Redeployment of U.S. Troops Raises Concerns in Europe, S. Korea, Japan by Michael Coleman When President Bush recently announced a plan to redeploy as many as 70,000 U.S. soldiers from military bases in countries such as Germany, Japan and South Korea, the decision quickly turned into a presidential campaign issue. But perhaps more important, it became a major economic and security issue for the nations affected by the proposal. For decades, the United States has kept a strong military presence in key allied nations, with an especially heavy contingent stationed in Europe. But today, terrorism has replaced communism as the greatest threat to U.S. security, and President Bush and the Pentagon are rethinking the nationís military posture overseas. "The world has changed a great deal and our posture must change with it," Bush said when announcing his proposal during an Aug. 16 campaign speech in Cincinnati, Ohio. According to the Pentagon, a "significant portion" of the 70,000 troops would be withdrawn from Europe. The redeployment is not expected to begin until 2006, according to Pentagon official s. The largest concentration of soldiersóabout 30,000óis expected to come from Germany, severing a long-standing military bond that began shortly after World War II. Many Germans, already struggling with high unemployment rates, reacted strongly to the potentially devastating economic blow that a U.S. redeployment would have on their towns. In an interview with C-SPAN shortly after Bush announced his proposal, German Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger said he was concerned about the troop withdrawal, but that he understood the presidentís rationale. "American soldiers in Kaiserslautern, Mannheim and other areas of Germany are an integral part of community life and contribute greatly to the local economy and culture," he said. "They have become part of our landscape, and I am sure that many Germans donít like to see our American friends leaveÖ. So at the local level, I am sure there is a great deal of regret." However, the ambassador was also careful not to explicitly criticize the U.S. plan. "Our two governments have had consultations and officially, my governmentís position Ö is that we have had discussions and weíve acknowledged that America has an interest in re-examining its deployment," Ischinger said. "I do not criticize the U.S. government, but at the local and regional level, this is for most Germans not welcome news." The harshest criticism of the Bush proposal, perhaps not surprisingly, came from Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. Shortly after Bushís announcement, Kerry blasted the president, saying the plan was extremely shortsighted, especially considering the increasingly belligerent nuclear threat posed by North Korea. The Bush plan would remove about 12,500 of the 37,000 soldiers currently stationed in South Korea. However, South Korean officialsóat least publiclyóare trying to remain diplomatic about the pending change. "We understand the U.S. position," said Soo-Dong O, minister of public affairs for the South Korean Embassy in the Washington. "The United States has a more urgent mission overseas than Koreaóitís Iraq." Many officials representing countries directly affected by the decision, including those from South Korea and Japan, were hesitant to criticize the move publicly in interviews with The Washington Diplomat. But it was often clear that they are worried about the security, economic or other risks related to the redeployment. Several of South Koreaís military attachÈs either declined to comment or did not return phone calls. One attachÈ said the situation was too "controversial" to comment on. However, O of the South Korean Embassy said Bushís decision could conceivably result in even greater security for his country by bringing in betteróor more innovativeótechnology, new weapons and information systems. "We are still working out the details," he said. "But the U.S. has made a firm commitment that the security situation on the Korean Peninsula wonít be compromised." Military officials have said that advances in U.S. military firepower and a stronger South Korean military mean that there can be more military power in South Korea with fewer soldiers. In Japan, it remains unclear how many of the more than 40,000 U.S. troops there will be removed from Okinawa, where U.S. forces have maintained a presence since 1972. The Japanese people historically have not welcomed the U.S. troops with completely open armsósome in Okinawa feel they are an intrusion and diminish the quality of life. However, most government officials agree that the Americans help provide invaluable security to their homeland, especially as terrorist cells sink roots deeper into some Asian countries. Keiichi Ichikawa, first secretary of the political division at the Japanese Embassy, said it was "not appropriate" to discuss Japanese-U.S. negotiations related to the redeployment, but he did note that his country is very appreciative of the U.S. presence in Japan. "It is a cornerstone of stability in the region, so weíd like to maintain that presence," Ichikawa said. "We have uncertainties related to North Korea." Not all nations stand to lose from the planned redeployment. Some of the U.S. troops are expected to land in Eastern Europe, including Romania and Uzbekistan. Lt. Col. Mircea Mocanu, assistant defense, military, naval and air attachÈ for the Romanian Embassy, said his country welcomes the U.S. soldiers and the "economic benefits" they will bring to the region. "There is no longer a need to stop a big adversary in Eastern Europe," Mocanu said, referring to the former Soviet Union. "We understand one of our bases will be used, and thatís fine with us." He added that stationing U.S. servicemen and women in Romania would confirm the presence of the Black Sea region as an international trade hub. Mocanu said the idea that terrorists would take an interest in Romania because of a U.S. presence there was not a big concern. "We donít feel very much threatened." The planned troop reductions in Western Europe, South Korea and other long-standing overseas garrisons are part of a plan to extend U.S. military facilities into whole new regions of the world, particularly Central Asia. The fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan cleared the way for a string of new U.S. bases in the former Soviet republics, anchored by Washingtonís close alliance with the police-state regime in Uzbekistan. New bases have also been created throughout the Middle East and North Africa, and Washington expects to maintain a permanent military presence in occupied Iraq. Michael Coleman is a freelance writer in Washington, D.C.