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.
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS