過(guò)去半個(gè)世紀(jì)美國(guó)在亞太政治經(jīng)濟(jì)中扮演了什么角色？

Asia-Pacific is now at the centre of the world's economic growth. The Asia-Pacific region played a critical role in terms of export and investment for the U.S. On the other hand， the U.S. is seeking more cooperation with Asia-Pacific nations in global problems more and more of which it cannot solve alone. The new Asia-Pacific strategy has been the focus of the Obama government. However， it has not been changed in these core purposes. It is built around the grand strategies of the United States as ever.

One of the grand strategies of American foreign policy is 'realist in orientation， organized around containment， deterrence， and the maintenance of the global balance of power.'①During the Cold War， USA led the power to balance with a strong Soviet Union. On the other hand， as part of its \"liberal\" grand strategy， USA has been promoting a democratic， integrated economies and open markets. 'Bush the elder talked about the importance of the transatlantic community and articulated ideas about a more fully integrated Asia-Pacific region.'②

A paramount aspect of the U.S. asian pacific strategy can be found in the postwar alliance with Japan. As of 2004， the United States takes up 22.7% of Japanese exports， and supplies 14% of its imports.' ③At some point along Japan's path to a postwar miracle， it became more meaningful and necessary economically for the U.S. to further build on the alliance since 'between them Japan and the United States produce about 40 percent of the world's total output of goods and services， a serious dispute between the two economic superpowers could be ruinous for everybody.'④As part of the security partnerships that survived the end of the Cold War， Japan also gained 'security protection as well as a measure of regularity in their relationship with the world's leading military power.'⑤

Japan is， of course， not the only alliance that the U.S. has in the Asia-Pacific region. The alliances with the Republic of Korea， Australia， Thailand and the Philippines have served their purposes in providing peace and stability for over a half-century. Additionally， Indonesia， Vietnam， Mongolia， New Zealand， Singapore， Malaysia， and India have also become the regional partners of the U.S. To broaden the engagement with these alliances and partners is an important aspect of Obama Administration's Asia-Pacific strategy.

Some of such alliances go back to the Cold War when a number of asian countries relied on U.S. defense and aid. In the case of South Korea from the end of the Korean War in the early 1950s. This was recovery from \"hot\" war but it was taking place in the context of persisting cold war between the communist Soviet Union and China on the one hand and， on the other hand， the West， led by the United States. Several Asian countries were beneficiaries. One or two became forward bases for the United States， which spent heavily to help them reconstruct.⑥When the Cold War was near its end and U.S. aid was declining， some of the asian countries （especially the \"Little Dragons\"） were able to continue their growth in their own ways.

Engagement of the United States in the South Asia have traditionally been associated with its Pakistan-centric policy. But U.S. has also built an ever-evolving strategic partner with Pakistan's unfriendly neighbour - India. This was in part due to Pakistan's close relationship with China which was in turn a result of the India-factor and Pakistan's fears of being completely controlled by the U.S. on the middle east and anti-terrorism issues.

The U.S. relations with China is somewhat more complicated. Yet it is no doubt one of the most important bilateral relationship in the entire world. Due to the economic growth， China's military and political power is rising to a height like never before in modern time. Not only is it changing the balance of power since the end of the Cold War， the potential economic challenges such as the trading gap between the two nations， China's increasing political assertiveness， and the frustrating disputes on issues such as Human Rights are all raising serious concerns for the United States. Yet it is over-exaggerating to compare the current Sino-US relation to that between the former Soviet Union and the U.S. because the nature of conflicts in the Sino-American relation is mostly drawn on the the realistic interests instead of ideological differences. For one， it is not China's plan to break the current world balance of power by replacing certain party； there is no sign， in fact， of China changing its position or strategy yet. Secondly， there is a huge gap in the military and political power in the region. The web of power set up by the U.S. and its Asia-Pacific allies and partners is strong and constantly stabilized. Despite the conflicts， the two nations have all the reasons to work with each other on regional as well as global issues of various kinds.

Going further south to the southern hemisphere， Australia and New Zealand are as important to the Asia-Pacific political economy and the U.S. foreign policy as ever. Australia has always been a close ally with the U.S. since World War II. To some extend， Australia trusts the U.S. more than the United Kingdom. The close relationship has been kept till this day， during which period Australia has relied on the U.S. military technology to secure its place in southern Pacific Ocean. What has changed， however， is the volume and nature of economic cooperation that Australia is now having with Asian countries， especially with China. For its own interest Australia keeps its own agenda when it comes to China-related issues， which is not always aligned with America's China policy.

注釋：

①Ikenberry， J.， \"America's Imperial Ambition\"， Foreign Affairs， 2002， pp.44.

②Ikenberry， J.， \"America's Imperial Ambition\"， Foreign Affairs， 2002， pp.44.

③\"Japan - United States relations\"，Wikipedia， 25 October 2005， Wikipedia， 29 July 2011.

④ Jones， E. L.， \"Modern Japan and the Little Dragons\"， in E. L. Jones， Coming full circle： An economic history of the Pacific Rim， Melbourne， Oxford University Press， 1993， pp. 110.

⑤Ikenberry， J.， \"America's Imperial Ambition\"， Foreign Affairs， 2002， pp.44.

⑥ Jones， E. L.， \"Modern Japan and the Little Dragons\"， in E. L. Jones， Coming full circle： An economic history of the Pacific Rim， Melbourne， Oxford University Press， 1993， pp.113.

作者簡(jiǎn)介：周冰青，1983年1月，女，上海人，經(jīng)濟(jì)師、國(guó)家一級(jí)人力資源管理師、國(guó)家二級(jí)心理咨詢師，法學(xué)學(xué)士、國(guó)際經(jīng)貿(mào)碩士在讀，研究方向：國(guó)際經(jīng)貿(mào)、人力資源、行政管理。

（作者單位：上海市電力公司市北供電公司）