July 16th 2003
By Ralph Cossa
President, Pacific Forum CSIS
Washington's post-Sept. 11, post-post-Cold War military strategy and force posture realignment plans for East Asia began to take shape this quarter, albeit in bits and pieces. While "everything is going to move everywhere," first up seems to be the Korean Peninsula, at least in terms of planning. The long-term objective appears to be reducing footprints (and ultimately numbers?) and increasing flexibility without reducing commitment or defense/deterrent capabilities or creating too much regional anxiety (or false expectations). Meanwhile, bad behavior by the region's twin despots - North Korea's Kim Jong-il and Burma's Than Shwe - resulted in increased promotion of multilateral solutions and a willingness, however tentative, by the nations of Southeast Asia and other members of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) to interfere, ever so slightly and gently, in one another's internal affairs. Ad hoc multilateralism was also the order of the day down under, as Australia worked to put together a coalition of the willing to intervene, by invitation, in the Solomon Islands.
Some unilateralist U.S. tendencies remain, however, especially when it comes to announced missile defense plans (which were hardly noticed) and nuclear force modernization and research efforts (which were). Meanwhile, in Iraq, winning the war has given way to the more daunting task of winning the peace while, elsewhere, the world holds its collective breath in hopes that the worst of SARS is now behind us.
Everything is Going to Move Everywhere
One of the first firm indicators that major force restructuring plans are being considered for East Asia occurred this quarter when U.S. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith stated in a May 29 on-the-record interview in the Los Angeles Times that "Everything is going to move everywhere . . . There is not going to be a place in the world where it's going to be the same as it used to be .... We're going to rationalize our posture everywhere - in Korea, in Japan, everywhere."
While Feith elected not to give details, noting that planning was in the preliminary stages, the LA Times article also cited other (unnamed) senior Pentagon officials as stating that plans were "on the table" to move the bulk of Marine forces currently based in Okinawa to Australia, and that Washington was "seeking agreements to base Navy ships in Vietnamese waters and ground troops in the Philippines." Malaysia was also mentioned as one of the places where Washington wanted to establish a "network of small bases," which would reportedly serve as "launching pads for moving U.S. forces quickly and clandestinely to future areas of conflict." A reduction in Korea-based forces was "probably in the cards" as well, although plans had not yet been made "for fear of sending a signal of lack of resolve to North Korea." With the exception of South Korea (where restructuring plans were soon to be announced - see below), defense establishments in most of the countries named were quick to point out that they had agreed to no such thing, underscoring Feith's original (and largely overlooked) point about the preliminary nature of current planning.
Speaking at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore a few days later, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz tried to provide the larger context, noting that "Many studies have been done and many ideas have been presented, but no decisions have yet been made" and none would be made without close consultation with Congress and with "affected friends and allies in the region." Wolfowitz further noted that Washington's "fundamental look at our military posture worldwide" was aimed at addressing the issue of "how best to sustain the American commitment to this region in the face of the global demands on our defense resources." Yes, changes in force structure (read: reductions as well as realignments) were inevitable, he seemed to be saying, but they would not be made at the expense of the region's security. Washington would maintain "the same basic commitment to stability and deterrence in this region that we have had all along."
What was new and potentially significant but largely overlooked in the LA Times story was the reported change in attitude toward China. In the past, most statements coming from the Pentagon seemed to focus on the need to counter a potential peer competitor. If it is true that, "in the post-Sept. 11 world, the threat from China is believed by Bush administration policymakers to pale beside that posed by unstable countries in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East that are viewed as breeding grounds for terrorists," this would bring the Pentagon more in line with the point of view that has prevailed in the State Department and was embedded in last fall's National Security Strategy, which stresses cooperation rather than competition with China and the other great powers. This would allow the Pentagon to focus on flexibility, mobility, and rapid response from its East Asia "launching pads."
Korea: Restructuring to "Promote Regional Stability"
It soon became clear that planning for the future had already begun and indeed was quite advanced when it came to the status of U.S. forces on the Korean Peninsula. On June 5, the joint statement from the second "Future of the ROK-US Alliance Policy Initiative" talks revealed that the two allies had already reached general agreement on a future force restructuring plan "to enhance deterrence and security on the Korean Peninsula and improve the combined defense."
Glaring headlines about "U.S. Pulling Troops from the DMZ" aside, a careful reading of the joint statement reveals that little, other than joint planning, will take place immediately, and that any consolidation of U.S. forces will "tak[e] careful account of the political, economic, and security situation on the Peninsula and in Northeast Asia," a caveat lifted directly from the joint statement signed a month earlier by Presidents George Bush and Roh Moo-hyun during their first summit meeting in Washington DC.
