Posted on 06/03/2003 1:17:55 PM PDT by Enemy Of The State
America's 'unsinkable aircraft carriers'
By Purnendra Jain and John Bruni
ADELAIDE - At the height of the Cold War in the early 1980s, Yasuhiro Nakasone, then prime minister of Japan, reaffirming his country's strong commitment to its supreme ally the United States against Soviet threats, declared that Japan would serve as an "unsinkable aircraft carrier" in the Pacific. Now that the lone superpower is once again facing security threats and waging a war against the so-called "axis of evil", it requires an unwavering commitment to its purpose and direction from its allies. It is indeed very fortunate to have received that commitment, not from one but from two of its most trusted allies in the Pacific. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan and his Australian counterpart John Howard, both conservative and strongly committed to the US, have offered all possible assistance to US President George W Bush.
Not only did both Japan and Australia provide support against the "war on terror" in Afghanistan, they also stood resolutely by the side of their master at a time when at least two major US allies in continental Europe openly declared their opposition to the US's unilateral action in Iraq. Indeed, Australia dispatched its army as part of the allied forces to invade Iraq. Constrained by its "peace constitution" and other legal limitations, Japan could not contribute militarily, but it did provide logistics and other support. It is likely that Japan will share a large proportion of the cost of reconstructing postwar Iraq. Koizumi is trying to pass an emergency legislation that will allow Self-Defense Force personnel to be sent to Iraq to help build the country.
Two other developments make Japan and Australia most trusted allies of the US. First, in Japan there is a growing push toward amending the constitution to allow Japan to contribute militarily in war and conflict situations, a long-standing desire of the US. Koizumi represents the aspirations of both the US and a new generation of Japanese politicians and civil servants who want Japan to become a "normal state".
Nakasone pushed this idea strongly and publicly in the 1980s and Ichiro Ozawa, a former ruling-party heavyweight and now leader of a small political party, articulated this idea most forcefully in his book Blueprint for a New Japan: The Rethinking of a Nation, published in 1994.
It appears that Japan is steadily preparing to drop its long-held ideal of a "peace constitution" and "civilian state" to embrace the concept of a "normal state" and play a military role. Global terrorism and North Korea's nuclear brinkmanship together with China's rising economic and military power are creating conditions where Japan's conservative agenda is likely to move forward.
Second, while this development in Japan would please policymakers both in the Pentagon and White House, a recent comment from Howard in relation to transferring some US troops from other parts of the Asia-Pacific to Down Under will be music to the ears of the Bush administration. Howard said late last week that he would consider a request to base US forces in Australia if it were raised in the "proper fashion". Howard's statement fits very well within the US proposal for a thorough reorientation of its global military basing policy.
The US has already announced plans on withdrawing most of its considerable military presence in Saudi Arabia, centered on the Prince Sultan air base, in favor of a northward shift into newly-occupied Iraq. It is hoped that this move will do a number of things. Most important, it will fulfill one of al-Qaeda's principal war aims, which is that US military forces no longer are on the sacred ground of Saudi Arabia - home of two of Islam's most holy cities, Mecca and Medina. It is anticipated that this will remove a major touchstone for international Islamic radicalism aimed at the US. The other, almost equally important aim of redeploying US troops and aircraft to post-Saddam Iraq is that the US can more adequately ensure the security of its key Middle Eastern ally, Israel, against the machinations of Syria and Iran, which are supporters of anti-Israeli terrorist groups such as Hezbollah. This is an essential prerequisite for Tel Aviv's support for the road map for peace.
At the Asia Security Conference in Singapore last weekend, US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz confirmed that the "fundamental point" of press speculation as raised in the Los Angeles Times about reconfiguring US troops in Asia was largely correct. A new regional basing policy will shift US military assets from traditional forward staging posts such as the Korean Peninsula's 38th Parallel to other less vulnerable areas better suited to the emerging geostrategic environment aimed at containing North Korea on the one hand, and heading off the threat posed by regional Islamic terrorist groups on the other.
Already there are signs that the US is exploring new basing options such as the possible redeployment of up to 15,000 marines and some air force tactical aircraft to Australia. While there has not been a formal request put forward by the Bush administration to the Australian government, it is clear that Howard would be open to considering it. Given the prime minister's record of giving the "green light" to US requests for military support in recent years - Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003 - it seems more than likely that Howard would not reject such a request, no matter what domestic political fallout would ensue from Australia's weak opposition parties, were this possibility to eventuate.
But the question that needs to be asked is: What price security? With Japan acting as America's undisputed strategic bulwark in Northeast Asia against a mercurial and potentially nuclear-armed North Korea, and Australia acting as America's undisputed strategic bulwark in Southeast Asia against a network of committed Islamists stretching from Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand to the Philippines, will both Japan and Australia, acting as America's unsinkable aircraft carriers in the Western Pacific, really be more secure? Or will these countries, by dovetailing into new US geostrategic requirements be simply throwing caution to the wind by exposing themselves as inviting targets to enemies of the US?
Furthermore, can one truly assume that sheltering under the US strategic umbrella today in order to maintain the regional balance of power is the same as it was under the old Cold War and immediate post-Cold War paradigms - especially when the current US government is actively engaged in remaking its role in the world and, as a consequence, remaking the world?
Purnendra Jain is a professor in the Center for Asian Studies at Adelaide University in Australia. John Bruni is a visiting research fellow in the Center for Asian Studies.
What is the "master" stuff?? Methinks I detect just a bit of anti-US prejudice here. Certainly the US is the strongest of the three parties, but of master-servant relationship, there is none.
A lot of what the Bush Administration is doing and proposing in foreign policy is uncharted water. I happen to think they are right, but that doesn't mean I shut my mind to every other possibility. If we ever get to the point where citizens, academic or otherwise, can't ask questions or point out that alternatives exist, we will be in a sorry state.
P.S. And don't get too carried away by your screen name.
That is what was so confusing. Given the really positive overall tone of the article, I wondered why the "master"(unstated servant/slave) thing was included. I guess the leftists just HAVE to get in some kind of dig at the US, no matter what the subject matter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.