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
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS