4. The Asian-Pacific Region - the USA - the Russian Federation - Ukraine

The current situation in the Asian-Pacific region is marked by the dynamism of political and economic forces that are forming a solid tendency to transform the region into an important political and economic center, which at the brink of the 21st century will be able to compete with the Euro-Atlantic region.

The orientation of the majority of regional states toward full-scale economic reforms and the existence of conditions necessary for their completion determine the character of the regional situation. In this connection, states that do not correspond to the region's overall tendency toward stable economic development objectively find themselves in less favorable conditions for full-fledged integration into the processes of Pacific cooperation, in the area of the formation of bilateral and multilateral trade economic structures included.

The development of the general strategic situation in the APR differs in many parameters from that of the Euro-Atlantic region. These differences are due to the formation of several regional power centers, the absence of analogous mechanisms of negotiation, a lack of trust, etc. The idea that European experience does not correspond to the realities of modern international relations in Asia and the Pacific not unjustifiably dominates the political thinking in the majority of Asian states. This idea determines the area's careful stance toward the formation of a security system similar to the OSCE and to disarmament as a key factor of trust and military dé tente. This approach is connected to the absence of a unified understanding of the sources of threats, to the existence of unsolved conflicts and territorial disputes, and with the disparate rates of socio-economic development of the region's states. The treaty on strengthening trust in the military sphere in border areas that was signed in 1996 by the leaders of Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, China, Russia and Tadjikistan had an important significance for the formation of security in the APR. The policy of the US Administration in the Pacific area (" Strategic Directive for the Nineties" ) also envisages unilateral reductions in numbers of the armed forces presence. Nevertheless, American military capability remains dominant in the region.
It is worth noting that the system of international relations in the APR for at least the last two decades has been characterized by more than just the confrontation of two large states. At present, Chinese, Japanese and even Indian factors exert constant and considerable influence over it. The increase of their influence over the last years provides an opportunity for the discussion of an independent Japanese or Chinese geopolitical role in the region.

The maintenance of a weighty military and political presence of the United States of America in the APR evokes mixed reaction from the region's countries. A majority of the states still regard the stabilizing role of the USA as positive, capable of ensuring high rates of economic development and of the formation of a permanent integrative model. The fear of radical change in the regional situation impels these countries to defend the American presence. The majority of them are new industrial states that have high rates of economic growth.

On the other hand, a number of states, first of all China, see the US's military presence in the Pacific as Washington's desire to maintain and to even strengthen its unquestionable military hegemony. This, in its turn, contradicts the regional pretenses of such states, and decreases the potential for the practical realization of these ambitions.

It is worth stressing that the region exhibits a number of destabilizing factors: an uncontrolled regional arms race, the problem of the Korean peninsula, the Taiwan problem, territorial disputes, the danger of the proliferation of rocket and nuclear technologies, and others. APR states lead the world in the rate of arms growth. This particularly concerns India and Pakistan, which conducted nuclear tests in 1998. All of the above-mentioned demands a thorough taking stock of in determining Ukraine's strategy in promoting its interests in the Asian-Pacific direction.

Ukraine continues to be an object of the active economic expansion of leading Asian-Pacific states, the majority of which regard bilateral relations with Ukraine to exist primarily in the economic realm. The political aspects of Ukraine's relations with Japan, China, South Korea, India and other APR states have a mainly formal character, and real interaction in the international arena occurs only within the framework of global processes and is connected with the UN and other international organizations. It bears noting that as a subject of international politics Ukraine has importance in the APR states' system of foreign political priorities, primarily in the context of Ukrainian-Russian and Ukrainian-US relations, where it is regarded as a real political counterbalance to superpower domination.

Practically all states of the Asian-Pacific region are interested in activating economic interactions with Ukraine. Two principle approaches to the development of trade-economic and scientific-technical cooperation with our country can be thus identified:

1) Japan, South Korea and the so called " Asian tigers" see Ukraine as a market for their high technology products that are in considerable demand even in with the low earning potential of the majority of Ukrainian consumers. In their turn these states are interested in the import of Ukrainian resources, which makes the Ukrainian market even more attractive for them.

2) China, India, Vietnam and other APR states that were traditionally oriented to the consumption of the former Soviet Union's industrial products see Ukraine as the source of modern technologies and technical military and civilian products. This group of states is also interested in the export of their consumer goods in exchange for Ukrainian technologies and technical knowledge.

The experience, negative inclusive, of Ukrainian cooperation with the above-mentioned two groups of states testifies that only an accurate taking into account of the strategies of our Asian partners can create a viable system of interactions with APR states that will ensure the national interests of Ukraine.

Worth noting is the lack of a dose of a healthy pragmatism on the part of Ukraine, which because of the high degree of political engagement of its foreign policy has not realized its considerable possibilities for economic cooperation with Asian countries during the past seven years. For it is in the East where Ukraine has completed its largest projects that are directed toward an active entry onto the world market with its high-technology products. Pakistan's purchase of a considerable number of modern Ukrainian tanks is a good example of this, as is the enticement of billion-dollar investments in Ukraine (AutoZAZ's joint-project with South Korea's DAEWOO Corporation). The above-mentioned facts visibly affirm that Ukraine is able to realize its export potential in the high technology area under the conditions of fulfilling its international obligations, and is also able to involve serious world investments, under advantageous terms, in the development of its economy.

The most important distinction in Ukraine's economic cooperation with APR states is that this cooperation is not subject to any political doctrine and is not pre-conditioned by political caution from the side of foreign partners. This permits the principles of Ukrainian foreign policy to be guided only by economic factors, which also corresponds to the interests of Ukraine.

Unfortunately, the level of economic interaction between Ukraine and China, whose potential is the greatest, is low. The PRC was and remains, on one hand, the most influential Asian state. On the other hand, it is a permanent member of the Security Council of the UN, a friendly country, with which Ukraine has come to a full mutual understanding on the interstate level and with which it maintains an active political dialog. The visit of Ukrainian Prime-Minister V. P. Pustovoitenko to the PRC in December, 1997 once again underlined the broad opportunities for Ukrainian-Chinese cooperation in the economic, scientific and engineering sectors. Nevertheless, the process of the actualization of agreements is moving too slowly, due to an absence of effective mechanisms of cooperation on behalf of involved Ukrainian ministries and departments. At the same time China insistently expresses its interest and will to cooperate.

Ukraine should thoroughly support and expand its economic (including military-economic) and political presence in these regions, actively capturing " new economic niches".