進入2017年以來，菲律賓南海仲裁案餘波未平，南海形勢卻又再起波瀾。在很多人為當前南海形勢趨於穩定而感到欣慰的時候，美國航母在特朗普上任後首次巡航南海和日本“出雲號”護衛艦進入南海，又在來之不易的南海相對平靜的水面上激起一層層波浪。如很多評論家所言，南海問題已經進入地緣政治競爭時代，而當前南海的和平穩定是那麼的脆弱。

當前南海形勢所呈現的是兩種截然不同且相互對立的景象。一方面，2016年下半年以來，在中國與東盟有關各國的共同努力下，有關各方就管控局勢達成了諸多共識，並取得了顯著的成效，因此，南海正在重回和平、穩定、合作的“常態”。杜特爾特上台後，中菲關係順利轉圜，兩國在南海的博弈也明顯趨於緩和，雙方正積極回歸到合作、對話的正軌。在多邊層面，中國與東盟十國也已就全面有效落實《南海各方行為宣言》和加快“南海行為準則”磋商進度達成共識，尤其是“準則”框架預計將於今年年中達成。

另一方面，美國及其部分盟國卻在極力推動南海形勢復歸“持續緊張”的局面。自特朗普上台以來，美國新政府在南海問題上可謂語出驚人，從揚言要阻止中國靠近南海島礁到派遣“卡爾·文森”號航母戰鬥群巡航南海，美國的一舉一動無不在給本已有所平靜的南海注入“負能量”。而日本亦是一步步擴大在南海地區的政治外交和軍事安全存在。就在本月13日，有消息稱，日本計劃5月份派出自衛隊最大戰艦“出雲號” 護衛艦進入南海，將停靠新加坡、印尼、菲律賓等南海周邊國家。

坦率地講，南海已非昔日之南海。在經歷了2012年以來的發酵、演變之後，南海問題的複雜程度前所未有，遠遠超越了中、菲、越、馬、文和台灣“五國六方”南沙部分島礁主權和海域管轄權爭議本質的範疇，而被賦予了過多的大國爭霸、權力爭奪的色彩。具體來講，南海地緣政治較量主要表現為區域內外國家和組織出於自身的地緣戰略考量，通過政治外交、軍事安全等手段，彼此競爭南海地區地緣政治相對優勢。目前南海地區至少存在着三股力量的角逐，即力量相對優勢明顯下降的美國、竭力復興海權的日本及崛起中的中國、印度等新興國家。特別是在中國綜合國力不斷增強的大背景下，美國、日本和印度錯誤地將中國在南海維權和開發建設舉措視為對海上和地區秩序主導地位的挑戰、戰略威脅和戰略競爭，並都採取了對抗。這種錯誤的應對方式，是當下南海地緣政治較量的主要特徵。此外，東盟為保持和平穩定的地區發展環境，長期奉行“合縱連橫”的制衡戰略，亦是南海地緣政治博弈的重要參與者。

從目前美國、日本等域外大國的政策演進看，未來南海形勢很可能繼續朝着地緣政治較量常態化，或者可稱為“地緣政治化”的方向發展。特朗普團隊的南海政策目前雖尚不明朗，但至少從目前看並未有“戰略收縮”的跡象，美國在南海戰略存在的常態化恐已成定局。即使特朗普不會像其前任奧巴馬政府那樣，將南海問題擺在美國對外政策的優先地位，特別是國務卿蒂勒森上月訪華時也表示，美方願本着不衝突不對抗、相互尊重、合作共贏的精神發展對華關係，釋放出了有意改善中美關係的積極信號，同時也沒有了阿基諾三世那樣的鼎力支持者，但南海因其日益顯現和突出的地緣戰略重要性而終究是美國維持其全球戰略優勢不得不爭奪的海上通道，也是特朗普要讓美國重新偉大而不得不固守的戰略要地。日本對南海的野心亦將因美國對其戰略“鬆綁”而逐步顯露，其在南海的戰略投入和存在將只多不少。

如果說有關南海島礁主權和海洋管轄權的爭端可以通過共同開發合作、危機管控機制等臨時措施加以緩和，並採取雙邊談判協商的方式逐步解決，那麼，圍繞南海的權力競爭困局顯然已經無法透過已有的雙邊或多邊措施尋求破解。鑒此，從根本上講，南海困局的破解需要大國間從戰略層面上達成某種妥協。

當務之急是，中美兩國除了建立《海空相遇安全行為準則》等海上危機管控機制之外，有必要坐下來好好談一談，在戰略層面就彼此在南海的長遠利益訴求保持溝通，並就彼此南海的政策行為建立對話機制。特別是兩國應相互確認彼此在南海的戰略利益，並試着梳理雙方的利益交叉點和南海合作的“正面清單”，逐步探索中美南海合作的可行之道。同時，南海地緣政治競爭困局的破解還在於日本、印度等其餘域外大國能否採取審慎的戰略應對。

對於本地區國家而言，南海的和平穩定既為自身責任與使命，亦是切身利益所在，因此，如何處理美國、日本等域外大國的攪局理應成為地區各國共同關注和研究的議題。尤其是中國與東盟國家應將注意力集中在如何落實“雙軌思路”，聚焦於如何儘快制訂“南海行為準則”，構建起海上形勢和互信建立機制。

