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.     

Henry Cabot Lodge,Hawaii, and the Shift from Continental to Hemispheric Defense

Over the course of the 1890s, the United States shifted from a continental defense model toward a hemispheric one. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge (R-MA) was a leading proponent of this shift. Lodge was convinced that the United States needed to build a blue-water navy, acquire maritime bases overseas, establish its predominance in Central America, and push US influence out into the Pacific. The first test of this vision came not against Spain or Germany in the Caribbean, but against the possibility of British and Japanese influence over Hawaii in 1894–95. Domestic political and economic considerations acted mainly as a constraint on Lodge’s vision rather than as a basis for it. The main impetus was strategic, as he looked to safeguard an extended security zone for the United States in Atlantic, Pacific, and Caribbean waters. As he put it, “I would take and hold the outworks, as we now hold the citadel, of American power.”     

Has-Been,Wannabe, or Leader: Europe’s Role in the World After the 2003 European Security Strategy

In December 2003, the European Union presented its “security strategy”, endorsed by all member states, to provide guidance for Europe’s common foreign security and defense policy. In substance, this document is not an expression of a growing strategic rift between Europe and the United States. One of the purposes it serves, however, is defining Europe’s own, separate “identity”. It reflects the increasing awareness that Europeans need to employ their power more effectively in the service of international peace and security, as much as politically possible. Disagreements on key issues remain in Europe, however, and the practical implications of the security strategy still need to be worked out.     

Evaluating US defense posture in light of great power competition

This article seeks a debate on the future of the US defense posture in the Great Power Competition. It contains a robust list of defense initiatives to consider in improving the US defense posture. Since the United States is no longer in combat operations in CENTCOM, now is the time to focus on changing the US defense posture and program to meet the challenges of the emerging security environment. The article details where the United States stands and major changes that should be made, emphasizing both conventional and strategic nuclear forces.The US Navy’s fleet and end strength has been constrained for far too long and must be expanded to meet the geopolitical requirements of the Great Power Competition. The US Navy’s size deeply declined as a byproduct of the Cold War’s end and Department of Defense post-Cold War force design planning. The lesson learned here is simple and straightforward: navies can be reduced quickly but cannot be rebuilt quickly. The industrial, construction, and labor issues associated with shipbuilding require multi-year construction schedules, effective labor force management and dedicated, long-range management and executive planning.     

韩国-东盟防务安全合作探究

韩国与东盟国家防务安全合作源远流长,近年来双方的防务安全合作更加活跃和全面,合作层次和水平不断攀升与提高。“新亚洲构想”与韩国东盟战略的转向、东盟国家“不均衡”的防务安全诉求,以及美国“战略东移”的强力刺激与影响,这些是促动韩国与东盟不断推进和加强防务安全合作的重要背景及动因。在短期内,韩国与东盟防务安全合作关系会继续发展和有所提升,但是难有实质性的突破。不过,韩国与东盟不断致力于推进和深化防务安全合作,尤其是暗合美国的新亚太战略、不断施展大国平衡战略的做法,势必会进一步加剧东亚地区军备竞赛风险,增添了新的不确定性、不稳定性和不安定性,不利于该地区的长期稳定和持久和平。     

特朗普执政以来美国对拉美政策的调整及其影响

在美国的全球战略中,拉美地区历来占据着重要而特殊的位置。长期以来,美国视拉美为自己的“后院”,在拉美拥有独一无二的主导权和影响力。特朗普政府执政后,公开祭出“门罗主义”的旗帜,大幅度调整对拉美的政策,展现出更公开的干涉行径、更浓厚的利己色彩、更明显的分化企图和更强烈的排外取向,意在将拉美打造成一个政治上亲近美国、经贸上依赖美国、安全上不威胁美国的“后院”。短期看,特朗普政府对拉美的政策调整取得了一定的成效,对拉美的掌控有所强化。但长期看,美国和拉美地区之间的深层次矛盾和冲突并未完全纾解,在特定的时空背景下甚至存在进一步被激化的可能性;与此同时,特朗普政府对拉政策的调整还加剧了大国在拉美展开战略博弈的风险。特朗普政府的拉美政策如何进一步演变和发展,美拉关系如何变化,这些课题值得中国学界高度关注并深入研究。     

