\u27Pacific Pact\u27and \u27The Asian People Anti-Communist League\u27: American Reactions to the Proposals of the Two Security Pacts by \u27Outpost Countries\u27in East Asia

Outpost Countries\u27in East Asia, such as South Korea and Taiwan, proposed to make \u27anticommunist\u27security pacts in order to get U.S. military support and strengthen their security since the international environment surrounding them had changed. They suggested making a \u27Pacific Pact\u27in 1949, to be followed with \u27The Asian People Anti-communist League (APACL)\u27after the Korean War. But South Korea and Taiwan could not reach a consensus on Japanese participation. That is why APACL, establisehd in 1954, could not get any support from the U.S., so became far from a collective security pact. On the other hand, the U.S. changed its policy and entered into bilateral security pacts with East Asian countries because it felt threatened by China. Furthermore, because it had become impossible for France to win in the First Indochina War in 1954, the U.S. asked other countries, including Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, to cooperate in Indochina and tried to integrate this military cooperation into the collective security pacts. Eventually, the U.S. failed to develop a security pact among Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan due to worsening Japan-Korea relations. Consequently, the bilateral security pacts have been maintained and not been changed into a collective security pact in Northeast Asia. The proposals to make the collective security pacts by both \u27Outpost Countries\u27in East Asia and U.S. had failed, but when the U.S. promoted close military relations among non-communist countries, the \u27outpost countries\u27cooperated with them. APACL played a part in their cooperation