The first step is to develop a series of Implementation Plans - for Capability Enhancement, Yongsan Relocation, the Transfer of Military Missions, and for the Realignment of U.S. Forces in the ROK, respectively - with the goal of completing the plans (not the moves) in time for discussion (not implementation) at the ROK-U.S. Security Consultative Meeting (SCM) in late September. When actual relocation of forces will occur is not clear. The ROK government, according to the announcement, will "start procuring appropriate land in 2004." How long this will take is anyone's guess - the U.S. has been waiting since 1996 for Okinawan officials to provide an alternative location for Futenma Air Base; hopefully ROK authorities will be a bit quicker. On the other hand, U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) agreed more than a decade ago to move its military headquarters from Yongsan (in the middle of downtown Seoul) once an alternative location was secured; the search for "appropriate land" for key hubs is, in this respect, deja vu' all over again.
As explained in more detail in the U.S.-ROK chapter in this issue [Donald Gross, "The Nuclear Issue Sputters Along"], the consolidation itself will occur in two phases. Under the first phase, forces north of the Han River (which runs through Seoul) will consolidate in the Camp Casey and Camp Red Cloud areas (which are also north of Seoul). Presumably this could be done without procuring too much additional land, so it could begin sometime after the plans are discussed in September and agreed upon. But even if some forces are moved off the DMZ during phase one, they will still remain within artillery range of North Korea. Even after the full relocation to the new "key hubs," the two sides "agreed to sustain a U.S. military rotational training presence north of the Han," no doubt to address lingering "tripwire" concerns.
Meanwhile, Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz, during an early June visit to Seoul, urged Koreans to "move beyond outmoded concepts or catch phrases," noting that "the real tripwire is the letter and spirit of our mutual defense treaty, backed up by the substance of our alliance and our strong military forces." To this, one should add the billions of dollars of U.S. investment in South Korea and tens of thousands of business people and tourists there on any given day. Nonetheless, keeping some forces forward will help disabuse North Korea of the notion that the U.S. is too casualty-averse to respond to future provocations; a mistake that Saddam Hussein made not once, but twice. Meanwhile, relocating and consolidating the bulk of U.S. forces further south will put them in a better position to more effectively respond, in the unlikely (but not impossible) event that the North were to launch a military attack.
Of equal significance is the agreement by both sides "on the importance of structuring U.S. forces in a manner that further promotes regional stability." In the past, U.S. Korea-based forces have been discussed solely in terms of Peninsula defense. While this remains their primary mission today (given the North Korean threat), this acknowledgment provides the U.S. with greater planning flexibility (in keeping with the Pentagon's desire to transform military thinking and basing worldwide) while also laying the groundwork for a continued force presence, in the event North Korea either reforms itself or goes away.
"Rationalizing" U.S. Force Presence Everywhere
As regards the rest of the Asia restructuring plan, few details have been provided beyond assurances about what is not being planned. "Most of the details that I have read are either inaccurate or extremely premature," Secretary Wolfowitz explained when questioned about the LA Times article, with reports about Marines going from Okinawa to Australia or new bases being established in the Philippines specifically pointed out as being flat out wrong.
Wolfowitz acknowledged during his IISS speech that an assessment of force requirements and restructuring opportunities was also underway with Japan, even though "many of the basing and mobility issues that confront us in other nations do not exist in our current relationship with Japan"; a signal that no dramatic changes are anticipated in the near term. I would argue that Okinawa will remain a key "hub" in any future U.S. restructuring plan, given its vital location as a key air and naval logistical hub. While alternative basing scenarios can be envisioned for the Marines (Guam, Korea, the U.S., perhaps even Australia at some point), Kadena Airbase and Naha (or a suitable replacement) port seem as vital to any future "launching pad" strategy as they are to supporting Korean (and other) contingencies today. Misawa Airbase in northern Japan may serve as another hub, with some (myself included) suggesting that the U.S. Navy carrier air wing currently situated in the crowded Kanto Plains area could be relocated there.
Identifying potential hubs in other Asia-Pacific locations also continues. While completely discounting reports of U.S. troops returning to permanent bases in the Philippines, Wolfowitz noted that the U.S. had "redoubled our commitment" to assist Manila, further pointing out that the Philippines had been accorded major non-NATO ally status, "in recognition of the close ties which bind our two nations." A "main driver" behind Washington's regional (and worldwide) military posture review was "to adapt to a world in which potential threats have become more unpredictable." As a result, Wolfowitz continued, "we place a great premium on mobility and on the ability to move from existing hubs at great speed and to use temporary basing solution as needed." This "new" approach seems to be a logical extension of the earlier U.S. Pacific Command "places not bases" strategy, which also stressed flexibility, mobility, and rapid response capability centered around "temporary basing solutions." Stay tuned for more changes and even more speculation and rumors.
What's clearly needed now is an updated East Asia Strategy Report, similar to those produced during the Clinton and previous Bush administrations, laying out Washington's overall vision and security strategy for the Asia-Pacific region.
ASEAN Looks inward as Multilateralism Strives Forward
The assembled ARF ministers also expressed their concern over the decision by Burma's ruling junta to place opposition leader and Nobel Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi under "protective custody" after what has been broadly recognized to have been a government authorized (if not instigated) clash between her National League for Democracy (NLD) followers and organized hostile elements in late May. Surprisingly, the ASEAN ministers, during their own internal Southeast Asian meeting, also elected to interfere in Burma's internal affairs, urging Rangoon "to resume its efforts of national reconciliation and dialogue among all the parties concerned leading to a peaceful transition to democracy." They "looked forward to the early lifting of restrictions placed on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD members." Burma's foreign minister did not block the statement "in the interest of ASEAN unity." The ASEAN ministers comments were repeated verbatim in the ARF Chairman's Statement. ASEAN also plans to send a troika delegation to Rangoon to further discuss the situation.
