American Asia - Pacific Security Strategy Model And Its Check And Balance Behavior Logic After The Cold War

The doctrinal interpretation of America’s strategic behavior model of hegemonic maintenance is mainly from domestic scholar Qin Yaqing, he defined it under the basic analytic framework of international system structure. He regarded hegemonic maintenance as the power distance between the hegemonic state and other states, and the distance should be a constant which the hegemonic state believe it’s safe to him. However, scholars use this concept more widely after the Cold War, which makes the study of hegemonic maintenance to form four different approaches.The strategic behavior model of America’s Asia-Pacific security maintenance after the Cold War is a concept under the basic analytic framework of international system process, and the discussions of cooperation become the causal proposition between them. Meanwhile, the social evolution of international system process is corresponding to the strategic behavior model of America’s Asia-Pacific security maintenance considerably. We need to deconstruct the concept and find its basic strategic behavior in order to understand it better, thus the judgment method of dimensions-based is necessary. By contrasting, we find the strategic behavior of balancing in the meaning of Schweller and Mearsheimer can be the analytic foundation, but this balancing needs to be reconstructed in order to satisfy the requirement of basic strategic behavior. The way to reconstruct the concept is to break its one direction and construct it in multi-directions, thus the balancing which includes preventive direction, control direction and cooperative direction is in accord with the concept of basic strategic behavior. With changes of the Asia-Pacific security environment after the Cold War, America’s strategic behavior model of security maintenance needs transitions objectively, and transitions of balancing behavior is the core to transitions of security maintenance. Changes of the Asia-Pacific security environment require America’s strategic behaviors to conform with “leading path” and “integrating path”, while “inshore-balancing” which strengthens control balancing and “smart balancing” which strengthens preventive balancing may be the best choices. In practice, they focus on each other and constitute the basic contents of transitions of America’s security maintenance.After the Cold War, the South China Sea diplomacy of the U.S. is molding with the development of the international situations. The South China Sea diplomacy of the U.S. is a part of its regional marine foreign policies, which submits to the marine strategic planning and the Asia-Pacific strategic planning of America. After reviewing some important relative documents, it’s easy to find that the marine strategic planning and the Asia-Pacific strategic planning all highlight the cooperation, collaboration and the logic of collective actions, these are the outcomes of interdependence and mutual benefits brought about by the deep development of globalization in the new era. After reviewing the relationships between the U.S. and six South China Sea claimants, we find the strategic behavior model of America’s Asia-Pacific security maintenance is corresponding to its South China Sea diplomacy considerably. In the mean time, we can distinguish the U.S. core interests clearly and seize its fundamental footing of strategic deployment accurately by the strategic behavior model of security maintenance. Two kinds of transitions of balancing in the security maintenance also have a good prediction to the South China Sea diplomacy of U.S.. In the traditional security aspect, the South China Sea diplomacy of U.S will follow the “inshore-balancing” on the “leading path” and will focus more on the interoperability with its allied nation; In the Non-Traditional security aspect, the South China Sea diplomacy of U.S will follow the “smart balancing” on the “integrating path” and focus more on the trust and cooperation with China and partner nations.