NARRATOR: In a world that has changed dramatically since the end of the Cold War in 1991, Asia stands out as a region that is relatively peaceful, compared to the acute instability in the Middle East, Africa and Central Europe. Despite the absence of active conflict, however, there are underlying problems: Military buildups, territorial disputes, political and social instability exist and could surface to challenge peace in the future.

ADM JOHN SHANAHAN: I'm Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, director of the Center for Defense Information.

Without question, peace, prosperity and social progress in Europe are of vital importance to the United States. However, we need to be sure that we do not allow a preoccupation with Europe to divert attention from our interests in Asia, in particular our interest in achieving an enduring and mutually productive relationship with the People's Republic of China.

The major press has done an inadequate job of keeping Americans informed about this fascinating and important part of the world. We are happy to help correct that oversight with this program.

NARRATOR: The United States has a long history of involvement in Asia and, since the end of the Second World War, the United States retained large forces in the region to serve as deterrents to communist expansion during the Cold War. In both the Korean War and the Vietnam War, the United States used military forces to assert influence in the region.

As a result of the presence of United States troops, many countries in Asia enjoyed great security and were able to place almost all their resources into economic development, not into military forces. Those countries now engage in business on an equal and sometimes better scale than the United States. Economic prosperity has now enabled some Asian countries to increase military investment in high-tech, large-scale weapons purchases and production.

Afraid of the eventual withdrawal of United States forces from the region because the threat from Russia has diminished, these countries think it is now necessary to invest in high-tech militaries for contingencies in which the United States might not be involved.

Japanese Ambassador to the United States Kunihiko Saito expresses a widely held view:

Ambassador KUNIHIKO SAITO: If the United States decides to withdraw its forces stationed in Asia, then certainly a vacuum will be created and nobody will like it. Economic competition is becoming harder and harder, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. We don't like arms race. I'm afraid that some Asian countries are now spending more money on arms buildup.

NARRATOR: While most of this military buildup is defensive, such as coastal patrol craft, fighter aircraft and defensive artillery, it does increase the chances for military conflict as these nations emerge economically and assert territorial and social claims that did not surface during the region's preoccupation with the Cold War. Asian regional disputes, most of which do not involve direct threats to US national security, could draw United States forces into action because of current United States alliances and treaties with countries in the region.

The United States continues to rely upon alliances and agreements made during the Cold War to ensure peace and stability in Asia. Even today, the United States continues to deploy 100,000 troops in the region, although new circumstances seem to call for a new approach.

Dr. Katy Oh, senior fellow at The Korea Society, puts the problem this way:

Dr. KATY OH: With the US, I think the relationship has been very important and still solidly continues. But there are a lot of old questions now cast in a new environment. How to improve security management and alliance management, and all these questions actually raise a lot of interesting challenges.

NARRATOR: It is now time for the United States to reassess its Cold War role in Asia and reduce is military commitments, while still ensuring security and stability in Asia through alternative means. If current United States policies are continued in Asia, then there is a strong possibility that the United States might become embroiled in a costly military conflict where there is no direct threat to our national security.

There are basic questions that must be asked:

...What are the most pressing direct threats to

security in Asia today?

...Do American policies in the region address these

challenges effectively?

...And, to what extent is the United States willing to

shed blood to achieve peace and stability in

situations that pose no direct threat to our

national security?

Under various alliances to which the United States is party, any number of contingencies could bring United States soldiers into harm's way: War on the Korean Peninsula, a Chinese effort to take Taiwan by force, or territorial disputes over energy and mineral reserves in the South China Sea are all threats that under current United States policies might require the intervention of United States troops. Given these threats, there are varying opinions on the most pressing threat faced by the United States in Asia today.

Former US Ambassador to China and South Korea James Lilley:

Ambassador JAMES R. LILLEY: I think, obviously, the most direct threat or flash point is North Korea. They have got a million-two men under arms. They have a very belligerent policy. They are a failing regime. They have lost their legitimacy in the death of their great leader, Kim Il Sung. They have to be managed very carefully and very firmly, and that is the number one problem we have in Asia.

