home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
TIME: Almanac 1990s
/
Time_Almanac_1990s_SoftKey_1994.iso
/
time
/
030590
/
03051014.000
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1994-03-27
|
7KB
|
153 lines
<text id=90TT0564>
<title>
Mar. 05, 1990: Ripples In The American Lake
</title>
<history>
TIME--The Weekly Newsmagazine--1990
Mar. 05, 1990 Gossip
</history>
<article>
<source>Time Magazine</source>
<hdr>
NATION, Page 16
Ripples in the American Lake
</hdr>
<body>
<p>Can the U.S. reap a peace dividend in the Pacific?
</p>
<p>By Ed Magnuson--Reported by Jay Branegan/Hong Kong and Bruce
van Voorst/Washington
</p>
<p> Ever since U.S. forces destroyed the Japanese Navy in World
War II, the Pacific Ocean has been, in military terms, an
American lake. From naval bases in the Aleutian Islands and
southward to Subic Bay in the Philippines, 107 U.S. warships
and 51 submarines project commanding seapower. Ashore, mostly
in South Korea, Japan and Okinawa, 120,000 American troops are
poised to deter aggression along the Pacific's western rim.
Now, with the Soviet threat waning under the U.S.S.R.'s
economic and ideological decay, is that U.S. military presence
still necessary?
</p>
<p> As he ended a two-week tour of the Pacific last week,
Defense Secretary Dick Cheney concluded that the governments
of Japan and South Korea still appreciate their U.S.
protectors, despite anti-American sentiment among some
political factions. Yet Cheney caught a slap from Philippine
President Corazon Aquino. The U.S. Congress had recently cut $96
million from a $481 million military and economic aid package
that Aquino apparently considered a precondition for
negotiations on renewing U.S. leases to operate the huge Subic
Bay Naval Base and Clark Air Base. Miffed, she canceled plans
to meet Cheney. The Defense Secretary took the snub gracefully
but declared that the U.S. will remain in the bases, whose
leases expire next year, "only as long as the Philippine people
wish it to stay--and only if the terms negotiated are
acceptable to both parties."
</p>
<p> Both sides in the bases dispute may be just huffing, seeking
an edge in the imminent bargaining. At the Pentagon, a Navy
captain insisted that Philippine officials "have cried wolf one
time too often" over Subic and that the U.S. might pull out.
Aquino, who was saved from a military coup last December when
U.S. jet fighters from Clark kept rebel air power grounded,
caught a lot of domestic heat over her dependence on the U.S.
She may have used Cheney's visit to show some distance. While
the U.S. bases are often picketed by leftists, polls show that
a majority of Filipinos want them to stay. They provide 68,000
Filipino jobs and inject $507 million annually into the economy.
</p>
<p> Clark is clearly more expendable than Subic. The Air Force
increasingly operates its long-range bombers and advanced
fighters out of Guam. Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew
has offered to accept some air units from Clark in his country.
Subic's facilities, on the other hand, cannot readily be
replaced. They include extensive machine shops that maintain
the U.S. fleet with low-cost labor unavailable at alternative
sites in Singapore or Japan.
</p>
<p> But what are the bases protecting? At a media conference in
Manila last week, Soviet Foreign Ministry spokesman Gennadi
Gerasimov asked, "Suppose the bases go tomorrow--where's the
threat?" The Soviets, he insisted, "will not fill the vacuum."
American planners are not so sure of that. Subic is
strategically situated across the China Sea from Cam Ranh Bay,
the former U.S. naval base in Viet Nam, which now berths about
20 Soviet warships.
</p>
<p> And while Mikhail Gorbachev has promised to remove 120,000
troops from Soviet Asia and Mongolia, that would still leave
600,000 along the Soviet border with China. At least 10,000
troops are based in the northern territories just off Japan
that were seized by the Soviets in 1945. The Soviet Pacific
fleet of 77 ships and 120 submarines has access to ports in
North Korea as well as its own facilities in Vladivostok.
</p>
<p> The Japanese, who take hope from recent negotiations with
the Soviets over the Kurile Islands, urged Cheney to keep U.S.
pressure on the Kremlin to reduce its military strength in
Asia. As for the 50,000 American troops in Japan and its
outlying island of Okinawa, Cheney said the U.S. plans to
withdraw only about 5,000 over the next three years. The U.S.
also wants the Japanese to increase the $2.8 billion they now
pay toward the $6 billion annual cost of keeping American
forces in Japan.
</p>
<p> There was no suggestion that Japan's Self-Defense Forces of
244,000 troops should handle that nation's security alone.
U.S.-Japanese military cooperation underscores the larger
partnership between the two nations. Moreover, Japan's military
is still equated with evil by much of the Japanese public as
well as by its neighbors. In defense, says a senior Foreign
Ministry official, "we have to play a role without showing a
big stick."
</p>
<p> In South Korea there is no doubt, despite serious
unification talks, that North Korea's dictator Kim Il Sung
still poses a threat. Within the South Korean military, there
is disagreement over whether that nation's 650,000-member armed
forces could turn back a North Korean invasion. Yet it is clear
that the U.S. presence remains a deterrent. Cheney announced
in Seoul that the U.S. plans to reduce the 43,000 troops now
on the peninsula by only 5,000 over the next three years. This
would include closing three U.S. air bases starting next year
</p>
<p>minority of South Koreans want the U.S. to pull out completely.
Contends Kim Kyung Won, former Ambassador to Washington: "The
U.S. has two options: to remain involved and avoid a
catastrophe, or to go home and then return when things fall
apart."
</p>
<p> But if the U.S., encouraged by its Pacific allies, remains
essentially in a holding posture toward Asia, the region's
rapid political and economic changes raise questions about the
durability of current security arrangements. Writing in the
Philippine Star, former Aquino press secretary Teodoro Benigno,
a respected political analyst, posed a provocative scenario.
"The rules of the big power game will change," he predicted,
"as America weakens, Japan resurges, and the Chinese giant
starts to bellow." The 21st century, in his view, will be "an
Asian century." Even if he proves right, the U.S. military
presence might help determine whether the coming changes will
be violent or peaceful.
</p>
<table>
U.S. FORCES IN THE PACIFIC
Guam: Air Force 4,200
Navy 4,000
Japan: Air Force 16,500
Navy 8,300
Marines 23,700
Army 2,000
Philippines: Air Force 9,200
Navy 5,500
Marines 2,000
Army 600
South Korea: Air Force 11,600
Army 31,600
</table>
</body>
</article>
</text>