美国战略重心东移背景下的南海局势与中美关系

奥巴马上台后出台了新的亚太战略，其核心内容是将全球战略重心由大中东地区转 移到亚太并将应对中国崛起作为主要目标。美国战略重心东移使中国的外部环境特别是周边环境 更为复杂。南海局势的新变化就是美国战略重心东移的一个直接后果。不过，美国战略重心东移并 不是寻求同中国对抗，美国新的全球战略和亚太战略框架下的对华战略仍然具有两面性，中美在 南海并不存在根本的利害冲突，美国同一些南海争端国的利益也有很大差异，中美之间仍然存在 着广泛的共同利益和合作空间。     

越美海军关系新发展值得关注

近期,美国调整其亚太战略,不断发展与东盟国家的关系,增强在东亚包括东南亚地区的军事存在。越南与美国海军交往的战略意图不容忽视,越南与美国发展海军关系,既迎合了美国对亚太战略进行重大调整、加强与东南亚国家接触的需要,也是其自身推行新的全面海洋战略和南海争端＂国际化＂战略的需要。越南应该清醒地看到,越美之间战略利益的一致性将会是短暂的、不均衡的。美国的全球战略决定它不会把现在的越南作为长期战略伙伴,不会把越南放在举足轻重的战略位置上。     

浅析南海问题的性质转向与战略应对

由于地区与国际形势的发展变化，南海问题近年来争端陡然升温。这既与美国的全球战略重心向亚太地区倾斜有关，也与中国在和平发展战略机遇期取得显著成效有关，同时还与南海周边国家对上述两种发展趋势的理解与认知相连。这种情况下，南海问题的性质正在出现一定程度的转向。一是南海问题正在由资源之争向主权之争转向；二是从中美关系中的低烈度问题向高烈度问题转向：三是从地区性热点问题向世界性热点问题转向。这三种转向使南海争端更加复杂化、尖锐化。在新的地区和国际形势下，中国需要考虑新的战略应对。     

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。     

美国因素介入南海争端的用意及影响

在美国"重返东南亚"的大背景下,南海争端呈现复杂化趋势.本文对美国因素介入南海争端的用意及其战略布局进行分析,并就美国介入对南海争端相关当事方的影响进行分析和探讨.     

东亚峰会吸收美俄参加及其影响

东盟外长会议决定邀请美国和俄罗斯加入东亚峰会，这是东亚区域合作的重要变化，也使美国加快实现其“重返东南亚”的战略。近年来美国遏制中国的倾向比较突出，斯坦伯格的“战略再保证”与当年杜勒斯的“岛链战略”一脉相承；美国务卿希拉里在东盟地区论坛会议上大谈南海问题，表明美国高调介入南海主权争端，这将使南海问题更加复杂化。当前中国的周边环境较为严峻，须冷静观察，沉着应对。     

美国亚太战略新态势

在后冷战时期,西太平洋亚洲地区是美国全球战略的关键和重点地区之一。近年来,随着国际形势和世界战略格局的深刻变化,特别是亚洲的加速崛起,美国加大了对亚太地区的战略经营,其战略部署重心明显向亚太倾斜,旨在新的形势下,以强大军力作依托,压制竞争对手,确立对亚太地区的单家战略主导,以为其实现独霸世界的全球战略目标夯实基础。美国强化亚太战略取得一定成效,但由于牵制因素多,其总体目标难以实现。     

美国“印太战略”部署新动向及对中国周边安全影响

2022年2月拜登政府发布《美国印太战略》报告后，为遏制中国等竞争对手，加紧推进地区战略部署，着力拼凑各种小多边安全机制：强化美菲军事安全合作并拉日澳积极参与；推动美日韩合作“制度化”；加速推进和拓展美英澳“三边安全伙伴关系”；推动美日印澳“四方安全对话”机制逐渐走实。美国将东南亚作为实施“印太战略”的重心，并利用“离岸平衡”策略打造多层式、网络化遏华盟伴体系；同时大力推动海洋军事战略转型，竭力制造台海和南海联动效应，并有意裹挟地区盟友共同进行军事干预。这使得中国维护周边和地区稳定特别是捍卫国家主权和领土完整的难度增大，中美陷入冲突的风险也随之上升。面对这些严峻挑战，中国应坚持底线思维，坚决捍卫国家利益，同时积极主动塑造周边安全环境，力争突破美国的战略布局。     

