Asia-Pasific needs U.S. presence
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.