2016年南海仲裁案后，南海局势经历了一段时间的平稳可控。但2020年是个转折点，南海地区的形势出现了一些新问题新情况，中美在南海的竞争对立达到了前所未有的新水平。具体而言包括：

第一，特朗普政府调整了原有的南海政策立场。7月13日，美国务卿蓬佩奥发表声明称，中国在南海的许多主张没有国际法依据。这表明美国的政策立场实现了从所谓“不选边”到公开“选边站”的转变，从而为美国在南海地区随后的一系列干预行动开了绿灯。

第二，美国在南海地区的军事介入频率越来越高，风险性越来越大。以“航行自由行动”为例，在奥巴马执政的八年里美军在南海仅进行了五次，特朗普政府截止目前进行了25次，2020年截止目前进行了九次。更为严重的是，中美两军南海对峙几成常态，2020年上半年美国在南海地区进行了超过3000架次的空中军事行动和60余艘次的军舰行动。7月，美国“尼米兹”号航母战斗群和“里根”号航母战斗群在南海海域展开演习，这是美军自2014年以来首次出动两艘航空母舰在南海进行训练。美国还多次派出B-1B战略轰炸机、E-8C侦察机到南海上空，甚至多次逼近中国广东、海南岛近海，两军擦枪走火的风险陡增。

第三，美国对中国的指责和污名化不断升级。奥巴马政府时期美国对中国在南海地区的污名为“规则破坏者”，今年7月13日的声明则首次称中国在南海地区试图建立一个“海洋帝国”，奉行“强权即公理”，对其他国家实施恐吓胁迫行为。

2020年南海地区新问题新情况的出现，引发我们对中美双边关系的新思考。

首先，双方的地缘政治斗争公开化。中美在南海地区究竟在争什么？近几年美国在南海地区利益诉求由高到低的顺序是：要求中国停止在南海岛礁的军事化行为；防止中国在南海建立防空识别区；维持美国在该地区的自由航行权。2020年在这些问题上双方并未有实质性冲突，但南海形势越来越紧张，这也反映出南海形势具有超越具体事项的战略意涵，变成中美竞争的地缘竞技场。中方谋求南海地区的和平与稳定，而美方力图阻止中国影响力在该地区的扩展。对美方而言，地区内国家的和平与合作将意味着中国影响力的扩大，这是美国坚决反对的，因此在很大程度上，美方是希望南海地区必须有“危机”。

其次，南海形势由原来的小国冲锋在前，变成了美国直接卷入。这一新特征说明，美国具有与中国进行直接对抗的战略决心。奥巴马政府时期，美国支持菲律宾通过法律途径挑战中国的南海权利，特朗普政府时期美国在南海争端中逐渐走上前台，对中国进行直接抗衡。

再次，军事手段是美国对中国进行战略对抗的可选项之一。尽管中美两国同为核大国，爆发全面战争的可能性非常低，但美国在南海奉行了一种“危机边缘政策”，对中国进行最大限度的施压，中美南海军事冲突的风险居高不下，随时可能成为引爆两国关系的“火药桶”。

展望2021年，随着拜登新政府上台，南海形势的发展将呈现出一定的连续性，同时也会出现一定的调整。其连续性在于，南海将继续是中美地缘竞争的重点区域，拜登政府在该地区的战略目标仍将是阻止中国影响力在该地区的扩展。大国间的战略竞争建立在军事实力基础之上，因此拜登政府将继续维持在南海地区的军事存在，“自由航行”、军事演习、军舰巡航、军售贸易都将持续。

拜登政府与特朗普政府的不同之处在于实现战略目标的手段可能有差异。拜登政府的目标或挑战是如何在不引发军事冲突条件下最大程度地阻止中国影响力的扩展，因此，它会在手段上进行多种务实创新，从原则上说可能包括几个方面：

一是相对于特朗普政府的“美国模式”，拜登政府更倾向于多边联合，即“美国+模式”，南海地区将会出现越来越多由美国主导的多国联合行动，包括日本、印度、澳大利亚、欧盟部分国家以及东南亚部分国家等。

二是身份政治盛行。拜登政府将继续高举“规则”大旗，不断对中国进行负面建构，最终将中国贴上“帝国”、“霸权”、“非自由”、“非民主”等负面标签，而美国在很大程度上将扮演“正义者”角色，帮助东南亚国家“维权”。

三是对中国在该地区的认同形成终极挑战。

客观地讲，随着中国实力的不断提升以及中国合作外交的不断推行，中国在该地区的崛起具有一定的历史必然性，美国在该地区对抗中国的战略也将困难重重，但拜登政府对中国的身份攻击会对中国的认同形成长远负面影响，对中国维护自身正当权益构成一大挑战。

There was a period after the South China Sea arbitration in 2016 when the situation seemed to be stable and controllable. The year 2020, however, has been a turning point, presenting new issues. New conditions have emerged with heightened rivalry between China and the United States. Tensions have reached an unprecedented level.

1. The Trump administration has adjusted its policy stance in the South China Sea. On July 13, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo released a statement saying that many of China's South China Sea claims lack a basis in international law, indicating a turn from not taking sides to openly taking sides and giving a green light to a series of subsequent U.S. interventions in the maritime area.

2. U.S. military interventions in the South China Sea area are increasingly frequent and risky. Take the so-called freedom of navigation operations, for instance: Only five were conducted in the eight years of the Obama presidency, but the Trump administration has carried out 25 to date, nine of them so far this year.More serious, the standoff between the two militaries has pretty much become a normal state. In the first half of 2020, the U.S. carried out more than 3,000 operations of military aircraft and more than 60 operations involving ships. The USS Nimitz and USS Ronald Reagan carrier strike groups conducted drills in waters of the South China Sea in July, which was the first time since 2014 that the U.S. military had dispatched twin aircraft carriers for military exercises in the area.The U.S. has also on many occasions sent B-1B strategic bombers and E-8C spy planes to the South China Sea region, even nudging close to the airspace of Guangdong and Hainan provinces. The risk of the two militaries triggering an unintended conflict has dramatically increased.

3. U.S. finger-pointing at China continued to escalate. During the Obama presidency, the U.S. stigmatized China as a “rule saboteur” in the South China Sea region. The Trump administration's July 13, 2020, statement on the South China Sea for the first time alleged that China was attempting to build a maritime empire in the area, that it believes might makes right and that it intimidates and coerces other nations.

The emergence of these new issues and conditions in the South China Sea region prompts us to rethink China-U.S. relations.

First, the bilateral geopolitical struggle is coming out into the open. What are China and the U.S. competing for in the South China Sea? The sequence of U.S. policy goals in the South China Sea region in recent years, from high to low, is: asking China to stop militarizing South China Sea features, preventing China from establishing air defense identification zones and preserving U.S. freedom of navigation in the area.There was no substantial conflict between the two parties over such issues in 2020. But tensions are building up in the South China Sea, which shows that the situation has taken on strategic implications that transcend specific issues. It has become a geopolitical arena for China-U.S. competition.China seeks peace and stability in the South China Sea region. For the U.S., regional peace and cooperation mean the expansion of Chinese influence, which is what it resolutely opposes. Therefore, to a great extent, the U.S. side needs to foment “crises.”

Second, the South China Sea situation has evolved from its previous pattern of small countries being used as pawns and has become one of the U.S. getting directly involved. This is a new characteristic indicating that the U.S. has a strategic determination to engage in direct confrontation with China.During the Obama presidency, the U.S. supported the Philippines in challenging Chinese rights and interests in the South China Sea through legal channels. Under Donald Trump, the U.S. has gradually moved to the forefront of disputes, directly confronting China and showcasing U.S. determination to engage in strategic confrontation.

Third, military force is an option in the U.S. strategic confrontation. Although the likelihood of an all-out war between the two nuclear powers is very low, the U.S. has engaged in brinkmanship in the South China Sea and exerted maximum pressure on China. So the risk of China-U.S. military conflict in the South China Sea remains high, and could become a powder keg that blows up bilateral ties.

With the inauguration of Joe Biden as president of the United States, the South China Sea situation in 2021 will display a certain continuity, while at the same time seeing some adjustments. It will continue to be a key arena for China-U.S. geostrategic competition. The Biden administration's strategic goal in the region will remain to prevent Chinese influence from expanding.Strategic competition between major countries is always based on military strength. The Biden administration will want to preserve the U.S. military presence in the South China Sea. Freedom of navigation operations, military exercises, naval patrols and arms sales will therefore persist.

Biden may differ from Trump in his approach to achieving strategic goals. The challenge for him will be how to prevent China from expanding its influence as much as possible without triggering a military conflict. Biden will look for pragmatic innovations when it comes to approach, which in principle will include the following aspects:

• In contrast with the Trump administration's U.S.-centric model, the Biden team will likely be more in favor of multilateral collaboration — that is, a “U.S.+” model. There will be more U.S.-led allied operations featuring multiple participants, including Japan, India, Australia and some EU and ASEAN member countries.

• Identity politics will be in vogue. The Biden administration will continue to hold high the banner of “rules” while constantly framing China in a negative light and ultimately sticking negative labels onto it, such as “empire,” “hegemony,” and “non-democracy.” The U.S. will play the role of “The Just” — the one who helps Southeast Asian nations “safeguard” their rights.

• Any lukewarm identification with China by states in the region will pose a key challenge. China's rise in the region is in some ways a matter of historical necessity, and a U.S. attitude of confrontation can do harm.

Objectively, while Chinese strength is growing steadily and cooperative diplomacy is its standard practice, U.S. attacks on the Chinese character and motives could have lasting negative effects that could become a major challenge for China in building authority as a regional leader.