俄罗斯的南海政策及其对中国海洋争端的影响——基于美国亚太再平衡战略的分析

在美国亚太战略的影响下,俄罗斯结合多重利益的需要,以实用主义为原则,采取"选择性战略协作"的南海政策,一方面强化与中国的交流与合作,以抵制来自美国及北约的战略压力,应对美国的亚太再平衡战略;另一方面,加强与亚太国家的联系,谋求区域影响力,平衡中国带来的挑战。俄罗斯这种"选择性战略协作"的立场深深影响着中国的海洋争端。因此,中国应针对俄罗斯的南海政策,制定相应的战略对策。     

安倍价值观外交的海权向度解构

安倍价值观外交是安倍晋三内阁在当前国际体系中以西方普世价值观为政策工具来构建"海洋民主国家联盟"以遏制中国的崛起并实现日本在海洋领域战略扩张的外交战略与实践。第一次安倍内阁通过价值观外交在亚太地区创设日美澳印、美日澳、日澳以及日印等四个安全保障合作机制对中国形成多层次、全方位的战略包围并实现日本在太平洋与印度洋上的海洋战略扩张。第二次安倍内阁重启针对中国的价值观外交,在推进日、美、澳、印四国战略合作的基础上积极插手南海问题给中国维护南海主权与和平解决南海争端设置障碍。安倍在亚太地区构建针对中国的海洋军事同盟,从太平洋与印度洋两个战略向度上实现对中国的海上战略包围与遏制态势,在很大程度上恶化了中国的海洋安全环境。     

U.S.Deterrence and Coercive Diplomacy and China's Coping Strategy

Deterrence and coercion are two kinds of strategies,the latter being more aggressive than the former.The U.S.Asia-Pacific Rebalancing strategy is an important diplomatic legacy of Obama's administration.For the issues involving the Diaoyu Islands,the South China Sea,cyber security,DPRK's nuclear program,and Iran's nuclear program,the U.S.has carded out military deterrence and non-force coercion against China.But generally,these are low-level coercive measures and distinct from the severe economic sanction and diplomatic isolation imposed by the U.S.on Russia,Syria,DPRK and Iran in recent years.Concerning issues where the U.S.and China hold distinct views,there would be less strategic leeway for the two countries.If the U.S.is to strengthen deterrence and coercion towards China,China can respond more actively and effectively,but it will be more difficult to build a new model of China-U.S.major-country relationship.     

U.S. National Identity,Political Elites,and a Patriotic Press Following September 11

In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001, U.S. government and military leaders often articulated distinctly pro-American themes in their public communications. We argue that this national identity discourse was at the heart of the U.S. government's attempt to unite the American public and to mobilize support for the ensuing "war on terrorism." With this perspective, we content analyzed Time and Newsweek newsmagazines for the five weeks following September 11 to identify potential communication strategies employed by government and military leaders to promote a sense of U.S. national identity. Findings suggest (a) that government and military officials consistently emphasized American core values and themes of U.S. strength and power while simultaneously demonizing the "enemy," and (b) that journalists closely paralleled these nationalist themes in their language.     

Stagnation in U.S.-Africa Military Policy after U.S. Servicemembers’ Deaths in Niger

This article examines how events unfolded in the aftermath of the deaths of American servicemembers in Niger in 2017. It shows that there was remarkably little casualty aversion on the part of either the American public or the elites and examines why U.S. military policy towards Africa is so resistant to change, even when circumstances appear propitious.     

