代写范文

留学资讯

写作技巧

论文代写专题

服务承诺

资金托管
原创保证
实力保障
24小时客服
使命必达

51Due提供Essay,Paper,Report,Assignment等学科作业的代写与辅导,同时涵盖Personal Statement,转学申请等留学文书代写。

51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标
51Due将让你达成学业目标

私人订制你的未来职场 世界名企,高端行业岗位等 在新的起点上实现更高水平的发展

积累工作经验
多元化文化交流
专业实操技能
建立人际资源圈

American policy in east Asia

2019-02-27 来源: 51due教员组 类别: 更多范文

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的assignment代写范文- American policy in east Asia,供大家参考学习,这篇论文讨论了美国的东亚政策。冷战后,东亚政策在美国战略体系中的地位地呈现出持续上升的趋势。美国实现东亚政策目标主要通过外交手段,靠传统的盟友网络、与中、俄、印的大国协调、与其它国家的双边关系网络追求其东亚政策目标。

American east Asia,美国的东亚政策,assignment代写,paper代写,北美作业代写

A first attempt should be made to give a broad definition of the concept of U.S. policy in east Asia. To comprehensively define a country's regional policy, it can be explained from at least two levels: in terms of the connotation of the concept, the policy should include a set of target system to be pursued by the country, the order of the importance of the goal and the means to achieve the goal; In the extension of the concept, it is necessary to define the corresponding scope of this policy and its positioning in the larger policy system. The Americans themselves have not clearly defined the significance of their own east Asia policies, but from the above two aspects, we can roughly summarize a relatively stable and sustained American east Asia policy framework.

First, the positioning of east Asia policy in the us global strategy. America's global strategy revolves around Eurasia. American geopolitical strategists from mahan to brzezinski have put forward different views on the policy block division and strategic priorities of Eurasia. From the perspective of the realistic trend of American policy after the cold war, its continental strategy can be roughly divided into four parts: the European region, including the main European Allies of the United States; Areas of the former Soviet union, including those affected by Russian influence; The Middle East, including most islamic countries; Greater east Asia, including northeast Asia, southeast Asia and thus the expansion of South Asia, the former Oceania region. The trend of the United States' policy towards these four strategic blocks after the cold war is as follows:

After the cold war, the status of east Asia policy in the American strategic system has been on the rise. After the cold war, the United States continuously shifted its power to east Asia. Although this shift has been interrupted by terrorist attacks and the war on terror, in the long run the growing importance of east Asia is arguably the most significant development in the us global strategic system. Economically, greater east Asia, which excludes South Asia, accounts for a third of the world's population, a quarter of its GDP and 37% of America's exports. It accounts for "a disproportionate share of global growth" because "eight of the world's 10 fastest-growing countries are here". More important than its economic potential, east Asia is home to "established powers -- Japan and rising powers -- China"; south-east Asia is the "second front" in global counter-terrorism; and on the periphery of the region are rising powers like India and resurgent Russia. As a result, "east Asia is critical to U.S. national security interests in every facet of the equation -- geopolitical, diplomatic, military, economic and trade."

The scope of U.S. policy in east Asia. Geographically, east Asia includes China, Japan, South Korea, Korea, Mongolia and the far east part of Russia. Politically, east Asia also includes southeast Asian countries with similar race and geography. However, when describing its regional policies, the United States generally avoids using "east Asia" and calls it "asia-pacific". What the United States wants to build is the "asia-pacific community" led by the United States. Therefore, the United States is opposed to any form of "east Asian community". The appellation of "asia-pacific" not only includes the United States geographically, which makes the United States famous in this region, but also allows more American Allies and regional powers to join in, which improves the strategic flexibility and manipulation ability of the United States. However, the core of America's asia-pacific policy is still east Asia and southeast Asia, and the relationship between the United States and peripheral countries is carried out around the strategic goals of east Asia.

