June 10, 2003 U.S. REDEPLOYMENT IN ASIA: A 'PARADIGM SHIFT IN U.S. MILITARY THINKING'

June 10, 2003

U.S. REDEPLOYMENT IN ASIA: A 'PARADIGM SHIFT IN U.S. MILITARY THINKING'

KEY FINDINGS

** Reports of the "overall realignment" spark regional concerns about "American unilateralism."

** Throughout Eurasia, outlets oppose any "transformation" of ties with the U.S. that would result in intensified military cooperation.

** The U.S. military shift will end its "tripwire role" on the Korean peninsula.

** The redeployment reflects a "U.S. fear" of China and its growing power.

MAJOR THEMES

The U.S. seeks to 'strengthen its forward position'-- The U.S. move is designed to "handle new challenges" in the Asia-Pacific region, as "terrorist threats...have escalated." A Russian daily called the redeployment a "stark testament" to the U.S.' belief in the "use of force," while a Malaysian writer denounced the "hawkish leaders" in Washington who want the "annihilation of alleged terrorists without dealing with the root cause of terrorism." Other papers cited the shift as proof of the U.S.' "increasing dictatorship in this unipolar world." Downplaying the reports, the leftist Japan Times added that "there is really less there than meets the eye."

Countries will not accept new American bases 'willy-nilly'-- Regional papers focused on local issues and the lack of prior consultations. Russian papers called the planned "military expansion" to "strategic" areas a "direct violation of the Russia-NATO Founding Act." Melbourne's liberal Age wondered if "enhanced military cooperation" with the U.S. would "change perceptions of Australia." The moderate Okinawa Times concluded there would be no "real reduction of Okinawa's burden," while India's nationalist Amar Ujala labeled the U.S. interest in setting up military bases in India "very dangerous and disturbing."

The Korean picture will 'change drastically'-- Though split along ideological lines regarding the U.S. redeployment in their country, South Korean dailies agreed that "anti-American sentiment" was a key factor for the change. Moderates said the shift came "under the framework of a new U.S. global strategy" reflecting its "overall posture in Asia." Leftist voices accused the U.S. of "looking out for only its own interests," as the move undermines "efforts to peacefully resolve the North Korean nuclear issue." But both nationalist Hankyoreh Shinmun and moderate Hankook Ilbo saw the reshuffle giving Seoul "greater autonomy"--an opportunity to "strengthen its self-defense abilities and thus reduce its dependence on the U.S."

The U.S. 'strategic adjustment' aims at containing China-- Editorial outliers termed the planned U.S. shift a "potential and practical siege against China." Beijing's official Global Times remarked that the U.S. plan to "deploy more bases" in the region would "add new destabilizing factors" to the Taiwan dispute. India's nationalist Amar Ujala said U.S. allies who accept new bases are just "pawns in America's gameplan against China."

EDITOR: Ben Goldberg

EDITOR'S NOTE: This analysis is based on 22 reports from 8 countries over 30 May - 10 June 2003. Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent date.

EUROPE

RUSSIA: "Military Expansion"

Oleg Shevtsov held in reformist youth-oriented Komsomol'skaya Pravda (6/5): "Fighting a war against Taliban in Afghanistan, Washington secured bases in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kyrghyzstan, thereby completing military expansion in a strategic area on the Caspian Sea rich in natural resources. As they did so the Americans kept speaking of respect for Russia's strategic interests. Should they push further into the Middle East, trying to tameIran and Saudi Arabia, Beijing and Moscow would find it increasingly hard to influence the situation."

"Russia In A Ring Of Military Bases"

Igor Korotchenko wrote in centrist Nezavisimaya Gazeta (6/4): "In a major operation, the largest of its kind in postwar history, the U.S. administration is planning to re-deploy its troops abroad, moving them closer to Russian borders, according to reports in the world's media. Doing that would be a direct violation of the Russia-NATO Founding Act.... Instead of raising questions of importance to this country's interests in the Russia-NATO Council, Russian diplomacy with Igor Ivanov at the head and Colonel General Yuriy Baluyevskiy have been bustling uselessly over mythical cooperation with the Alliance in the area of non-strategic missile

defense.... Moscow's foreign-policy mistakes--the unmotivated withdrawal of the peacekeeping force in the Balkans, the shutdown of bases in Cuba (Lurdes) and Vietnam (Kamran), and acquiescence in U.S. military presence in ex-Soviet republics--have led to a security vacuum which Washington seeks to fill. It is not ruled out that the Americans will settle at Lurdes when Castro quits politics. The latest events in Iraq and preparations for

armed action against Tehran are a stark testament that the use of force (primarily by the Americans) remains a decisive factor in world politics."

EAST ASIA

AUSTRALIA: “We Hope The Truth Is Not In Transit Too”

The liberal Age asserted (6/5): “If there is a plan to deploy American forces in Australia--whether in permanent bases or not--the Howard Government should say so. Such enhanced military co-operation with the US may be justifiable, but it would also go beyond the present framework of the alliance and would quite likely change perceptions of Australia in the wider world. These are changes that, if they are to happen, should be announced in Parliament and publicly debated, not introduced by stealth through a gradual transformation of Australian ports into regular military 'transit points'."

CHINA: “Decreasing Troops In ROK And Japan And Increasing Southeast Asian Bases”

Meng Xiangqing commented in official Communist Party-run international news publication Global Times (Huanqiu Shibao)(6/3): “9/11 provided the U.S. an opportunity to return to South-East Asia and deploy more bases in the name of anti-terrorism. The U.S. strategic adjustment never aims at a single goal, but multiple goals. The U.S. planning new military redeployment in the Asian-Pacific area is a significant measure to deter potential opponents; also to form a potential and practical siege against China; and, add new de-stabilizing factors to the settlement of the Taiwan issue.”

CHINA (HONG KONG & MACAU SAR): "The Pentagon's Paradigm Shift In Asia"

Phar Kim Beng wrote in the leftist, Internet-only Asia Times (6/10): "Last week's announcement of a redeployment of US troops based in Korea was part of an overall realignment of strategic troop placement in Asia.... All indications are, however, that the Pentagon is in no hurry to carry out its plans.... Japan and Australia denied that the Pentagon has any such plans, citing the absence of any mutual agreement, US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told reporters that...while the account was wrong on the exact number of troop deployments, it was 'broadly accurate' on Pentagon plans. Since then stories of Pentagon's latest plans have expanded to include references to India. That country, according to one Pentagon official, lies 'at the center of Asia,' so it would be logical to locate some US troops there too. While the Defense Ministry of India has yet to repudiate the report, the flurry of news about Pentagon's plans are serving as the perfect grist for the intelligence and defense community throughout the region.... Many US military installations remain just as vulnerable as they were before the attacks of September 11, 2001, despite a heightened awareness of terrorist threats.... The recent suicidal attacks in Riyadh and Casablanca, while not directed at any military targets, brought home the real threat of a team of terrorists shooting their way through, before detonating themselves.... If the Pentagon's plans in South Korea may be proceeding swiftly, those in Southeast Asia have come under some disrepute. Malaysia, which is afraid of an Islamic backlash against hosting a US military presence, has opposed the initiative.... At any rate, if leaders in Southeast Asia should somehow feel that they can squeeze more money and control out of the Bush administration, that is given Washington's concern with terrorist attacks, the threat of North Korea, indeed even the growing power of China, they had better reconsider. Their leverage may not be much. While Pentagon does want more places for its troops, it will not enter into any arrangement that might require the United States to surrender too much control or taxpayers' dollars.... Despite the paradigm shift in US military thinking, it would not be wrong to assume that the United States is willing to bide its time in order to extract the best arrangement."

"Why U.S. Must Adjust Its Military Power In South Korea And Japan"

Pro-PRC Chinese-language Macau Daily News editorialized (6/9): "As soon as Bush came to power, the U.S. prepared to re-deploy its military stationed in the Asia-Pacific region.... In July 2001 the Pentagon was to readjust the U.S. military presence in South Korea, closing some remote non-essential bases to reduce those in South Korea from 41 to 26. Since September 11, the U.S. has believed that terrorist acts will come mainly from the Middle East, Central and Southeast Asia. The U.S.' biggest threat in the Middle East was eliminated with the fall of the Saddam regime, but terrorist threats in Central and Southeast Asia have escalated. The ethnic and religious conflicts in these two regions are very complicated, and exacerbated by conflicts over the regions' abundant oil and natural gas reserves. In addition, Southeast Asian countries are still struggling for control of islands in the South China Sea, and there still is danger of military clashes across the Taiwan Strait. To handle new challenges in the Asia-Pacific region, the U.S. must therefore re-deploy its military power here and strengthen its forward position.... U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz stressed that the redeployment of U.S. troops would not weaken the U.S. promise for South Korean and Japanese security. On the contrary, it will help reduce the U.S. military's influence on local politics, removing growing anti-U.S. sentiment in Japan and South Korea."

