Report warns of Asia arms race if Trump withdraws US forces

[webfact]

Report warns of Asia arms race if Trump withdraws US forces 
MATTHEW PENNINGTON, Associated Press

 

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. approach to Asia faces a major overhaul when Donald Trump takes office, but what will take its place? A new report warns of a leadership vacuum and even a nuclear arms race if the U.S. withdraws from a region threatened by a provocative North Korea.

 

But authors of the Asia Foundation report provided to The Associated Press ahead of its publication Tuesday also say in some parts of the region there's hope that a shift from President Barack Obama's signature foreign policy could be for the good.

 

Despite the major diplomatic capital invested by Obama in reaching out to Asia in the past eight years, his so-called "pivot" policy has yielded only modest gains in countering the rise of an assertive China. There's been a slight increase in the U.S. military presence in the region; a political opening in former pariah state Myanmar; and better relations with old enemy Vietnam.

 

The main economic plank of his policy — the Trans-Pacific Partnership — is in ruins. Trump's election victory has erased chances of early U.S. ratification of the 12-nation trade pact.

 

Determining what else of Trump's populist campaign rhetoric translates into action remains a guessing game — one with high stakes for Asia.

 

Trump has raised the specter of withdrawing U.S. forces from South Korea and Japan unless they share more of the burden of hosting the 80,000 troops — even as neighboring North Korea has conducted nuclear and missile tests with unprecedented intensity.

 

The Asia Foundation report, based on consultations among academics and former officials from 20 Asian nations, warns that withdrawing U.S. forces could compel Tokyo and Seoul to seek their own nuclear deterrents — rather than rely on America's — which in turn would "trigger massive destabilization of the regional order."

 

"A precipitous reduction of engagement in Asia would be detrimental to the interests of most Asian countries as well as the United States," the report says.

 

Trump has taken some early steps to allay those fears. He quickly reassured the leaders of Australia, Japan and South Korea of his commitment to U.S. alliances. On Thursday, Trump will meet in New York with Japan's Prime Minister Shinzo Abe who is traveling to a summit of Asia-Pacific leaders in Peru.

 

Japan's archrival, China, views a Trump presidency with less trepidation. It has viewed the pivot as a U.S. attempt to contain China's rise as a military and economic power.

 

But Beijing is wary of Trump's threat to impose hefty import tariffs over alleged trade and currency violations, amid fears it could stoke a trade war. President Xi Jinping Monday called Trump and told him that cooperation was needed between the world's two biggest economies.

 

Thitinan Pongsudhirak, a Thai academic and one of three co-authors of the report, said that despite the uncertainty over Trump's lack of government experience, he has something in his favor — a clean slate.

 

Thitinan said that's a plus in Southeast Asia, where current U.S. policy has failed to live up to its billing and where criticism on human rights has turned off old allies like the Philippines and Thailand.

 

"Southeast Asian nations don't want to be dominated by China, they don't want to put all their eggs in the China basket, but they've had to because the pivot and rebalance were shallow and ultimately hollow," he said.

 

Indian academic C. Raja Mohan said Trump has in his own chaotic way opened a constructive debate about how Asian nations might take a more active role to cope with the rise of China with less dependence on America.

 

"Unlike the European liberals' reaction in the last few days, Asians are going to accommodate rather than object," Mohan said. "We have to deal with who is in power in Washington."

 

Once Trump fills top positions on foreign policy and defense, his intentions on Asia should become clearer. A recent commentary by two Trump advisers may offer clues.

 

Former Republican congressional aide Alexander Gray and University of California economist Peter Navarro advocated an Asia-Pacific policy of "peace through strength." They cited Trump's commitment to increase the U.S. Navy from 274 to 350 ships, saying it will reassure allies that the U.S. "remains committed in the long term to its traditional role as guarantor of the liberal order in Asia."

 

But they add: "It's only fair - and long past time - for each country to step up to the full cost-sharing plate."

 

South Korea currently pays about $860 million a year — about 50 percent of non-personnel costs of the U.S. military deployment on its soil — and is paying $9.7 billion more for relocating U.S. military bases. Japan pays about $2 billion a year, about half of the cost of the stationing U.S. forces.

