美國國務卿蓬佩奧近期的南海政策聲明宣示了美國南海政策的重大變化。在中美博弈激化的背景下，這一變化蘊含了更多的戰略意涵，也可能導致巨大的衝突風險。中美能否進行有效的危機管理，將面臨前所未有的重大考驗。

蓬佩奧的政策聲明是2010年以來美國南海政策的最重大變化。2010年，時任國務卿希拉里·克林頓拋出“南海問題事關美國國家利益”的說法，標誌着美國正式確立了對南海的介入政策，也顯示美國開始將南海問題置於“亞太再平衡”和中美戰略競爭框架下運籌。然而，這一介入政策並未拋棄美國不就主權問題選邊站的傳統立場。面對南海形勢的持續演變，美國雖然不斷就此向中國施壓，但即便面對黃岩島事件、菲律賓的所謂“南海仲裁案”、中越海上對峙等諸多危機事件，美國在主權問題上都沒有突破其傳統立場。蓬佩奧的近期聲明，明確聲稱中國在南海的相關訴求為“非法”，在黃岩島、仁愛礁、萬安灘等一系列中鄰爭議問題上明確立場，全面否定中方主權立場，這既拋棄了美國幾十年的政策立場，也使美國的“介入”政策進一步明晰化、深入化。

美國南海政策的上述質變，是美國對華實施全政府、全方位施壓的組成部分，具有更加顯著的戰略意涵。特朗普政府執政以來，通過貿易戰、科技封鎖、人文脫鉤、插手涉港涉台等政策工具，來實施其對華競爭戰略，南海問題並非其關注重點。蓬佩奧的政策聲明，則表明特朗普政府開始重新拾起“南海牌”，藉此強化近期對中國的極限施壓態勢。通過打“南海牌”，一方面，美國可以尋求中國近年來的海上維權成果予以推回（push-back），扭轉其在南海地區愈發不利的戰略態勢；另一方面，美國也可以藉此激活中國與相關聲索國的矛盾，藉機將越南、菲律賓、印尼等納入美國對華政策的“工具箱”，同時給正在進行中的南海行為準則磋商使絆兒。

上述戰略收益驅動了美國南海政策的質變，卻也可能給急速下滑的中美關係注入巨大的衝突風險。歷史上，南海地區歷來是引發中美重大危機的主要風險所在，包括2001年的撞機事件、2009年的“無暇”號事件，以及諸如“迪凱特”號事件等多次海上危險遭遇。同時，美國南海政策的每一次重大變化，都會以不斷強化的軍事行動為註腳。在蓬佩奧聲明之前，美軍就已經加強了在南海地區的行動頻率和強度。而為了落實蓬佩奧的政策聲明，美軍近期頻繁採取極具挑釁意味的抵近偵察行動，高調渲染“雙航母”進入南海、多國聯合演練等，並不斷暗示其對擦槍走火風險的容忍度。更加危險的是，在當前的美國國內政治氛圍下，特朗普政府面對疫情不斷惡化、選情岌岌可危的困境，對中國的極限施壓已經是無所不用其極，很可能在南海地區採取更加無底線的攤牌行動，屆時中國將不得不予以回擊。包括美國戰略界在內的諸多人士擔憂，中美滑向新冷戰乃至熱戰的風險在急劇增大，南海最有可能成為中美兵戎相見之地。

多年以來，美國將南海問題視作“中國能否堅持和平崛起”的試金石，中方則將其視作“美國能否接納中國崛起”的試金石。而就目前形勢看，一旦處理不慎，南海問題就可能成為中美衝突的第一張多米諾骨牌。

有鑒於此，中美兩軍重啟對話、加強危機管控已經迫在眉睫。中美防長近期的通話，有助於打破對話中斷的困局。當務之急是，一方面，兩軍更應樹立“不衝突”的基本底線認知，對“不衝突”作為兩國共同利益的認知應予以再強化。另一方面，中美應視情況啟動兩國海軍首長、聯參對話等重要溝通機制，就一線部隊避免摩擦、潛在危機時進行聯絡等內容進一步細化磋商。中長期而言，中美兩軍則需要着眼於競爭態勢下的戰略穩定機制構建，並為此付出更大努力。

The recent policy statement on the South China Sea by Mike Pompeo, the U.S. secretary of state, marks a significant change. Against the backdrop of an intensifying Sino-U.S. game, the change carries more strategic connotations and could lead to conflict. It will be a major test of the ability of China and the United States to manage differences effectively.

