EATO: A Pacific Alliance

WI the US establishes an equivalent of NATO in East Asia? I guess the POD would have to be in 1945 since the Japanese constitution would need to parallel the German Basic Law (with restrictions on the role of the military but not the full-fledged pacifism which it incorporated in OTL).
I'm imagining beginning with Japan, South Korea, Nationalist China and perhaps Australia and expanding with decolonization.
 
The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) was an international organization for collective defense which was signed on September 8, 1954. The formal institution of SEATO was established at a meeting of treaty partners in Bangkok in February 1955. It was primarily created to block further communist gains in Southeast Asia. The organization's headquarters were located in Bangkok, Thailand. SEATO was dissolved on June 30, 1977.

The organization included Australia, France, New Zealand, Thailand, Pakistan (including then East Pakistan Bangladesh), Philippines, United Kingdom and the United States. South Korea and South Vietnam were never full members,, but were involved in the process.

The organization never got off the ground because action required unanimous consent of all member-states; France, Pakistan and the Philippines objected to action in both Korea and Vietnam. Unlike the NATO alliance, SEATO had no joint commands with standing forces. Also unlike NATO, an attack on one member was not automatically considered an attack on all. Consequently, each member could effectively block any or all collective SEATO action. Given the declining interest of France (after 1954) and the United Kingdom (after the end of the Indonesian-Malaysian conflict, in 1966) in Southeast Asia, SEATO failed to be effective as a collective security organization. Because of the 1954 Accords settling the First Indochina War, South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos were not SEATO members. The United States sought, but failed, to make the Vietnam War into a SEATO collective defense problem.

A POD would thus require two things; one is France allowing its former colonies in French Indochina to become full members in the organization, the second would be SEATO being structured much more like NATO.
 
While I was aware of SEATO (and ANZUS for that matter), I was wondering about the effects of an earlier, broader, stronger alliance with Japan as a key member (as I said, by analogy with NATO, which started with 12 members and soon expanded to 15). While mainland China is probably a lost cause, I think a formal pact of this sort would likely prevent the Korean War.
 
I would have thought that the Korean War would be the only POD that would make the US and other members want to sign such an agreement with Japan prior to the mid 1950s.

How would we get to a point that the Allies, post war newly independent nations and Australia (I am assuming you'd include NZ in this too as it would make sense if you were including Australia or the UK, plus we would feel hurt if not :rolleyes:) prior to 1950?
 
I would have thought that the Korean War would be the only POD that would make the US and other members want to sign such an agreement with Japan prior to the mid 1950s.

How would we get to a point that the Allies, post war newly independent nations and Australia (I am assuming you'd include NZ in this too as it would make sense if you were including Australia or the UK, plus we would feel hurt if not :rolleyes:) prior to 1950?

I guess the question would be how come the West was willing to let the Germans rearm so soon and then try and find equivalent conditions in East Asia.

{OLDMEME}You forgot Poland!{/OLDMEME} I'd like to take this opportunity to apologize to my Kiwi friends and to congratulate them on an impressive World Cup performance.
 
I figured something like this would occur, or at least be attempted, in a scenario where the UN (and thus the US) fails to save South Korea. A united, Communist Korea might well inspire the non-Communist nations of the area to start talking to each other seriously about common defense.

Now, the implication of the US leaving Sk out to dry may or may not affect how welcome (or even likely to apply for) its membership woulld be.
 
While I was aware of SEATO (and ANZUS for that matter), I was wondering about the effects of an earlier, broader, stronger alliance with Japan as a key member (as I said, by analogy with NATO, which started with 12 members and soon expanded to 15). While mainland China is probably a lost cause, I think a formal pact of this sort would likely prevent the Korean War.

Then you should have asked that.

If you want Japan as key member, with South Korea, you're going to either have a POD before 1900 or a Japanese Soviet puppet state.

The only real way to prevent a Korean War is to keep it unified after is gains independance from Japan.
 