 

Despite fears of chaos if the U.S. withdraws its military, former South Korean foreign minister, Yoon Young-kwan, there will be "strong reservations" about paying more.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-11-15

[zaphod reborn]

Trump will pivot towards Russia, because he is completely beholden to Putin.  This means that most of Asia will be in China's camp, whereas NATO will try to hang out to what will be left of Europe, after Putin reinstates the Russian Empire.

[Usernames]

Headline should read: "Report Warns that Asian Countries Might have to Pay Their own Way if Trump Withdraws."

[craigt3365]

51 minutes ago, zaphod reborn said:

Trump will pivot towards Russia, because he is completely beholden to Putin.  This means that most of Asia will be in China's camp, whereas NATO will try to hang out to what will be left of Europe, after Putin reinstates the Russian Empire.

Once China starts treating others like the Tibetans and the Uyghurs, things will change dramatically! LOL

[coma]

They should pay their own way. If not, they will need to raise the strength of their own military. And buy nukes and more conventional weapons and equipment from the US. That would be a double win for America. Firstly saving billions of dollars in deployments to both South Korean and Japan. And secondly making billions selling them weapons. Trump is a genius. 

[tonbridgebrit]

1 hour ago, coma said:

They should pay their own way. If not, they will need to raise the strength of their own military. And buy nukes and more conventional weapons and equipment from the US. That would be a double win for America. Firstly saving billions of dollars in deployments to both South Korean and Japan. And secondly making billions selling them weapons. Trump is a genius. 

Yes, what you're saying sounds good, this will reduce America's costs, and South Korea and Japan will have to import a stack of weapons from America.

BUT, but you've got to bear in mind, Washington's "real" reason for having those military bases in South Korea and Japan. And what is the "real" reason ?  Washington has spent decades keeping military bases near CHINA. If World War Three breaks out, and if Washington wants to attack China, then, them military bases in South Korea and Japan will be needed.  

Trump might not feel the same way as previous US governments, Trump might reduce the military presence in the Far East. Or he might tell South Korea and Japan to pay the bill in full for maintaining those US bases. Otherwise, a partial pull-out.

 

 

[coma]

9 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

BUT, but you've got to bear in mind, Washington's "real" reason for having those military bases in South Korea and Japan. And what is the "real" reason ?  Washington has spent decades keeping military bases near CHINA. If World War Three breaks out, and if Washington wants to attack China, then, them military bases in South Korea and Japan will be needed.  

 

 

 

 

I really don't see war with the United State as being something high on the Chinese governments agenda. It would be counter-productive to them. They are doing just fine with the current status quo.

 

Also, with today's current weapons systems and Maritime Technology such as Super Carriers and Nuclear Submarines, they provide enough deterant and capability that makes those bases manned mostly by US troops unnecessary and actually quite strategically unsound.  Especially if they can be manned by local forces. Let's not forget that any war in that part of the world is likely to be a "Blitz" attack. Those manning these bases would largely be collateral damage in the opening exchanges.

 

Just my 2 cents worth. 

[craigt3365]

2 hours ago, coma said:

 

I really don't see war with the United State as being something high on the Chinese governments agenda. It would be counter-productive to them. They are doing just fine with the current status quo.

 

Also, with today's current weapons systems and Maritime Technology such as Super Carriers and Nuclear Submarines, they provide enough deterant and capability that makes those bases manned mostly by US troops unnecessary and actually quite strategically unsound.  Especially if they can be manned by local forces. Let's not forget that any war in that part of the world is likely to be a "Blitz" attack. Those manning these bases would largely be collateral damage in the opening exchanges.

 

Just my 2 cents worth. 

China doesn't have the equipment to go against what the US has in the region.  What it does have is the equipment to go against it's neighbors.  And these neighbors know this.

 

An arms race won't help the global economy. 

[Trouble]

I think Trump's agenda is just to get places like Japan and Korea to ante up more money to pay for our military troops stationed overseas.   We have reasons to keep bases and troops in place but also for the Koreans and Japanese it's like contracting to the USA for the services.  Trump is setting the stage for some negotiations to reduce our costs.  Further, it seems to me the world has lost the battle to prevent North Korea from being in the nuclear weapons game.  They seem to have the weapon and it is now just a matter of time being able to technically get it on a missile which does not explode on the launch pad.  Some how there needs to be a course correction and a total reset in our interaction with the North.  We've been on the same course for 30 years and have gotten no where.  Somehow, someone needs to sit down with Kim and get a dialogue going, if that is remotely possible. 

