|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
An American Strategy for Asia in the 1990s
| Article
# : |
20412 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
3 / 1992 |
3,651 Words |
| Author
: |
Martin L. Lasater
Martin L. Lasater, formerly director of the Asian Studies
Center at the Heritage Foundation, is president of the Pacific
Council, based in Columbia, Maryland. |
Since his inauguration, President Bush has been alluding to a new strategy of "beyond containment".
Based on the post Cold War international environment it takes into account the tight constraints placed on the U.S. defense and foreign affairs budgets. "Beyond containment," is not a U.s. strategy, however for such a strategy has not yet been defined. Nonetheless, major element of "containment", that appear valid in today's international environment are being retained by the Bush administration
Neither have been clearly defined U.s. national goals and objectives in the post-Cold War era. According to the Bush administration U.S. objectives in the postcontainment period center on the creation of a new world order of justice, peace, prosperity and harmony. This is the "fifth objective" that bush mentioned before Congress in explaining why he had deployed such a large force to the Middle East.
The United States is in a transitional period of an uncertain length from the Cold war era. Although there is some sense of the direction it wants to take over the next decade, no consensus has been reached on the details of the new world order. And while our previous national security strategy of "containment" is recognizably outmoded, a new "beyond containment" strategy has not yet been defined. What is required is a creative new strategy that is responsive to the new international environment, strongly supportive of U.s. values and interest, and appealing to the American people.
These general observations also apply to U.s. strategy toward the East Asia/Pacific (EAP) region.
In shaping a future U.S strategy toward the region, however, certain major regional characteristics have to be kept in mind. At least three of these characteristics are relevant to our discussion.
First, although the United States remains, overall, the strongest power in the western Pacific, its influence and leadership have declined in recent years. This is due to several factors, including (1) the declining Cold War threat, which no longer justifies U.S. leadership in the region simply for reasons of mutual security;(2) the economic, political, and military growth of individual Asian nations, creating a condition of multipolarity in the western Pacific, (3) deliberate policy decisions by the United States to be a "partner" of constructive nations in the EAP region, not the
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
