美国对华决策政治系统及要求

自 2 0世纪 70年代以来特别是冷战结束以后 ,美国外交决策系统由原来的相对集中和由总统占垄断地位向一个开放和多元的系统转变。本文使用政治的分析方法考察了美国对华决策系统的结构以及各个要求的作用和影响 ,并提出通过影响国会、利益集团和媒体的要求进而影响美国对华政策的观点。     

当前美国对华政策的辩论、选择与走势分析

当前,美国政策精英就美国对华政策展开了一场全方位、多元化的政策大辩论。"务实容纳论""接触合作论""反省妥协论""接触融合论""接触遏制论""遏制论"等不同认识在碰撞互动。美国决策精英正弱化以往对华接触与融合的政策基调,缓慢但却明显地推动对华政策朝着挤撞方向发展。美国对中方意图的习惯性误判、美中两国国际秩序观的差异、美国认定其国内问题的"责任在中国"等因素,导致美国对华政策始终带有强烈的悲剧性色彩。在此次美国对华政策大辩论和大调整中,走出"领导陷阱"、学会"换位思考"、认清"戴维斯陷阱",将有助于美国理性地认识中国和保持稳定的中美关系。     

冷战僵持年代的美国对华决策机制——以约翰逊政府为中心的探讨

本文以约翰逊政府为中心考察冷战僵持年代的美国对华决策机制。本文认为,约翰逊政府的美国对华决策机制存在信息处理资源相对不足、中国问题专家地位偏低、决策层级脱节等特点,使得辅助决策层和基层职业外交官、政策分析家所提之建议不能及时准确地到达核心决策层。在能与总统直接对话的高级中国问题专家缺位的情况下,辅助决策层中国问题专家的政策建议容易受到地位更高的苏联问题专家的左右与压制,这在一定程度上制约了美国对华政策的根本变革。     

美国两党党纲中的对华政策论析

党纲是美国两党各自政策立场与倾向的集中反映,并能影响美国政府的政策,因此值得重视和研究。通过梳理和分析历史上美国两党党纲中所反映的对华政策后发现:随着中国自身实力不断提高及中美两国联系的不断加强,美国两党党纲涉及对华政策的频率在不断提高;美国历届政府的对华政策在多数情况下与执政党党纲中的对华政策倾向总体一致;美国两党在涉及对华政策的重大问题上也大多具有共识;美国两党党纲中的对华政策内容从根本上来讲服务于美国两党进行选举的国内政治需要。当前共和党的对华政策倾向已出现重大转折,但民主党与其或有不同。关于两党在对华战略上到底有无共识,以及未来美国的对华战略将向哪个方向发展,2020年美国两党将要发布的最新党纲或许能够提供一些答案。     

权力交替:对中美关系周期性波动的一种解释

本文通过对美国对华政策的决策因素、决策机制和决策程序的分析,提出了解释美国对华政策周期性波动的一种模式--权力交替模式,并检验了这一模式的效用:在过去30年中,总统的权力交替一直是美国对华政策中的一个周期性变量,而国会的权力交替则不时成为美国对华政策的干扰性因素,这在未来亦可能是这样.     

布什上台以来美国的对华政策

布什政府的对华政策尚未完全成型,但它已使中美关系再次陷入危机.此次中美关系所发生的危机具有不同于以往几次危机的特征.今后相当一段时间对华采取强硬路线将是美国对华政策的主流.美国对华政策在形成的过程中将受到各种内外因素的制约.     

中美关系面临考验--布什新政府对华政策

美国新政府上台以来,进行了针对中国的全球战略调整,其对华政策逐渐向右转,呈现强硬态势.本文认为,保守主义势力抬头是美国新政府对华政策调整的主要国内因素,维护美国在世界上的领导地位、应对中国的崛起和挑战则是其外部考虑.美国新政府的对华正在面临抉择,中美关系再次面临考验.     

