Bulatlat.com

Last of Two Parts
Expansion of American Forces in Asia to Ensure U.S. Economic, Political Hegemony

Filipinos may view the presence of U.S. troops in Basilan as merely an attempt to flush out the Abu Sayyaf. What many may not know is that, as the U.S.-Asean Business Council and RAND reports clearly indicated, this war on terrorism is nothing but a justification for Washington to keep Asia in its grip.

BY CARLOS H. CONDE
Bulatlat.com

The U.S.-Asean Business Council's position paper has striking similarities to the policy recommendations made by the RAND Corporation before and after the Sept. 11 attacks as well as its testimonies to the U.S. Congress after the attacks. RAND was created by the US Air Force in 1946 and was the first to be called a "think tank." It is a corporation that, according to its website <www.rand.org> "now assist all branches of the U.S. military community" and applies its expertise to social and international issues. Its policy recommendations, especially for the military, are more often than not implemented by the U.S. government.

Last year, RAND commissioned a study (which was later published in a book) titled "The United States and Asia: Toward a New U.S. Strategy and Force Posture." This report analyzed the U.S, military presence in Asia and recommended courses of actions that, as the presence of U.S. troops in Basilan shows, the U.S. government apparently heeded.

Like the US-Asean Business Council report, the RAND study identifies the emergence of China as a threat to the United States not only economically but also militarily. It points out that while defense spending by other Asian countries has dipped over the years, China and India have been doing the opposite.

"Over the past several years, both China and India have -- in contrast to past behavior -- increased defense spending at rates exceeding their GDP growth. In 2000, for example, China's defense budget increased 12.7 percent compared to a 1999 GDP growth of 7.2 percent, while India's defense budget increased 28.2 percent compared with a 1999 GDP growth of 5.8 percent." The United States, the study said, should be concerned not only about China's military growth but India's as well.

“Asia is home to two aspiring great powers -- India and China. China's rapid economic growth and its steadily growing military strength may ultimately prompt it to become more forceful in pressing its territorial and sovereignty claims. Both China and India may also want more of a say in shaping regional and continental institutions and events. Whether India and China will be able to assume the role of dominant regional or continental powers remains uncertain, but the fact that both countries aspire to great-power status may in itself prove to be a source of conflict in the years to come," the study said.

World policeman

The study, by way of advancing the idea of the United States as the policeman of the world, added: "Asia's political-military situation is thus becoming increasingly fluid. Many countries have more resources -- both economic and technological -- and may also have greater incentive to transform those resources into military power. Indeed, one analyst has termed the region 'ripe for rivalry.' Below the surface, various countries are building up their potential strength. If or when they enter the geo-political arena as confident 'actors,' they may find themselves engaged in heightened political-military competition or even conflict with their neighbors."

And it emphasized the "threat" posed by China: "Assuming that China's economic, technological, and military development proceeds on its current course, its potential threat to the United States and its interests will rest on two major factors: first, the evolution of the Taiwan issue, and second, whether a more powerful China will seek to reduce U.S. influence and presence in East Asia."

To address this threat, the study proposed that the United States "formulate a strategy aimed at a pivotal long-term objective: preventing a worsening of the security situation in Asia. Central to this objective is the need to preclude the rise of a regional or continental hegemon."

This objective, it said, is crucial for two reasons: 1) to prevent the United States from being denied economic, political and military access to an important part of the globe; and 2) to prevent a concentration of resources that could support a global challenge to the United States on the order of that posed by the former Soviet Union.

"At the moment," the study said, "no nation in Asia is close to becoming a regional or continental hegemon, but this is not to say that such a threat could not arise. In fact, one major power in Asia or a coalition thereof could readily choose to devote maximum effort to building up armed might in efforts to challenge the U.S. in the region. Although currently only a remote possibility, the outcome of such a buildup would be sufficiently adverse to U.S. interests to warrant priority." This coalition could be the China-Asean Free Trade Asia or the Asian+3 that the U.S.-Asean Business Council is so worried about.

No other hegemon

The study is strikingly candid about one point: that there cannot be any other hegemon in Asia than the United States. The United States, given its objectives in Asia, "could pursue any of several alternative strategies. At one end of the spectrum would be a strategy built on ensuring and strengthening U.S. hegemony in Asia (underscoring supplied). The key to this strategy would lie in maintaining and increasing the U.S. position of preeminent power in the region, if necessary by taking steps to constrain the economic and military growth of any other country that could threaten that preeminence."