"No Regional Security"

The independent English-language South China Morning Post said in an editorial (6/1): "U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz...said yesterday President George W. Bush's administration was committed to ensuring security and wanted to temporarily station more troops in Asia as a deterrent. The U.S. military in South Korea also announced plans to update its capability on the Korean peninsula with a U.S.$11 billion program over the next three years. Such ideas are shunned by many of the region's leaders, most of them members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, which maintains a decades-old policy of protecting sovereign rights.... Tackling insecurity in an era where terrorist networks can so easily cause destruction, or a nation willingly threatens regional stability, is too difficult a proposition for a single government. While there may be disagreement among some nations with the U.S. approach, the basics it espouses--co-operation to solve global problems--is sound. Nations must work together at all levels to allay the threats which in the past few years have created uncertainty and instability."

JAPAN: "Returning Bases Is The Way To Abate The Burden"

Independent, moderate Okinawa Times declared (6/8): "In conversations with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo stated that she had begun concrete preparations to accept U.S. military exercises.... Koizumi welcomed the offer by saying, 'It would be a good influence on Okinawa.' But there strong local doubts remain whether such an outcome would be openly positive. Each year, U.S. troops based in Okinawa currently engage in some 70-80 military exercises in foreign areas including the Philippines, South Korea as well as our islands of Okinawa. Looking at the current situation, one must think that what Koizumi and Arroyo are saying would be 'burden abatement' is not actually that at all. What Okinawans are demanding is the reduction and rationalization of the bases. As long as transferring bases to other areas inside or outside Japan, or moving exercise sites to other locations, does not occur, there is no real reduction of Okinawa's burden. Arroyo's statement should perhaps be understood as a demand for an increased U.S. troop presence to fight the Islamic extremist Abu Sayyaf group.... We can say that the Philippine government proposed accepting U.S. military exercises, influenced by its own political situation, including its anti-extremist policies. Even if the U.S. moves some of its exercises to the Philippines, it is difficult to imagine any reduction in incidents and accidents caused by U.S. troops, or damage caused by their bases, unless the bases themselves are truly moved. Rather, we fear that the bases' capabiltities will be strengthened. Corresponding with the Philippine exercises involving U.S. troops based in Okinawa, U.S. military use of various civilian airports in our islands has grown. U.S. military helicopter flights are a new burden, and the fear has arisen that some of these airports are becoming semi-permanent refueling stops. Regarding Okinawan 'burden abatement,' there is no alternative besides a large-scale reduction in the number of troops and the return of the bases."

"Force Restructuring Anxiety"

The independent, leftist Japan Times declared (6/8): "There was a time when the Pentagon saw 'relieving regional anxiety' as one of its primary alliance maintenance tasks in East Asia. Today, it seems more adept at creating this anxiety, rather than providing the reassurance that lies at the heart of sustaining America's critical alliances in East Asia.... The Los Angeles Times article also cites other (unnamed) senior Pentagon officials as stating that plans were 'on the table' to move the bulk of Marine forces 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'.... A reduction in Korea-based forces 'is probably in the cards' as well.... There seems to be an attitude among some in the Pentagon that Seoul needs to be 'taken to the woodshed' and punished for its anti-American attitudes during the last election. This simplistic view overlooks the fact that South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun has demonstrated great political courage since his election by strongly supporting the alliance and U.S. troop presence despite intense criticism.... Feeding South Korean suspicions about U.S. intentions undermines this effort.... As regards other projected movements, defense establishments in most of the countries named have been quick to point out that they have agreed to no such thing.... The front pages of the region's newspapers was filled with reports of the real and imagined restructuring plans, forcing Wolfowitz on the defensive from the moment he arrived in Asia.... But even if everyone's intentions were honorable, the comments reveal a glaring lack of sensitivity to growing regional concerns about American unilateralism.... The truth about the story is that there is really less there than meets the eye. Troop consolidation in Korea has been talked about for some time and the effort to move U.S. forces out of the middle of Seoul is 10 years old. So, too, is the idea about placing more focus on access and mobility. What is new and potentially significant, but largely overlooked, is 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."

"15,000 Marines To Be Moved To Australia?"

