US isolationism is good
Paul Kane’s op-ed in the New York Times on Nov. 10 advocates that the US should trade Taiwan to China for a deal on debt as a quick, easy solution to its US$1.14 trillion debt issue. Kane’s entertaining solution has triggered a clamor of responses, ranging from the Atlantic, Foreign Policy Magazine and Business Insider to your paper, which for the most part called his op-ed “dumb,” “crazy” or “just ludicrous.” Aside from Kane’s “crazy” idea though, he is trying to address the larger question on everyone’s mind — what can the US do in its current state to address or even solve its national debt?
Like other Taiwanese immigrants to the US with strong ties to our homeland, I was appalled by his incorrect assumptions on top of his simple suggestion that the US ditch Taiwan. Still, I have spent the past 30 years building a life in the US, and not only do I believe Kane is wrong, I believe the actual answer to my newfound homeland’s debt issue is to cut military spending.
Kane raises financial concerns over a possible US-China war, focusing on how costly the US’ “commitment” to Taiwan would be if China decided to take Taiwan by force, hence engaging the US in a “multi-trillion-dollar war.”
I would argue in this scenario that the US would respond in the same way that it did in 1979 when it chose to transfer diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China — if faced with the threat of war, the US will choose to abandon Taiwan.
This being the case, the US should focus on fixing its biggest problem — its debt — by cutting down on military spending with an isolationist approach.
Tough economic times call for the US to focus on its domestic issues instead of overextending its military. The US needs to lower its military costs by withdrawing all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and putting a halt to establishing or devoting any more resources to foreign bases abroad.
Currently, there are 45,000 US troops stationed in Iraq and 100,000 in Afghanistan. Between generals on the ground in Iraq and politicians in Washington, no one can agree on how much to reduce the troop level. As of September, the administration of US President Barack Obama’s latest consideration was to reduce the number of troops in Iraq to 3,000 by the end of the year. As for the troops in Afghanistan, Obama announced a plan on June 22 to withdraw 10,000 troops by the end of this year and an additional 23,000 by the summer of next year.
The schedule will have the last troops leaving in 2014. Together, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the US more than US$1 trillion, according to Department of Defense figures.
However, Mike Dorning and Margaret Talev reported in a Bloomberg article on June 22 that this figure did not include as much as US$100 billion listed by the Pentagon as non-war-related costs, such as intelligence spending and disability costs for wounded veterans. In addition, the Department of Defense budget for next year devotes US$118 billion to “ongoing efforts in Afghanistan and transition activities in Iraq” on top of what has already been spent.
How much longer is the US going to engage in such costly wars when a large national debt is lurking in the corner?
The Obama administration recently revealed plans to send up to 2,500 US marines to an Australian military base in Darwin, seemingly as part of a strategy to contain China. US politicians are too concerned with the “China threat” when they should be focused on fixing their own country’s issues and rebuilding the US’ economic wellbeing.
Regardless of the repercussions that withdrawal of troops and non-interventionism can potentially cause, the overall focus needs to be on solving the debt problem.
Any level of isolationism may seem unrealistic for the US at this point, but this is not a suggestion to shun the rest of the world. Rather, by redirecting its focus to its domestic issues, the withdrawal of troops and halt in US military expansion will ultimately protect the interests of the US as a whole.
For a Taiwanese immigrant who has been paying US taxes for the majority of his lifetime, the message is simple: The US should not be pursuing costly interests abroad, such as military expansion, when it needs to fix its own problems before addressing anything else.
Edward Kung
Temple City, California
Locke a US success story
Having been a lifelong resident of Washington state, I am proud to say that US Ambassador to China Gary Locke (駱家輝) was my governor for eight years.
Locke’s story is quintessentially American. Born to immigrants, he earned a scholarship to attend Yale University, worked his way up the ladder in state politics and became the first Chinese-American governor in US history.
Locke embodies the promise of the US — meritocracy and democratic governance. While this may be inspiring to many ordinary Chinese, it is likely unsettling to the cautious decisionmakers in Beijing, who appear to be managing — and in some cases minimizing — coverage of Locke in Chinese media (“Chinese leaders wary of Locke’s popularity,” Nov. 16, page 9).
If true, it is a shame that Locke is being marginalized in this way by the Chinese authorities simply because he is humble, well liked by the Chinese people and a US success story.
Alex Jeffers
Taipei
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS