The Indo-Pacific region’s vastness and complexity transcend the management capabilities of a single US command, necessitating a robust collective security counterpart to ensure stability and deterrence against multiple adversaries threatening international peace.
Currently, the UN Command in South Korea and Japan, established under the aegis of US-led operations, provides a pivotal foundation that could evolve into a NATO-like security structure in the Indo-Pacific, aiming to bolster collective defense frameworks among democratic nations in the face of rising authoritarianism.
The international order shaped in the aftermath of World War II faces unprecedented challenges as increasing alignments among authoritarian states test global stability.
Decades of established rules and norms are now at risk of becoming obsolete due to inaction and institutional stagnation, demanding a reassessment of the free world’s approach to collective security, particularly in the Indo-Pacific.
The authors Richard D. Butler and Shawn P. Creamer argue that the upcoming National Defense Strategy should pivot towards a multi-theater war strategy strategically centered on the Indo-Pacific.
Completing this shift by the end of the current US administration’s term is critical, requiring a reversal of the Guam doctrine, wherein European allies take more responsibility for their own defense.
To successfully execute this pivot, enhancing security in the Western Hemisphere is paramount.
This involves revitalizing the Monroe Doctrine, collaborating through the Organization of American States, and reshoring supply chains to strengthen economic security.
Efforts to revive the Rio Pact are also essential in defending the Americas against modern imperialist threats and securing regional stability.
Moreover, the next National Defense Strategy must boldly address the topic of unified command structures to facilitate coherent military operations across multiple theaters.
Currently, Europe relies on NATO for its security; however, NATO is grappling with an ineffective martial culture and a lack of preparedness, highlighting its vulnerabilities in responding to modern threats.
While the United States plays a critical role, the onus of strengthening NATO rests primarily on European nations, leaving the US free to focus its efforts on addressing the complexities of the Indo-Pacific.
In contrast, the Indo-Pacific lacks any cohesive security architecture akin to NATO.
The intertwined threats from China, North Korea, and the Russian Far East intensify the urgency to foster a more effective collective defense mechanism.
Presently, the existing bilateral alliances and multilateral partnerships, such as the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) and AUKUS, while offering frameworks for strategic alignment, remain inadequate against well-coordinated authoritarian strategies.
Historically, the free world sought a collective defense model in Asia through the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), which faltered due to its weak foundations and colonial legacies.
In contrast, the United Nations Command (UNC) successfully coordinated an international coalition against North Korean aggression in the 1950s, resulting in a lasting presence that, while diminished, retains the potential for greater military cooperation.
The UNC was initially established following the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 82 through 85, which recognized a US-led unified command tasked with repelling North Korean forces while addressing humanitarian needs.
The command’s structure, however, primarily operates under US executive control, with an emphasis on military action over neutrality or peacekeeping.
As such, the UNC has evolved over the decades, with its focus shifting towards armistice maintenance and multinational integration in a region fraught with strategic challenges.
Despite some revitalization efforts, the UNC remains underutilized, functioning in a support role rather than leading proactive collective defense efforts.
The UNC’s credibility and legacy as a multinational presence gives it a unique position to transition back into a multinatured warfighting headquarters, enhancing regional deterrence capabilities.
Given the Korean Peninsula’s historical significance in power competitions, a reinforced UNC could effectively leverage its multinational framework to address broader East Asian stability.
Skeptics may argue that the UNC is confined to the defense of South Korea due to the original UNSCRs, yet these resolutions indicate a broader mission focusing on restoring regional peace and security.
The interconnectedness of Korean security with regional stability necessitates viewing threats in a comprehensive manner that encompasses potential conflicts in East Asia involving major powers such as China and Russia.
A return to a warfighter status for the UNC would involve sustaining robust partnerships with free world allies to strengthen military readiness in a volatile region.
Establishing additional foundational agreements with non-US allies would create a more cohesive defense approach while helping to streamline operations amid uncertainty.
Furthermore, a strategic relocation of the UNC’s headquarters to Japan would optimize its operational effectiveness and readiness.
Such a position would enhance its logistical capabilities and foster a coordinated response to potential conflicts in Northeast Asia.
This organizational shift could also facilitate non-combat contributions from nations with limited military capabilities, promoting a culture of shared responsibility among allies.
In reinforcing the command, the US military must consider how to adapt its force posture to address the specific operational demands of the Indo-Pacific theater effectively.
The authors suggest that consolidating US Forces Korea and US Forces Japan under a single command may streamline operations and enhance collaborative defense efforts while reducing redundancy across military operations.
This consolidation would encourage dialogues within the US Department of Defense to reassess organizational structures and command authorities, ensuring comprehensive coverage across the Indo-Pacific region.
Ultimately, re-establishing the UNC as a combat-capable entity would afford strategic flexibility and responsiveness to the free world against a backdrop of increasing authoritarian aggression across the Indo-Pacific.
While historical frameworks provide a foundation for collective defense, the current realities in the Indo-Pacific require actionable reforms that prioritize a cohesive command architecture.
The sobering reality is that the free world must confront these challenges through collective security structures like the UNC before conflicts escalate.
Now is the time for comprehensive action to ensure the free world stands resolutely against coercion, reinforcing its commitment to uphold the rules-based international order.
As the free world grapples with these complexities, the UNC presents a viable collective security mechanism capable of supporting peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific.
image source from：atlanticcouncil
