美国第45任总统唐纳德•特朗普上任已一月有余。这位看似“不按常理出牌”的总统究竟会将美国的南海政策将带向何处已成为国际社会各位观察人士热议的话题。从1月24日白宫发言人在新政府第一次记者会上宣称，将捍卫美国在南海的“国际利益”，到2月份“卡尔•文森”号航母战斗群巡航南海，特朗普政府的南海政策似乎在日益强硬。但正如许多观察家所言，特朗普团队对南海问题缺乏了解，其南海政策亦显得那么的不成熟，而未来美国南海政策仍待观察。

从最近特朗普本人及其团队的言行看，未来美国的南海政策似乎将沿着奥巴马的政策安排，继续加强与中国在南海的地缘政治博弈，特别是对中国在南海的岛礁建设表现尤为警戒。比如1月特朗普政府的提名国务卿蒂勒森公开表示，美国应阻止中国南沙岛礁建设，并禁止中国靠近这些岛礁。相比于奥巴马政府的南海政策，蒂勒森的强硬之程度有过之而无不及。而2月特朗普上台后首次派遣航母编队巡航南海，也似乎释放出将继续推行战略东移、加强在南海军事存在的信号。

但从目前看，无论官方人士的强硬措词，还是南海巡航，似乎都只能说是特朗普正在试探中国在南海的底线和反应，新政府的南海政策仍是未定、未知。

同时，综合分析特朗普团队向外释放的针对全球性问题的诸多信号，不禁让人产生这样的疑问：南海问题还会是美国新政府外交的优先议题吗？

相比于台湾问题、人民币汇率问题和“伊斯兰国”问题，南海问题似乎是相对“次要”议题。特别是在台湾问题上，特朗普显然比奥巴马走的更远。相较而言，特朗普对南海问题的表态要“低调”的多。

对于以商人为主的特朗普团队，务实主义或者唯利益至上主义无疑将是新政府亚太战略和对华政策最根本的指导。也正因如此，美国亚太战略的核心利益重心将转向美国经济繁荣和国际经济体系开放，而特朗普政府的南海政策将是全面和彻底的利益权衡结果。

2009年以来美国在南海问题上的投入可谓“得不偿失”。特别是美国加强在东南亚地区军事存在的同时，其对南海问题的强势和高压介入也使中国被迫采取战略应对。美国实质上正在陷入自身所挑起的中美南海“螺旋”式对抗漩涡，此举无疑增加了美国的外交、政治、军事成本。相比之下，奥巴马政府在南海问题上除了让中国“难过”外，自身似乎一无所获。

因此可以预测性推定，从现实利益角度看，南海问题将不会再是特朗普政府优先考虑的议题。

排除出优先议题行列并不意味着南海问题对美国不再重要，更不是说美国将采取“退缩”策略。实际上，美国在南海的根本利益诉求并未也不会发生调整，确保军事活动拥有足够的自由空间和军事力量的压倒性优势，维护同盟和伙伴国体系稳定，掌控海上规则制定主导权，这些依然是其亚太战略的最重要组成。

因此，特朗普政府虽不会将过多精力投入到与中国在南海的地缘政治竞争，但南海问题无疑是新政府牵制中国不错的“筹码”。特别是在“美国优先”政策框架下，特朗普政府可能将南海问题作为与中国在人民币汇率、贸易保护主义等更广泛领域谈判时“讨价还价”的一枚棋子，从而采取“灵活、动态”的南海政策。

在这种“灵活、动态”的政策框架内，美国既不会撤出在菲律宾、新加坡等南海周边国家的军力部署，也不会取消与菲、澳等国在南海的联合军事活动，且可能“有选择性地”在南海炫耀其武力。特别是一旦中美在网络安全、人民币汇率等领域的博弈令特朗普政府感到不快，美国就可能利用在南海的活动向中国表示不满，以此要挟中国退步。

在这种可能的“灵活、动态”南海政策框架下，中美南海博弈将呈现“震荡”发展，其震荡的节奏取决于中美在其他领域的较量。中美在南海的复杂博弈根源于彼此根深蒂固的结构性矛盾。双方虽然采取了一系列有效的预防性外交措施，并建立各个层面的涉南海和海上问题信息交换与互信增进机制，但双方的战略猜疑难以短期内彻底消除，彼此围绕守成大国和新兴大国“思维定式”所引发的结构性矛盾亦不可能在短期内完全消解。

因此可以预见，南海在全球地缘政治板块中的重要性不会变，美国在南海的利益诉求始终没有变，美国对其亚太盟友和伙伴国的合作性战略也不可能变。

就目前而言，特朗普政府与中方对彼此的南海政策仍缺乏足够了解。尤其是特朗普团队仍未对新政府的南海政府作出系统和正式的表态。中国尚无法确定特朗普未来南海政策走向，而特朗普政府对中国南海政策主张究竟了解多少仍然值得探讨。作为当前中美关系发展绕不过的议题，南海问题将是未来至少4年内两国政府不得不面对的挑战。2月28日，应美方邀请中国国务委员杨洁篪正式访问美国。此举为两国关系缓和释放了积极的信号。期待中美两国能以此次磋商交流为一个好的开端，共同推动两国首脑会晤，秉着照顾彼此关切、合作共赢的理念，加强对南海问题的对话磋商。也期待特朗普政府能保持理性和克制，从而为两国南海博弈的缓和与妥善处理创造条件。

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.