America’s Security Policy During Pacific And Korean Wars Essay Example

power balance in Asia and jeopardize American economic interests. This conflicting perception of national interest formed the basis for US foreign policy towards East Asia. Therefore, given America's historical context and emphasis on economic benefits, it is crucial for them to maintain control over East Asia in order to safeguard their national objectives.

After examining historical events and taking the Korean War into account, this paper will assess the relevance and true implementation of Acheson's foreign policy, particularly in regard to the struggle between democracy and communism. Throughout 1945-1950, the world order was threatened by various events, including the Czech coup, Berlin Blockade, and China's communization under Mao in 1949. Additionally, the successful test of the Soviet Union's first atomic bomb in 1949 further compelled US foreign policy to reassess its relationship with its former World War II ally. On January 12, 1950, U.

During his speech to the National Press Club, Secretary of State Dean Acheson declared a western Pacific "defense perimeter," placing emphasis on Japan as a crucial security interest. He also stated that the US can only offer help if it is desired and if conditions for assistance are rational and feasible (50). Acheson's words embody the essence of US foreign policy, reflecting the principle of safeguarding American interests.

The focus of Acheson's speech was on protecting Japan and maintaining their influential position in the Pacific region. With strong and confident language, Acheson guaranteed Japan's national security and reaffirmed America's role as protector of East Asia. During the speech, Acheson established a defensive perimeter in the western Pacific, excluding Korea from its military strategic scope. However, he also emphasized the importance of relying

on attacked countries to resist attacks and the commitments of the entire civilized world under the Charter of the United Nations when necessary. (Cold War 64)

The focus of Acheson's diplomacy is to address the question of why he allowed the United Nations to take over security operations in Korea. He assumes that politics is at the core of the war, and his speech suggests that changes in U.S. policy affect the purpose of allied military operations from political and military perspectives. Acheson prioritizes the defense of South Korea and argues that military means alone cannot stop subversion and penetration. This raises the question of what other solutions can be used to prevent penetration besides military measures.

Acheson’s response regarding the United States’ economic responsibilities and the need to support its allies’ economies for a military effort is similar to Truman’s Marshall Plan of 1947, which aimed to provide economic aid to prevent the spread of communism among its allies. This highlights the political and military significance of Acheson’s policies and their focus on optimizing gains through political and economic means. Therefore, the policy can be seen as an indirect Marshall Plan for Korea under the subject of “Containment Policy”.

The main objective of Washington was to restrict peace and avert conflict in Korea, as it was considered a test case for Soviet aggression. To secure their primary interests in the area, such as Japan and the Pacific, they took measures both militarily and politically. Following World War II, American forces were withdrawn from Korea because it no longer held considerable strategic importance. However, the onset of the Korean War resulted in a change of this

policy.

S expressed worry about the impact of the war on Japan, particularly in relation to Korea. Truman defended America's participation in the Korean War by highlighting the necessity of securing the Pacific and safeguarding U.S. forces operating there. Truman believed that the conflict presented an immediate threat to the safety of the Pacific and its strategic importance. As a result, America's intervention was aimed at protecting its crucial interests in the area rather than only preserving Korea's internal security, which appeared to be beyond their strategic scope.

Regarding the Korean War, the act of declaring war for Korea holds little legal importance. Instead, Truman's use of the 38th parallel as a means to reduce risks and contain the spread of communism was crucial. Acheson's decision to exclude Korea from this line signifies the US' fundamental aim of safeguarding American prestige in the Pacific and globally.

Truman affirmed that the United States would continue to uphold the rule of law, and their strategic objective in the Korean peninsula was to maintain a containment line through a defensive perimeter. The DMZ played a dual role of serving as an advanced base for Japanese defense and enhancing the strategic significance of the Korean peninsula. This resulted in equalizing the Korean and Japanese defenses.

The paper aimed to illustrate the security policy of the United States towards the Pacific and the Korean War, which established the concept of "equal standing" where the Korean peninsula acted as a buffer zone to safeguard Japan. This strategy depicted Korea as an inferior variable factor in the formation of the East Asia defensive perimeter.

The United States aimed to redefine its role in the Korean War and

had strategic interests in Japan and the Pacific region. It was clear that maintaining its position as a protector of Pacific security was crucial, given the potential risk to Japan's national security should it fall under Soviet influence.

To safeguard their defensive perimeter, the US intervened in the Korean War and established the Korea peninsula as a form of double containment. This was necessary as there was a hypothetical risk of attack on the western region of America. Henceforth, restricting the war and preventing its ripple effect from impacting Japan became crucial for American national security.