US presence remains
p. 37 · Read in the full issue
IN JANUARY/February this year, I was in a group of interna tional visitors who toured the United States to study its chang ing role in world affairs.
It is an open-ended question and one which seems to have implications for just about every country or region of the world since the elevation of the US to the position of the world’s only mili tary superpower thanks to events in the former Soviet Union.
Funded by the US Information Agency (USIA), the tour was an opportunity to get the feel for America’s resolve to maintain a presence in the South Pacific.
This multi-regional program, with participants from Barbados, Egypt, Estonia, India,
Kazakhastan, Kenya, South Korea, Kuwait, Lebanon,
Lesotho, Nicaragua, Nigeria Paraguay, Solomon Islands
(myself), South Africa and the West Bank covered some of America’s foreign policy breeding grounds educational institutions, think-tanks, lobbyists and so on, to discuss with academics, diplomats and others questions surrounding the changing role of the US in world affairs in the aftermath of the fall of communism.
The United States will maintain a presence in the South Pacific that’s the gospel from Washington, DC. Just exactly what this means is not precisely clear. But it appears the assurance is intended to allay fears that changing international landscape in Eastern Europe and elsewhere and the competing demands that accompany it could divert America’s attention from the plight of island countries in the South Pacific.
Perhaps there is some merit to fears or rather the uncertainty over the US’s resolve to protect its strategic interests in the South Pacific. For until the fall of communism, there was a school of thought that the South Pacific could become a battleground for superpower rivalry between the US and the former Soviet Union.
That, according to this school of thought, was a plus for Forum Island Countries. The threat of allowing the Soviet Union a foothold in the region could persuade the US to take greater interest in the Pacific.
Of course that threat, hence the island countries’ strongest bargaining chip, has disappeared with the disintegration of the communist system. Essentially, it means that the United States is now the world’s only military superpower. Such a position can be interpreted differently by different people.
Competing demands also mean that Washington has to reassess its position, weighing up strategic interests on a region by region basis.
According to one argument, competing demands for US attention could place Washington in a position where it can choose to ignore the plight ot Forum Island Countries which dotted the vast expanse of water called the South Pacific.
Not so, says a State Department official, ‘The US will continue to maintain a presence in the South Pacific,” the official said.
Regular (military) ship visits are planned to friendly island countries. Former President George Bush’s proposal for a US- Pacific Islands Joint Commercial Commission (JCC), while
not Forum project, was raised in general discussions.
According to the State De partment official, since a Mem orandum Of Understanding (MOU) on the proposal was
signed last January, Washing
ton expects Island Leaders to discuss the matter further at the next Forum Meeting in Nauru later this year.
It is perhaps worth noting the odds Forum Island Countries are up against in terms of seeking funding assist ance either directly or in directly from Washington.
Continuing upheaval in the former Soviet Union, hence, the demise of communism poses a greater challenge of US
foreign policymakers and defence strategists, not to mention the strain this places on US foreign aid budget.
For until the trouble in the then Soviet Union began, it can be said with almost total certainty that US foreign policy and military planning revolved around one thing: the threat posed by the military build up in the USSR.
This is no longer the case.
In fact, today due to the changing international landscape in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, security challenges facing the US appear to be coming from just about every corner of the globe, posing a headache for US foreign policymakers, military strategists and analysts.
After years under the Republicans, American voters have decided on the Democrats to lead them, perhaps into the 21st century.
It was clear throughout the tour that foreign policy is not quite so high on President Bill Clinton’s Administration’s priorities.
Indeed, the new Administration has identified three areas in the order of priority: Economy, Reforming the US military and Humanitarian involvement.
With a S 4 trillion-plus deficit, President Clinton’s first and foremost priority is fixing the US economy. Experts agree that if the American economy falters, so too will the underlying source of its international power.
The second priority is the downsizing of the US military to reflect the shifts in defense policies. This has begun and will continue for some time.
America’s third priority, in pursuit of its foreign policy, is through humanitarian involvement.
Emphasis placed on the importance of the UN system during the tour appears to be signalling that all future US international involvement, either in peace-keeping or peace making duties would be in concert with United Nations’ resolutions. However, in the event that its national security interests are threatened, the US will be forced to act alone.
It seems from this policy shift that, financially, the US can no longer maintain its perceived role as the world’s number one policeman. In other words, it is time every UN member starts paying for peace-keeping or peace-making duties provided by the US military through the UN system.
Peace and tranquility are perhaps our biggest stumbling block for any US attention in the region. But then, who wants anything else? □