New shots ... post-Cold War

RED-FACED Pentagon officials are scram bling to diffuse a controversy over a leaked internal memo that sets out the most detailed set of US military objectives yet for the post- Cold War era.

The memo is the basis of the administra tion’s two-yearly Defense Planning Guid ance, which is the cornerstone of American military policy and strategy.

Despite the end of the Cold War, the memo outlines seven “illustrative” scenarios which could involve US combat trops

including renewed Iraqi aggression, an

expansion at Russia, and threats to the Panama Canal.

But of great interest to our region is the emphasis placed on Asian hotspots.

The Pentagon planners have imagined

two cases which, if they escalated, might not only draw in US military forces but Australian, Southeast Asian and other regional troops.

The first is a North Korean invasion of South Korea under the guise of a peace initiative. The Pentagon assumed that North Korea will have acquired a nuclear weapons capability before it launches the attack, although it says the communist state would be unlikely to use them unless its armed forces faced

‘catastrophic defeat”.

Even closer to the South Pacific, the Pentagon imagines an ittempted coup in the Philippines some time after US forces ire withdrawn, but which puts at risk about 5000 remaining \merican civilians.

According to The New York Times which, along with The Washington Post , obtained copies of the memo, it says, “In the iftermath of a major coup attempt, fighting continues with the ffiilippine military divided into different factions vying for ontrol.” In the chaos, about 300 Americans are taken hostage >y one faction, prompting a US military rescue.

In part, the threat scenarios may have been fuelled by the ‘entagon’s looming budget battle with congress, which has loated various proposals to double White House cuts to American defence spending. The prospect of new enemies rising "om the rubble of the Cold War is a useful buffer against irther diminution of military resources.

But some experts in Washington have questioned whether le Pentagon has created an alarming menu of potential □nflicts in order to justify the continuation of massive defence Kpenditure and weapons programs.

Maintaining forces capable of fighting one or more of the wen scenarios outlined in the document would require a )bust level of defense spending into the next century,” said The r ew York Times.

But the most controversial element in the Pentagon Dcument is its assertion that the main US military objective ■ the post-Cold War era should be to preclude the emergence a new superpower either from Asia, Europe, or the former Dviet Union.

In what appears to be the advocacy of a lone superpower )licy, the document implies that Washington would frown Don even allies such as Japan or Germany if they sought

Washington

positions of enhanced global leadership.

The document says the US should estab lish an international framework which ac counts “sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership”, while also maintaining American military supremacy to deter “potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role”.

“While the US cannot become the world’s ‘policeman’, by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the pre eminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations,” it says.

This bold assertion has been ridiculed by

some congressmen and western diplomats as negating interna tional hopes for more collective security, and as reviving Pax Americans.

Democrat Senator Robert Byrd said: “The basic thrust of the document seems to be this: We love being the sole remaining superpower in the world, and we want so much to remain that way that we are willing to risk the basic health of our economy and well-being of our people to do so.”

Even some US administration officials have been quoted as decrying the document as a “dumb report” that “in no way or shape represents US policy”.

In one instance, the Deputy Secretary of State, Lawrence Eagleburger, was reported to have told an Indian delegation to dismiss unfavourable references in the document to India.

The document says that the United States “should discourage Indian hegemonic aspirations over the other states in South Asia and on the Indian Ocean”.

Mr Eagleburger told the delegation that the language used in the document did not reflect US policy.

Pentagon officials have taken to the ramparts, saying the document is still a draft and will not, in its final form, advocate that American military power should be used to thwart the rise of even friendly regional competitors.

“What we seek to prevent is the emergence of a hostile power, a hostile superpower,” said Pentagon spokesman, Pat Williams.

“The United States is not looking for a unilateral role in the world. What we are saying is that we want to stay involved with our allies, we want to remain part of the community of nations.”

It also underscores American commitment to the Asia- Pacific region: “We must maintain our status as a military power of the first magnitude in the area. This will enable the US to continue to contribute to regional security and stability acting as a balancing force and preventing emergence of a vacuum or a regional hegemony.”

While most nations welcome a continuing US role in the region, the shifting economic and political dynamics unleashed by the end of the Cold War mean it is less likely than ever that one military superpower will be able to call the shots. □

Margot

O‘Neill