The goal of U.S. policy in east Asia. In his statement to congress in March 2006, secretary of state for east Asian and Pacific affairs Christopher hill defined the U.S. policy objectives in east Asia as "democracy, prosperity, stability, security and peace" under the U.S. "global goals". In east Asia, it is about promoting what rice calls "democracy, good governance, and international responsibility." In a 2005 congressional speech, acting assistant secretary of state for Asia and the Pacific John Revere ranked U.S. policy goals in the region, saying that "maintaining regional stability is at the top of all strategic goals, complementing our responsibility to strengthen regional prosperity and democracy." The following table gives an overview of the major objectives and priorities of U.S. policy in east Asia.

The way to achieve your goals. The United States achieved its policy objectives in east Asia mainly through diplomatic means. The specific forms of diplomatic means include at least three:

Bilateral diplomacy: including the traditional network of Allies, coordination with China, Russia and India, and bilateral relations with other countries.

Multilateral diplomacy: participating in regional international organizations, such as APEC; Participate in thematic multilateral dialogue mechanisms, such as the six-party talks.

Diplomacy with regional organizations: including talks with asean, relations with SPC and PIF, etc.

Among these three diplomatic approaches, bilateral diplomacy occupies an absolute dominant position in the east Asian diplomatic system of the United States. In his congressional address, hill actually laid out a broad framework for U.S. bilateral diplomatic relations in east Asia.

The United States pursues its east Asia policy objectives primarily through this vast network of bilateral relations. Among them, the alliance system formed with "five Allies and an important partner" is a strategic legacy of the cold war, and is regarded as the foundation and core of the us' influence. With the rise of China's power, how to position the bilateral relations with China and how to deal with the internal relations adjustment caused by this is a controversial and challenging issue within the decision-making department of the United States.

To sum up, we can roughly define the us policy towards east Asia as the sum of its policies towards east Asia and southeast Asia. The content of these policies is dominated by bilateral diplomatic relations and contains some thoughts beyond bilateral relations. The so-called "thinking beyond bilateral relations" includes some strategic elements: how to lay out various relations to achieve different levels of policy objectives. This kind of thinking reflects the American decision-makers' understanding of the objective political situation and brings about the new changes of American policy in east Asia.

Decision-makers' understanding of regional political situation is influenced by their political ideas. The political ideas held by the us government largely determine how they respond to the changes in regional political reality and how they define the four elements of their east Asian policy framework: policy orientation, policy scope, policy objectives and sequencing, and the way of policy implementation. The strategic thinking of the us government has long been influenced by the interaction of four political concepts: isolationism, realism, liberalism, offensive realism or neoconservatism. Barry Posen and Andrew Ross have divided the four strategic modes of the United States:

Different political ideas not only have different understanding of objective political reality, but also have conflicting behavior patterns. On the one hand, American political strategy is a combination of four political ideas. This makes the policies and behaviors of the United States show different aspects, and even show contradictions, repetitions and disorders from time to time. On the other hand, the relative influence of the four concepts is different in a certain period, which makes the American policies have a mainstream at most times and have certain stability and regularity. The following picture roughly depicts the influence of four political concepts on American foreign policy after the cold war:

What the chart depicts is the general trend of America's foreign strategy. Specific to different regional policies, there may be quantitative or even qualitative differences. For example, since bush's second term, neoconservatism has been on the decline, but in terms of regional policies towards the Middle East, neoconservatism still maintains an overwhelming position. In terms of understanding the new features of U.S. policy in east Asia, the following features that this picture illustrates are of Paramount importance:

The influence of realism stably occupies a higher position. It is the backbone of American foreign strategy and the mainstream of American foreign policy in the long run. This is especially true in east Asian policy. This has helped maintain some stability in east Asian policy.

Liberalism and neoconservatism sometimes rise to dominance, but they are prone to decline and are hard to sustain. This is especially true in east Asian policy.

The influence of isolationism has long been low. Historically, the failure of U.S. policy in east Asia has fueled the most isolationist upsurge.

After the adjustment of the second term of the bush administration, the current strategic mode of the United States is: realism, neoconservatism, liberalism, isolationism. These political ideas and their sequence had an important influence on the characteristics of American east Asia policy. The following chart lists the main features of current U.S. policy in east Asia and shows how these features are influenced by political perceptions.