The ARF ministers also "recognized the growing danger" of WMD proliferation and "reaffirmed their commitment to make further joint efforts to tackle the problem" but did not specifically endorse or otherwise refer to the U.S. Proliferation Security Initiative. They stressed the importance of a continued link between track one and track two (official versus non-official dialogue efforts) and looked to further efforts to enhance the role of the ARF Chair, to include a not otherwise described further role in helping to ease tensions on the Korean Peninsula.
In addition to the internal ASEAN and broader ARF meetings, an ASEAN Plus Three (China, Japan, and Republic of Korea) ministerial was also held in Phnom Penh on June 17. Its East Asia Study Group tabled 17 short-term and nine medium-to-long-term recommendations, laying out measures to foster East Asian solidarity and promote greater regional cooperation. The network of bilateral currency swap arrangements (BSA) envisioned as part of the ASEAN Plus Three Changmai Initiative has now reached 12 BSAs, with two more under negotiation. Beijing also continued to move toward establishment of an ASEAN-China free trade area (by 2010 for older members and by 2015 for newer ASEAN members) during its separate dialogue with the ASEAN states.
The ASEAN Plus Three also met along the sidelines of the broader meetings, with the three foreign ministers pledging that their leaders would adopt a joint declaration on mutual economic and political cooperation when they hold a three-way summit in Bali in October. The foreign ministers also discussed a free trade agreement (not likely anytime soon), along with cooperation in the quarantine field and in human resource development. China's foreign minister noted that Beijing "adopts a fully open attitude" toward multilateral dialogue with North Korea involving both South Korea and Japan, as long as Pyongyang and Washington "have no problems and agree with that." This was hailed in the ROK as Chinese support for their future involvement in talks, although there was a big caveat (North Korean agreement) attached.
There's Always Shangri-La!
If the assembled foreign ministers had looked over their shoulders, they would have spotted many of their defense counterparts from within and beyond the region gathering for the second annual Asia Security Conference in Singapore on May 30 - June 1. Sponsored by the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) and broadcast as a track-two (nongovernmental) gathering of defense specialists and senior officials, the so-called Shangri-La Dialogue once again brought ministerial-level defense officials together for informal dialogue and separate government-only side meetings. Defense ministers/deputy ministers from 14 countries attended the meeting, along with senior officials from 4 more states. It was unclear if the low level of Chinese participation was due to the lingering effects of SARS (not to mention Singapore's vigorous screening and quarantine programs) or the presence of Taiwan officials (who took part in track-two events in their private capacities but did not attend the "officials-only" side discussions).
While few are prepared to call the IISS annual event a threat to the more institutionalized ARF process, it has provided a useful alternative venue for defense officials to meet and discuss security concerns without the requirement for consensus statements or formal declarations. A third annual meeting has already been announced and promises to draw another high-level crowd of participants. As noted earlier, Secretary Wolfowitz used the occasion of this year's meeting to provide a broad overview of Washington's global defense restructuring plan.
Ad Hoc Multilateralism Down Under
At the IISS meeting, Australia's Minister for Defence Sen. Robert Hill noted the importance of coalitions, calling them "vital" when it comes to the application of military force. He also noted that "we must be prepared to deal with problems at their source - despite the significant cost and difficulties this can entail. This requires a broader view of security, the courage to re-examine our assumptions, the trust to work together, and a preparedness to act before it's too late."
While Hill did not mention the Solomon Islands in his presentation, it was no doubt in the back of his mind. A few weeks later, the Solomons did receive some notice at the ARF ministerial, as the Chairman's Statement "noted the deteriorating security and economic conditions in the Solomon Islands and the efforts of partner-countries to provide assistance" to its government. Nonetheless, several attempts by the Solomons to obtain UN Security Council (UNSC) assistance had fallen on deaf ears - the Solomon Islands is one of a handful of countries that recognizes Taiwan and China had previously demonstrated, in the case of Macedonia, that it would not support peacekeeping operations in such countries. Enter Canberra!
On June 25, Australian Prime Minister John Howard announced that Australia was forming a new "coalition of the willing" to provide immediate assistance, in the form of police as well as military forces, to prevent deteriorating conditions from turning the Solomons into a haven for terrorists and drug smugglers and to protect key institutions from intimidation by criminal elements. New Zealand quickly joined the coalition and Fiji and Papua New Guinea were also prepared to lend assistance after the intervention, at the specific request of the Solomon Islands government, was endorsed at a crisis meeting of the Pacific Forum in Sydney on June 30. "We will not sit back and watch while a country slips inexorably into decay and disorder," Foreign Minister Alexander Downer explained in justifying what Prime Minister Howard was later to acknowledge as a "very significant change in Australia's regional relationships."