艾森豪威尔政府的对华禁运政策

艾森豪威尔政府时期,美国对华政策为全面遏制思想所主导,因此,在欧洲盟国废除“巴统”管制体系中的“中国差别”的情况下,美国依然单独坚持对华禁运政策。     

特朗普执政与中美关系的战略转型

特朗普执政以来坚持"美国优先"路线,持续推进美国内外政策的深刻调整,采取了以"压制性回缩"为特征的大战略。美国大战略的变化不仅给"自由主义国际秩序"带来深远影响,也进一步加剧了中美关系的复杂性。特朗普政府明确地以"战略竞争者"定位中国,美国战略界对华负面认知进一步加剧,美国对华政策逐步形成新的共识。中美关系中的"竞争性因素"显著上升,体现在经贸关系、地缘政治、国际秩序、意识形态等多个层面。美方借"对等贸易""印太战略""台湾牌"等加大对华压制,并炒作中国的"锐实力"。美国对华政策已进入"后接触"时代,"竞争性共存"成为当前和未来一个时期中美关系的新态势。中美双方需提升战略沟通质量,稳慎管控互动关系,努力促进中美关系的良性转型,避免陷入"新冷战"。     

日本对华公共外交实施困境分析

鉴于日本对华公共外交因中日两国间的历史问题和海洋权益争端问题而逐步凸显出相应的实施困境,长期以来日本对华公共外交处于持续低迷的状态。日本对华公共外交的实施困境表现为内外制约性、迟滞性、顽固性与整体失调性。随着日本对华公共外交实施困境的长期延续,其在对华政策与中日关系方面的作用随之显现,并伴有扩散效应。对于实现日本对华公共外交的破解,日本需要积极改善对华政策中的相关节点,为中日关系真正的发展做出必要的准备与贡献。     

American policy toward Beijing, 1989–1990: The role of president Bush and the White House staff

The Tiananmen massacre of June 1989 created a major crisis in U.S. policy toward China. President Bush and his aides on the National Security Council staff took the lead in formulating the U.S. response to the crisis. The president took charge personally in dealing with various issues during the next two years. He strove hard to maintain a balanced policy that would allow for continued U.S. involvement with the people and leaders of China. In the crisis atmosphere of 1989–1990, the president appeared to judge that it was important to narrow sharply the circle of officials who would manage U.S. policy toward China. In part, this was because the president was attempting to strike a difficult balance in U.S. policy. On the one hand, he was attempting to elicit positive gestures from Beijing's beleaguered leaders in the wake of Tiananmen. On the other hand, he was attempting to avoid what he judged were overly punitive and counterproductive U.S. measures against China, which were being pressed on the administration by U.S. leaders in the Congress, media and elsewhere. The president and his close advisors took steps to ensure that State Department and other U.S. officials avoided comment on the most sensitive policy issue of 1990—the extension of most-favored-nation tariff treatment to China. By the end of 1990, however, the president's policy efforts had not stilled congressional debate or restored a consensus in U.S. China policy. President Bush still labored under the misperception in many quarters that he was less interested than others in human rights in China, was overly attentive to the interests of Chinese leaders, and stressed excessively China's alleged strategic importance for the United States. In fact, the Chinese government's relatively constructive role in world affairs, especially over such vital issues as the 1990–1991 Persian Gulf crisis, appeared to do more to win U.S. support for the president's carefully balanced approach to China than the efforts by administrative leaders to explain the policy.     

布什政府对台政策的回顾与展望

布什政府第一任期内的对台政策经历了从亲台、抚台向抑台的转变,呈现出不断调整、战略清晰化、军事关系强化、与对华政策反向互动等特征.未来美国对台政策将以维持台海现状为主,继续对台军售、提升美台关系,拉拢日本等盟国参与,对重大"台独"事变发生时大陆可能采取的武力解决方针进行"吓阻",但也会继续遏制"台独",支持两岸接触谈判.我们应当以新的思路改善两岸关系及与周边国家的关系,铲除美国"以台制华"着力点,分化美国"以台制华"同盟,战术上"以美制台",增强自身经济、军事实力和制度竞争力,做好应付战争的准备.     