As can be seen from the figure, among the four main aspects of the us east Asia policy, the rising strategic status of east Asia and the us Asia Pacific policy with east Asia and southeast Asia as the core are two characteristics, which are influenced by the stability of realism in the us strategy and reflected as a long-term political trend. As for the ranking of policy objectives, the influence of realism has always been greater than that of liberalism since Clinton's second term, which has maintained a certain stability. Only the fourth feature, namely the policy means and implementation methods, is in a certain degree of change. With the decline of neoconservatism and the rise of realism and liberalism in bush's second term, the United States has made strategic reflection and policy adjustment on how to use diplomatic means to deal with the relations between Allies and great powers as well as the important political trends in the region.

With the decline of neoconservatism's influence on east Asia policy, secretary of state condoleezza rice began to adjust her diplomatic strategy towards east Asia, rethink the bilateral relationship network and understand the development trend of regional political trend after taking office. In his congressional address, hill mentioned four positive "trends" in east Asia that are shifting the region from a "cold war configuration" to a "new, uncertain political and economic structure. Regional cooperation; General stability, security and peace; Democratization trends. On the basis of this judgment, the United States re-established the "engagement" policy as the core of its foreign policy towards east Asia, and actively relied on diplomatic means to promote its strategic concept and achieve its strategic objectives. Diplomatic engagement has been clearly defined by hill as the primary means of resolving China's rise, the Korean peninsula issue and even counter-terrorism, that is to say, re-establishing diplomacy as the means of resolving all major regional issues, including core security issues.

The most important factor in the us's determination to pivot away from diplomacy and towards engagement is not this liberal assessment of regional trends but a typically realistic strategic assessment. From a realistic point of view, the most important strategic principle is the coordination of objectives and capabilities. As the United States is heavily involved in the Middle East, it is actually unable to solve security issues through unilateral means. The relatively limited power of the United States is more prominent when compared with the rapid growth of China's power, the decentralization and localization of terrorism, and the rise of nationalism in east Asia. The absolute power that the United States can put into and use in east Asia is relatively limited, which is the main driving force for the regional foreign policy adjustment of the bush administration.

Therefore, after rice took office, she put forward the slogan of "transformation diplomacy" as the new policy of bush's second term. In February 2006 in a speech at Georgetown university, rice transformation of diplomatic goal is defined as: "working with partners around the world, and support the democratic, able to respond to the requirements of the people, responsible country in the international system", "by can be understanding, communication, influential foreign policy, to promote the interests of the United States and security". The three goals of rice's "transformational diplomacy" -- democracy, good governance and international responsibility -- are demanding from top to bottom. In practice, the reverse is true. First, it requires other countries to fulfill their "international responsibilities". Second, it requires good governance. In her approach, rice made clear the importance of communication, cooperation and influence. In fact, it is through "engagement" that countries cooperate with the United States and integrate diplomatic resources to ensure the influence of the United States on various events.

East Asia is the focus of America's "transformational diplomacy". The "engagement" policy of the United States in east Asia mainly requires countries in the region to assume greater "international responsibilities", strengthen coordination and cooperation with the United States on various issues of concern to the United States, make up for the deficiency of absolute power in the region through the use of diplomatic influence, and achieve the set goals of the east Asia policy. It should be made clear that the us policy of "engagement" does not amount to "concession" or "appeasement". Both "engagement" and "repression" emphasize an active, positive posture by the United States, rather than a contracting, negative one. The difference is that the "engagement" policy relies on alliance and cooperation to eliminate security threats, such as terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the Korean nuclear issue. Balancing power to ease the pressure of China's rise and stabilize regional conflicts; Strengthening trade through dialogue and promoting economic cooperation; We should promote regional democratization and human rights building in a more tolerant, communicative and rewarding manner. To this end, the United States has implemented a series of relevant measures within the original east Asia policy framework.

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明:原创assignment代写范文源自编辑创作,未经官方许可,网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为,未经同意的情况下,51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有assignment代写、essay代写、paper代写服务。

51due为留学生提供最好的assignment代写服务,亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多assignment代写范文 提供北美作业代写服务,详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ:800020041。

上一篇:Documentary revival 下一篇:Aristocratic education in earl