《中导条约》与全球战略稳定论析

《中导条约》是冷战期间美苏达成的一项重要军控条约,是全球战略稳定的支柱之一。2019年8月,美俄相继退约,引发国际社会极大关注。人们担心,条约退场将冲击全球战略稳定,刺激军备竞赛,影响欧亚安全形势,削弱国际军控体系。中国是美国退约重要借口之一,条约作废势必深刻影响中国外部安全环境。《中导条约》从诞生、发展到消亡,有着深刻的国际、国内和个人三个层面的演变动因,归根结底起决定性作用的是国际格局变迁。20世纪80年代,苏美攻守异势促成了《中导条约》的诞生;进入21世纪后,北约对俄的挤压以及中导技术扩散促使俄罗斯抛出条约全球化倡议;近年来,美国霸权地位相对衰落促其选择退约。但美俄两国政治形势变化及领导人更迭也深刻影响了条约的“生、住、变、灭”的时机和方式。戈尔巴乔夫的“新思维”改革与当时高涨的核裁军运动为签署《中导条约》提供了特殊的政治、社会背景。特朗普政府奉行“美国优先”理念,频频废约“退群”,《中导条约》随之沦为牺牲品。在不同历史时期,陆基中导在全球战略稳定中所起的作用不同。在20世纪60年代初,它是美苏中央威慑的支柱。在20世纪70~80年代,它是影响延伸威慑的重要因素。进入21世纪后,它成为俄罗斯对付美国导弹防御的斗争手段。当前,陆基中导在跨域威慑中扮演日益重要的角色。大国中导博弈正卷土重来,但它必将带有与以往不同的诸多新特点。     

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。     

Quo Vadis Europe? The “Russian Question”

This article revisits the key factors that have reshaped European security to serve as a baseline for framing two distinct paths that will determine the continent’s security architecture in the coming decades. At the center of this discussion is Europe’s answer to the “Russian question”: the role that Russia wants to play in Europe as compared to the level of influence it may be able to achieve through economic pressure and military force. It posits that the answer is inextricably connected to how Germany’s foreign policy evolves going forward, especially the German-Polish relationship and military trilateral cooperation between the United States, Germany, and Poland. It will also touch on the issue of Brexit as arguably the most significant development that will continue to shape European security for years to come, and, by extension, America’s European strategy.     

中美不对称核稳定与美国战略机会主义论析

中美两国安全关系在两国总体关系中扮演着重要的角色,研究中美之间的战略稳定关系,对于维护两国安全关系的稳定具有重要意义。中国的核威慑实力弱于美国,中美之间呈现出不同于传统战略稳定关系的不对称核稳定态势。中国对美国存在一定的核威慑能力,但有效性仍有差距和不足。这一差距容易使美国产生压制和削弱中国核报复能力的机会主义思想。实施限制损伤战略、发展导弹防御能力、进行战略反潜是美国对中国实施战略机会主义的主要行动。美国谋求削弱中国核报复能力、打破中美不对称核稳定的企图,与中国努力维持核威慑能力、维持中美不对称核稳定的行为形成了两股力量相持的态势。中国应重点提升核武器的质量,提高威慑信号的传递效能,以可信可靠的核威慑和核反击能力打消美国战略机会主义心态,维持两国间的战略稳定,特别是危机稳定性,筑牢遏制战争爆发的基础。     

The Pivot in Perspective: American Naval Power,Then and Now

The article examines the reorientation of the defense policy of the United States, initiated during the Bush and Obama Administrations, toward giving increased priority to the Asia Pacific region. It begins with the historical perspective of the development of American naval power in the twentieth century. The world wars, in which Europe represented the primary theater of conflict, had the effect of shifting a greater share of American military assets toward the Euro-Atlantic theatre, while the onset of the Cold War after 1945 required the United States to develop a navy of truly global strategic reach in which Atlantic and Pacific commitments were kept in balance. With the diminished concern for European security since the end of the Cold War and the emergence of the People's Republic of China as a strategic competitor in the Asia Pacific region, the United States is required in an age of defense austerity to refocus attention again to the Pacific.     

Why unipolarity doesn't matter (much)

This article first argues that states have not balanced against US unipolar power because the potential balancers do not view the United States as a major threat, because they believe it has benign security-seeking motives, at least with regard to other major powers. This explanation runs counter to the Brooks–Wohlforth argument, which holds that states are not balancing because the magnitude of the United States’ power advantage makes balancing essentially infeasible. The second part of the paper challenges the conventional wisdom on the benefits of unipolarity, arguing that the benefits the United States derives from unipolarity are generally overrated. More specifically, US security need not be significantly reduced by growth in China's economy that supports a return to bipolarity.     

After One Hundred Years of Service: Hegemony,Pan-Americanism,and the Monroe Doctrine Centennial Anniversary, 1923

ABSTRACT

In 1923, the United States celebrated the centennial anniversary of the Monroe Doctrine. Overlooked by historians, the centennial served as more than an isolated moment of memorialisation; this analysis investigates the ways in which it shaped and reflected domestic perceptions of the place of the United States in the world during the early 1920s. The various celebratory events that took place across the nation re-enforced the discordant nature of United States national security by emphasising and exacerbating the doctrine’s disputed meaning. By providing a forum in which it could be scrutinised, the centennial emphasised the policy’s fractured meaning and demonstrated that both regional hegemony in the Western Hemisphere and Pan-Americanism were perceived as core values of United States national security that emanated from the doctrine’s enunciation in 1823.     