Top-circulation, moderate Yomiuri stated (5/30): "According to the LA Times, the U.S. military is considering moving about 15,000 of the approximately 20,000 Marines from Okinawa to Australia. The U.S. military is also considering deploying troops in Singapore and Malaysia as part of a worldwide troop realignment and the antiterrorism campaign.... A 'USG source' reportedly said the LA Times report is full of speculation and there is no such detailed plan for withdrawing troops from Japan. The source noted that any study of USFJ relocation would be made jointly by the USG and GOJ."

"GOJ Dismisses LA Times Report"

Moderate Tokyo Shimbun added (5/30): "Even in the event of a large cutback of Marines, the U.S. military will increase stockpiles of weaponry and other equipment, making a rapid force deployment from Okinawa to a trouble spot possible.... The Japanese government has not received such information as reported by the LA Times. An aide close to PM Koizumi also dismissed the LA Times report."

MALAYSIA: “U.S. Lies To Show Its Power”

Government-influenced Malay-language Berita Harian declared (6/3): "The U.S.' strategy of redeploying and placing its military forces, stationed presently at Japan and South Korea, to that of Southeast Asian countries confirms the speculation that the superpower nation wants to guard its interests in the Asia Pacific region. Malaysia has already voiced its objection to the plan as proposed by the US deputy Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz. However Singapore and the Philippines, the closest US allies in the region, have stated their willingness to have US presence in the region without considering the common interest in ASEAN. As a result, ASEAN is divided into two groupings: One Islamic and the other non-Islamic with Thailand not declaring a preference. The White House foreign policy is being dominated by hawkish leaders in US President Bush administration who want nothing less than annihilation of alleged terrorists without dealing with the root cause of terrorism."

"Uncle Sam’s Plans For The World"

Dr. Munir Majid wrote in government-influenced English-language New Straits Times (6/2): "There is no doubt you have to be engaged with the US. It is the world's number one power, without challenge, but certainly with expression. You cross Uncle Sam at your peril. You are either in the doghouse, or you, the dog, and the house are blown out of sight. Whichever, the expression of US foreign policy has been uncompromising in its pursuit of American objectives. Prime Minister Mahathir is certainly not the flavour of the month in Washington. The Americans, however, must understand we are not anti-American, never have been, but we have the sovereign right to hold to certain principles and to express them to protect the interests of small countries such as ourselves.... At the end of the day, the US is allpowerful and can choose to ignore what it wants. So there is no big deal about Malaysia being able to do anything against the US, except rave and rant, as the Americans see it. We are not a country which says one thing and does another. When we say we are against international terrorism, we act on it. But we have a different view on how best to comprehensively defeat it. And we do not believe in enlarging the fight to pursue strategic interests. If the Americans continue to pursue this enlargement in an unconscionable manner, it would strain relations, however fundamentally good and substantial they are. To push out at the boundaries, to talk about American bases in Asia as if every country has to willy-nilly accept them is not good form in a world of sovereign states. Or have the Americans forgotten that? Of course, in the final analysis, we are more dependent on the Americans than they are on us, if at all."

PHILIPPINES: "Protection From Prosecution"

The independent Manila Times observed (6/7): "Sen. Manuel Villar and Vice President Teofisto Guingona complained that Secretary Blas Ople exceeded his authority when he concluded with Secretary of State Colin Powell an executive agreement to exempt Americans in the Philippines from possible prosecution by the International Criminal Court.... This means that the Philippine and the U.S. should get each other's consent before Americans or Filipinos who may be in their territories are surrendered to the ICC. It also means that their nationals shall not be surrendered or transferred to a third country in order that they might be brought to the ICC. These are the key provisions of the Ople-Powell agreement. They are symmetrical and consistent with the laws of either country. Why was the agreement necessary? There's a law in the U.S.--House Resolution 4775--that says: 'No military assistance may be provided to the government of a country that is party to the ICC except a North Atlantic Treaty Organization member-country and a major non-NATO ally including Australia, Egypt, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Argentina, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand and Taiwan. However, subsection (C) of the Resolution provides that ICC member-states may receive military assistance if they agreed to prevent the ICC from prosecuting Americans who happen to be in their countries. We can now ratify the Treaty of Rome and at the same time receive American military assistance. It's a win-win solution, to borrow a favorite phrase of a former president who dreaded zero-sum games."