The politics of U.S. most-favored-nation treatment to China: The cases of 1979 and 1990

This article seeks to analyze U.S. interests in granting China the most-favored-nation status in 1979 and the present situation regarding the extension of such status. It argues that while the change and continuity in U.S.-China policy interests and objectives may still guide U.S. decision makers, what happened in Beijing last spring has given rise to a formidable congressional coalition among liberals, conservatives, and protectionists in opposing MFN treatment to China. The final outcome will depend largely on the degree of presidential readiness to defend his China policy and on whether the president is able to prevent the congressional overriding of the presidential veto.     

特朗普政府生物防御战略评析

2018年美国政府发布的《国家生物防御战略》,标志着特朗普政府生物安全政策的正式出台。该战略性文件是特朗普政府的《国家安全战略》在生物安全领域的具体化,也是美国历届政府有关生物安全议题最系统、最全面的阐述。与前任政府相比,特朗普政府的生物安全政策呈现出部门协调集权化和生物威胁应对一体化的特点。特朗普政府的生物安全政策充分体现了其"美国优先"和"单边主义"的执政理念。美国生物防御战略在牵头机制安排上的"去安全化",并没有改变美国通过实施生物安全战略来追求国家安全利益的本质。特朗普政府通过加大生物科技领域的投入,以实现生物科技创新和生物防御系统相互赋能,在促进卫生安全的同时,维护美国在生物科技创新领域的霸权地位。     

东盟在美国亚太战略中的地位及布什政府的东盟政策

在美国的对外战略中,东南亚是放在东亚的整体范围内进行考虑的,美国的东南亚政策是美国亚太战略的一个组成部分。本文从经济、政治、安全和区域合作四方面分析了东盟在美国亚太战略中的地位和作用,并介绍了布什政府上台后特别是“9·11”事件后美国东盟政策的变化。     

Radical Neglect? The “War on Terror” and Latin America

The rise of leftist governments in the Americas and the adoption of policy initiatives contrary to U.S. interests highlight a disconnect in interamerican relations, which cannot be understood simply as U.S. "neglect" of Latin America. In contrast to arguments that attribute the deteriorating relations to U.S. preoccupation with the Middle East, the article examines whether the "War on Terror" acted as a guiding paradigm for the George W. Bush administration in Latin America. Opposition to this "War on Terror" paradigm was evident following Colombia's 2008 air strike in Ecuador. Justified as a preemptive strike against a terrorist threat, Colombia's action met regional condemnation. The article argues that this Colombia-Latin America division reflects a larger geostrategic disconnect, whereby the "War on Terror" is challenged, causing the increasing marginalization of Washington and resistance to U.S. policy.     

美国对亚非会议政策再探讨——基于东亚冷战的视角

20世纪50年代中期东亚地区冷战的特点是美国着力组建旨在遏制中国的军事同盟体系,而中国通过落实国际和平统一战线政策力图突破美国的封锁。亚非会议成为中美两国冷战角力的焦点。美国对亚非会议的政策有两个基本点:第一,美国不公开反对召开亚非会议,但鼓励所谓“温和国家”与会,以间接发挥美国对会议的影响力;第二,全力阻止会议发起国做出邀请中国与会的决定。在行动没有奏效的情况下,转而要求自己的盟国代表“自由世界”发言,尽可能限制中国代表团在会上的影响。会议开幕后,美国没有对周恩来提出的缓和台湾地区紧张局势的声明给予积极回应。会议结束后,美国逐渐认识到周恩来的外交活动在会议上取得了成功,但仍然未能促使它改变遏制、敌视新中国的政策。     

The crisis in U.S.-China policy, 1991: The role of congress

The history of U.S. government decisionmaking on China policy since the June 1989 Tiananmen incident shows several episodes of dramatic confrontation between President Bush and his supporters in the administration and the Congress, and large numbers of congressional members of both parties critical of the administration’s China policy. Up to the present, 1991 clearly marked the highwater mark in the ongoing U.S. policy debate. In general terms, the debate went through three distinct stages in 1991, with the crisis coming during critical votes on conditional MFN legislation in July. At year’s end, all sides in the debate anticipated continued strong congressional criticism of Chinese practices and Bush administration policy, but critics seemed unable to make substantial inroads among those senators who supported the Bush administration’s stance, assuring continued MFN trade treatment for China.