U.S. dreams of Asian NATO

Wu Yixue China Daily Asia News Network Beijing

With the United States stepping up its largest military strategic redeployment since World War II, the voices in that country backing the establishment of an Asian version of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) have become particularly loud.

Under the Pentagon's military program, the U.S. is preparing major shifts in the deployment of its forces in the Asia-Pacific region, including the movement of U.S. marines from bases on the Japanese island of Okinawa to Australia, and the use of new base facilities in Singapore and the Philippines.

Washington also plans to withdraw some U.S. troops from the Demilitarized Zone within the Republic of Korea.

The moves are aimed at calming down the public anger in the Republic of Korea and Japan at the U.S. army bases in their countries and at forming a more mobile, smaller-scale chain of bases in the Asia-Pacific region.

The U.S. is designing a NATO-like multilateral military mechanism for Asia to better serve its own strategic interests.

Some U.S. scholars hold that the absence of a multilateral security system in Asia has been one of Washington's major strategic mistakes.

The argument is by no means a new one in the U.S.

As early as the 1950s, John Foster Dulles, then U.S. Secretary of State, advocated that the U.S. build a military alliance in Southeast Asia to deal with the former Soviet Union and the newly founded People's Republic of China -- two arch-enemies of the U.S. at that time.

Collective security was to be provided in case of armed attack against any of the parties within the treaty area or against any country in that area that the members unanimously agreed to designate, with the consent of that country's government.

A protocol to the treaty brought Cambodia, Laos and South Vietnam under the protection of the organization.

Pakistan withdrew from SEATO in 1968, and France suspended financial support in 1975. The organization held its final exercise on Feb.20, 1976 and came to an end on June 30, 1977.

Having been dormant for several decades, the concept has obviously been revived by the global and Asia-Pacific strategic readjustment that the Bush administration and some U.S. think- tanks have always attempted to pursue, especially since the Sept.11, 2001 terrorist attacks and this year's Iraq War.

The Pentagon's Asia-Pacific military strategy has put India in a prominent position compared to other Asian countries.

In the eyes of the U.S., India holds an important strategic position linking the Indian Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. By strengthening its ties with the South Asian country, the U.S. can not only consolidate and expand its strategic presence in South Asia but also further squeeze Russia's and China's strategic clout out of the region.

Talks between Pentagon senior advisers and their New Delhi counterparts were held in late May on the prospects for a new security system for an Asian version of NATO.

Washington's basic purpose for closer ties with India and an Asian version of NATO is to extend its status as the world's sole superpower.

In his State of the Union address in January, Bush said the U.S. has absolutely dominant power over other countries. That is true. U.S. gross domestic product last year amounted to US$10 trillion, one-third of the world total.

Washington's economic and military power should not necessarily mean that it is easy for the U.S. to establish lasting hegemony in the world by strengthening its military ties with other countries, which was a popular way of operating during the Cold War.

Without a definite enemy, it will be very difficult for the idea of an Asian version of NATO to gain extensive support from the international community and even within the U.S. itself.