The Asia-Pacific region is where the immediate zone of Malaysia's security and stability is located. It is also an area where the United States has been strategically engaged with increasing width and depth since the end of the Pacific War in 1945.

It still stations some 100,000 troops in the region, mainly in Japan and South Korea, although there is informed speculation that the force level may be cut down and positioning decentralised - as a result of the policy of 'force transformation' and 'Revolution in Military Affairs'.

The US also maintains bilateral security and defence alliances with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand and Australia. It has had a traditional and visibly close security and defence relationship with Malaysia , Singapore, Pakistan and New Zealand.

By virtue of the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act, the US also underwrites the island's security by empowering it towards self-defence.

So, a pertinent and pressing question at this point in time is what the re-election of George W Bush as US president and the increasing Republican grip on the Congress will mean to the Asia-Pacific region.

Malaysiakini recently interviewed Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia's Professor Lee Poh Ping via email on the subject.

Lee is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Malaysian and International Studies and was previously a professor of economics at Universiti Malaya.

He has written extensively on East Asian political economy and foreign relations and contributes to news columns. Most recently, he has been researching Southeast Asia's relations with Japan.

Malaysiakini: George W Bush has been popularly re-elected and has appointed Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleeza Rice, two top decision-makers who are widely perceived to be 'hawkish', as the Defence Secretary and State Secretary respectively.

The Republicans have strengthened their grip in the US Congress. What does this configuration of power inside the world's only superpower mean to the Asia-Pacific region, and particularly Southeast Asia, in the next four years and beyond?

Lee: The recent electoral performance of Bush and the Republicans in Congress will mean a continuation of the policies of the first George W Bush administration in the Asia-Pacific region.

On Japan, it will continue to encourage the Japanese to take up more responsibility, particularly military responsibilities, in the international arena.

The Americans have not explicitly said they favour a revision of Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution, but the Bush administration would probably not mind if the Japanese were to revise it in order to undertake military responsibilities supported by the US.

On Korea, the Bush administration will want to continue the six-party talks led by China until perhaps such a time when the talks lead to nowhere and the North Koreans have developed weapons grade nuclear weapons. Then the Americans will (find themselves) in a dilemma.

Attack the North Koreans and risk another Korean war or guarantee not to attack North Korea through a non-aggression treaty in exchange for the North Koreans giving up their nuclear weapons.

It remains to be seen which course of action they might take. On China, it will be one of economic engagement and military containment, if workable.

Southeast Asia will continue not to engage much American interest except if terrorist activities there have American ramifications, in which case the Americans will come down hard on the Southeast Asian country harbouring the terrorists.

There is a possibility they might be concerned with the expansion of Chinese influence in Southeast Asia but short of some dramatic developments in this regard, the Americans have too much on their plate right now.

Former State Secretary Colin Powell and 'Old Asia hand' Richard Armitage have always been widely seen as 'multilateralists' who know a great deal about the Asia-Pacific region.

Now that they have left the second Bush administration, do you foresee an imbalance in the White House-Pentagon-State Department complex in Washington on policy and strategic matters pertaining to the Asia-Pacific region?

Lee: I would not make too much of any difference between the Powell people and the so-called unilateralists when core American interests are involved. The difference between both camps is one of nuance.

For example, over Taiwan, Powell himself was quoted as saying that he disliked many of the American military types descending on Taiwan and encouraging the Taiwanese to take a more hardline stance against China, while he himself was in favour of a more balanced approach. But if conflict breaks out in Taiwan and the US is dragged in, the nuance will vanish.

In the highest and most influential circle of decision-makers in Washington now, it seems that only Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has some hands on experience in Asia Pacific affairs as he was once ambassador to Indonesia.

However, he is also widely perceived to be a 'neo-conservative' who is 'hawkish'. How do you view Wolfowitz's role and influence in Washington's policy-making on Asia-Pacific affairs and matters in the coming years in the second Bush administration?

Lee: I am unable to judge the extent of Wolfowitz's influence in Washington. All that I know is that he believes the US should be dominant in the world and that no power should be allowed to challenge the US, not only in the global arena, but also in any regional setting.

That means as far as the Asia-Pacific region is concerned, China should not be allowed to challenge American dominance in the region.

Such a view holds the seeds of long-term danger as it is likely that China could develop into a regional Asian power, if not a global superpower. This, if Wolfowitz holds sway, will lead to conflict between the US and China.

Unlike the pre-9/11 global strategic environment, the US now seems to be preoccupied with problems and issues in the Middle East and Muslim world. Do you think the second Bush administration will have sufficient time, energy, resources or capability to manage affairs and solve problems in the Asia-Pacific region with focus, clarity and consistency?

Lee: I do not think the Bush administration has the necessary time and energy to manage Asia Pacific affairs with what you call "focus, clarity and consistency". This administration is now so bogged down in Iraq and with the war on terror that it seems unable to do anything else.

Note: Part 2 will appear on Thursday