美、日、俄、东盟的亚太安全战略及对地区安全的影响

美、日、俄、东盟亚太安全战略的共性是：都希望保持亚太地区和平与稳定、都主张建立地区多边安全机制、都希望同中国保持接触和发展正常的国家关系,但有各自特点。美、日、俄、东盟亚太安全战略对地区的影响是：美国的军事存在和同盟关系是影响21世纪初亚太安全形势的重要因素;美威慑下的稳定在一定程度上规定了中、美、日关系和亚太力量对比、亚太各种力量相互牵制可能出现一种相对平衡的局面、多边合作将是今后亚太安全合作的主要趋势、和平与稳定是亚太地区总趋势,但也有出现军备竞赛和外国军事干预的隐忧。     

亚太优先：美国亚太主导权战略探析

基于全球霸权护持的需要,美国对亚太地区日益重视。纵观冷战后美国亚太战略的演变,美国对亚太地区主导权更加关注,显著体现了美国全球战略布局中的"亚太优先"。自奥巴马政府伊始,美国的亚太主导权战略愈加明显,特朗普政府大体延续了这一态势。在战略环境评估方面注意亚太地区的战略价值提升、地区权力格局变动、安全形势日趋复杂和地区合作与地区秩序调整等因素;在战略利益方面关注美国在政治、经济、安全等领域的优势;在战略资源方面关注美国自身实力、盟国与伙伴、地区制度影响力和美国的权威;在战略实施方面采取了增加战略投入、强化联盟关系等手段。不过美国的亚太主导权战略也面临诸多限制,能否实现战略平衡至关重要。基于亚太主导权维护,美国对华战略趋向强硬的趋势短时期内将难以改变,中美两国在亚太地区的战略竞争会更加激烈。     

试析南海地区海上安全合作机制

南海地区海上安全合作正成为一个地区热点问题,美国、日本、东盟等域内外国家已经提出或正在推进相关的合作机制。从合作目标及合作紧密度方面分析,这些机制呈“多层次”结构,包括军事联盟性质的合作、有倾向的平衡合作、多边及双边合作和技术性多边合作等。从战略意图分析,美国及其盟国试图以传统安全合作机制调控该地区海上非传统安全合作进程,东盟则希望平衡各方力量,并借助大国提高自身安全能力。因此,在南海地区海上安全合作机制建设进程中,充满了相互防范和激烈竞争的气氛。中国在该地区海域面临传统安全机制的结构性排斥和能源安全双重挑战,有必要在重视传统安全威胁的同时,以务实精神促进地区的功能性安全合作。     

“北约亚太化”：联盟转型还是联盟扩员

近年来,北约对亚太地区的介入不断加深,呈现“北约亚太化”态势。“北约亚太化”主要受到地缘政治环境、美国对华竞争战略、欧洲盟国协调等因素影响,突出表现为以应对“中国挑战”为战略目标、以强化与亚太伙伴国家关系为主要手段、实现亚太与跨大西洋的安全联动。当前,对于“北约亚太化”的认知分歧主要聚焦于其属于联盟转型还是联盟扩员。通过比较分析联盟转型与扩员的条件,可以发现“北约亚太化”的实质是北约将联盟空间拓展至亚太地区,推动联盟转型。尽管北约积极加强与亚太国家间关系,但是双方之间的信任程度和互利水平有限,这使得“北约亚太化”难以发展为在亚太地区的联盟扩员。“介入亚太”已经成为北约的长期任务,会对中国周边安全、亚太地区局势与大国战略竞争造成不容忽视的影响。对此,中国需要加强与欧洲国家的经贸合作、巩固与亚太国家的务实合作、推动建立与完善包容性的地区安全机制,妥善应对“北约亚太化”。     

试析奥巴马政府亚太战略

奥巴马政府调整美国亚太战略,将美国全球战略和军事战略的重点转向东亚地区。其主要特点：一是高调宣示＂重返亚洲＂;二是通过加强与盟友关系和建立加入多边组织以强化美国在亚太地区的领导地位;三是加强美国在东亚和西太平洋地区的军事存在;四是争取区域经济合作的主导权;五是在地缘战略上以南海问题形成联盟。奥巴马政府亚太战略将受到经济上力不从心、以军事力量为主要手段支撑其亚太领导地位作用有限等因素的制约。但奥巴马政府调整美国亚太战略将使东亚地区特别是南海地区形势更加复杂化。     

