WASHINGTON -- There has been a sea change in the political landscape in Northeast Asia, particularly on the Korean Peninsula. In South Korea, the success of multiparty democracy is changing how the United States interacts with its ally. President Kim Dae Jung must deal with voters who increasingly question the size and duration of the U.S. military presence. The summit between North and South Korea in June increased the calls across the peninsula for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. Meanwhile, popular support for the U.S. presence in Japan is falling. But removing America's military presence from either ally would significantly alter Asia's security landscape, with potentially serious consequences.

Regrettably, in the midst of this heightened focus on the U.S. military presence, the Clinton administration has failed to meet this challenge; specifically, it has not worked with America's allies to maintain the effective security architecture that has long protected this volatile and important region. The U.S. should now work closely with political leaders in both Korea and Japan to define a public strategy that explains to the voters of these countries why a U.S. presence is still desirable and necessary.

America's primary security interests in the region concern stability in Northeast Asia, an area plagued by war for most of the past century. Since the end of World War II, the U.S. presence in this region has provided the glue for a security arrangement that offered protection to its allies and reassurances that helped avert an arms race by historical enemies or rivals. At the same time, because the U.S. acts as an honest broker with no territorial designs for hegemony, its military presence is perceived as a benign counterbalance to the mistrust that followed recent war experiences in the region.