American proposal for Pacific security

Press, 15 May 1981, Page 12

American proposal for Pacific security

NZPA staff correspondent, Washington

A new Pacific security community — not a United States dominated Pacific “N.A.T.0.” — is being proposed in a publication by an American foreign policy and research organisation. The community would be made up of the regional noricommunist states: Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines, Singapore, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand. “The non-communist states in the region should play a far greater role in their own defence, not through a collective security pact but through a security community.” says the new book, “America’s Stake in the Pacific.”

Such a community “should develop organically, united by a common perception of shared vital interests, ’’ writes Dr Paul Seabury, a professor of political science at the University of California at Berkely, and author of several books on foreign policy.

“America’s Stake in the Pacific” was published early this month by the Ethics and Public Policy Centre of Washington, D.C. The centre conducts a programme of research, writing, publications and conferences on domestic and foreign policy issues. The non-partisan organisation is supported by contributions from foundations, corporations and individuals. Dr Seabury says that the United States must be an active but not dominant partner in a new, informal Pacific security community. “Japan in particular must play a far greater strategic role, especially in maritime defence,

within the constraints of a system in which military planning is dedicated to the security of all members,” Dr Seabury writes. “Such a community need not be contractual, but each member’s responsibilities should be clear,” the author says. “The chief mission should be to protect the peace of the Western Pacific. The principal challenge should be to cope with the spread of Soviet power and the threat to the vital .maritime lanes of the region.

“These Pacific security arrangements should merge organically. They cannot be brought about by proclamation from Washington. The chief motivating force of such a community should be, not anticommunism as such, but the development and security of free and independent States with, responsible, responsive Governments. The interests of democracy in the Pacific region are directly related to the perception of external and internal threats.”

A Pacific community along these lines would be buttressed by its own economic dynamism, the author says. The combination of military, political and economic strength could have a ' positive impact on political development on the communist mainland, he states.

“Such a Pacific security community is impossible without the presence of the United States as an active partner,” 'Dr Seabury writes. “It can therefore become possible only when the United States once more is morally

committed and militarily able to respond to he ominous growth of Soviet military power, not only in East Asia but throughout the world.” Dr Seabury stresses that “in an amazingly short time the Western Pacific Basin has become a zone of industrial and commercial vigour that rivals the North Atlantic as the centre of the world economy. By the year 2000 the combined industrial power of Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong and Malaysia is likely to be far greater than that of the United States or Western Europe. Conditions in communist Asia are strikingly different, he says. Mainland China “remains an economic basket case. The economics of Kampuchea, Laos and Vietnam lie in ruins. North Korea’s economic performance pales in comparison to South Korea’s.” Moscow’s strategy of encircling China, says Dr Seabury, “is a vital element in the general Soviet expansionist policy that threatens United States allies. So there is a temporary concurrence of some United. States and Chinese interests.” But he urges an end to what he calls the dangerous over-reliance on China as a counterweight to the Soviet threat. “A China capable of matching Soviet strength in East Asia would also be an obvious danger to the free nations of Asia,” he says. “To rely on the SinoSoviet rift makes United States Asian policy hostage to the interests and ambitions of the world’s largest totalitarian power.”