南海問題正站在地緣政治競爭的十字路口。倘若中美兩國真能朝着不衝突不對抗、相互尊重、合作共贏的新型大國關係方向發展，那麼南海復歸和平穩定局面就指日可待了。

When repercussions from the South China Sea Arbitration involving China and the Philippines are still being felt in 2017, the South China Sea issue is once again creating new waves. Just as people were starting to feel relieved that the situation in the sea was beginning to calm down, a US aircraft carrier was deployed to the region for the first time after President Trump took office, and Japan is now planning to dispatch the Izumo helicopter carrier to the area, disturbing the hard-won peace there. As many commentators have pointed out, the sea issue has already reached the point of geopolitical competition, and the current peace and stability there is fragile.

There are two different, indeed opposite, scenes facing the South China Sea. Since the second half of 2016, through the concerted efforts of China and the ASEAN countries concerned, a consensus has been reached on how to manage the regional situation, which has already achieved remarkable results. Because of this, the sea has returned to a state of peace, stability and cooperation. Since President Rodrigo Duterte came to power in Manila, China-Philippines relations have changed markedly, with tensions between the two countries over the sea issue gradually easing, and both parties actively seeking a return to cooperation and dialogue. On a multilateral level, China and the 10 countries of ASEAN have fully and effectively implemented a declaration on the conduct of parties in the sea and accelerated consultations on a code of conduct for the region, with a framework for the code of conduct expected to be reached by the middle of this year.

On the other hand, however, the US and some of its allies are pushing for a resumption of tensions in the region. Since Trump took office, the new US administration has used some surprising language in comments about the sea issue. From threatening to prevent China from accessing islands, to sending a US Navy carrier strike group led by the USS Carl Vinson to patrol the sea, every US move has injected negative energy into an otherwise peaceful situation. Meanwhile, Japan is gradually expanding its political, diplomatic and military presence in the region. On the 13th of March, it was reported that Japan plans to send the Self-Defense Forces' largest warship, the Izumo, to the area in May. It will also stop in Singapore, Indonesia, the Philippines and other countries neighboring the sea.

Frankly speaking, the issue has changed. Following its fragmentation and evolution since 2012, its complexity has reached unparalleled levels that far surpass the initial controversy over sovereignty and territorial jurisdiction of the Spratly Islands (involving the six parties of China, Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan). In fact, it has become a power struggle among great nations scrambling for supremacy. Geopolitical competition over the South China Sea mainly involves external countries and organizations using political, diplomatic and military means to compete with each other for geopolitical comparative advantage out of selfish strategic considerations. There are currently at least three competing forces there, namely, the US, whose relative strength is clearly declining, Japan, which is trying to revive its naval power, and the emerging countries of China and India. In the context of China's burgeoning national strength, in particular, the US, Japan and India mistakenly regard China's rights and initiatives in the sea as a challenge and strategic threat to the maritime and regional order. Their misguided coping methods are what currently define the geopolitical contest in the sea area. In addition to these actors, ASEAN is an important participant in this geopolitical game for maintaining a peaceful and stable regional development environment and its long-term pursuit of a balanced strategy.

The geopolitical competition is likely to continue in the future. Although Trump's policy regarding the sea still lacks clarity, there are no signs of an impending strategic contraction. Trump, however, does not appear to view the sea issue as a foreign policy priority as the Obama administration did. Indeed, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson this month stated that the US is committed to “non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect [and] win-win cooperation” in its dealings with China, which was a positive sign for improvements in China-US relations. But because of the increasing geopolitical prominence of the sea as a vital channel for the US to maintain its global strategic advantage, Trump still recognizes that to make America great again he must defend this strategic location.Japan's ambitions there have only been revealed since the US loosened its strategic reins, meaning Japan's investment and presence in the area is set to increase.

As a result, a breakthrough on the issue is only likely to come from the major powers reaching a strategic compromise.

In addition to establishing a safety code for sea and air encounters and other maritime crisis-control mechanisms, China and the US must, as a matter of urgency, sit down and talk, on a strategic level, about each other's long-term interests in the sea and establish a dialogue mechanism for each other's related policies and actions. In particular, both countries should declare their strategic interests there. They should draw up a list of areas where their interests intersect and explore feasible areas of China-US cooperation in the area. At the same time, breaking the deadlock in the geopolitical competition also depends on whether Japan, India and other regional powers act prudently in their strategic responses.

For the countries of this region, peace and stability is their responsibility and mission, but is in their own interests. As such, how to deal with interference from the US, Japan and other powers from outside has become a common concern of countries within the region. In particular, China and ASEAN countries should focus on implementing a dual-track approach and formulating a code of conduct for the sea, as well as establish mechanisms for maritime situations and to build mutual trust.

The issue is at a crossroads of geopolitical competition. If China and the US can truly move toward a new type of big-power relationship characterized by non-conflict, non-confrontation, mutual respect and win-win cooperation, then there is hope for peace and stability in the South China Sea.