Yemen, 1955-63

As it emerged from a long, self-imposed diplomatic isolation after 1955 and then plunged into revolution and civil war in 1962, Yemen confronted its Arab neighbours, the United States, and Great Britain with difficult political challenges. This study of Anglo-American diplomacy concerning Yemen in the late 1950s and early 1960s reveals the very different British and American interests and priorities in Arabia at the height of the Cold War and underscores the different tactics employed by each nation in pursuit of its regional goals. It also points out the strikingly different attitudes of officials in Washington and London to the phenomenon of Arab nationalism. Further, it highlights the importance of stability in the southwestern corner of the Arabian Peninsula to US and British strategies for ensuring the uninterrupted flow of Persian Gulf petroleum to the West. Finally, this examination of events in southwest Arabia demonstrates how traditional rivalries and animosities in the region shaped the conditions under which the United States and Britain attempted to pursue their interests there.     

Hegemony,Force Posture,and the Provision of Public Goods: The Once and Future Role of Outside Powers in Securing Persian Gulf Oil

International relations theories emphasize the stabilizing role hegemons play in world politics. But little scholarship has examined the link connecting hegemony to its potentially positive returns in the security realm: force posture. We correct this deficit by developing and testing an argument about the consequences of different hegemonic force postures under varying threat conditions. We present a typology of force posture options and probe their effects through over-time analysis of how major powers have worked to provide one particularly important public good since 1945: access to Persian Gulf oil. Drawing on field work, we also explore the implications of our framework for current and future US force posture in the region. We conclude that hegemonic stability is a very real phenomenon in the Gulf, but it does not require the massive forward deployment of US forces that has characterized the past twenty years of US presence there.     

US economic statecraft in East Asia

Linkage politics in the US were revived after the terroristattacks in 2001 as the US endeavored to bolster its positionin the international system. This paper examines current USeconomic statecraft in East Asia, particularly through the useof the preferential trade agreement instrument. As the US encountersincreasing threats in the region through China's economic andmilitary expansion, the emergence of Islamic militancy, andcontinuing tensions on the Korean peninsula, it is attemptingto reinforce its strategic position through the economic reinforcementof its bilateral politico-military alliances. However, as theestablishment of its recent free trade agreements has revealed,neo-mercantilist politics, as motivated by US Congressionalattention to domestic lobbying, present a risk to this strategy.It is possible that this tendency to economic nationalism, asevidenced in the Australia–US Free Trade Agreement, willdetract from the broader purpose of reinforcing the US strategicposition in the region. Received for publication April 10, 2007. Accepted for publication February 19, 2008.     

From Cold War to Arab Spring: mapping the effects of paradigm shifts on the nature and dynamics of US democracy assistance to the Middle East and North Africa

Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has articulated and implemented explicit strategies of democracy promotion by providing assistance to governments, political parties, and other non-governmental groups and organizations all over the world. One particularly challenging region has been the Middle East and North Africa, where democratic development and democracy aid opportunities have been limited and constrained by a variety of factors related to social, economic, and political characteristics of the region and policy priorities of the United States. This article examines the impact of two major paradigm shifts – the end of the Cold War (1989) and the 9/11 episode (2001) – on the nature, purposes, and consequences of US democracy assistance to the Middle East. Examining democracy aid allocations, social, democratic and political factors in the region, and other variables, the analysis traces the shifts in aid strategies, purposes, and recipients generated by these paradigm shifts and assesses the impact of such assistance on the politics of the region. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications of these findings for US democracy promotion policies and the impact of the Arab Spring events as a potential third break point.     

‘Unfortunate Arabia’: The United States,Great Britain and Yemen, 1955–63

As it emerged from a long, self‐imposed diplomatic isolation after 1955 and then plunged into revolution and civil war in 1962, Yemen confronted its Arab neighbours, the United States, and Great Britain with difficult political challenges. This study of Anglo‐American diplomacy concerning Yemen in the late 1950s and early 1960s reveals the very different British and American interests and priorities in Arabia at the height of the Cold War and underscores the different tactics employed by each nation in pursuit of its regional goals. It also points out the strikingly different attitudes of officials in Washington and London to the phenomenon of Arab nationalism. Further, it highlights the importance of stability in the southwestern corner of the Arabian Peninsula to US and British strategies for ensuring the uninterrupted flow of Persian Gulf petroleum to the West. Finally, this examination of events in southwest Arabia demonstrates how traditional rivalries and animosities in the region shaped the conditions under which the United States and Britain attempted to pursue their interests there.