RAND proposed that the United States adopt a four-part strategy to protect its interests in Asia. "First, the U.S. should deepen as well as widen its bilateral security alliances to create a larger partnership. This multi-lateralization, which would be a complement to and not a substitute for existing bilateral alliances, should include the U.S., Japan, South Korea, Australia, and perhaps Singapore, the Philippines and Thailand.

"Second, the U.S. should pursue a balance-of-power strategy among those major rising powers and key regional states in Asia which are not part of the existing U.S. alliance structure, including China, India and a currently weakened Russia." This strategy is aimed at preempting any other country from challenging U.S. hegemony in Asia.

"Third, the U.S. should address those situations which, because of a power vacuum or for some other reason, tempt others to use force." The study used the China-Taiwan rift as an example.

"Fourth, the U.S. should promote an inclusive security dialogue among all the states of Asia. This dialogue would not only provide for a discussion of regional conflicts and promote confidence building but also encourage stages to enter into the U.S.-led multilateral framework at some time in the future."

Beef up

A May 15, 2001, RAND press release on the study titled "U.S. Forces in Region Should Be Beefed Up, Focus Shifted South" said that the "U.S. military posture in the Pacific needs revamping. Among the adjustments: Beefing up forces, shifting their focus southwards from the current concentration in northeast Asia (while still maintaining a deterrent contingent in Korea) and recasting security arrangements with Japan. Other important steps include expanding access to bases in Southeast Asia and perhaps in South Asia and Oman as well, forging military-to-military ties with India, Pakistan and Indonesia as a means of mitigating bilateral conflicts and internal unrest, and encouraging security coordination among such core U.S. partners as Japan, Australia and South Korea."

In his testimony to the U.S. Congress in December 2001, Angel Rabasa, RAND's senior policy analyst, told American congressmen that Southeast Asia, "with a population of 500 million and vast natural resources, is an area of enormous strategic importance that has not always received the level of attention it deserves. Southeast Asia is the crossroads between the concentration of industrial, technological, and military power in Northeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent and the Middle East. A high proportion of the trade of Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Australia, including much of their oil imports, transit the straits and sealanes of communication of Southeast Asia. From a military standpoint, these straits and sea lanes of communication are critical to the movement of U.S. forces from the Southwest Pacific to the Indian Ocean, the Middle East, and beyond."

On top of Rabasa's list of "conventional military threats" is China. "As China's power grows, other determinants of Chinese behavior, including the desire for regional hegemony, could lead to a more aggressive challenge to the regional status quo," Rabasa said.

Rabasa endorsed the RAND report's strategy formulated even before Sept. 11. "Initially, the United States should encourage these countries, our key friends and allies in the Asia-Pacific region, to improve the inter-operability of their armed forces so they can respond to regional crises as coalitions. Intelligence sharing, which, according to a statement by the Commander-in-Chief Pacific Command, is at an unprecedented level after Sept. 11, is an indispensable component of any comprehensive strategy."

He added: "The United States needs to restore a robust security assistance program to allies in the region, especially the Philippines, a front-line state in the war on terrorism. Beyond counter-terrorism assistance, the United States should provide urgently needed air defense and naval patrol assets to the Philippines to help Manila reestablish deterrence vis-à-vis China and give a further impetus to the revitalization of the United States-Philippine defense relationship. The $92.3 million in military assistance promised during the visit of President Macapagal-Arroyo last month is a step in the direction of redressing the shortfalls of the Philippine armed forces."

Finally, Rabasa told the U.S. Congress that "the United States should expand and diversify its access and support arrangements in Southeast Asia to be able to effectively respond in a timely way to unexpected contingencies. After all, six months ago, who would have thought that U.S. armed forces would be confronted with the need to plan and execute a military campaign in Afghanistan?"

What Rabasa failed to point out was that this strategy has a long-term objective, which is to ensure U.S. economic, political and military hegemony in Southeast Asia. Filipinos may view the presence of U.S. troops in Basilan as merely an attempt to flush out the Abu Sayyaf. What many of them may not know is that, as the U.S.-Asean Business Council and RAND reports clearly indicated, this war on terrorism is nothing but a justification for Washington to keep Asia in its grip. Bulatlat.com

We want to know what you think of this article.