East Asia: Another Year of Living Dangerously
About: This article is published in Foreign Affairs.The article was published on 1983-01-01. It has received 2 citations till now. The article focuses on the topics: Orient & Far East.
Citations
More filters
01 Jan 1987
TL;DR: In addition, no regional arms control initiative of any importance has come from any East Asian country as mentioned in this paper, which seems to be particularly surprising for a country of the importance of Japan which is known for some significant unilateral arms control measures concerning its own military forces.
Abstract: Until the end of the 1960s arms control has been mainly considered on the global level, and it is only since the beginning of the 1970s, that this conce has been extended to a regional level, i.e. Europe. Although East Asia has also witnessed heavy military involvement by the superpowers, with the United States waging two wars in the region since the end of World War II, it is mainly the geographical mobility of the Soviet SS-20s which has since the latter part of the 1970s, focused arms control interest on East Asia. However, this interest diminished after the Williamsburg Declaration on INF and the crisis of global arms control negotiations: although the existence of an increased arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union in East Asia, and a volatile situation on the Korean peninsula suggests the necessity of some sort of arms control. In addition no regional arms control initiative of any importance has come from any East Asian country. This seems to be particularly surprising for a country of the importance ofJapan which is known for some significant unilateral arms control measures concerning its own military forces.
3 citations
TL;DR: In this article, an attempt is made to explain the Soviet Union's policy towards the Korean peninsula within the context of its Northeast Asian policy in the 1980's. But the authors differ on the ultimate Soviet objective.
Abstract: What follows is an attempt to explain the Soviet Union's policy towards the Korean peninsula within the context of its Northeast Asian policy in the 1980's. Observers of Soviet policy in this region are generally divided into two schools of thought about Soviet goals. While both agree that the Soviet Union wants to be considered a major factor in Northeast Asian and Korean affairs and has built up its military strength in Northeast Asia while strengthening its military ties with North Korea, if only because of its propinquity to the region, they differ on the ultimate Soviet objective. One school sees Soviet Northeast Asian and Korean policies as primarily defensive in nature, directed toward preventing the region from being used as a base for military attack against the Soviet Union. As for Soviet Korean policy in particular, this school argues that the Soviet Union does not support North Korea's "military adventurism" towards South Korea and that the Soviets are in favor of the maintenance of the status quo in the Korean peninsula. The other school sees Soviet policy as primarily offensive, aimed at the limitation and ultimate exclusion of Western influence from the region and its replacement by Soviet influence. As for Soviet Korean policy in particular, this school argues that the Soviet Union may be tempted to instigate North Korea to initiate a second Korean War in its hope that it would induce the People's Republic of China into the orbit of the Russo-North Korean alliance, thus worsening Sino-American relations.