Leadership in the Western Pacific and Southeast Asia

In the struggle for leadership in Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific, both the West and the Communists have definite advantages. The United States' stake in SEATO depends upon its possessions of western Pacific islands and its strategic bases in the area. Rivalry between India and Russia in the area is significant, while the China-India conflict is an ideological one. India's influence can be best understood in light of her role as the largest power in the British Common wealth of Nations. The pattern of economic co-operation in the Commonwealth is as important as its political structure as exemplified by the Colombo Plan. Russia has a definite for eign policy—Soviet missions have been established in almost every Southeast Asian country; direct Soviet influence is sig nificant and is reinforced by international trade. China's pres sure is not great in Southeast Asia. The United States' im mersal in the area came with World War II. The first phase of American policy supported both the colonial powers and the nationalist rebels; the Korean conflict changed this pattern; and the collapse of Indochina meant the final dissociation with the maintenance of colonial powers. In 1958 American su periority in nuclear weapons began to wane, and Mr. Dulles continued the policy of containment. Southeast Asia is in the ambit of two American foreign policies: the cold war and the policy toward colonial and underdeveloped areas. Since a larger policy—that the interest of humanity as a whole tran scends that of a single nation—is important, it is necessary that behind the citizen's perception of everyday politics, there re mains an awareness of the larger problem of human culture. —Ed.