When the late Russell Wiggins was editor of the Washington Post in the 1960s, he liked to say that in US foreign and security policy, “the stockade comes first.”
He referred to the Old West when the cavalry rode out from the stockade, or fort, to protect settlers from marauding outlaws or Indians on the warpath. However, if the mounted soldiers were forced to choose between defending the far-flung settlers or their home base, the stockade came first. Otherwise, the cavalry would be unable to defend anyone.
Today, Americans see their armed forces and diplomats stretched thin, their politicians bitterly divided, the economy limping and allies willing to stand by while the US polices the globe. Maybe it is time for the US to tell the world that if it is forced to choose, the stockade will come first.
That may have been the intent, even if inadvertent, of US President Barack Obama last week when he canceled a trip to Indonesia and Australia for the second time so that he could attend to the vast oil spill along the Gulf Coast.
June 6 marks the anniversary of the Allied landings in Normandy in 1944, not only the largest and most dangerous cross-water invasion in history, but also the emblem of US power projection that now extends further than that of the Roman or Mongol empires. US forces fighting in Afghanistan are direct descendants of those who fought in Normandy 66 years ago.
Given that stretch, the US should consider retrenching, pulling back from some foreign engagements, but not retreating into a “Fortress America.” The posture of the US should be somewhere between walking the streets as the policeman of the world and being a watchman on the ramparts of an isolationist citadel.
Obama started down this path in the National Security Strategy he issued last month — but made only the first moves.
“Our strategy starts by recognizing that our strength and influence abroad begins with the steps we take at home,” the president wrote.
He said the US should expand its economy, reduce the federal deficit, better educate the nation’s children, develop clean energy and cut dependence on foreign oil.
The president asserted: “We must see innovation as a foundation of American power.”
Addressing other nations, he cautioned: “The burdens of a young century cannot fall on American shoulders alone — indeed, our adversaries would like to see America sap our strength by overextending our power.”
He vowed the US would not go it alone, but then said little about getting others to pick up a share of the military, diplomatic and economic burden.
Japan, South Korea and other allies and friends in Asia need to assume some of the load now carried by the US for the common defense. In a key measure, defense spending, only tiny Singapore bears a burden equal in proportion to that of the US.
In the most recent year examined, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute found the US spent 4 percent of its wealth on defense; Singapore spent 4.1 percent. The rest trailed far behind, ranging from 0.9 percent in Japan to between 1 percent and 2 percent in Indonesia, Thailand and Australia and from 2 percent to 2.6 percent in Taiwan, India and South Korea.
Asians often complain about the overwhelming presence of US forces, which US taxpayers pay for. Those Americans would surely be glad if Asian taxpayers picked up some of that burden.
Richard Halloran is a freelance writer in Hawaii.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing