In George W. Bush's second term, out of the need of counter-terrorism, the US strategy toward China was engagement. Now it is from contact to double-sided betting. It doesn't want to take China as an opponent, but it wants to guard against China and turn China into a partner. Calm down and see the trend of comprehensively containing China. The current capacity of the United States is not enough. (Southern Metropolis Daily www.nddaily.com Southern Metropolis Daily Mark Dunan Net)

The reasons for America's return to the Asia-Pacific region are complicated. There are five specific reasons. The first is the strategic game reason of geopolitics. China's influence in the Asia-Pacific region is too great now. As a world leader, the United States must regain its influence in this key region. The second reason is geo-economy. The Asia-Pacific region is currently the most economically active region in the world. China has made great contributions to the economic vitality of this region. The original four little dragons, including Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand and other "four little dragons", are also full of confidence. Together with India, so many countries and Qi Xin have made concerted efforts, and the regional economy is very active. If the United States is excluded from this region, its position as the boss is worrying, so it announced its return and wanted to take the lead. The third reason is internal affairs. The Obama administration believes that George W. Bush made a strategic mistake during his eight years in power, that is, he positioned anti-terrorism too high and positioned it as a war on terrorism. Everything revolves around it, paying attention to Central Asia and Southeast Asia and ignoring East Asia. George W. Bush's mistake is Obama's opportunity. This statement is very strange from the perspective of a third party. Because in the entire Asia-Pacific region, the United States has always been one of the leading forces after the war, and back to the Opium War, American power has always been there. It is strange to claim this now, but it is understandable from the perspective of American party politics. The pendulum swung back, deliberately saying "America is back". Just like the diplomacy that the Obama administration is now desperately emphasizing is called "smart power diplomacy", people in the Bush administration are very angry when they hear it. The implication is that their diplomacy in those years was "stupid diplomacy".

The fourth is personal reasons. President Obama was sworn in on October 20th, 2009/KLOC-0. When he met with reporters on February 6th, he announced that he was the first Pacific President in American history. Because all American presidents have a European background, he was born in Hawaii and lived in Indonesia for seven years, and he has personal feelings and interests in the Asia-Pacific region. Secondly, Hillary is a secretary of state with strategic thinking and wants to make contributions. She is different from Rice, who is an expert on Russian issues and her personal interest is dealing with Russia. Hillary does not have this strategic burden, so she can jump out and see that the Asia-Pacific region is linked to the future national movement of the United States. It is precisely because Hillary is not deeply involved in diplomacy that she can look at the future of the United States objectively, which will help her support Obama's diplomatic strategic shift. The third key figure is the specific trader, that is, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs Campbell. He and Hillary have a good personal relationship and are highly valued. From the president to the minister to the director, it happens to be a team.

The last reason is that China's neighboring countries are now worried about China and demand that the United States come back to balance China. This opportunity is rare for the United States. For example, an RF was first introduced by former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir in 1993, with the motive of driving the United States out. Feeling that the United States has always dominated Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia, he was disgusted and set up a forum in this region to exclude the United States. Ironically, now they are worried about China and collectively demand that the United States come back.

The first point is directly related to China, the second and fifth points are indirectly related to China, and the third and fourth points have nothing to do with China. Since there are various motives for the United States to return to the Asia-Pacific region, it cannot be said that the high-profile return of the United States is entirely to contain and contain China, which is not true.

The United States has returned to the Asia-Pacific region with high profile. The latest progress is 65438+10.5, and the United States released a new military strategy report, Maintaining America's Global Leadership in the 20th Century and America's National Defense Agenda in the 20th Century. This report juxtaposes China and Iran, which makes the situation very tense. Soldiers have a professional nature, that is, to prepare for the worst. However, the military strategy is only a part of the overall strategy of the United States, and the US strategy toward China is still a double-sided bet. Generally speaking, it has not yet moved towards containment.

Comprehensively curb China's insufficient production capacity

The impact of America's return to the Asia-Pacific region next depends on America's ability. In the long run, it is impossible for the United States to completely contain China. There are structural constraints and policy constraints. There are three main structural limitations. First, internal affairs and human constraints. Obama's re-election this year will not be very smooth, but my personal judgment is that he will still win. Even if you win, your political status will not be too high. Now the house of representatives is the majority of the party, and the Senate and the party may take it away. In this way, even if Obama is re-elected, he will still be a weak president, facing the unity of the Senate and the House of Representatives and the parties. Even if Obama is re-elected, according to various circumstances, Hillary may no longer be the Secretary of State. She wants to be a justice. If she leaves, Campbell will follow. This means that Obama's "hands and feet" are gone. Another possibility is that * * * and the party's Romney came to power. Whether he will attach importance to the Asia-Pacific like Obama is still a question mark.

The second structural constraint is financing. America has no money now. The United States is fighting all over the world and finally faces a dilemma, that is, lack of money. For example, Myanmar wants to snatch Myanmar from the arms of China, and Myanmar also has high expectations for the United States. Hillary Clinton's visit to Myanmar was heated by the media, saying it was the first visit by the US Secretary of State in 50 years. However, when Hillary left, the Myanmar government and the media were very disappointed, because Hillary left only $6.5438+$2,000, and said that it would be used to support civil society. Myanmar had expected billions of dollars to solve its livelihood problems. 2065438+001October, 165438+ Obama returned to Indonesia, which was also very lively. Indonesia also made a statue of Obama. But when we finally left, Indonesia's Jakarta Post said that he came to us and was very kind to us. He only left us a story in the end. Comparatively speaking, Chairman Wu Bangguo went to Indonesia a week ago and signed an agreement worth more than 6 billion dollars, which is real money. America has no money, which is fatal. These small countries in the Asia-Pacific region all put their interests first. It is not enough to just shout slogans without bringing benefits. (Southern Metropolis Daily www.nddaily.com Southern Metropolis Daily Mark Dunan Net)

The third structural constraint is the containment of other regions. The United States is the world's boss, but it also has great responsibilities. In early February of last year, Javier Solana, the former leader of the European Union, complained in Washington that if the United States paid too much attention to the Asia-Pacific region and neglected Europe, it would make a big strategic mistake. Of course, part of it is objective analysis and part is jealousy. Europe is now in a difficult period of debt crisis. If these little brothers in Europe fall down and fall into crisis, it will be a trouble for the United States. After all, Europe and the United States are politically integrated, culturally integrated and safely integrated, and the United States will save them. Compared with George W. Bush, the Middle East has reduced the "war on terrorism" to "anti-terrorism action", and its position in the Middle East has also declined. But after all, the Middle East is extremely important to the global strategy of the United States. The Middle East will be in chaos in the next few years, and there will definitely be a long reshuffle and structural adjustment. The United States will not sit idly by and watch Islamic extremism pick peaches, and then the United States will be the big head. But in fact, this possibility is very high. Elections held in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt were all won by Islamic extremist forces, and this year's Libyan elections are the same in all likelihood. At the same time, after the Russian Duma election, Russia-US relations also fell to freezing point because of different political ideas. It seems difficult for the United States to restart relations with Russia. It is also troublesome for Russia to create trouble for the United States. Another area is Latin America. At the beginning of February last year, 65438+, Latin America held a Latin American and Caribbean Forum, excluding the United States and Canada, which also challenged the authority of the United States. In fact, the global strategic layout of the United States is most concerned about Latin America, which is its backyard. The past was never a big problem, so I didn't care too much. Last but not least, China's neighboring countries invited the United States to come back and play a balanced role, wanting a "security guard" instead of a "chairman". However, the Anglo-Saxon personality is a nomadic people at sea. If they don't come, they will take the lead. They are "three people, I will be your teacher", and their original intentions are different, so there will be contradictions.

Tactical attack masked strategic retreat.

Then there is the constraint of the policy itself. After the high-profile return of the United States, it was a three-pronged approach. Politically, the United States will participate in and dominate the existing East Asian cooperation framework. Eventually, these countries will be forced to choose a side station between China and the United States. Most of these countries are opportunistic, want to eat China economically and rely on the United States for security. They will be unwilling to force them to choose a side station, and the final result may not be as expected by the United States. The second is TPP, which wants to bypass China. The idea is good, but it is difficult to practice. Because in the past ten years, a natural market has been formed around China, and it is impossible to create one artificially. This lie is the same as Stalin's attempt to bypass the global market and create a "parallel market" in the early 1950s. It is reasonable to intervene and play a role. TPP is now nine participating countries, and Japan is ready to participate in the negotiations, but Japan as a whole is not ready. Japanese Prime Minister Noda Yoshihiko's promise to participate in the negotiations itself caused an uproar in Japan, and then he hastily clarified that the United States misunderstood his meaning. Without Japan's participation, it is meaningless to rely on Singapore, Brunei, Vietnam and other countries to participate.

Militarily, the United States is not capable enough now. Objectively speaking, it takes money to upgrade old allies and develop new partnerships. China's military strength has developed rapidly in recent years, so it is impossible for these countries to form an alliance with the United States and directly confront China. Militarily, the United States has declined. The United States did not station troops in Australia, and now it will station troops in Darwin Harbour, with 250 troops in 20 12 and 2,500 troops in the next five years. In fact, it is to prepare for the withdrawal of its military forces in the western Pacific from the first island chain to the second island chain.

Throughout the Cold War, the United States has always placed its naval and air power in the first island chain around China. The core of the first island chain is Taiwan Province Province, followed by the Korean Peninsula and Japan. The second island chain Guam is the spine, plus the Philippines; The third island chain is Australia plus Hawaii. The United States once had absolute air and sea control over China. It is not afraid of you, but it has troops stationed at your door. Therefore, we directly stationed troops in the first island chain, three bases in South Korea and two bases in Japan. It turns out that Taiwan Province Province has a base, which is supported by selling weapons after its withdrawal, and still belongs to the sphere of influence of the United States. Just build a supply base (Guam) on the second island chain. The problem now is that China's navy and air force are developing too fast. At the beginning of last year, the Committee on China-US Relations, the executive branch of the US Congress, published a report by Watzl, a former foreign affairs commissioner in China. According to the report, since last year, China has been able to disable the US military base in the first island chain within half a day only by relying on missile power. (Southern Metropolis Daily www.nddaily.com Southern Metropolis Daily Mark Dunan Net)

Last June165438+1October 17, Obama visited Australia and signed an agreement with Prime Minister Gillard to establish a base in Darwin Harbour. The day before, the United States and Japan reached an agreement to evacuate 8,000 Marines from Okinawa to Guam. At the end of February, Japan and the United States signed an agreement to transfer dozens of F 15 aircraft from Okinawa to Guam. The United States has begun to change its military deployment. First-line departments began to be located in the second island chain, and then they needed to establish the Darwin Port base in the third island chain. In fact, it is a tactical attack to cover up its strategic retreat.

Therefore, although the United States has returned to the Asia-Pacific region with high profile, it has also had a real impact. For example, Vietnam and the Philippines are tougher on China on the South China Sea issue in China, and the South China Sea issue will further heat up in the future. China needs to attach great importance to it, but it should also be calm and not nervous. Historically, when China suffered such losses and took the external situation seriously, it usually stayed at home, making misjudgments and making wrong decisions. China should be confident, focusing on domestic affairs, economic and social construction, steady political transformation and preventing it from getting out of control.