Asia-Pasific needs U.S. presence

By Jusuf Wanandi

JAKARTA (JP): Since the end of the Cold War and during negotiations on U.S. bases in the Philippines at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s, there has been speculation about the continuity of United States military presence in the western Pacific-Region or East Asia. After the Okinawa rape a few months ago this question reemerged and is being debated even in Japan.

The U.S. presence in the Asia-Pacific has been taken for granted and people expected it to always continue. This is because it is recognized as a Pacific power in its own right. However, the U.S. military forward deployment strategy in the western Pacific is being questioned, although both the Bush and Clinton administrations made it clear that the U.S. military strategy in this part of the world would be maintained by stationing around 100,000 troops, especially in Japan and south Korea.

The question is: What would happen if the Korean Peninsula reunited in a relatively peaceful way? Would U.S. public opinion still support the U.S. presence in East Asia? What if the cost was minimal due to increased burden-sharing by Japan and other East Asian countries?

No doubt, following Korea's reunification, the present of U.S. troops would be reassessed by both Congress and the U.S. public. What should East Asia do to maintain a certain amount of U.S. military presence in the future? Is this presence vital to the region?

Every country in East Asia supports some U.S. military presence in the region, although officially this may not be admitted by some. This applies to China which has a stake in the stability of the region and considers the U.S. presence helpful in keeping Japan in line. China's relationship with USA is now somewhat strained due to the China-Taiwan tension, but both sides are expected to do something about it and enable the relations to be normalized again in the near future. The size of the U.S. presence can vary in accordance with strategic developments and the introduction of new advanced technologies, but the U.S. presence as such is strategically important in view of the many uncertainties in the region.

Under these circumstances, it would not make sense for the region to change the underpinnings that have enabled East Asia to maintain stability, peace and dynamism during the past 50 years. This was made possible by the U.S. presence through bilateral alliances, especially the U.S.-Japan alliance.

The U.S. is the only trusted great power because it is considered a benign power. Cooperative security arrangements in the form of the ASEAN Regional Forum and the informal Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia-Pacific region are being developed in the region to complement existing bilateral alliances in response to the emergence of a more multipolar region.

To be credible and effective, they should be based on a minimum balance of power. This balance of power should not be in the form of confrontation such as in Europe between the end of the 19th century until World War II which was aimed at containing the emerging great power of Germany. A minimum presence of all the great powers is necessary to manage a region which is becoming multipolar and multilateral.

The U.S. presence is vital to the maintenance of a minimum balance of power in the region. In that sense, the U.S. military presence is not a temporary phenomenon but a fundamental part of the strategic development of the Asia-Pacific in the future. The regional cooperative security arrangement also contributes to the strengthening of the collective security of the UN system as envisaged in Chapter VIII of the Charter and the Secretary- General's Agenda for Peace.

To keep the U.S. military presence in East Asia, some efforts have to be made by East Asia to show America that it is in its own best interest to be in the region. Greater burden-sharing is one such important effort. Bilateral alliances, the U.S.-Japan relationship in particular, are vital to burden-sharing. There is no doubt that this relationship has to be adjusted and efforts to that effect are being made by both sides. The results of these efforts might be announced when President Clinton visits Japan today.

Other countries in East Asia, even if they do not have bilateral treaties with the U.S., also have to contribute to the burden-sharing. Even Indonesia recognizes the importance of supporting a minimum U.S. presence in the region. This is no longer seen as compromising its non-aligned stance because non- alignment no longer derives from confrontation between superpowers as in the cold War. Instead, non-alignment today means cooperation and coordination among developing countries, especially in economic and social developments, with the aim of integrating them into the world economy.

However, more than burden-sharing is needed to keep an American presence in the region. There has to be a U.S. economic and political presence in the region to guarantee its military presence. U.S. economic presence can be maintained if there is a level playing field for U.S. business in addition to the further opening of markets. This indeed, has been the case over the past few years and continuous improvements in the economic policies of East Asians will further intensify U.S. economic involvement in the region. In this context the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation is an important vehicle.

U.S. political presence can only be envisaged with a certain political ideology, including human rights. This should no longer pose a problem for East Asia as it now has the confidence to cooperate with the U.S. on human rights issues. In this cooperation, each side must keep an open mind and attempt to understand and appreciate each other's views, which are in any case based on common basic human rights as accepted by the UN.

The writer is chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies, Jakarta.

Window: To keep the U.S. military presence in East Asia, some efforts have to be made by East Asia to show America that it is in its own best interest to be in the region.