Pompeo's policy statement is the most significant change in U.S. South China Sea policy since 2010. At that time, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton identified the South China Sea explicitly as “a matter of U.S. national interest,” thus formally establishing a U.S. interventionist policy. It also showed that the United States had begun to place the South China Sea within the framework of its Asia-Pacific rebalancing and its strategic competition with China.In the face of the evolving situation in the South China Sea, the U.S. has been exerting pressure on China, but even after the Huangyan Island incident, the Philippines' arbitration ruling, the Sino-Vietnamese maritime confrontation and many other crises, it has not openly changed its sovereignty stance.But Pompeo's recent statement clearly declares that most of China's claims in the South China Sea are illegal and makes clear the U.S. position on China's disputes with its neighbors over Huangyan, Ren'ai Reef and the Wan'an Basin. It denies Chinese sovereignty. This not only abandons the policy position of the U.S. in place for decades but also further clarifies the U.S. intent to intervene.

This qualitative change in U.S. policy in the South China Sea is part of an all-around pressure approach to China and has a more significant strategic connotation.Since the Trump administration came to power, it has implemented a competitive strategy toward China through such policy tools as a trade war, a technology blockade, cultural decoupling and intervention in Hong Kong and Taiwan, but the South China Sea was not its focus.Pompeo's policy statement indicates that the Trump administration has begun to pick up the South China Sea card again to strengthen its pressure campaign. By playing this card, the United States can attempt to push back China's maritime rights achievements in recent years that reversed its unfavorable strategic position in the South China Sea. In addition, the United States can aggravate China's conflicts with other countries that have claims in the South China Sea — creating an opportunity to include Vietnam, the Philippines and Indonesia in its toolbox against China — and at the same time make it difficult for the ongoing consultations on the Code of Conduct in the South China Sea to conclude.

These strategic gains have driven a qualitative change in U.S. policy and heighten the risk of conflict in the already rapidly declining China-U.S. relationship. Historically, the South China Sea has been a focal point for a potential major crisis between China and the United States — note the 2001 collision, the Immaculate Conception case in 2009 and the USS Decatur incident.In addition, every major change in U.S. policy in the South China Sea has been accompanied by intensified military operations. Before the Pompeo statement, the U.S. military had already increased the frequency and intensity of its operations in the South China Sea. In order to implement Pompeo's policy statement, the U.S. military has recently undertaken frequent and provocative reconnaissance along China's sovereign waters, sent two aircraft carriers to the South China Sea and carried out multinational joint exercises. It has also hinted at its “tolerance” for the risk of a firefight.What's more dangerous is that in the current domestic political climate in the United States, the Trump administration, in the face of a worsening coronavirus epidemic and with the president's re-election campaign in crisis, has been putting extreme and unrelenting pressure on China, and is likely to provoke an unscrupulous showdown in the South China Sea, prompting China to hit back.Many people, including many in the U.S. strategic community, are concerned that the risk of China and the U.S. sliding into a new cold war — or even a hot war — is increasing rapidly and that the South China Sea is most likely to be where it starts.

For years, the United States has viewed the South China Sea as a litmus test of whether China can maintain its peaceful rise, and China has viewed it as a litmus test of whether the United States can accept China's rise. In the current situation, if not handled carefully, the South China Sea issue could become the first domino to fall in a Sino-U.S. conflict.

In view of this, it is imperative that the two armies restart dialogue and strengthen crisis management. The recent call between the Chinese and U.S. heads of defense could help break the deadlock in the dialogue. The two militaries should establish and reinforce the basic bottom-line cognition of non-conflict as being in the common interest of both countries. In addition, China and the U.S. should initiate important communication mechanisms, such as the dialogue between the two naval chiefs and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as appropriate, to further refine consultations on the avoidance of friction between front-line forces. In the medium and long term, the two militaries need to make greater efforts to build a mechanism to ensure strategic stability in an increasingly competitive situation.