If the US is serious about rapid redeployment of its forces in Asia, it will have to do better than in South Korea -- a decade after promising to hand over its huge Seoul headquarters, South Korea has regained only the golf course.
Now, the US has said it will pull back its forces from the world's last Cold War frontier in a historic move that a top US commander in the South said would not weaken the allies' defense against the North.
More far-reaching forces may be at play.
"The issue is not why are we doing this -- because it is clearly long overdue -- but why is it so urgent to announce it now," said Ralph Cossa, head of the Hawaii-based Pacific Forum CSIS think tank. The deal was agreed last October, he said.
"This is [US Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld with his eye on the bigger picture and his lack of regard for little minor details like the fact that the Cold War is not over yet on the Korean Peninsula," he said of the US secretary of defense whose vision of a smaller, mobile, technologically advanced force triumphed in Iraq.
Agile, effective
and flexible
US Pentagon officials have not hidden that new technology means US military positions in the Asia-Pacific region can now be shifted to create a more agile, flexible and effective force. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said just that only days ago.
The problems of the Korean Peninsula, where a North armed with chemical, biological and a vast array of conventional -- if not nuclear -- weapons hovers within range of Seoul are vastly more complicated and more deadly than threats in the Middle East.
North and South Korea remain technically at war because the armed truce that ended the 1950-1953 Korean conflict never led to a peace treaty.
South Korean officials have voiced concern that shifting US troops away from the frontier for the first time -- even if only by a few kilometers at first -- could be perceived by the North as a weakening of US support for Seoul or as a move to clear the way for a pre-emptive attack on the North.
Moving house could be slow. An agreement in principle about 10 years ago to move the huge US army headquarters from prime Seoul real estate has so far freed only a golf course.
Exacerbating the situation is the nuclear crisis over Pyongyang's atomic ambitions.
"This is a consequence not of a major US policy change to Korea, but as much an issue of a changed and more modern approach to military operations," said Ross Babbage, professor of strategic and defense studies at the Australian National University in Canberra.
The changes are intended to enable US troops, and their South Korean allies, to develop as more mobile units that are afforded greater maneuverability as they move further from the Demilitarized Zone dividing North from South, he said.
The scope to be taken by surprise and damaged in the first few minutes of a conflict is greatly reduced," Babbage said.
While the move may offer military advantages and new flexibility to troops pinned down for five decades along the most heavily fortified border on earth, the timing may not have been ideal given the nuclear crisis.
Getting it wrong?
The move could further bolster the North Korean view that US forces are so casualty averse that they want to move back from the frontline.
"That would not be out of line with previous wrong conclusions," Cossa said.
The maneuver may prove hard for the North to comprehend.
If Pyongyang tries to understand the move in the context of the peninsula it may make some erroneous assumptions, failing to view the shift as part of a worldwide military realignment.
"These are two separate events, but they are both occurring in the same universe," Cossa said. "That is hard for the North Koreans to believe and to figure out."
The grander US plan is for a smaller force sustainable over the long term and with a smaller footprint, a force that is less intrusive and more flexible while taking into account changing strategic realities.
If Pyongyang decides to respond with yet more belligerent statements, it may find little sympathy among neighbors such as Japan, South Korea, Russia and even China who are increasingly irked at its bellicosity and falling more closely into line with US demands for a multilateral solution to the nuclear crisis.
"Each time the North Koreans have responded by being more obnoxious that has helped the Bush strategy," said Cossa of the US president's bid to avoid bilateral meetings with North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's representatives.
"Kim Jong-il appears even more unreasonable and hardline than [US President George W.] Bush," Cossa said.
A return to power for former US president Donald Trump would pose grave risks to Taiwan’s security, autonomy and the broader stability of the Indo-Pacific region. The stakes have never been higher as China aggressively escalates its pressure on Taiwan, deploying economic, military and psychological tactics aimed at subjugating the nation under Beijing’s control. The US has long acted as Taiwan’s foremost security partner, a bulwark against Chinese expansionism in the region. However, a second Trump presidency could upend decades of US commitments, introducing unpredictability that could embolden Beijing and severely compromise Taiwan’s position. While president, Trump’s foreign policy reflected a transactional
There appears to be a growing view among leaders and leading thinkers in Taiwan that their words and actions have no influence over how China approaches cross-Strait relations. According to this logic, China’s actions toward Taiwan are guided by China’s unwavering ambition to assert control over Taiwan. Many also believe Beijing’s approach is influenced by China’s domestic politics. As the thinking goes, former President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) made a good faith effort to demonstrate her moderation on cross-Strait issues throughout her tenure. During her 2016 inaugural address, Tsai sent several constructive signals, including by acknowledging the historical fact of interactions and
HSBC Holdings successfully fought off a breakup campaign by disgruntled Asian investors in recent years. Now, it has announced a restructuring along almost the same east-west lines. The obvious question is why? It says it is designed to create a simpler, more efficient and dynamic company. However, it looks a lot like the bank is also facing up to the political reality of the growing schism between the US and China. A new structure would not dissolve HSBC’s geopolitical challenges, but it could give the bank better options to respond quickly if things worsen. HSBC spent 2022 battling to convince shareholders of
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has prioritized modernizing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to rival the US military, with many experts believing he would not act on Taiwan until the PLA is fully prepared to confront US forces. At the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th Party Congress in 2022, Xi emphasized accelerating this modernization, setting 2027 — the PLA’s centennial — as the new target, replacing the previous 2035 goal. US intelligence agencies said that Xi has directed the PLA to be ready for a potential invasion of Taiwan by 2027, although no decision on launching an attack had been made. Whether
RSS