美国国家安全认知的新视阈：人工智能与国家安全

人工智能作为一种革命性技术,正在从根本上变革国际社会的发展进程及方式。面对这一发展趋势,美国已将人工智能提升到国家安全的高度。人工智能对美国国家安全的影响主要存在于三个方面:首先,人工智能是影响和塑造未来美国国家安全的核心变量。人工智能能够优化美国在国际政治格局中的力量配比,弥合并纠正美国社会内部的分裂和失序状况,并助推美国军事实力实现“跨越式”发展。其次,有效克服人工智能的负面效应是确保未来美国国家安全的关键。人工智能可能引发诸多社会和道德问题,其固有的缺陷也将增加战争决策的风险成本,还可能增加武装冲突的频率和强度。最后,美国强调中国人工智能的快速发展对未来美国国家安全构成严重“威胁”。中美在人工智能领域的竞争已无法避免,美国认为中国正在试图“挑战”美国在高新技术领域的领导地位;为应对美国在人工智能领域对华遏制政策,中国应制定和形成人工智能研发以及应用规则和规范;通过制度化协调与合作来规制中美关系,努力避免“科技冷战”的发生。     

俄罗斯对美国战略认知的演变及其政策效应

俄罗斯对美国战略认知的演变过程分为友好合作、竞争凸显和激烈对抗三个阶段。俄罗斯的强势外交和安全政策,表现为俄罗斯对美国和北约的强硬战略姿态以及追求超出自身相对实力的外交和安全目标。俄罗斯战略认知的演变与俄美两国的利益冲突之间有着相互塑造的关系,但是俄罗斯战略认知的变化并不仅仅取决于利益考量。俄罗斯之所以把北约东扩、乌克兰走向、叙利亚局势等看得如此重要,不惜投入大量资源,这是与塑造俄罗斯战略认知的历史和心理因素是分不开的。美国采取的许多对俄政策和行为,正是因为忽略了这些因素,才被俄罗斯看作是“侮辱性”和“威胁性”的,从而导致了双方敌意的螺旋式上升。由于俄罗斯独特的历史记忆和大国情结,俄罗斯对俄美两国的利益冲突作出了激烈的回应,这些回应虽然不利于俄罗斯的国家实力和整体利益,但却是可以理解的。随着俄罗斯对美战略认知的逐步定型,俄美关系在短期内很难实现所谓的“重启”。从俄罗斯对美战略认知的案例分析可以看出,战略认知自身有其相对的独立性,在受到利益冲突影响的同时,也受到社会文化因素的深刻影响,从而使得国家的外交与安全政策未必完全遵循理性主义的路径。     

安倍治下的日本对华政策:从战略制衡到战术避险

日本的对华外交深受国际体系和中美日三角关系的影响。由于中美两个大国在全球层面的战略竞争加剧,以2017年为分水岭,第二次安倍内阁领导下的日本的整体对华外交政策经历了从"战略制衡"向"战术避险"方向的转变。在2017年以前,日本为了联美对华实施"战略制衡",在外交方面,以"印太战略"孤立中国;在安全方面,加强岛屿防卫能力和强化日美同盟;在经济方面,大力支持"跨太平洋伙伴关系协定"和对"一带一路"倡议持冷淡态度。在2017年以后,在中美关系的不确定性增大的情况下,安倍领导下的日本对华实施"战术避险"。在外交方面,加强印太战略的开放性、领导人互访和对华自制;在安全方面,继续强化国防上的内部制衡;在经济方面,有条件地认同"一带一路"倡议并对华展开第三方市场合作。展望未来,令和时代的日本将是一个拥有部分战略自主的中等强国,在日美同盟框架下维持与中国有距离的交往,力图在瞬息万变的国际政治角力中实现日本国家利益的最大化。     

Indo-Japanese Strategic Partnership and Power Transition in Asia

As the U.S.-led security order in Asia gradually comes under stress, regional powers such as India and Japan are formulating a strategic partnership to hedge against the vulnerabilities accruing out of the unfolding power transition in Asia. China’s unprecedented economic and military rise coupled with America’s perceived relative decline is drawing New Delhi and Tokyo into a strategic embrace. To insure their interests in this era of great power transition, New Delhi and Tokyo are keen to hedge against America’s possible failure in containing China’s growing assertiveness in Asia. This hedging strategy is evident in their growing strategic partnership which consists of a triple hedge: increasing bilateral defense partnership against fears of American retrenchment; economic engagement against an over-dependence on China; and a multilateral hedge against China’s growing influence in international and regional institutions. However, for Asia’s two prominent middle powers, transforming these nascent attempts into an effective strategic response to Asia’s current power transition would also require cooperation in the nuclear domain, an area where their policies continue to diverge.     

Why Does the United States Keep Helping Iran?

Since the Jimmy Carter administration, Iran has been America’s most consistent enemy. Strangely, however, the United States repeatedly helps its opponent. Following the 9/11 attacks, Washington aided Iran’s interests in six episodes: toppling the Taliban; overthrowing Saddam Hussein; suppressing the ISIS caliphate; backing the Saudi intervention in Yemen; withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal, and assassinating the Iranian general Qasem Soleimani. Of course, Washington does not deliberately assist its opponent. Rather, the United States unintentionally helps Iran by creating power vacuums, into which Tehran steps, and triggering power surges, or coercive campaigns against Iran, which also tend to backfire and bond Iran more closely with third parties.     

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.