"Reliving The past"

Luis Teodoro held in the liberal Today (6/7): "The Philippine government's decision to sign a bilateral agreement with the United States giving soldiers immunity from prosecution in the International Criminal Court (ICC) was not unexpected. But several concerns make it disturbing.... The U.S. pledges of aid in the form of military hardware that President Arroyo brought home from her U.S. state visit can materialize only if the Philippines signed the agreement.... Any future U.S. military aid to this 'non-NATO ally' will depend on whether or not the Philippines ratifies the Rome Statute--a compelling inducement to nonratification not only by this administration but also by any future one. A second equally important concern is what the bilateral agreement will mean if U.S. troops the Arroyo administration has welcomed...commit in Philippine territory any of the crimes specified by the ICC mandate. Should that happen, the Philippines cannot complain before the ICC, and will have to rely on the goodwill of the U.S. and its own capacity to prosecute the offender or offenders which will in turn depend upon the terms of reference governing the U.S. troop presence in the Philippines. A third, though no less critical issue is the Philippines contributing to the sum total of human misery by being part of the U.S. campaign to sabotage the global effort to institutionalize the prosecution of war crimes, and thus make them less likely.... In all the years the U.S. military bases were in the Philippines, no U.S. soldier was ever seriously tried in Philippine courts for any offense committed on Philippine soil, including the shooting of scavengers, and even rape outside Clark and Subic. Neither has any U.S. soldier ever been tried in a U.S. court for such offenses. But as if in warning of the possibilities as the Philippines renews and strengthen military links with the United States, last year a U.S. soldier shot a Filipino civilian in Mindanao during a search for Abu Sayyaf bandits--and was promptly flown out of the country. The agreement thus increases the possibility of this country's reliving its past experiences with U.S. troops - the inevitable result of having leaders who either can't remember history or have never quite understood its lessons."

SOUTH KOREA: "USFK Redeployment Should Serve to Enhance ROK-U.S. Alliance"

Park Yong-ok opined in independent Dong-a Ilbo (6/10): "Considering that USFK realignment or reduction is being pursued as part of U.S. efforts to reorganize its overseas forces following the 9/11 terror attacks, the USFK issue should be seen as a 'military measure' that is being taken under the framework of a new U.S. global strategy, not a subject for political compromise. Accordingly, we should not try to avoid or delay the USFK issue but rather actively cooperate with the U.S. while capitalizing on the U.S. move as an opportunity to enhance the ROK-U.S. military alliance."

"Tripwire Jitters"

The independent, English-language Korea Herald stated (6/10): "American forces in Korea have been deployed the same way for five decades since the inconclusive end of the Korean War.... This picture is about to change drastically.... When the redeployment is completed, the 2nd U.S. Infantry Division will occupy a new base out of range of North Korean artillery in case of war. Its 'tripwire' role in Korea's defense will be over. Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy Pentagon chief, while visiting here, reassured Koreans that the redeployment is part of an effort to strengthen the U.S.' overall posture in Asia, affecting some 100,000 military personnel.... Revelation of the pullback scheme involving a mainstay U.S. combat force coincided with the announcement of an $11 billion USFK buildup plan focused on high-tech weaponry and intelligence-gathering systems. This, together with Wolfowitz's open request for an increase in Korea's defense budget, amounted to him admitting that the redeployment could have a drawback on the combined Korea-U.S. defense posture.... Some are concerned about the impact on North Korea of recent U.S. statements on the reinforcement and redeployment of the USFK, and of Washington's accelerating the extention of the missile defense network to this region. No doubt, the paranoid regime in the North will regard these steps as evidence that the White House wants to use force to end Pyongyang's nuclear program. Washington hawks may envision that a mini arms race on the Korean peninsula may quicken the demise of the Kim Jong-il regime, with its tottering economy. But such a competition is more likely to spur the North to make all-out efforts to go nuclear.... Our security officials are regrettably not informing Koreans of what changes they should expect, or instructing them on how to cope with the transition. Now that the United States has ignored their plea that the latter maintain the tripwire, they should do more than just asserting that the redeployment will not transpire soon, and that its execution depends largely on Korea's cooperation."

