Suchergebnisse

CONTEMPORARY U.S. POLICY VIS A VIS NORTHEAST ASIA IS BASED ON OUTDATED PREMISES. THREE DECADES OF CHANGE HAVE CREATED NEW REALITY IN NORTHEAST ASIA, THOUGH U.S. POLICYMAKERS RELUCTANT TO FACT IT. IT IS TIME FOR U.S. TO ADJUST TO NEW ECONOMIC, POLITICAL AND MILITARY STRENGTHS AND POTENTIALS OF OUR JAPANESE AND SOUTH KOREAN ALLIES AND DEMAND THEY SHOULDER THEIR FULL SHARE OF OUR COMMON BURDEN.

BECAUSE OF MOSCOW'S INVASION OF AFGHANISTAN AND ITS SUPPORT FOR VIETNAMESE AGGRESSION, THERE IS LITTLE QUESTION THAT SOUTH AND SOUTHEAST ASIA ARE CONCERNED ABOUT A MANIFEST SHIFT IN THE RELATIVE STRENGTHS OF MOSCOW AND WASHINGTON IN BOTH SUBREGIONS OF ASIA. MANY IN SOUTH & SEA ARE CLEARLY APPREHENSIVE ABOUT A DIMINISHED AMERICAN WILL TO DETER SOVIET EXPANSIONISM.

This provocative critique of Washington's current security policies, draws on the arguments made by an array of non-interventionist and conservative-nationalist scholars. It provides a blueprint for a more restrained and unilateral US role in global affairs.

Thanks to the TV comedy series M*A*S*l I, the US military presence in Korea is arguably the best known but least understood component of the United States' strategic presence in Asia. In the wake of the American debacle in Vietnam juxtaposed with the economic and other successes of the United States' South Korean protégé, it comes as no surprise to Americans that Washington wants to keep US forces steadfastly committed in Korea-a place where they fought and, after a fashion, won.

U.S. policy toward the inter-Korean relations of a divided Korea draws upon a complex historical legacy of the 19th and 20th centuries which influences current and future policy options. American cooperation with the ROK and adversarial relations with the DPRK symbolize the essence of the U.S. role between the two Koreas, but they also provide the framework for post-Cold War U.S. approaches to inter-Korean relations. North Korea's post-Cold War strategic brinkmanship and nuclear agenda have escalated tensions, but also caused Americans during the Clinton and Bush administrations to consider more creative alternatives for dealing with inter-Korean dynamics. U.S. policy options toward inter-Korean affairs also are being shaped by post-9/11 U.S. global security issues and the geopolitical debate they created for the politics of the 2008 presidential election campaigns, setting the stage for the forthcoming Obama administration's potential policies toward Korean relations on bilateral, multilateral, and unification issues. It would be very useful for the Obama administration to support developing a "U.S. Center" focusing on inter-Korean peace and unification.