[DriveByTrucker]

Trump is not gonna withdraw the US military from Asia, or reduce the military budget for Asia (or NATO for that matter). That would mean that the US weapon industry will lose out big time and the swamp will never agree with that......

[little mary sunshine]

Should read..".Pure BS speculation as accurate

as the voting polls....."

[IAMHERE]

16 hours ago, coma said:

They should pay their own way. If not, they will need to raise the strength of their own military. And buy nukes and more conventional weapons and equipment from the US. That would be a double win for America. Firstly saving billions of dollars in deployments to both South Korean and Japan. And secondly making billions selling them weapons. Trump is a genius. 

I bet South Korea and Japan both buy their nuclear from France or maybe India.

[williamgeorgeallen]

20 hours ago, Usernames said:

Headline should read: "Report Warns that Asian Countries Might have to Pay Their own Way if Trump Withdraws."

great call. user pays, it is a good system. they need to charge the Philippines for all the forces stationed there as well. 

[flagrantviolation]

Have to agree with Trump on this one.  In the late 19th and early 20th century Britain spent a huge amount on maintaining its empire much to the detriment of the working classes.  But the appeal to pride worked.  I believe the USA spends about 6 percent of its GDP on defense. When Japan and Korea start spending at that rate, let them get back to us. But what I don't understand is why Trump wants to hugely increase military spending if he wants to reduce US involvement in Asia and Europe.

[bassman]

1 hour ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

great call. user pays, it is a good system. they need to charge the Philippines for all the forces stationed there as well. 

 

Wake up, read the news, the bases in PI were closed in the early 90's.  Only small scale ops are ongoing in the PI and they are mostly about controlling terrorism.

[bassman]

29 minutes ago, flagrantviolation said:

Have to agree with Trump on this one.  In the late 19th and early 20th century Britain spent a huge amount on maintaining its empire much to the detriment of the working classes.  But the appeal to pride worked.  I believe the USA spends about 6 percent of its GDP on defense. When Japan and Korea start spending at that rate, let them get back to us. But what I don't understand is why Trump wants to hugely increase military spending if he wants to reduce US involvement in Asia and Europe.

 

Whether America cuts back when their allies step up does not matter to readiness.  US, whether forward deployed or not needs to hang on to the BIG stick.

 

Britain was nearly driven to bankruptcy trying to defend the "empire" and the colonial way of life.  America could well learn from the follies of over extension.

[DriveByTrucker]

1 hour ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

great call. user pays, it is a good system. they need to charge the Philippines for all the forces stationed there as well. 

 

What would be even better is to take all the US forces out of the Philippines so that Duterte can replace them with Russian and Chinese troops. Digongs' new big buddies.....

[williamgeorgeallen]

11 minutes ago, bassman said:

 

Wake up, read the news, the bases in PI were closed in the early 90's.  Only small scale ops are ongoing in the PI and they are mostly about controlling terrorism.

ha, here is some news for you.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-philippines-carter-idUSKCN0XB0QY

[bassman]

1 minute ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

ha, here is some news for you.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southchinasea-philippines-carter-idUSKCN0XB0QY

 

"A contingent of U.S. military aircraft and 200 U.S. airmen from U.S. Pacific Air Forces would be at Clark Air Base, a former U.S. Air Force base, through the end of the month, Carter said."  (from article)

 

I don't think 200 airmen and a squadron of planes compares to the presence in Japan, Korea, Middle East, Afghanistan or Europe.  And until the end of the month, is not that long of a commitment.  Also the other forces in country are rotating, not stationed.

 

America continually deploys military around the world to different countries, mostly for readiness of units and training.  And if they get in a few "real" fire exercises while there, so much the better.

[elgordo38]

If the US withdraws their aid its slingshots and ball bearings all around. 

