swot analysis 代写：世界政治中的权力配置
无论是以政策为导向，还是以学术为导向，现实主义者都将权力平衡视为战后亚洲国际关系的主力军，而美国则是该地区的主要平衡者。这一观点的主要支持者是李光耀，他是新加坡的长期统治者(Algappa, 2003)。他认为，美国在亚太地区的军事存在，不仅是亚洲稳定的原因，也是亚太地区经济强劲增长的原因。他表示，美国的存在和印度支那的干预，使该地区的安全得到了增强，而中国和俄罗斯的扩张，使其余的亚洲国家有足够的时间发展自己。
如前所述，肯尼斯·瓦尔兹的新现实主义理论导致了东盟国家在国际关系中形成的一种新的现实主义论点，表明两极分化的结束将导致该地区注定陷入混乱(弗里德伯格，1998年，第7-45页)。这是因为对于新现实主义追随者来说，两极是一个高度稳定的国际体系，相对于多极化而言，不仅在体系的持久性方面，而且在整个体系中存在的秩序与冲突之间的平衡方面(Ross, 2013, pp. 20-40)。冷战的结束将导致在两极管理下出现与冲突有关的减压。因此，现实主义有助于描绘冷战后亚洲秩序的更黑暗形象。
东盟地区权力真空的问题反过来又引发了谁将填补这一空白的问题。现实主义的预测最初有利于多极竞争，其特征是中国、印度的崛起和日本的重新军事化(由于美国的紧缩)(米尔斯海默，2001)。然而，在中国经济持续两位数增长的同时，国防开支也以每年两倍的速度增长，中国的崛起成为现实主义者关注的焦点。从“权力转移理论”的视角看，现实主义者认为美国(现状大国)与崛起的挑战者大国(中国)之间存在着不可避免的对抗。让位于这种对抗的是进攻性现实主义的逻辑，这种逻辑认为，权力的崛起不可避免地倾向于区域扩张主义。米尔斯海默将中国的崛起比作19世纪美国的崛起，当时美国有一种野心勃勃的霸权主义，想要获得邻国的领土，并在周边地区施加影响。扩张主义的发生不是因为以扩张模式固定下来的大国的崛起，而是因为无政府状态，即使在与最强大的行为国家竞争的时候，这种无政府状态也有能力引发一种担忧，使其得以生存。简而言之，更多的国家受到生存焦虑的折磨，这种焦虑并不亚于较弱的国家，正是这种生存的观念驱使着国家走向区域霸权(Algappa, 2003)。这就导致了“为生存而扩张”的悖论逻辑。
swot analysis 代写：世界政治中的权力配置
Whether policy oriented or academic, power balance is viewed by realists as the main force that shapes the international relations in Asia post war, with US being the chief balancer in the region. A main proponent of this perspective is Lee Kuan Yew, who was a long term ruler of Singapore (Algappa, 2003). He ascribed that not only stability in Asia, but also the robust growth in economy in the region are due to the military presence of US within Asia Pacific region. According to him, the presence of US and Indochina intervention caused security to grow in the region against the expansion of China and Russia allowing the remaining Asian states enough time to develop themselves.
As said before, the new theory of realism by Kenneth Waltz led towards a new realist argument to develop in the IR among ASEAN states illustrating the view that end to bipolarity will result in disorder causing the region to be doomed (Friedberg, 1998, pp. 7-45). This is because for the neo realist followers, bipolarity is a highly stabilizing international system in comparison to multi-polarity not only with regard to system durability but also with regard to balance between order and conflict that is existing across this system (Ross, 2013, pp. 20-40). The Cold War end would lead towards witnessing conflict related decompression supported under management of bipolarity. Therefore, realism helps in painting a darker image of post-cold war order in Asia.
Questions on power vacuum in ASEAN region in turn begs for the question that who will be filling this gap. The Realist prognosis initially was in favour of multi-polar competition that featured a rise of China, India and remilitarized Japan (due to US retrenchment) (Mearsheimer, 2001). However with double digit economy growth persistence in China matched with double annual enhancement in expenditure on defence, the rise of China became the main focus point for realists. From the perspective of “power transition theory, an inevitable confrontation was seen by realists between US (status quo power) and the rising challenger power (China. Giving way to such confrontations was offensive realism’s logic which viewed a tendency with inevitability in rise of power towards expansionism regionally. The rise of China was likened by Mearsheimer and he related it to that of 19th century US wherein there existed an aspiring hegemony to acquire territories adjacently and impose an influence sphere across the neighbourhood. Expansionism happens not due to the rise of powers hardwired in the mode of expansion but due to anarchy having the ability of inducing a concern to survive even when the competition is with most powerful acting states. In brief, more power suffers from anxieties of survival which is no lesser than of the weaker nations and it is this notion to survive that drives the states towards hegemony regionally (Algappa, 2003). This results in “expand to survive” being the paradoxical logic.