“东向政策”遭遇“重返亚太”:美印在亚太地区的安全互动

美国的"重返亚太"政策和印度的"东向政策"现阶段以协调为主。美方援引印度势力为其所用,高度肯定印度的积极角色,积极鼓励印度在亚太地区发挥更大作用,主动开展各种形式的美印防务合作,推动建设中的东亚多边机制包容印度,鼓励印度在缅甸、斯里兰卡等地区热点问题上发挥作用。这种互动的地缘政治影响极为深远,将促使印度更大胆地东进亚太并更积极地参与东亚区域化进程。但美印分歧仍极为突出,印度极力维护其战略自主性,双方在地区战略重心上存在明显分歧,从而决定了两国战略难以合流。     

亚太地区安全结构转型与东盟的角色

冷战结束后,亚太地区的安全结构经历了巨大的变化,特别是当前中关两国在亚太地区发生"权力分享"乃至"权力转移"之际,亚太地区安全结构的调整尤为显著。一方面,以美国为枢轴的"同盟型"结构经历了由"轮辐体系"向"网络化"的转型,形成了新的同盟、准同盟和潜在同盟的层次化布局;另一方面,以中俄为代表的新兴经济体在强化原有的"协作型"安全架构的同时,又通过"一带一路""欧亚联盟"等战略性倡议重塑亚太乃至整个欧亚大陆的地缘战略态势。作为亚太地区安全结构中的"第三股力量",东盟通过对一系列多边安全机制的建设,既为两种大国主导的安全架构提供了对话平台,也已成为实现未来亚太地区整体性安全架构的可行性路径之一。与此同时,由于大国战略竞争的加剧,逐渐侵蚀了东盟聚合力、中立性乃至在整体性安全架构中的"中心地位"。未来亚太地区安全架构的解构和重构需要中关找到新的战略共识,并对东盟的中心地位进行"再确认"。     

美国新政府亚太安全战略趋势

美国新政府上台后的亚太安全战略关系到中国国家安全.对美国来说,亚太今天的重要性没有变,美国在该地区的国家利益没有变,亚太地区对美国的挑战没有变,因此,美国新政府的亚太安全战略基本框架将保持不变,但同时也将对上届政府的战略进行调整.美国新亚太安全战略的思路是以实力和国家利益为基本原则,以威慑和反应为主要特点,以加强同盟关系为主要支柱,以中国是"战略竞争对手"为理论起点,将中国视为美国亚太安全战略的防御重点.     

亚太地区秩序重塑与中美分歧“柔性”管控

在全球地缘重心东移的前提下,未来亚太地区新秩序的建立并保持相对稳定,或取决于包括中美在内的多重力量间的软权力均衡。与"硬权力均衡"多体现为"势均力敌"相比,"软权力均衡"主要体现为地区力量之间对彼此的认同、包容,及至实现和谐共处的一种状态。特朗普政府的亚太政策走向具有较强的不确定性,但实现美国在该地区的政治、经济、文化、安全等各领域利益最大化的目标,不会发生根本改变。中美只有正确看待彼此在亚太的结构性矛盾,理性认知彼此的软权力现状,"柔性"管控分歧,提升战略互信以促合作,亚太新秩序的建立方能实现。     

莫迪政府加强对亚太安全事务的介入

2014年莫迪上台执政以来,印度实施从“东向政策”到“东进政策”的战略调整,在政治、经济和安全等方面进一步融入亚太地区已经成为印度国家战略的重要部分。当前莫迪政府对亚太安全事务的介入主要依靠：以东盟为中心的多边安全机制加强海上安全合作;联合东南亚国家积极干预南海问题;与美日澳合作加强军事能力和军事存在;向南太平洋地区扩展影响力。印度加强对亚太安全事务的介入,一是因为印度拥有制衡中国的地缘政治利益,二是因为亚太地区是印度将影响力超越南亚次大陆、推进世界大国梦的优先方向。亚太地区之所以能成为其优先方向,主要是基于印度周边大国博弈的格局以及印度在亚太地区的文化和经济基础。由于印度北部陆地安全形势的牵制、印度与主要合作伙伴在对抗中国立场上的不一致,以及印度海军军备本土制造能力难以支撑远洋战略等因素,印度对亚太安全事务的介入仍然面临诸多制约。     