A negotiated peace with Japan during the Pacific War might do the trick. Have the Germans do better in Europe, and the US might want to negotiate a seperate peace and focus on Germany, especially since the Pacific War was pretty much a running sore.
 

Cook

Banned
A negotiated peace with Japan during the Pacific War might do the trick. Have the Germans do better in Europe, and the US might want to negotiate a seperate peace and focus on Germany, especially since the Pacific War was pretty much a running sore.

British and American Strategy was “Europe First”. Germany was considered the greatest threat and primary opponent, to be defeated first. The Allies were to maintain a defensive position in the Pacific until victory in Europe was achieved.

This was agreed between Britain and the United States in 1941, prior to Japan’s entry into the war with the Pearl Harbour and S.E. Asia attacks.

A delay in defeating German would not have altered that Strategy.
 

Cook

Banned
The only real way to prevent a Korean War is to keep it unified after is gains independance from Japan.

Or for the United States to be clearer that it would not tolerate unification by force.

Origin of the Korean War said:
Those withdrawals did take place, in 1948-49, but there was no agreement on who would run the country. Instead it remained divided, with the American-supported Republic of Korea in control of the south by virtue of an election sanctioned by the United Nations, while the Soviet-supported Democratic Republic of Korea ruled the north, where elections were not held. The only thing unifying the country by then was a civil war, with each side claiming to be the legitimate government and threatening to invade the other.
Neither could do so, however, without superpower support. This the Americans denied to their South Korean allies, chiefly because the Truman administration had decided to liquidate all positions on the Asian mainland and concentrate on the defense of island strongpoints like Japan, Okinawa, and the Philippines—though not Taiwan. The South Korean president, Syngman Rhee, repeatedly sought support for his ambitions to liberate the north from officials In Washington, as well as from General Douglas MacArthur, the commander of United States occupation forces in Japan, but he never got it. One of the reasons the Americans withdrew their troops from South Korea, indeed, was their fear that the unpredictable Rhce might "march north," and thus drag them into a war they did not want.
Rhee’s North Korean counterpart, Kim Il-sung, had similar designs on the south, and for a time a similar experience with his superpower sponsor. He had repeatedly sought support in Moscow for a military campaign to unify Korea, and had been repeatedly turned down—until January, 1950, when yet another request got a more encouraging response. What made the difference, it appears, was Stalin's conviction that a "second front" was now feasible in East Asia, that it could be created by proxies, thus minimizing the risk to the U.S.S.R., and that the Americans would not respond. They had done nothing, after all, to save tire Chinese nationalists, and on January l2, 1950, Secretary of State Acheson had even announced publicly that the American "defensive perimeter" did not extend to South Korea. Stalin read the speech carefully—as well as (courtesy of British spies) the top-secret National Security Council study upon which it was based—and authorized Ills foreign minister, Molotov, to discuss it with Mao Zedong. The Soviet leader then informed Kim Il-sung that "[a]ccording to information coming from the United States, . . . [t]he prevailing mood is not to interfere." Kim in turn assured Stalin that "[t]he attack will be swift and the war will he won in three days."
Stalin's "green light" to Kim Il-sung was part of the larger strategy for seizing opportunities in East Asia that he had discussed with the Chinese: shortly after endorsing the invasion of South Korea, he also encouraged Ho Chi Minh to intensity the Viet Minh offensive against the French in Indochina. Victories in both locations would maintain the momentum generated by Mao's victory the previous year. They would compensate for the setbacks the Soviet Union had encountered in Europe, and they would counter increasingly obvious American efforts to bring Japan within its system of postwar military alliances. A particular advantage of this strategy was that it would not require direct Soviet involvement: the North Koreans and the Viet Minh would take the initiative, operating under the pretext of unifying their respective countries. And the Chinese, still eager to legitimize their revolution by winning Stalin's approval, were more than willing to provide backup support, if and when needed.
.


http://www.warchronicle.com/korea/origin_war.htm
 
Top