美國第45任總統唐納德•特朗普上任已一月有餘。這位看似“不按常理出牌”的總統究竟會將美國的南海政策將帶向何處已成為國際社會各位觀察人士熱議的話題。從1月24日白宮發言人在新政府第一次記者會上宣稱，將捍衛美國在南海的“國際利益”，到2月份“卡爾•文森”號航母戰鬥群巡航南海，特朗普政府的南海政策似乎在日益強硬。但正如許多觀察家所言，特朗普團隊對南海問題缺乏了解，其南海政策亦顯得那麼的不成熟，而未來美國南海政策仍待觀察。

從最近特朗普本人及其團隊的言行看，未來美國的南海政策似乎將沿着奧巴馬的政策安排，繼續加強與中國在南海的地緣政治博弈，特別是對中國在南海的島礁建設表現尤為警戒。比如1月特朗普政府的提名國務卿蒂勒森公開表示，美國應阻止中國南沙島礁建設，並禁止中國靠近這些島礁。相比於奧巴馬政府的南海政策，蒂勒森的強硬之程度有過之而無不及。而2月特朗普上台後首次派遣航母編隊巡航南海，也似乎釋放出將繼續推行戰略東移、加強在南海軍事存在的信號。

但從目前看，無論官方人士的強硬措詞，還是南海巡航，似乎都只能說是特朗普正在試探中國在南海的底線和反應，新政府的南海政策仍是未定、未知。

同時，綜合分析特朗普團隊向外釋放的針對全球性問題的諸多信號，不禁讓人產生這樣的疑問：南海問題還會是美國新政府外交的優先議題嗎？

相比於台灣問題、人民幣匯率問題和“伊斯蘭國”問題，南海問題似乎是相對“次要”議題。特別是在台灣問題上，特朗普顯然比奧巴馬走的更遠。相較而言，特朗普對南海問題的表態要“低調”的多。

對於以商人為主的特朗普團隊，務實主義或者唯利益至上主義無疑將是新政府亞太戰略和對華政策最根本的指導。也正因如此，美國亞太戰略的核心利益重心將轉向美國經濟繁榮和國際經濟體系開放，而特朗普政府的南海政策將是全面和徹底的利益權衡結果。

2009年以來美國在南海問題上的投入可謂“得不償失”。特別是美國加強在東南亞地區軍事存在的同時，其對南海問題的強勢和高壓介入也使中國被迫採取戰略應對。美國實質上正在陷入自身所挑起的中美南海“螺旋”式對抗漩渦，此舉無疑增加了美國的外交、政治、軍事成本。相比之下，奧巴馬政府在南海問題上除了讓中國“難過”外，自身似乎一無所獲。

因此可以預測性推定，從現實利益角度看，南海問題將不會再是特朗普政府優先考慮的議題。

排除出優先議題行列並不意味着南海問題對美國不再重要，更不是說美國將採取“退縮”策略。實際上，美國在南海的根本利益訴求並未也不會發生調整，確保軍事活動擁有足夠的自由空間和軍事力量的壓倒性優勢，維護同盟和夥伴國體系穩定，掌控海上規則制定主導權，這些依然是其亞太戰略的最重要組成。

因此，特朗普政府雖不會將過多精力投入到與中國在南海的地緣政治競爭，但南海問題無疑是新政府牽制中國不錯的“籌碼”。特別是在“美國優先”政策框架下，特朗普政府可能將南海問題作為與中國在人民幣匯率、貿易保護主義等更廣泛領域談判時“討價還價”的一枚棋子，從而採取“靈活、動態”的南海政策。

在這種“靈活、動態”的政策框架內，美國既不會撤出在菲律賓、新加坡等南海周邊國家的軍力部署，也不會取消與菲、澳等國在南海的聯合軍事活動，且可能“有選擇性地”在南海炫耀其武力。特別是一旦中美在網絡安全、人民幣匯率等領域的博弈令特朗普政府感到不快，美國就可能利用在南海的活動向中國表示不滿，以此要挾中國退步。

在這種可能的“靈活、動態”南海政策框架下，中美南海博弈將呈現“震蕩”發展，其震蕩的節奏取決於中美在其他領域的較量。中美在南海的複雜博弈根源於彼此根深蒂固的結構性矛盾。雙方雖然採取了一系列有效的預防性外交措施，並建立各個層面的涉南海和海上問題信息交換與互信增進機制，但雙方的戰略猜疑難以短期內徹底消除，彼此圍繞守成大國和新興大國“思維定式”所引發的結構性矛盾亦不可能在短期內完全消解。

因此可以預見，南海在全球地緣政治板塊中的重要性不會變，美國在南海的利益訴求始終沒有變，美國對其亞太盟友和夥伴國的合作性戰略也不可能變。

就目前而言，特朗普政府與中方對彼此的南海政策仍缺乏足夠了解。尤其是特朗普團隊仍未對新政府的南海政府作出系統和正式的表態。中國尚無法確定特朗普未來南海政策走向，而特朗普政府對中國南海政策主張究竟了解多少仍然值得探討。作為當前中美關係發展繞不過的議題，南海問題將是未來至少4年內兩國政府不得不面對的挑戰。2月28日，應美方邀請中國國務委員楊潔篪正式訪問美國。此舉為兩國關係緩和釋放了積極的信號。期待中美兩國能以此次磋商交流為一個好的開端，共同推動兩國首腦會晤，秉着照顧彼此關切、合作共贏的理念，加強對南海問題的對話磋商。也期待特朗普政府能保持理性和剋制，從而為兩國南海博弈的緩和與妥善處理創造條件。