[elgordo38]

22 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

Trump will pivot towards Russia, because he is completely beholden to Putin.  This means that most of Asia will be in China's camp, whereas NATO will try to hang out to what will be left of Europe, after Putin reinstates the Russian Empire.

Stepping back a 100 years in time. 

[flagrantviolation]

43 minutes ago, bassman said:

 

Whether America cuts back when their allies step up does not matter to readiness.  US, whether forward deployed or not needs to hang on to the BIG stick.

 

Britain was nearly driven to bankruptcy trying to defend the "empire" and the colonial way of life.  America could well learn from the follies of over extension.

"Hang on to the big stick".  We certainly don't need to make it any bigger.

[NumbNut]

42 minutes ago, bassman said:

 

Whether America cuts back when their allies step up does not matter to readiness.  US, whether forward deployed or not needs to hang on to the BIG stick.

 

Britain was nearly driven to bankruptcy trying to defend the "empire" and the colonial way of life.  America could well learn from the follies of over extension.

 

America could also benefit from recalling the follies of under extension, especially regarding WWII and the US's entry into it.

 

Imposing an oil embargo on a militaristic and expansionist Empire of Japan in the late 1930's, and then taking your eyes off the ball was the completely wrong course of action. The US thinking of the time that the embargo was all that was needed to curb Japan militarily led directly to Pearl Harbour and your entry into WWII.

 

The trick is to get the balance right, not too much overseas presence but not too little either.

[craigt3365]

3 hours ago, elgordo38 said:

If the US withdraws their aid its slingshots and ball bearings all around. 

I think that would be a good thing!!! LOL

[Grubster]

I would guess that there are some new very effective weapons out there, and those who have designed them may think they have the upper hand.  We surely wouldn't know.

[Thaidream]

Trump needs to look at the total defense budget which is approximately $632 Billion the highest in the World. Of course the Generals want more and he will probably give them some more of it. In that case you can bet he will try and get the Nato countries and the Asians to cough up more in reimbursements. However, the overriding factor is that US strategy is to keep a European or Asian war in their own theatre rather than fighting it on Us soil. I fully expect Trump to make a deal with Russia that cedes the Crimea forever and allows Russia's surrogate- the Syrian President to remain in power. Russia and the US will co-operate on the destruction of ISIS and possibly even work under a joint military command. He will also promise Putin that Nato expansion will halt as long as Russian forces are moved further back from the Nato borders.

 

the real danger in the World comes from China who is an expansionist power seeking resources from anywhere and everywhere. It must keep its people happy so as to maintain the primacy of the Communist Party.  The Us military will stay in Japan; South Korea and Australia in numbers sufficient to trigger a war should  North Korea be foolish enough to attack or China start to push military intervention. The US still has treaty obligations to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand.

The whole persona of Trump which is a no nonsense leader who would risk a war rather than see America's interests taken over  may actually stop North Korea and China from doing anything radical.

[Usernames]

3 hours ago, Thaidream said:

The US still has treaty obligations to Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand.

 

The Thai attempt to play China off against the US just might not work with Trump.  I can easily see him telling Thailand to go with China, if that's what it wants.

[chilli42]

"Have to pay their own way ..."

 

How naive of me.  I thought the purpose of  US military might was to secure US global business interests and project their political agenda when and as they see fit.  I now stand corrected, they are not providing support to their allies out of self interest. They have been protecting their allies for free just because they are nice.  In that case, paying for US protection seems like a real bargain.

[chilli42]

What evidence is there that China poses a "global" threat?  It seems to me that China's agenda is to control Asia and secure its sources of raw material.  Is that different than the US?  Is that unexpected from such a powerful country?  To take it a step further, who is going to stop them?  The only thing that surprises me is their long term view and patience.

[erobando]

28 minutes ago, chilli42 said:

"Have to pay their own way ..."

 

How naive of me.  I thought the purpose of  US military might was to secure US global business interests and project their political agenda when and as they see fit.  I now stand corrected, they are not providing support to their allies out of self interest. They have been protecting their allies for free just because they are nice.  In that case, paying for US protection seems like a real bargain.

Yeah, this take is complete dumbing down of foreign policy. No concept of mutual benefit and instead a short-sighted profit-via-extortion approach. I doubt that Trump will really stick to this, though.