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。     

中美在亚太地区的安全矛盾：演变与逻辑

近年来,中美在亚太地区的安全矛盾持续发酵,逐渐形成安全利益、理念和地区安全秩序构想的全面对立态势,成为影响中美和平共处的重要因素。秩序疑虑与热点问题的对立是中美在亚太地区安全矛盾的主要表现。中美亚太安全矛盾的全方位突显,根本上源于两国力量对比的变化以及由此引发的权力转移态势,是中美总体力量差距背景下局部力量平衡的表现。这种力量平衡表现为:中国作为地区经济中心与美国作为地区安全中心的“二元结构平衡”;中国作为陆权大国与美国作为海权大国的“陆海权力平衡”;在中国近海区域,中美权力均衡态势初步形成。在此过程中,中美对既有安全矛盾管理的失效以及彼此安全威胁认知的反复塑造,客观上增强了矛盾对立的烈度,安全困境逐步形成。随着权力消长和政策互动,中美在亚太地区的安全困境,逐步呈现出从经典安全困境转向“国家引导型的安全困境”加剧的趋势。未来,中美亚太安全矛盾仍然会受到结构性因素的影响,而经济相互依存趋势、技术发展引发的军事威慑变化、意识形态竞争以及非传统安全合作等因素,则将决定既有安全矛盾是否会走向冲突。     

东盟国家的安全合作及其影响

东盟国家安全合作的目的是借助合作,实现优势互补,提高军队的作战能力,以镇压内乱和加强边境联防,共同抵御边界和海上的各种威胁。东盟成员间的安全合作主要围绕东盟地区论坛、成员国建立信任措施、南中国海争端、地区低烈度威胁及军事和防务等领域开展。东盟的安全合作是积极防御性质的合作,它将有利于亚太多边安全机制的建立。     

Alignment Cooperation and Regional Security Architecture in the Indo-Pacific

ABSTRACT

Although the US-led system of formal alliances remains the main pillar of the regional security architecture in Asia, alignment cooperation – centred on the Indo-Pacific maritime conceptualisation of the region – has been on the rise. This includes informal bilateral and minilateral agreements for security collaboration between regional and extra-regional US treaty allies or close security partners, notably Japan, Australia, India, the United Kingdom and France. While the various alignments complement and address the deficiencies of the formal US-led alliances, the functional and informal characteristics of alignments allow countries to pursue security cooperation both in conjunction with the United States and independently of it. This leads to a more fluid security architecture that increasingly reflects the diversity of emerging regional ‘architects’, among which Japan is assuming a leading role, as much as the region’s array of new security challenges.     

Rising to the Challenge: Europe’s Security Policy in East Asia amid US-China Rivalry

ABSTRACT

China’s growing power and assertiveness towards its smaller and weaker neighbours has been a wakeup call for the European Union and its member states which, as a result, have stepped up their involvement in East Asia. EU security policy in the region shows many elements of alignment with the United States, but also differences. In North East Asia, the EU has adopted harsh sanctions against North Korea but, contrary to the Trump administration which continues to seek regime change, has left the door open for dialogue. Moreover, the EU supports the process of trilateral cooperation among China, Japan and South Korea, while Washington has traditionally been lukewarm towards a process that excludes the US and risks being dominated by Beijing. The transatlantic allies also show differing approaches with regard to maritime disputes in the South China Sea. While EU security policy in East Asia is largely complementary to that of Washington, in some cases Europe tends – albeit inadvertently – to favour Beijing.     

