East Asia and U.S. Security

• Author: Albert E. Kane
• DOI: 10.1177/000271627542100116
• Published date: 01 September 1975
• Date: 01 September 1975
• Subject Matter: Book Department: International Relations and Politics

152

THE

ANNALS

OF

THE

AMERICAN

ACADEMY

pendices-though laborious at times,

are such obvious labors

of

love

as

to

also

be

enjoyable.)

Also,

while the

authors recognize that post-World-War-

11 changes-including many new na-

tions, the new colonialism, technological

advances and the scope of armaments

-require some new indicators' and re-

vised operational definitions, the rele-

vancy of endogenous and bureaucratic

forces surely remains significant.

Na-

tions in Conjict

and its detailed com-

panion works provide the framework

for further systems analysis of national

interdependent forces whose changes

potentially might at least somewhat per-

mit avoidance of international violent

conflict in the contemporary world.

CHARLES

A.

JOINER

Temple University

Philadelphia

Pennsylvania

RALPH

N.

CLOUGH.

East

Asia

and

U.S.

Security.

Pp. 248. Washington, D.C.:

The Brookings Institution, 1974.

$8.95. Paperbound,

$3.50.

The

title is somewhat misleading be-

cause the book deals mainly with

the

security of the small nations of South

East Asia and not primarily with the

security

of

the United States. The former

subject is analyzed within

the

frame-

work of the interaction between the

four major powers-the United States,

the Soviet Union, China and Japan.

The security treaty with Japan is con-

sidered the cornerstone of peace in the

Far

East.

It seems obvious that the conclusions

drawn are as much the result of a

consensus between many people know-

ledgeable in the field, most probably

the'members of the Brookings Study

Group,

as

of

the scholarly research of

the

author. However,

so

many different

situations are posited that there is always

room for contrary.conc1usions.

The book is readable, rational and

realistic in its prognostications. Recent

events, such as the unexpectedly quick

collapse of the South Vietnamese armies,

have

so

preceded

the

review of this

book as immediately to substantiate the

statement that the Thais would probably

request the withdrawal of all United

States military forces from their territory.

On the other hand, the suggestion that

the forces of South Korea might be

able to repel a North Korean attack,

even without United States aid, is open

to serious question. Since the fates of

Korea, Thailand, Burma, hlalaysia,

Singapore, Indonesia and the Philip-

pines are discussed separately, albeit

from different angles, there is of neces-

sity some duplication of material.

The main thrust of the book seems

to be that because of the present Sino-

Russian hostility and Japan being an

unarmed, non-nuclear power, the con-

tainment policy of the United States

should be reassessed. This

is

especially

true because the United States interests

in Southeast Asia are not considered

basic or vital, and there is little

evi-

dence that either China or the U.S.S.R.

would invade there using their own

troops. It is therefore suggested that

the

United States should loosen its align-

ments with these small nations and

gradually reduce its military forces there

since they can not anyhow compensate

for ineffective leadership; but to

do

so

in such a manner

as

not to alarm Japan

and cause her to rearm in a nuclear

way. Thus

the

trend to be encouraged

should

be

toward preventing qational-

ism in Southeast Asia from fanning the

animosities between neighboring coun-

tries, allowing the forces favoring self-

defense to operate through regional

cooperation and creating

a

nuclear free

zone of the area. On the contrary, the

author advocates an irreducible mini-

mum of United States forces in North

East Asia if the confidence

of

the

Japanese leaders in the United States

is to be maintained. The book contains

much interesting factual material and

it

would be worthwhile for the makers

of foreign policy in our Department of

State to consider carefully the ideas

presented.

ALBERT

E.

KANE

Washington, D.C.