US President George W. Bush has emphasized that the war against terrorism will be lengthy and difficult, despite the gratifying initial successes in Afghanistan. He is right. That's why it is imperative that the United States promptly clear the decks for war. America must jettison obsolete or unnecessary commitments and expenditures.
When a family suffers an unexpected hardship or tragedy, it does not continue with business as usual, leaving its priorities and spending patterns unaltered. Likewise, a nation must alter its priorities when facing similar difficulties. For America, the war against the terrorists who committed the Sept. 11 outrages will be the top priority for the foreseeable future. Yet instead of reducing or eliminating less essential commitments, Washington seems inclined to merely pile the new commitments on top of the old ones.
There are numerous candidates for elimination. In the realm of security affairs, three such candidates stand out.
Terminate the nation building missions in the Balkans. Those ventures were foolish and unnecessary to begin with. Despite the exertions of America and its NATO allies, Bosnia is no closer to being a viable country today than it was when the Dayton peace agreement was signed six years ago. The NATO intervention in Kosovo is even worse. It merely strengthened the hand of Albanian nationalists who want to create a Greater Albania and who have recently stirred up trouble across the border in Macedonia. The missions in Bosnia and Kosovo cost the US nearly US$6 billion a year. That money, as well as the military personnel tied down in useless peacekeeping tasks, could be used far more effectively to prosecute the war against terrorism.
Withdraw the 100,000 US troops stationed in Western Europe. That troop presence is an utterly obsolete commitment inherited from the Cold War. The US forces are apparently on duty to prevent an invasion of Western Europe by a Warsaw Pact that no longer exists led by a Soviet Union that no longer exists. How tank divisions stationed in Germany benefit the security of the US is truly a mystery. Those units should be withdrawn and demobilized and some of the personnel reassigned to lighter, more mobile units that would be relevant in the fight against terrorism. Such a move would save billions of dollars.
Withdraw the 37,000 US troops stationed in South Korea. That troop presence is another obsolete, Cold War era obligation. South Korea faces only one adversary: communist North Korea. Yet South Korea has twice the population and an economy at least 30 times larger than its adversary. A nation with those characteristics should certainly be able to defend itself. Instead, South Korea chooses to underinvest in defense and remain dependent on the US for major portions of its military capabilities. US leaders should inform their South Korean counterparts that the days of free riding on the US security guarantee are over. America has its own war to wage and can no longer afford to subsidize prosperous security clients.
It is uncertain whether the US would need to redirect all of the savings from terminating obsolete or unnecessary overseas commitments to the war on terrorism. Clearly, some additional resources ought to be devoted to beefing up our special forces units and intelligence gathering and evaluation capabilities. They have both been shortchanged for years, and yet they are the front-line forces in the fight against terrorism.
But there may well be some money left over. That is not a bad thing. At the very least, such savings might head off the looming prospect of a return to large federal budget deficits. The savings might even be enough to give the beleaguered American taxpayer a modest break. But however the money is used, it would be better than the current wasteful situation.
Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under