徐伟钧：分歧难以消除，亚太如何避免冲突？

IPP评论是国家高端智库华南理工大学公共政策研究院（IPP）官方微信平台

导语：当前，全球多地冲突延宕，大国战略竞争加深，地区安全紧张因素仍在累积；与此同时，人工智能、无人系统等新技术加速进入军事领域，也给危机判断与冲突管控带来新的挑战。9月15日至17日，第十三届北京香山论坛在京举行。面对更加复杂的国际安全环境，如何保持战略稳定、减少误判，并通过对话合作防止局部摩擦升级，是论坛各方讨论的重要议题。

IPP副研究员徐伟钧认为，亚太安全治理应从承认分歧出发，把避免直接军事冲突、减少误判作为最低限度的安全共识，并通过保持危机沟通、隔离不同安全风险，为局势降温和外交解决保留空间。同时，应尊重地区国家的战略自主性，通过务实合作逐步积累互信。全球安全倡议的现实价值，就在于推动这些原则转化为具体的危机管控与增信安排。

9月17日，CGTN发布了IPP副研究员徐伟钧撰写的评论文章，原标题为《Asia-Pacific Security Depends on Managing Differences, Not Sowing Discord》（《亚太安全取决于管控分歧，而非制造纷争》）。

近年来，亚太地区虽然没有爆发大规模战争，但安全形势始终面临多重挑战。台海风险上升，中日安全紧张加剧，朝鲜半岛核问题悬而未决，南海摩擦也时有发生。与此同时，各国持续增加国防开支，推进前沿军事部署，强化同盟关系，并加大海空军事活动力度。亚太地区逐渐陷入一种“安全困境”。各方都在努力提升自身安全，却反而使整个地区的不安全感不断上升。

第十三届北京香山论坛16日在北京国际会议中心举行。。图源：主办方

这一局面的根源在于，亚太各方的安全关切各不相同，对于威胁来自何处、安全边界应如何划定，也缺乏基本共识。中国优先关注国家统一、领土主权和周边稳定；美国力图维持其在地区的军事优势和同盟体系；日本关注东海、西南诸岛及台海局势；朝鲜强调政权安全和战略威慑；韩国担忧朝鲜核导计划带来的威胁；菲律宾和越南则重点关注自身在南海的权益。各方对威胁来源、风险排序和安全边界的判断存在明显差异。这使地区各方难以就安全问题形成共识，也增加了构建统一地区安全框架的难度。

因此，务实的地区安全治理目标，应当是管控分歧、减少误判，并建立基本互信。中国提出的全球安全倡议倡导共同、综合、合作、可持续的安全观，主张重视各国合理安全关切，并强调通过对话协商和平解决分歧和争端。这一思路对于亚太地区具有重要的现实意义。

地区安全的关键，是让不同的安全关切能够彼此兼容，并将竞争控制在可控范围内。对亚太地区而言，首先要承认分歧在相当长时期内仍将存在，并在此基础上寻找一套各方都能接受的最低限度共同规则。

首先，需要形成最低限度的安全共识。亚太各国短期内不太可能消除彼此之间的战略分歧，但可以从最基本的共同点入手。各方都应避免发生直接军事冲突，防止海空意外事件迅速升级，在危机期间保持沟通渠道畅通，并避免局部争端扩大为区域对抗。

作为地区最具影响力的两个大国，中美尤其需要保持稳定的战略沟通，并建立有效的军事危机管控机制。中日、中菲以及朝韩之间，同样需要保持各自的危机管控渠道。只要这些沟通渠道保持畅通，各方就有机会在局势越过临界点之前缓和紧张态势。

第二，地区国家需要加强风险隔离，防止不同安全问题相互牵动。当前亚太地区一个值得警惕的趋势是，南海、朝鲜半岛等安全问题正越来越多地被纳入同一个战略竞争框架。某一领域出现摩擦，可能很快触发同盟承诺和军事部署，从而进一步压缩通过外交手段解决问题的空间。地区国家需要有意识地建立“防火墙”，避免一个争端自动引发其他领域的对抗，也要防止一起海上事件升级为更大范围的军事对抗。

2026年5月21日，中国与东盟国家在吉隆坡举行第26次落实《南海各方行为宣言》高官会，继续推进“南海行为准则”磋商。

即使政治关系恶化，经贸合作、海上搜救、防灾救灾、军事热线和人文交流等机制，也应尽可能维持正常运转。危机管控的目的，就是为局势降温留出必要的时间和渠道，避免整个局势因某一起孤立事件而进一步恶化。

第三，地区国家需要保持足够的战略自主性。虽然日本、韩国和菲律宾都与美国保持同盟关系，但各自的安全关切并不相同。越南、印度尼西亚、马来西亚和新加坡等国，也都有各自的风险判断和政策选择。一个国家可能与美国开展安全合作，同时与中国保持密切的经贸关系；也可能对中国的某些政策持保留意见，同时拒绝参与以对抗中国为目的的军事安排。

东盟长期强调开放、包容和战略自主，这种思路与亚太地区的现实非常契合。对主要大国而言，尊重地区国家的这种自主性，有助于为降低地区的不安全感创造必要条件。

9月16日，第十三届北京香山论坛在北京举行第一次全体会议。图为东盟秘书长高金洪在会议第二阶段发言。图源：中新社

最后，应当通过务实、可控的合作逐步建立信任。当前地区战略互信不足，期待各方在短期内建立高度的政治互信并不现实。海上搜救、灾害应对、反恐、公共卫生以及军事人员交流等领域，更适合作为合作的起点。稳定、持续的互动有助于提高各方政策透明度，也能使各方在危机真正发生之前逐步形成常态化沟通的习惯。相互信任很少仅靠对话就能建立，而是在反复合作和可预期的行为中逐步积累起来的。

亚太地区的安全分歧不会很快消失。中美仍将维持建设性的战略稳定关系，围绕台海、朝鲜半岛、东海和南海的安全问题，短期内也很难被彻底解决。对地区安全而言，一条更为可行的路径，是承认分歧、遏制升级、保持沟通，并维护各国自身的政策自主性。全球安全倡议的价值，就在于推动这些原则进一步转化为具体的危机管控和增进互信的安排。

徐伟钧 华南理工大学公共政策研究院副研究员

*以下为CGTN原英文报道，供读者了解相关背景并作对照参考。（上下滑动查看）。

Although no wars have broken out in the Asia-Pacific region in recent years, the region has faced a range of security challenges. Risks in the Taiwan Strait have risen, security tensions between China and Japan have deepened, the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue remains unresolved, and friction in the South China Sea continues to recur. Meanwhile, countries have increased defense spending, moved military deployments forward, strengthened alliances, and stepped up naval and air activities. The region has gradually fallen into a security dilemma. All parties have increased investments in their own security, yet the region's overall sense of security continues to decline.

The root of this situation lies in the highly diverse security concerns across the Asia-Pacific, and the lack of a basic consensus among the parties regarding the sources of threats and security boundaries. China prioritizes national reunification, territorial sovereignty and stability along its periphery. The United States seeks to maintain its military superiority and alliance system in the region. Japan is concerned with the situation in the East China Sea, its Southwestern Islands and the Taiwan Strait. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) emphasizes regime security and strategic deterrence. The Republic of Korea (ROK) worries about the threat posed by DPRK's nuclear and missile programs. The Philippines and Vietnam focus on their rights and interests in the South China Sea. The parties differ markedly on the sources of threats, the prioritization of risks, and the scope of security boundaries. These differences make both a shared understanding of security and a single regional security framework difficult to achieve.

Consequently, the practical objectives of regional security governance should focus on managing differences, reducing miscalculations and establishing a basic level of mutual trust. China's Global Security Initiative (GSI) advocates common, comprehensive, cooperative and sustainable security, stresses taking the legitimate security concerns of all countries seriously, and emphasizes peacefully resolving differences through dialogue and consultation. This approach holds practical significance for the Asia-Pacific.

The key to regional security lies not in bringing all countries under a single security framework, but in enabling different security concerns to coexist over time and keeping competition within manageable bounds. For the region, security governance requires first acknowledging that differences will persist in the long term, and then seeking a minimum set of rules that all parties can accept.

First, a minimum level of consensus on security needs to be established. Asia-Pacific countries are unlikely to overcome their strategic differences in the short term, but they can clarify common ground as a starting point. All parties should avoid direct military conflict, prevent accidental incidents at sea and in the air from escalating rapidly, maintain communication channels during crises, and prevent localized disputes from spilling over into regional confrontation.

As the two most influential powers in the region, China and the United States have a particular need to sustain stable strategic communication and effective mechanisms for managing military crises. China and Japan, China and the Philippines, and the DPRK and the ROK also need to maintain their own crisis management channels. As long as these channels remain open, all parties will have the opportunity to ease tensions before the situation passes a critical threshold.

Second, regional countries should strengthen risk isolation to prevent different security issues from interacting. A troubling feature of the current Asia-Pacific security environment is that issues, including the South China Sea and the Korean Peninsula, are increasingly likely to be incorporated into a single framework of strategic competition. Friction in one area may rapidly trigger alliance commitments and military deployments, thereby narrowing the scope for diplomatic resolution. Countries in the region need to consciously establish "firewalls" to ensure that a single dispute does not automatically trigger confrontation in other areas, and that a maritime incident does not escalate into a broader military confrontation.

Even when political relations deteriorate, mechanisms such as economic and trade cooperation, maritime search and rescue, disaster prevention and relief, military hotlines and people-to-people exchanges should be kept operational as far as possible. The aim of crisis management is to preserve the time and channels needed to de-escalate the situation and prevent the situation from being dictated by a single incident.

Third, regional countries need to preserve sufficient strategic autonomy. Although Japan, the ROK and the Philippines maintain alliances with the United States, their security concerns differ. Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore also have their own assessments of risks and policy choices. A country can engage in security cooperation with the United States while maintaining close economic and trade relations with China. It can have reservations about certain Chinese policies while declining to participate in military arrangements aimed at countering China.

ASEAN's longstanding emphasis on openness, inclusiveness, and strategic autonomy offers an approach well suited to the realities of the Asia-Pacific. For major powers, respecting this autonomy helps create the conditions necessary to reduce insecurity in the region.

Finally, trust should be built gradually through practical, manageable forms of cooperation. Given the current lack of strategic mutual trust in the region, it is unrealistic to expect all parties to immediately establish a high level of political trust. Areas such as maritime search and rescue, disaster response, counterterrorism, public health and military personnel exchanges are more suitable as starting points for cooperation. Stable, sustained interaction can enhance policy transparency and enable all parties to develop a habit of communication before a crisis arises. Mutual trust rarely emerges from dialogue alone, but builds gradually through repeated cooperation and predictable conduct.

Security differences in the Asia-Pacific will not disappear soon. The constructive strategic stability between China and the United States will continue, and security issues concerning the Taiwan Strait, the Korean Peninsula, the East China Sea, and the South China Sea are unlikely to be resolved in the short term. A more viable path to regional security is to acknowledge differences, contain escalation, maintain communication, and preserve each country's policy autonomy. The value of the GSI lies in translating these principles into concrete arrangements for crisis management and confidence-building.

IPP评论热门文章

关于IPP

华南理工大学公共政策研究院（IPP）是一个独立、非营利性的知识创新与公共政策研究平台。IPP围绕中国的体制改革、社会政策、中国话语权与国际关系等开展一系列的研究工作，并在此基础上形成知识创新和政策咨询协调发展的良好格局。IPP的愿景是打造开放式的知识创新和政策研究平台，成为领先世界的中国智库。