However, others, such as Selig Harrison, of the Woodrow Wilson Institute, feel differently:

SELIG HARRISON: Well, I think the greatest danger the United States faces in Asia is the possible drift into a conflict with China over Taiwan. There are a lot of political forces in Taiwan that are pushing Taiwan in the direction of seeking overt independence as against what we now have, which is a de facto independence. These forces pushing for a sovereign, independent Taiwan could provoke a war with China, in which political factors in the United States and in China could accelerate the danger of a conflict.

NARRATOR: Many in the region realize the potential for conflict and see the United States playing a major role in mitigating tensions.

AMB. SAITO: Personally, I am not sure if the Cold War has really ended in Asian region. It has certainly ended in Europe. But in Asia, particularly in East Asia, uncertainties still remain. There is the North-South confrontation on the Korean Peninsula. There is tension between China and Taiwan. And we believe that Japan-US security ties are now as important as they were.

NARRATOR: Even though there is disagreement about which threat is greatest, there is a general consensus on the three main threats faced in the region and that the United States must address each of these threats in its review of current US policies in Asia: The Korean Peninsula. China and Taiwan. The South China Sea.

North Korea is the last true battlefield of the Cold War. It is a communist country isolated by its dictator, Kim Jong-Il, and abandoned by its former Cold War allies Russia and China. Today, North Korea's famine and internal instability could provoke a hot war on the Korean Peninsula, directly involving United States forces.

MR. HARRISON: There is a danger of an accidental conflict or a series of events leading to escalation. There is a hardline group in North Korea in the military there. We've got to be very careful not to strengthen that group by maintaining obsolete Cold War policies in Korea.

NARRATOR: After cessation of hostilities of the Korean War in 1953, the United States remained on the peninsula to guard South Korea from a second invasion by the North. Today, 37,000 US troops in the region, alongside the 650,000-strong military of South Korea, continue their watch of North Korea, while diplomatic efforts are underway to alleviate tensions on the peninsula.

DR. OH: I put it this way. It has been considered -- North Korea has been considered to be a major threat. But I think today major threat is actually uncertainty and the psychological fear and frustration that you don't know which direction North Korea is heading towards. I think that is actually the most important threat, rather than North Korea itself.

NARRATOR: Tensions are high on the 38th parallel at the present time. The North Koreans are enduring a great famine and internal instability and may perceive the only way out of their crisis is through a forceful conquest of the South. Three-party talks between the North, South and the US to alleviate tensions have yet to reach any productive agreements.

James Lilley said of his part in the negotiations:

Ambassador LILLEY: And I made one very clear point to them. I said there is a no-force option on the peninsula. I've seen war in Korea, I've seen war in Vietnam, I was at the end of World War II. And I said war is absolutely no option. And they said, 'But,' you know, 'if we get in a corner' -- I said, "No. No option."

Implicit in that is, 'If you ever start an attack, that's the end of you. Don't even think about it. Think about other means.' And I impressed them that as much as I could. They have used the threat of war very effectively to get concessions, "turn Seoul into a sea of fire," this kind of talk. And I said, "Drop it, don't raise it. We've got real economic problems, political problems. Let's get on with it and deal with it and let's cut back on that military confrontation, reduce our forces, confidence-building measures. Focus on that."

NARRATOR: In the worst case, war could break out. The United States has prepared for this contingency, but more importantly, the US has prepared South Korea. South Korea now has a high-tech, well trained military that will bear the brunt of fighting in the event of an invasion.

In testimony delivered to Congress by ADM William Crowe, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "Our assessments do indicate that that South Korea's forces are capable of defending themselves against any threat from the North that does not involve either the Soviet Union or the People's Republic or China."

The second major area of potential conflict in Asia is the threat of Chinese aggression in an effort to regain "lost" territories, separated from the mainland by imperial conquest, internal instability, and the Cold War.

MR. HARRISON: Each year that passes, the danger will grow greater. And in the period between five and ten years from now, I think the danger of a war with China over Taiwan is a very real one unless the United States makes very clear to Taiwan that the US will stay out of the unfinished Chinese civil war, will not get involved in a war between China and Taiwan, and wants Taiwan to avoid provoking one by declaring sovereign independence.

NARRATOR: Hong Kong, a British protectorate for the past 99 years, returns to China in July 1997, and it is the first of the "lost" territories to once again come under the control of China. Beijing believes that other territories, such as Taiwan and small island chains in the South China Sea, should return to Chinese sovereign control at some point in the future.

