What does Bush's reelection mean to the international community and China? This is what many people are most concerned about. There are a variety of views about this, but they fail to grasp the essence of the matter. According to Lianhe Zaobao of Singapore, the problem can be approached from three aspects.

First of all, the most important structural element is the fact that the United States is the only hegemony in today's world. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, the "one divides into two" world power pattern has come to an end accordingly and the United States has become the worthy global hegemony. The structural element indicates that the top item of the US international strategy on the agenda (no matter who serves as its president) is how to maintain such a hegemonic position and curb any challenger.

Second, after the "9.11" event, global terrorism has constituted a direct threat to US security. Although terrorist incidents have occurred in various countries, they are aimed at either the United States or its allies. This requires that the Bush administration continue to make anti-terrorism a strategic focus.

Third, it should be pointed out that the threat of terrorism to US national security is not in the traditional sense. In other words, although terrorism has posed major threat to US national security, it can hardly become a challenger to the American hegemonic position. What can constitute a threat to the US hegemonic position can only be another sovereign state or an alliance of sovereign countries. This requires the United States to strictly guard against threats from other sovereign countries or alliances of such countries while carrying out a war against terrorism.

US may change the method of occupation and troops stationing

How to maintain the hegemonic position? An answer to this question can be found from the history of hegemony. Britain was the world's empire during the 18th and 19th century, colonialism was the way Britain adopted to keep its hegemony. This method proved very effective for quite a long period of time, but with the advent of the era of nationalism, colonialism quit the stage of history, or in other words, British hegemony ended with the rise of nationalism.

After the Second World War, the world was divided into two with the United States and the Soviet Union contending for hegemony. In order to maintain their respective hegemonic positions and expand their spheres of influence, either the United States or the then Soviet Union resorted to occupation and stationing of troops overseas. This has been proved by US occupation of Japan and its stationing of troops in various parts of the world.

At present, the United States has become the sole hegemony. How to keep this hegemonic status under the new situation? Judging from US strategies toward Afghanistan and Iraq, America seems continuing the use of the method of occupation and troops stationing. However, it is estimated that the United States has learned sufficient lessons from the above-mentioned method. This method is not necessarily an effective strategy, as evidenced by the high price America has paid for it either because of factors of nationalism or of religion.

The United States has started to reduce its forces stationed in Europe and Northeast Asia, and switched to seek more military strongholds set up worldwide, this move indicates the possibility of US changing its method of occupation and troops stationing. When the high cost of this method, the characteristics of modern military revolution and US needs in global counter-terrorism are taken into consideration, this transformation has become inevitable.

How to realize such a strategic transformation? This is just what people are concerned about, a question regarding whether the Bush administration will continue its unilateralist practice, which is a must in its adjustment of international strategy. The point is we must have a more profound understanding of US unilateralism, which we are referring to the United States' unilateral actions taken in disregard of traditional international organizations, especially the United Nations.

Multilateralism based on US interest

However, unilateralism does not mean isolated action of the United States. Whether in Afghanistan or in Iraq, the United States tries as far as possible to form an alliance, i.e., "the coalition of willing". That is to say, when the United States cannot manipulate the Unite Nations, it casts aside this international body, and changes to organize an international alliance capable of reflecting its own interest and will. That is a new form of multilateralism, which is based on the interest of the United States.

This situation actually started during the Clinton era, as shown on the issue of Yugoslavia. The difference is, Clinton relied on NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) members while Bush went to extremes by casting aside the allies.

Efforts of the Bush administration show that the United States is starting to reorganize the international order, so that this world order can help maintain the US hegemonic position while better reflecting its interest. From the realistic perspective, the reorganization is inevitable.

As the United Sates sees it, a stable security framework has not yet been formed in the world's power pattern after the Cold War. Because of the emergence of global terrorism, the United States is bound to take advantage of this opportunity to reestablish a world order.

US effort to rebuild a world order will inevitably bring tremendous impact on the existing international order. Various countries around the world are bound to face choices. Should they deter the US unilateralist effort, or submit to and affirm this effort? Or should they join the US effort to reestablish a world order? For many countries, this is not a simple, easy choice.

Many countries, including US traditional allies, such as France and Germany, are dissatisfied with US unilateralism, because it damages their interests in the existing international pattern. On the other hand, however, it should be noticed that no country is able or has a strong wish to come out to oppose and restrain the United States as the Soviet Union did in the past.

After the Cold War, China earlier deemed the world power pattern as multi-polar, but since the late 1990s, it seems that China's established line has been trying hard to avoid becoming another Soviet Union. Therefore, China's policy is intended to cooperate with the United States in various fields, thereby, to some extent, realizing its goal of sharing international space with the United States.

In the past 20 years, despite its rapid economic development and fast enhancement of its national strength, however, like many other countries, China has neither the ability nor the wish to step forward against the United States or form a counter-US alliance. However, if America makes use of its position as the sole hegemony and begins to throw away the existing international system and rebuild a US-centered international order or multilateralism, that will inevitably pose bigger challenge to China. How to cope with this challenge is a question that merits serious consideration.

By Peole's Daily Online