New Internationalist

Asia-Pacific: US Security creates insecurity

Issue 350

Direct intervention in the political and military frameworks of other countries has been the chosen weapon of US foreign policy for over a century. The ‘war on terror’ has enabled President Bush to carry this intervention to new heights. Rather than put its own troops in the firing line, the US is bolstering the military forces in and around countries friendly to it. Regional insecurity across Asia and the Pacific is the result, as countries realign – and adjust their nuclear capabilities.

Here is a special NI assessment of the fallout.

Containing China is the key to US foreign policy in the region. The Bush Administration has declared the country a ‘strategic competitor’, a description difficult to reconcile with China’s military budget when compared with that of the US. Though China’s 2002-03 military budget of $3.04 billion is 17.6-per-cent higher than that of the previous year, this is still a fraction of the US 2001 defence budget of $344 billion. While the US overestimates China’s military capacity, China sees itself as threatened by aggressive US foreign policy.

China is particularly concerned about the concentration of National Missile Defense systems (NMD – see box) that could soon be built around it. The Chinese Government sees NMD as an attempt to isolate the country within Asia, a fear fuelled by the fact that the Bush Administration has encouraged some of China’s traditional enemies – Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and even Russia – to be involved in the construction of the system. China has made it clear that it will not be intimidated by Bush’s plans for NMD. As a consequence, the US believes China may increase its missile build-up in a defiant response.

Sources:
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/news01/bmd-010502b.htm
http://www.afsc.org/nero.pesp/jgswed.htm
http://www.chinatoday.com/arm
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200207/23/eng20020723_100193.shtml

National Missile Defense (NMD)

President Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars has re-emerged under recent US administrations as National Missile Defense (NMD). NMD will theoretically enable the US to destroy any missile fired at it (or its allies) while that missile is still travelling towards it in space, before reentering the atmosphere. Scientific organizations such as the Union of Concerned Scientists, MIT Security Studies Program and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology openly question the viability of NMD as a workable defence system. Sceptics say that its effectiveness in stopping terrorist attacks will be marginal, as terrorists are far more likely to use 11 September-style tactics rather than missiles.

Sources:
http://www.peacecourier.com/PeaceCourier/pcianfeb2001.htm
http://www.afsc.org/nero/pesp/jgswed.htm
http://www.fas.org/ssp/bmd/index.html

Piers Benatar / Panos Pictures / www.panos.co.uk
Piers Benatar / Panos Pictures / www.panos.co.uk

A GROWING US policy is to engage with countries which have unresolved disputes with China so as to contain China,’ says Bharat Karnead, strategic-affairs expert with the Centre for Policy Research in New Delhi, India. This is a factor in the turnaround of US support for Pakistan since 11 September. Pakistan, traditionally an ally of China, was condemned by the US in 1990 when it was discovered to be developing nuclear missiles. But on 14 September 2001 Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf went from pariah to hero when he pledged total support for a US-led multinational force into Afghanistan. The US has lifted sanctions on Pakistan, which should mean that direct sales of arms can now take place.

The US is also, however, now attempting to deal evenhandedly with India in the dispute over Kashmir. As a consequence the US now proposes to grant Pakistan and India $52 million each for military training, services and equipment in 2002.

Nevertheless, US activity in the region weighs heavily on both countries. Peace activists say that if the US positions its National Missile Defense Systems near China as planned then China will respond by increasing its nuclear capability. This will provoke India to increase its nuclearweapon capability, which in turn will stimulate Pakistan to match India. The net effect will be that without a bomb being dropped three of the world’s most populous countries will divert state funding needed for rural development, water, food and health into arms stockpiling instead, propelling their people deeper into poverty.

Sources:
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2002/usmil/USass0202-02.htm#P194_31843
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00087D79-AA4B-1C6E-84A9809EC588EF21
http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unmogip/unmogipB.htm

Although President Bush identified North Korea – China’s neighbour to the north – as a member of an ‘axis of evil’ in January this year, the North Korean Government has been on the US State Department’s list of nations that sponsor terrorism since 1988 when North Koreans allegedly blew up a South Korean Airliner killing 115 civilians. Inclusion on this list has prevented North Korea’s bankrupt economy from obtaining monetary support from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The toll of North Koreans who have starved to death as a result of famine and drought is conservatively estimated at a million. Despite this, the ‘war on terror’ has meant cutbacks in the food relief entering the country from Japan and the US.

In the aftermath of 11 September the North Korean Government joined worldwide condemnations of terrorism and has subsequently pledged to sign two UN-sponsored anti-terrorism treaties. However, the US says this is not enough, and that its war on terror will prevent regimes like North Korea from threatening the US and its allies with weapons of mass destruction such as the Taepodong-2. This ballistic missile – currently being developed by the North Korean Government – will be capable of carrying a nuclear warhead an estimated 6,000 kilometres, putting it within striking distance of Alaska and Hawaii.

Sources:
http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/11/28/aid.shortage/index.html
http://www.spot.com/spotglobal/North_Korea_Missile_Site.htm
http://www.munuc.org/updates/WFP–B.htm
http://www.heritage.org/library/backgrounder/bg1503.html
http://www.stimson.org/china/pfd/krepon.pdf
http://www.house.gov/burton/RSC/USAidTerroristNs1.PDF

Send in someone else’s troops…

In a speech on 11 March 2002, President Bush said: ‘We will not send American troops to every battle, but America will actively prepare other nations for the battles ahead.’

s part of this preparation, the US International Military Education and Training (IMET) budget is set to increase by nearly 40 per cent over the next two financial years. This will provide assistance for the training of over 3,000 extra military personnel across 125 nations.

Foreign Military Funding – which provides grants to countries so that they can acquire US military equipment, services and training – will increase from $3.6 billion to $4.1 billion over the same period.

The total US defence budget for the 2001 financial year was $344 billion.

Sources:
http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2002/maindown.html
http://www.ciponline.org/facts/imet.htm#EDA
http://www.state.gov/m/rm/rls/cbj/2003d

Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs)

ICBMs are guided missiles – self-propelled space or air vehicles carrying an explosive warhead. An ICBM can travel between 8,000 and 14,800 kilometres. When equipped with Multiple Independently Targetable Re-entry Vehicles (MIRVs), they can carry several nuclear warheads, each capable of hitting a different target. Although no nation will confirm their exact holding of these weapons, the US and Russia have by far the largest number, with estimates running into the thousands. China comes a distant third with an estimated arsenal of 20 ICBMs and 2 new missiles under development.

Sources:
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/g1/guidedmi.asp
http://www.cdiss.org/btablepr.htm
http://www.cdiss.org/99feb23.htm

Since the 11 September attacks the US has been using airports and previous Russian bases in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan to carry out its offensive against Afghanistan. It has also expanded its presence to Kazakhstan where it plans to use a civilian airport to continue the ‘war on terror’.

US interest in Central Asia does not derive solely from that area’s strategic access to Afghanistan. The Central Asian nations combined have an estimated 6.7 trillion cubic metres of oil, worth approximately $2,000 billion, in which the US has overtly stated an economic interest. The presidents of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Turkmenistan have agreed on the construction of a $2 billion pipeline to bring gas from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan to Pakistan. This paves the way for a revival of the plan by US company UNOCAL to lead a consortium that will build the pipeline, an idea it shelved because of the instability in Afghanistan during the 1990s.

The move towards a long-term US presence in the region has diminished Russia’s historic influence over Central Asia. In return for their support, nations in the region have been promised and provided with financial aid. Funding for military training, services and equipment that the US gives to Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan in the financial years 2001 to 2003 is planned to rise by nearly 140 per cent from $8.6 million to $20.5 million. Uzbekistan has been flooded with humanitarian help, unconditional financial aid and vast loans for social projects by the US. Despite the millions pouring into the country, very few benefits seem to be filtering down past the rich and powerful. Millions of Uzbeks are emigrating.

Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk
http://www.cacianalyst.org
http://www.iwpr.net
http://www.usaid.gov
http://www.corpwatch.org
http://www.moles.org/

This first appeared in our award-winning magazine - to read more, subscribe from just £7

Comments on Asia-Pacific: US Security creates insecurity

Leave your comment