MR. HARRISON: If China were to adopt a belligerent posture in response to provocations from Taiwan in the form of an independent -- a declaration of independence, or threats to declare independence, or efforts to get a UN seat, then that could lead American public opinion to polarize between those who would say we've got to help Taiwan, we've got to help defend it in the event of a war with China, and others who would say that the American interest in good relations with this tremendous country of the People's Republic of China is the paramount factor. So, I think there is a danger. It's probably -- I think it's a very real danger.

NARRATOR: Taiwan was part of mainland China until 1949, when the communist takeover of the mainland forced the Kuomintang, under Chiang Kai-shek, to flee to the island of Taiwan. Since 1949, the Taiwanese have asserted their Chinese heritage and their desire for international recognition as a sovereign government.

The United States has conflicting interests in the Taiwan-China dispute. On one hand, the United States wants to promote democracy and right of self-determination, while on the other hand, wishes to improve its economic and political relationship with the mainland. When China staged military exercises in 1996 to deter the Taiwanese from asserting independence, the United States moved naval forces into the region as a show of force. As of now, overt Taiwanese movements toward independence have halted and a renewed dialogue is underway.

MR. HARRISON: I think it's a very real danger. It may not threaten us in the immediate future because mainland China doesn't now have the amphibious capability necessary to actually engage in a serious conflict with Taiwan.

NARRATOR: Like South Korea, the United States has helped Taiwan become fully capable of repelling an invasion. Taiwan is producing its own fighter aircraft and purchasing advanced naval ships which will aid in deterring any attack from the mainland. Through increased talks, both sides are encouraging economic cooperation and peaceful dialogue to solve cross-strait disputes. China is not prepared to bring Taiwan under Chinese control by force at present, although that could change in the future.

This situation places the United States under pressure from both countries. Taiwan seeks United States support for its independence movement. China wants to maintain its lucrative trade with the United States, but wants the United States to stop selling arms to Taiwan and objects strongly if the US shows any political support for the government of Taiwan in international affairs.

The other threat to security and stability in Asia that the United States must keep in mind are South China Sea disputes and Chinese militarization. Some fear the "sleeping dragon" of China is awakening. Chinese naval purchases of destroyers and fighter aircraft from the former Soviet Union rest at the root of these fears. Chinese acquisition of a blue-water fleet that would include aircraft carriers and ability to support naval forces far from Chinese ports could pose a major threat to US dominance in the region.

There is a fear that such a force could be used in the future to take Chinese-claimed territories in the South China Sea. Already Chinese forces and Japanese forces have faced off in the South China Sea over small island chains off the coast of Taiwan. These islands sit atop vast petroleum and raw material reserves that are much desired by Asian countries burdened by population and land distribution problems.

AMB. SAITO: Territorial issues are always sensitive, difficult to deal with, but we have been working quietly with the Chinese government and with the South Korean government on these issues. So, solution of these problems will take a long time, perhaps, but we will continue to talk and I'm sure we'll be able to keep these issues under control.

NARRATOR: Since threats to stability in the South China Sea exist, the tensions are being watched carefully by all sides. The United States continues to deploy troops to manage worst-case scenarios of these disputes, though the US does not directly partake in negotiations.

Since the conclusion of the Cold War, Asia is the only region that has shown an increase in arms purchases. The US is the primary wholesaler of arms to the region. Arms sales are up 12 percent from 1991. China is the most active of the countries pursuing weapons technology and hardware in Asia.

Because of their size, economic importance, and communist government, many see these acquisitions as an indication of a rising China bent on challenging the United States' military dominance in the region. However, acquisition of technology does not mean that China will effectively challenge the United States for some time to come.

AMB. LILLEY: The question is, are they really in the informational warfare era? And you can get all the hardware you want, but if you don't know tri-service exercises, if you don't know how to use sensors, and fast communications, and smart weapons and you're getting out on the oceans, it's very, very dangerous. You're playing in a big league match. And my own sense is that for the foreseeable future that the Chinese challenge is probably manageable.