全球安全倡议的文明基底、理论逻辑与实践路径

全球安全倡议根植于中华文明的连续性、创新性、统一性、包容性与和平性，并因此展现出以合作安全、开放安全、共同安全与多边安全为特征的理论逻辑。美国出于维护其全球霸权的动机，对亚太地区施加以竞争安全、封闭安全、分割安全和单边安全为特征的传统安全范式，导致该地区大国战略博弈日益加剧、安全阵营化趋势加快、安全困境螺旋上升和非传统安全竞争日趋升温，破坏了该地区的和平与稳定。全球安全倡议提供了一个新的安全范式，即以合作安全应对竞争安全、以开放安全对抗封闭安全、以共同安全替代分割安全、以多边安全超越单边安全。针对美国推行遏制中国的“印太战略”，全球安全倡议为实现亚太地区的普遍安全和持久和平提供了实践路径，包括促进地区大国良性互动、完善以东盟为中心的地区安全机制、塑造地区国家间的相互信任，以及强化地区非传统安全合作。     

The Quad,AUKUS, and I2U2 formats: Major lessons from minilaterals

Over the past two decades, a trend has emerged where US partners and allies look outside of their bilateral relationship with the United States and pre-existing multilateral bodies to join ad-hoc networks. They are joining these networks to both obtain their own security goods and to provide regional public goods. Yet, these ad-hoc networks, or “minilaterals,” often include multiple US allies or shared partners of the United States. For example, the revived Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) includes Japan, India, Australia, and the United States, encompassing two separate US treaty alliances. Similarly, the tripartite pact AUKUS connects the US-UK transatlantic alliance relationship to the US-Australia alliance in the Indo-Pacific. The newest addition to this growing trend in minilateralism, the I2U2, which redefine the Middle East as West Asia by bringing together the United States, India, Israel, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), provides additional insight into the benefits of minilaterals as mechanisms for organizing interstate cooperation.     

European perspectives towards the rise of Asia: contextualising the debate

To what extent can we speak of a distinctively ‘European’ security approach towards the Asia-Pacific region? In order to address that timely question, this article examines how Britain, France, Germany and the European Union (EU) are framing their evolving security roles in the Asia-Pacific region, and how those individual perspectives intersect with each other. The article identifies a number of important common features in Europe’s approaches towards security in the Asia-Pacific, namely the tendency of most European actors to emphasize the economic and diplomatic nature of their contribution to regional security, their promotion of regional multilateral security fora, their rejection of the notion that China’s rise is inherently challenging for regional and global security, and their willingness to signal their differences towards Washington’s emphasis on military power and alliance-based approach. However, and despite the existence of common traits, individual European actors show different degrees of closeness vis-à-vis the US and China and feature different perspectives regarding which security relationships they should prioritize in the region (if any), or the appropriate balance between diplomacy and security and defence cooperation. Such divergences prevent Europeans from developing a coherent security profile in the region and preclude us from speaking of a distinctively European security approach towards the Asia-Pacific.     

Partnerships for effective multilateralism? Assessing the compatibility between EU bilateralism, (inter-)regionalism and multilateralism

This article investigates the notion of ‘lateralisms’ and how various modes of engagement (namely bilateralism, regionalism and multilateralism) relate to one another. It begins with a careful analysis of the evolution of ‘lateralisms’ and their (in)compatibility at the global level, building on the existing literature from multiple research disciplines. The second part of this article focuses specifically on the European Union's (EU's) foreign policy approach. The author puts forward two main hypotheses. First, the EU has performed a rebalancing act between bilateralism and regionalism/multilateralism over the last decade in favour of the former, notably through the deepening of its so-called ‘strategic partnerships’. Second, this enhanced bilateralism is not necessarily compatible with other ‘lateralisms’, as it can at times undermine regional integration processes or the building of an effective multilateral order. The author eventually formulates some recommendations to ensure that bilateral partnerships are geared towards the strengthening of the multilateral fabric which remains the EU's fundamental and long-term objective.     

Chinese Strategic Thinking on Multilateral Regional Security in Northeast Asia

This article argues that multilateral mechanisms for addressing security issues in East Asia are weak and that a key reason is the hollowness of China's ostensible and much-touted commitment to multilateralism. This is especially troubling when the region faces major security challenges and regional relations (and China's approach to them) appear to be moving from “economics in command” to “security in command.” The article concludes with a prediction that “A coordinated approach to combining alliances and quasi-alliances exclusive of China with multilateralism inclusive of it will best test China's intentions during this decade.”