"Beginning of USFK Withdrawal"

Kim Dae-chung maintained in conservative Chosun Ilbo (6/10): "The relocations and possible reductions of the U.S. troops stationed on the Korean Peninsula are about to be implemented, and with them we will see a readjustment of the role of the USFK.... A high-ranking Pentagon official I talked to recently strongly denied that these moves have anything to do with anti-Americanism in South Korea or a retreat from American's Northeast Asia policies.... The issue, no doubt, is at least partly related to the global anti-American sentiment that Americans are now coming to grips with. American intellectuals, after the 9-11 attacks and the Iraq War, started questioning why America intervenes in other countries' affairs and ends up getting bashed for it. They ask where the America is that people saw as the symbol of democracy and freedom. They ask where the just and brave country is that helped poor countries. They ask why the United States is perceived now as an imperial and egocentric force that seems to only want to dominate and rule. The roots of debates like these lie in that segment of U.S. public opinion that doubts the need to deal with external problems that don't directly threaten the country's survival. That sort of thinking wants U.S. forces all over the world, that act as the vanguard of U.S. interventions, to be readjusted in order to reduce frictions, so that the United States can be more effective in its role as the police of the world. The conditions are ideal for the Americans to try such a move in South Korea. First, a huge increase of unfavorable sentiment toward the United States pitched up last year, along with the overt anti-American movement.... Now the Pentagon can openly state what it is displeased with--its difficulties in securing facilities and land for smooth operations and acceptable housing--and if the host country fails to provide them, the troops will leave. The United States may be treating South Korea as a proving ground for this strategy, and South Korea certainly provided Washington with the perfect excuses and justifications to do so. But I wonder if we are prepared for this kind of big change."

"Realignment Of The USFK Must Not Hurt Korea's Security"

Moderate Hankook Ilbo contended (6/9): " The realignment of the 2nd Infantry Division of the USFK will greatly change Korea's security environment. The relocation of the 2nd ID was decided at the request of the US.... And although the US desire for a realignment of the 2nd ID is understandable, the Korean people could end up misunderstanding the intentions of the US. The US-ROK combined forces have been the symbol of the two countries' alliance for the past 50 years. Removing the 2nd ID from the duties of defending the DMZ could hurt Koreans' sense of security.... It is true that the reallocation could bring a positive result to Korea, such as giving the country greater autonomy in defending itself. However, at this current point, we must not forget that the defense capabilities of the ROK-US joint forces are the backbone of Korea's security."

"Reallocation Of The 2nd ID Will Take Place As The U.S. Wishes"

Nationalist left-leaning Hankyoreh Shinmun opined (6/7): "The relocation of the 2nd ID of the USFK is an important matter that was discussed during the US-ROK summit. However, it has been less than a month since the two leaders discussed this issue and already an agreement has been made to send the 2nd ID to the south of the Han River. This decision is expected to raise criticism that the Ministry of Defense gave in to the unilateral demands of the US to realign the infantry division.... Also, some speculate that the realignment was pursued in line with the United States's intention to strike against North Korea, thus raising fear among the Korean people. It is indeed regrettable that the US is looking out for only its own interests without taking into account the concerns of the Korean people. However, it is true that Korea has no choice but to follow the United States's decisions concerning the reallocation of USFK.... Therefore, what Korea must do is to strengthen its self-defense abilities and thus reduce its dependence on the U.S.... At the same time, it must make greater efforts to eradicate the risk of a war on the Korean Peninsula."

“USFK Realignment is Alarming”

Nationalist, left-leaning Hankyoreh Shinmun editorialized (6/5): “The U.S. move to realign its forces stationed in the ROK runs counter to the spirit of the ROK-U.S. joint statement that made clear that both countries should pursue USFK realignment taking careful account of the political, economic, and security situation on the peninsula and in Northeast Asia. Furthermore, the U.S. move could push the situation toward military confrontation, undermining efforts to peacefully resolve the North Korean nuclear issue. We suspect that the U.S. might be seeking USFK realignment with an eye to using force against Pyongyang. In order to defuse these Korean concerns, we urge Washington to halt its attempt to realign USFK and to participate actively in negotiations on the nuclear issue.”

SOUTH ASIA

INDIA: "Permission For Military Base"

Nationalist, Hindi-language Amar Ujala observed (6/10): ""Going beyond the joint exercises, the US has now showed its interest in setting up military bases in India. This is very dangerous and disturbing.... The US has a tendency to devour everything it sees, and there are enough terrible examples of its increasing dictatorship in this unipolar world. In this situation, giving permission to set up military bases not only put our sovereignty at stake, but we will also be walking into a trap.... Among other reasons, this move can also be seen as one to reassure Pakistan's safety. A Pentagon report says that military presence in India will be important in case relations with Asia ever turn sour. It shows the US fear of China. But, why should we become pawns in America's gameplan against China? Also, the US is wary of our improving ties with China."