Sonagi:

“The real obstacles are internal, not external, as Aceface noted.”
I’d like to say the same thing about linkaging trade deficit and alliances,for that isn’t the best practice to solve two issues.They are basically two different things by nature.

Seouldout:

“Looking to the future I’d prefer the US re-establish a presence in SE Asia ”

The Phillipines is reluctant to have large scale of U.S troops stationing there permanently.In case you’ve forgot,but they have their own identity politics with Americans.

Thailand rejected the Washington’s offer to establish POMCUS”Prepositioning Of Material Configured in Unit Sets” for the fear of attrating the suspicion of Beijing.

Anyway,these two nations democracies are easily destabilized by either mass rally or coup.Stationing in S.Korea is better for at least there’s no fear of the latter.

Kadena air base in Okinawa,by far the largest airbase in Asia, is strategically locates in the crossroad of the South East Asia and North East Asia.Yokosuka Naval dockyard and Sasebo dock yard are the only dockyards in western pacific that are capable of improving the U.S aircraft career.You can’t really replace these facilities in other places,esecially Japan pays huge chunk of cash in the name of host nation support and the cost is much more cheaper than stationing in the states.

Asking Netsk to produce thoughts that originated outside of Pyongyang might overtax precious resources…

Dominating influences. Read up on how EU get African states to sign up on trade deals even when some of those states don’t want to.

And how does the presence of the US military in Korea (or even Japan) prevent China from unilaterally exercising its claims in the South China Sea and Straits of Malacca?

More than the 7th Fleet, China’s green water navy limits its ability to forcefully exercise and sustain its hold of the SCS claim - it makes no claim on the SOM, other than the right of peaceful passage, which UNCLOS provides. But I’m sure the presence of the 7th Fleet encourages restrainst of action by some - and excess of words by others.

If China were to act too early it would likely encourage some of the ASEAN states to relook closer defense ties with the US, so the status quo of the SCS suits China for the time being.

Once China has a blue water force that can mount and sustain air and naval supremacy over the ASEAN states in the SCS I believe it will act more forcefully in the region. China will have more aircraft carriers in the region than the US and its submarine fleet is substantial.

America’s loss of the Philippine bases and the fact that no allied ASEAN state comes close to matching the defense capabilities of Japan or Korea leaves the SCS open for the taking.

Looking to the future I’d prefer the US re-establish a presence in SE Asia - Thailand or the Philippines - over keeping its forces in East Asia, where Korea and Japan have the technology, people, and treasure to maintain their respective defense.

US has a big influence because:
1) Just like day4night said, “the US tolerate a trade deficit”. Yeah, like Japanese saying “Customer is God”
2)US provides Japan a Nuclear umbrella and all that world police thingy.

And “The Japan That Can Say No was written two decades ago” only shows how difficult for Japan to say No.

THis is one of the main reason why US forced Japan to kill off AMF and EAEC proposals which could have bettered the economic and political sphere in asia.

I asked you before to explain how the US can force Japan, its second-largest trading partner and major banker as a purchaser of US treasury bonds, to do anything against Japan’s own interests:

““yet they are unable to establish a regional monetary fund without US backing? And how is this possible? ”

Aceface had an honest response, which acknowledged that regional cooperation is hindered by China’s and Korea’s mistrust of Japan:

Because China also blocked Japan centered institution and Korea took money from Japan but didn’t really support Tokyo like ASEAN nations.

The Japan That Can Say No was written two decades ago. The US cannot stop economic powerhouses Japan, Korea, and China from cooperating. The real obstacles are internal, not external, as Aceface noted.

If anyone would like to chime in you can contact me through my site.

http://idlewordship.com

or

idlewordship@gmail.com

Thanks,

Bobby

Aceface: you’re right, the US is not offically members of the SCO or ASEAN, but if you think the US doesn’t send members to the meetings you would be wrong. The US regularly sends military representatives to the SCO, as the US is building a larger military presence in Central Asia. ASEAN of course is much large than the SCO, and the US routinely sends high-level diplomats to attend its meetings. There was a big stink earlier this year because Condi Rice skipped it. Also, while ASEAN at least provides a forum to air grivances, in reality it is one of the weakest multilateral organizations in the world. It has no power to enfore anything, and it is even part of the charter that it will not discuss internal problems within other member-states. The African Union is stronger than ASEAN.

Toru: you’re right, there is always the problem that the Russians could just turn off the pump. Of course, if the South Koreans and Japanese plan to invest the billions that the Russians are hoping they will invest in Siberia, they may think twice about it.

As for NK and its lack of energy, this is the main problem for NK today. Today, NK is simply in survival mode. Their days of trying to take over the peninsula and military adventurism are gone, at least that is the opinion of most Korea-focused academics. I tend to agree with them. And for them to survive they need energy. Look at the all the nuclear negotiations with the North over the years, what is the one thing the North always wants? Fuel and electricity, in other words energy. If they have a stable supply of energy, the theory is their behavior will improve. This is debatable, but it is worth a shot.

The U.S can be an Asian power based on it’s military projection capabilities ONLY IF they maintain military base in East Asia.

This is one of the reason why USA will continue to keep their military base in SK and Japan and seek military bases in Iraq and everywhere possible. Military equals to immediate power equals to immediate influence.

“So do you think they have a vested interest in seeing East Asia destroyed?”

Of course the US doesn’t want to see EA destroyed. However, it does want to keep EA from working together to reach their full potential where they can might challenge the US economically, militarily and politically in the international field.

THis is one of the main reason why US forced Japan to kill off AMF and EAEC proposals which could have bettered the economic and political sphere in asia.