Rethinking Security in the Pacific
Article Summary and Author Biography
Reviews the dominant features of the APR (Asia-Pacific region). "The major strategic issue is still the USSR. It is unclear how the United States should cope with the remaining, and in some respects growing, Soviet military capability in the Asian-Pacific area"; it therefore behoves the USA to maintain its strong naval presence in the APR, while exploring naval arms reduction with the Soviets. In addition, the USA should preserve its commitment to South Korea (while encouraging rapprochement between North and South Korea), and retain close security ties with Japan. Regional security co-operation should be encouraged in SE Asia, though not over-optimistically: "Southeast Asians are likely to favor a US presence for some time to come". As for the unpredictable regional policy of China, the US objective should be to promote political and economic links which maximize China's co-operation with its neighbours, as well as with the USA.
William J. Crowe, Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret.), former chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (1985-89), is professor of geopolitics at the University of Oklahoma and Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Alan D. Romberg is the C. V. Starr Fellow for Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. This article grew out of discussions at a Council on Foreign Relations study group.
While the world's attention has been riveted on Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union and the Middle East, transforming events have also been taking place in East Asia. American interests there are at least as deep, and though the changes are not as dramatic the United States can ill afford to ignore them or leave its reaction in the hands of the fates-or compromises in Washington's bureaucracy.
Not only is the economic strength of Japan and the newly industrializing economies in the region of great importance to the United States, but Asian security issues also offer complex new challenges to U.S. defense planners. On the one hand, the Soviet threat has undergone a profound change; this movement has been manifested in some Soviet force reductions and changed dispositions in Asia, as well as in the plethora of Pacific arms control overtures. On the other hand, American forces must still deal with a sizable Soviet military presence in the region and play more subtle roles not related to the Soviet Union.
In the new post-Cold War era, what is the appropriate U.S. military role in Asia? Indeed what are Washington's security objectives? And, especially in light of the economic pressures that Americans face at home and the growing nationalism and economic strength of many Asian countries, what sort of presence is necessary, appropriate and affordable to carry out that role? How is the United States to share responsibilities-both burdens and power?
II
The qualities that define Asia are enduring: it is huge, diverse, dynamic and, frequently, dangerous. America's involvement in World War II began and ended in Asia, and since then the United States has fought two major wars there-Korea and Vietnam. Even today the risk of war in Korea remains palpable; fighting in Cambodia continues and is likely to do so at some level despite any eventual agreement.
This is a premium article
You must be a logged in Foreign Affairs subscriber to continue reading. If you wish to continue reading this article please subscribe , or activate your online account to get full online access.
Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.