美国战略重心东移的军事步骤及中国的应对策略建议

奥巴马政府就职以来,美国战略重心东移的态势不断加强,美国比过去更加重视亚太地区,并制定实施了较为系统的战略。奥巴马政府的第二任期开始后,继续实施其战略重心东移战略。军事方面的投入是美国战略重心东移的最重要基础和核心内容。美国战略重心东移的军事步骤对中国和亚太局势产生了重要影响。     

美国对以色列军援政策的变化及其成因

自以色列建国以来,维护其生存和安全是美国历届政府一直不变的承诺,向以色列提供军事援助就是保障其安全的重要举措。美国主要从现实主义出发,根据其全球战略的需要来决定它对以色列提供军事援助的力度。由于美国在不同时期内对全球目标特别是中东战略目标有所不同,美国对以色列的军援政策也随之变化和调整,经历了一个限制——积极——以军援为施压手段——制度化——强化的演变过程。从未来发展看,美国与以色列在相当长时期内仍然互有所需,战略盟友关系不会变,美国对以色列的军援政策也基本上不会变。     

2004年美、日、韩3国的军事发展动向与东北亚政局

2004年在美国军事加快东移的背景下,日韩也采取了大肆扩充军备的政策。这不仅会在今后几年打破东北亚地区已有的相对军事战略平衡,引发军备竞赛的升级。同时,对该地区热点问题的解决也会带来直接影响,地区内国家间的相互猜疑和不信任会进一步增强。     

Demographic Changes and U.S. Foreign Policy

The demographic shift in America may well strengthen U.S. foreign policy, as well as military capability and economic competitiveness. In a globalized world, America's ethnic diversity, the innovation that comes from bringing the best and the brightest from around the world to this country, and the fact that a diverse population becomes a stakeholder class could all work to ensure that the United States remains the most influential nation in the world.     

Mediation in War: Winning Hearts and Minds Using Mediated Condolence Payments

When an Iraqi noncombatant civilian is killed in the crossfire between the U.S. military and insurgents, the victim's family can apply for a "condolence payment" of up to $2,500 as a token of condolence and sympathy. As the process currently stands, the family member is handed a sum of money by U.S. personnel and ushered out the door. In this model, money equals apology. In this article, the author argues that the efficacy and efficiency of the current condolence payment program could be greatly increased by adding Arab-Muslim mediation techniques tailored to Iraqi culture. Mediation would fill a gap in the current program to help foster a constructive, stabilizing dialogue between the U.S. military and aggrieved Iraqi civilians. The author believes that with each positive, mediated interaction — each reconciliative engagement between an aggrieved Iraqi civilian, a mediator, and a U.S. military representative — the U.S. military can prevent today's aggrieved Iraqi parent, sibling, or child from becoming tomorrow's insurgent.
This article was written with two goals. The implementation of a mediated condolence payment program, even on a limited or pilot basis, would likely increase the chances of American success in Iraq and improve the daily lives of Iraqi civilians. If it is not possible to implement such a program in Iraq before American involvement there ends, then it may still have value as an important component of the post-conflict nation-building playbook of the U.S. and other foreign forces.     

Why the U.S. Military Budget is ‘Foolish and Sustainable’

What defense budget the United States should have and what defense budget it can afford are separate questions. The debate raging in Washington about Pentagon spending ignores the distinction. Doves insist that we need a more modest military strategy because the current one is wasteful and economically unsustainable. Hawks say that the current approach is sensible and affordable. This article takes a third path, arguing that U.S. military policy is likely to remain extravagant because it is sustainable. We adopted our current strategy—which amounts to trying to run the world with the American military—because we could, not because it was wisest. Wealth and safety make the consequences of bad defense policy abstract for most U.S. taxpayers. So we buy defense like rich people shop, ignoring the balance of costs and benefits. We conflate ideological ambition with what is required for our safety. Unfortunately, the current political demand for austerity and fewer wars will only temporarily restrain our military spending and the ambitions it underwrites.