DR. OH: I think China has not yet achieved or reached any sort of like hegemony and menacing global power at all. And whether they do it, it's another question. At the same time, they're a potential. So, for us to be very prudent strategies to cope with both potentially dangerous China and potentially very peaceful and constructive China, you have to come up with both national and regional, global consensus how to deal with China from a very prudent and well-thought out strategy.

NARRATOR: Current United States military policy in Asia revolves around the tensions on the Korean Peninsula, the tensions between Taiwan and China, and competing national interests in the South China Sea. For years, these issues provided the justification for large numbers of deployed US troops in the region. A review now of the military situation in Asia makes clear that the United States faces no significant military threat to its vital national interests in the region.

Furthermore, there is no indication that preparations are being made to project force against the United States. To create such a capability by any Asian nation will require years of effort and trillions of dollars. This will give the United States ample time to prepare and to counter any such emerging threat.

MR. HARRISON: I think there's a real contradiction between the perpetuation of alliance relationships in Asia, such as those with Japan and with South Korea, and on the other hand, our constant emphasis on the creation of multilateral security dialogues in Asia. Of course, the US Government position is that these do not conflict, that, in fact, they reinforce each other. But the fact is that they do conflict.

NARRATOR: The United States' policy towards Asia is problematic. The United States emphasizes the need for multilateral solutions to regional conflicts through dialogue. However, the United States makes little effort to create or maintain any of the multinational organizations in Asia, as it has in Europe with NATO and the European Union.

Quite the contrary, the United States continues to rely upon Cold War era alliance, agreements and weapons transfers to achieve peace and stability in Asia.

MR. HARRISON: What's more important I think is that while we talk about multilateral security dialogues in Asia, we're telling them what they should do without any reference to what we should do.

AMB. LILLEY: Japan really is defended by air and naval forces. There's a very limited utility for ground forces in Japan. Korea: You've got to have the trip wire ground forces. Do you need 37,000? Think it through very carefully. Do you need 60,000 troops in Japan? Think it through very carefully. I mean, in Taiwan, we've kept stability there without a single troop on Taiwan soil.

So, you've got to think through your mix of forces. And we are sort of locked into this 100,000 forward deployed. You better get away from that. Modern warfare calls for different techniques.

NARRATOR: There are many views on what needs to be changed about American policy in Asia, but there is a general agreement that United States' policy urgently needs to be reassessed to better fit into the context of the post-Cold War world. In a region of relative stability, with no indication of direct threats to US national security, and where the countries are becoming militarily stronger, the United States needs to determine whether stationing 100,000 troops in Asia is in its best interest.

Obviously, the United States has great interest, both politically and economically, in ensuring stability and security in Asia, but at what cost? According to the Pentagon, the cost of stationing 100,000 troops in Asia is about $8 billion a year. However, that is just the base cost. Estimates of the total cost of stationing troops, prepositioning equipment and preparing for contingencies is roughly $100 billion.

If a conflict were to occur which the United States were party to, these costs would necessarily increase, also involving the cost in American lives. We need to promote new measures to achieve our goals, while reducing troops in Asia which have outlived their Cold War mission.

MR. HARRISON: Basically, I think the United States should avoid interposing itself in Asia in ways that would bring it into conflict with the interests of the major powers in Asia, particularly China and Japan.

DR. OH: If two Koreas reaching toward a much more peaceful reconciliation and peace coexistence, certainly the US presence issue will be a new issue to examined and assessed what's the best way to preserve the peace without having the current size of force structure.

AMB. SAITO: I think the United States is the biggest stabilizing force in Asia.

AMB. LILLEY: Everybody seems to project China as the superpower of the 21st Century. I would be very careful about that.

ADM. SHANAHAN: The United States must avoid reacting in a knee-jerk fashion everytime China spends a little money on its military. Today, China is spending only eight-tenths of one percent of its gross domestic product on its military. Most of the $36 billion that it does spend is used for salaries and housing to keep its own troops in line.

We must not make the costly mistake of overselling China as a military threat. In military terms, China is at least two decades behind us. We have time to clear the air between the People's Republic of China and ourselves on near and long-term issues like Taiwan, North Korea, and the South China Sea. Let's get the job done before competing vital interests collide.

For "AMERICA'S DEFENSE MONITOR," I am Jack Shanahan.