Offshore Balance And Selective Intervention In Us Asia-pacific Strategy

The Asia-Pacific strategy of the United States is different from the excessive military intervention during the Cold War period,but it is also different from the stand-off period of the isolationist strategy.The Asia-Pacific strategy of the Obama administration seems to have chosen the compromise between the two.In different regions and countries of the Asia-Pacific region,the implementation of policies not only includes cooperation and contacts,but also reflects balance and mandatory intervention.Then,how to define the United States' Asia-Pacific strategy during the Obama administration period and its adjustment factors from the theoretical level has become the core issue of this paper.This article uses the offshore balance and selective intervention proposed by Robert Arter in the "U S.Grand Strategy" to define the US Asia-Pacific strategy and compares the similarities and differences between the two.Whether it is offshore balance or selective intervention,it emphasizes maintaining the regional balance of power,preventing the emergence of regional hegemonic countries and safeguarding the national interests of the United States.But the two are also different.From the perspective of the nature,the balance of the off-shore side has the passiveness to emphasize peacetime independence and isolation.The selective intervention has the initiative and emphasizes the necessity of taking a defensive frontier military presence.From the perspective of means.Balance of responsibility in offshore use adopts a strategy of shirking responsibility and shirks the responsibility of the potential regional hegemonic countries to allies or other countries in the region.Selective intervention adopts maintaining its own military presence in Eurasia and shaping regional politics through cutting-edge interventions.Economic and military structure.Through the research on AHP,this paper finds that in interpreting a country's foreign strategy,it is limited to the simple listing of all elements,and does not analyze the logical relationship between the various elements.Therefore,the article quotes the theory of neo-classical realism.On this basis,regarding the influence of domestic factors,this paper compensates for neo-classical realism by only explaining the insufficiency of structural realism as an "exceptional example".It regards the international system as an independent variable and domestic factors(decision makers' perception and new isolation)as interventions.Variables,respectively,play a role in strengthening and suppressing,forming a complete analysis framework and enhancing the integrity and logic of interpretation.In order to explain the application of offshore balance and selective intervention during the Obama administration,this paper presents examples of evasive responsibilities in offshore balancing,enumerating examples of evasive responsibilities to China during the Korean nuclear crisis and the use of Sino-Japanese contradictions to curb the rise of China.In the intervening regional disputes,this paper uses the United States to promote the Korean Peninsula and actively participate in the case of the South China Sea.Regarding the influencing factors of the Asia-Pacific strategic adjustment,the Asia-Pacific region as a fundamental influence mechanism is mainly discussed in terms of China's accelerating economic growth,the decline of the US' s dominant position,and the rise of the strategic position in the Asia-Pacific region.The US domestic factors as the mechanism of intervention influence this paper.From the Cognitive Differences of Policymakers and the Influence of Domestic Neo-isolationism.This article provides a unique theoretical analysis perspective for the interpretation of a country's strategic behavior through theoretical analysis of Obama' s Asia-Pacific strategy and the reasons for its transformation.It also provides a reference for the next government' s Asia-Pacific strategic analysis.