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
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS