兰德公司报告释放战略信号：中美竞争应进入“稳定博弈”新阶段——美对华“稳定竞争”还是战略让步？

美国智库兰德公司近日发布《稳定中美竞争关系》研究报告，引发国际战略界广泛关注和争议。报告提出，中美之间的地缘政治竞争已趋于饱和，若不建立“有限稳定机制”，冲突风险将持续升高。尤其在台湾、南海与科技领域，兰德公司建议美方放弃“绝对胜利”叙述，转向“规则塑造”与“风险管控”。

这一立场被视为美国战略界“对华政策的重大调整信号”，也可能成为川普政府第二任期内的政策参考蓝本。

报告最具争议的部分，是建议美方“最大程度激励北京采取渐进式统一路径”，并明确拒绝“台独”立场。此举打破了美国长期奉行的“战略模糊”政策，转向一种更具现实主义色彩的“稳定竞争”逻辑。台湾岛内对此反应强烈。兰德公司此举，或将重塑台海战略格局。兰德的建议反映出美国战略界对中国区域拒止能力与核威慑体系的重新评估，也“可能成为川普政府调整台海政策的理论依据”。

在南海议题上，报告主张美方应结合军事威慑与多边外交，推动和平解决路径。建议包括维持有限军事存在、避免挑衅性军演、借助东盟机制塑造和平预期。这一策略强调“规则塑造”而非“力量压制”，显示出美方对南海冲突风险的重新评估，也“为地区国家提供了更多外交空间”。此举可能促使川普政府在南海采取更审慎的军事部署，同时加强与地区国家的外交协调，避免陷入直接对抗。

报告指出，科技领域的竞争已演变为国家安全冲突，建议美方应管控新兴技术风险、避免极端打压中国科技企业，并通过协议限制网络攻击与信息战。这一立场与川普政府此前的“全面封锁”策略形成对比，显示出兰德公司对全球产业链稳定性的高度关注。若川普政府采纳兰德建议，未来可能在技术出口管制、企业制裁与网络安全规则上采取更平衡的做法。

兰德报告的核心主张是建立“有限稳定机制”，包括三至五年稳定期、高层沟通渠道、危机处理协议等。这一框架试图在冲突边缘建立安全护栏，避免中美陷入“战略失控”。在川普政府强调“美国优先”的背景下，兰德的现实主义建议或将成为政策调整的催化剂。

兰德公司报告释放的战略信号值得高度关注。它不仅反映出美国战略界对中国崛起的重新定位，也为中美关系提供了一个“可控竞争”的新范式。

兰德公司作为美国国防与外交政策的重要智库，其报告往往具有前瞻性与政策渗透力。《稳定中美竞争关系》报告“不仅提供了缓和中美冲突的战略工具箱”，也可能成为川普政府第二任期内对华政策的参考蓝本。

在“竞争不可避免”的现实下，兰德提出的“有限稳定机制”被指或许是“当前最具可行性的路径”。“它不鼓吹幻想，也不主张对抗”，而是试图在冲突边缘建立一条安全护栏。“未来的中美关系，或许不在于谁赢谁输，而在于是否能避免双输”。

28.10.2025

------------------- 

资料来源

Michael J. Mazarr, Amanda Kerrigan, Benjamin Lenain: Stabilizing the U.S.-China Rivalry, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4107-1.html, Published Oct 14, 2025.

--------------------

RAND Corporation Report Sends Strategic Signal: U.S.–China Competition Should Enter a New Phase of “Stable Game” — A Move Toward “Stable Competition” or a Strategic Concession?

The U.S. think tank RAND Corporation recently released a research report titled “Stabilizing U.S.–China Competition,” which has drawn wide attention and debate in the international strategic community. The report argues that geopolitical competition between China and the United States has reached saturation, and that without establishing a “limited stability mechanism,” the risk of conflict will continue to rise. In particular, regarding Taiwan, the South China Sea, and the technology sphere, RAND recommends that Washington abandon the narrative of “absolute victory” and instead focus on “rule shaping” and “risk management.”

This position is seen as a “major adjustment signal” in America’s China policy and could serve as a policy blueprint for the second Trump administration.

The most controversial part of the report suggests that the U.S. should “maximize incentives for Beijing to pursue a gradual path toward reunification,” while explicitly rejecting support for “Taiwan independence.” This breaks with Washington’s long-standing policy of “strategic ambiguity,” signaling a shift toward a more realist logic of “stable competition.” The reaction in Taiwan has been strong. RAND’s recommendations could reshape the strategic landscape across the Taiwan Strait. They also reflect a reassessment within the U.S. strategic community of China’s regional denial capabilities and nuclear deterrence system, potentially providing “theoretical grounds for adjustments in the Trump administration’s Taiwan policy.”

On the South China Sea issue, the report advocates combining military deterrence with multilateral diplomacy to promote a peaceful resolution. Recommendations include maintaining a limited military presence, avoiding provocative exercises, and leveraging ASEAN mechanisms to foster peace-oriented expectations. This strategy emphasizes “rule shaping” rather than “power coercion,” indicating a reassessment of the risks of South China Sea conflict. It also “offers regional states greater diplomatic space.” Such an approach could lead a future Trump administration to adopt a more cautious military posture in the South China Sea while strengthening diplomatic coordination with regional countries to avoid direct confrontation.

The report notes that competition in the technology domain has evolved into a national security conflict. It recommends that Washington manage emerging technology risks, avoid extreme suppression of Chinese tech firms, and negotiate agreements to limit cyberattacks and information warfare. This stance contrasts with the Trump administration’s previous “comprehensive blockade” approach and underscores RAND’s deep concern for the stability of global supply chains. If adopted, RAND’s proposals could lead to a more balanced approach to technology export controls, corporate sanctions, and cybersecurity rules.

At its core, the RAND report calls for the establishment of a “limited stability mechanism,” including a three- to five-year stability period, high-level communication channels, and crisis management protocols. This framework seeks to create safety guardrails at the edge of confrontation and prevent the U.S. and China from falling into “strategic loss of control.” Against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s “America First” emphasis, RAND’s realist recommendations could serve as a catalyst for policy adjustment.

The strategic signals released by RAND deserve close attention. They reflect not only a recalibration of America’s perception of China’s rise but also offer a new paradigm for a “controlled competition” between the two powers.

As a key think tank in U.S. defense and foreign policy, RAND’s reports are known for their foresight and policy influence. “Stabilizing U.S.–China Competition” “not only provides a strategic toolbox for easing bilateral tensions” but could also serve as a policy reference for the Trump administration’s second term.

In the reality that “competition is inevitable,” RAND’s proposed “limited stability mechanism” is regarded as “perhaps the most feasible path at present.” “It neither indulges in illusions nor advocates confrontation,” but seeks to build a safety guardrail along the edge of conflict. “The future of U.S.–China relations may not hinge on who wins or loses—but on whether both sides can avoid a lose-lose outcome.”

Source

Michael J. Mazarr, Amanda Kerrigan, Benjamin Lenain: Stabilizing the U.S.-China Rivalry, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA4107-1.html, Published Oct 14, 2025