Donald J. Trump has been in office for a month. Where this seemingly unconventional president will take the US's South China Sea policy is a matter of heated debate among international observers. On Jan 24, at the first press conference of the new administration, a White House spokesman stated that the US intends to protect its interests there. Then, in February, a US Navy carrier strike group led by the USS Carl Vinson arrived in the South China Sea, signalling a tough stance from Trump. But, as many observers have pointed out, people on Trump's team seem to lack understanding of the issue. Their policy lacks maturity, so its future direction is unknown.

From the recent remarks of administration officials, their policy appears to be heading in the same direction as Obama's, but will continue to intensify the geopolitical game with China, especially by appearing alarmed at China's island-building in the area. In January, Rex Tillerson, whom Trump nominated for Secretary of State, stated that the US should send a clear signal that the island-building must stop and China's access to those islands is not allowed. This already goes far beyond the Obama administration's South China Sea policy. The first dispatch of an aircraft carrier strike group to the area in February shortly after Trump took office also seems to signal a strategic shift eastward and toward a greater US military presence in the region.

At present, however, despite the tough language of some officials and the dispatch of the US Navy strike group, it seems that Trump is testing China's limits and reactions, and that the new administration's policy on this issue is undecided.

An analysis of the signals released by Trump's team regarding global issues begs the question: Is the South China Sea really a priority of the new government's foreign policy?

Compared to the sticky areas of Taiwan, the RMB exchange rate and the so-called Islamic State, the South China Sea seems a relatively minor issue. On the Taiwan issue in particular, Trump has gone further than Obama whereas Trump has remained relatively restrained on the “freedom of navigation” issue.

Trump's business-oriented team will undoubtedly adopt an Asia-Pacific strategy and China policy guided by pragmatism and US interests above all else. It is precisely because of this that the focus of the US's Asia-Pacific strategy will shift toward ensuring its own economic prosperity and opening up the international economic system, while the Trump administration's South China Sea policy will reflect a careful weighing of interests in the region.

Since 2009, US intervention in the South China Sea has netted more losses than gains. This is particularly true of its increased military presence in Southeast Asia, as its aggressive and high-handed interference has drawn a strategic response from China. The US is actually caught in a spiralling whirlpool of its own making, which has undoubtedly increased the diplomatic, political and military costs for the US. Other than giving China a hard time, the Obama administration gained nothing over the sea issue.

One can presume that, with its focus firmly on real interests, the Trump administration will not prioritize the issue.

However, this does not mean that the South China Sea will no longer be important to the US. Nor is the US likely to beat a retreat. In fact, there has not been, and will not be, any change to the fundamental US interest there. Making sure it has overwhelming military superiority and sufficient free space to carry out military activities, maintaining stable alliances and relationships with partner countries, and having the power to formulate and control maritime rules will remain the most important parts of its Asia-Pacific strategy.

Although the Trump administration will not give excessive attention to its geopolitical competition with China in the sea, the issue will undoubtedly become a tool that the US can use to contain China. Within the “America First” framework, the Trump administration may use the issue as a bargaining chip in negotiations with China on issues such as the RMB exchange rate and trade protectionism, hence the possibility of a flexible and changing US sea policy.

Nevertheless, within this policy framework, the US will not withdraw its military from the Philippines, Singapore and other countries near the South China Sea, nor will it cancel its joint military activities with the Philippines, Australia and others, probably opting instead to put on selective shows of force. If the Trump administration is displeased with China over cyber security or the RMB exchange rate, the US will likely use its activities in the sea to express its displeasure and force China to retreat.

The game-playing between China and the US over this issue is a destabilizing development, which will be shaped by their contests in other fields as well as their deep-rooted structural contradictions. In spite of their diplomatic efforts and existing mechanisms for information exchange and confidence building, the strategic distrust between the two sides is not easily eradicated.

It can be predicted, therefore, that the South China Sea will remain geopolitically important, the US will continue to pursue its interests in the area, and it will continue to cooperate with allies and partners in the Asia-Pacific.

For the time being, there is a lack of understanding between the Trump administration and the Chinese government about each other's sea policy. The Trump team has still not formally and systematically laid out the new government's policy, and there are still doubts about how much the Trump administration understands China's stance on this issue.The South China Sea issue is a stumbling block in China-US relations and a challenge that both governments must address over at least the next four years. On Feb 28, Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi was formally invited to the US, a positive signal that may suggest more relaxed relations between the two countries. It is hoped that China and the US used this consultation to jointly promote a meeting between the two heads of state, so that the two sides can strengthen dialogue on the basis of respect for each other's concerns and the principle of mutual benefit through cooperation. It is also hoped that the Trump administration will remain rational and restrained so as to create the conditions to ease tensions and properly handle the sea issue.