The Obama administration's first National Security Strategy emphasizes a multilateral approach to solving international problems in contrast to the Bush years. But it is an adaptation of traditional thinking rather than a completely new approach.

First, the document recognizes that national security is not just a matter of defense. It also depends on finding solutions to issues like climate change, clean energy, global poverty and education. Domestic factors like the need to revive the economy and combat homegrown terrorists are also addressed. Above all, the document emphasizes the economy is the bedrock of power and the fundamental guarantee of US national security and overseas influence.

Second, the document appears to eschew the Bush administration's unilateral approach to security issues in favor of an emphasis on international coordination, favoring diplomacy above the use of force, and cooperation with emerging powers such as China and India.

Overall, the document has a broader vision than previous National Security Reviews and its proposals are more pragmatic. There are several reasons for this.

First of all, the security agenda has moved on from the "war on terror" to non-traditional security issues such as economic crisis, nuclear proliferation, environmental pollution, resource shortages, disease, cyber war, and social instability. Annual deaths from terrorist attacks are comparatively trivial compared to the threats posed by these issues.

The U.S. is also facing up to the fact that its homeland security is increasingly under threat from homegrown militants. John Brennan, assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism, said "an increasing number of individuals here in the United States become captivated by extremist ideologies or causes."

Secondly, the relative power of the U.S. is in decline as a number of influential regional powers rise, and this is weakening the US ability to wield arbitrary power. America has no choice but to beat a strategic retreat and treat other countries with courtesy – a process that had already begun in Bush's second term, and has become more pronounced under Obama.

Global society has reached a consensus on promoting stability, peace and prosperity. War is no longer the first choice to resolve disputes, and any rash use of force will face opposition from the whole world. The Obama administration is just adapting to this trend while recognizing that, as byproducts, it is conserving its strategic resources and rebuilding its soft power.

The new strategy reflects President Obama's own philosophy. The president has created the image of a pragmatic idealist since taking office. He has placed emphasis on multilateralism on issues like proposals to eliminate nuclear weapons, and has shied away from confronting China over human rights.

Obama's behavior has conveyed to the world that he is a flexible and pragmatic leader who listens, is not bound by ideology, but will handle issues in the interests of the U.S., combining realism with idealism.

The views represented in the new strategy have already been reflected in administration actions such as Vice President Joe Biden's low-key visit to Europe, the idea of "Smart Power" put forward by Hillary Clinton, and US efforts to improve relations with Muslim countries. To this extent, the document can be said to formalize policy changes that have already taken place.

But we should remember that the Obama administration had no alternative but to make these adjustments. A change in tactics does not mean the U.S. is prepared to give up its global hegemony. Emphasis on cooperation with emerging powers is a way of managing relative decline, and maintaining superpower status remains the fundamental aim of US diplomacy. It cannot be ruled out that the U.S. may once more abandon multilateralism if it is to its advantage.

Obama has been very clear that only by keeping an open mind and pursuing multilateral win-win solutions can countries be encouraged to work together on the issues facing the world. But this does not mean the U.S. has abandoned its concerns about potential challengers. So the new approach to cooperation still lacks a stable foundation.

Disputes between states may no longer be resolved by force but they will not go away. Instead they become the subject of verbal disputes. And while the U.S. may try to hide its domination of world affairs behind a cloak of multilateralism, in essence little has changed. The Obama administration still wants the U.S. to exercise global leadership and will continue to exert America's extraordinary influence in its own interests.

In essence, the changes seen in the new national security strategy represent traditional US thinking applied to changed circumstances. We should not expect too much from it.

The author is a researcher with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

(This post was first published in Chinese and translated by Elaine Duan.)