The late, learned editor of the Washington Post Russell Wiggins liked to tell people, particularly visitors from abroad, that in the American way of national security and foreign policy, “the stockade comes first.”
Wiggins, who was well versed in US history, drew on the experience of the Old West where the cavalry sought to defend settlers by riding out of their stockade, or wooden fort, to come to the rescue. However, if the soldiers had to choose between defending the settlers or fighting for their home base, the stockade took priority.
The notion that the homeland comes first was underscored about 10 days ago in Ottawa, Canada, when the defense ministers of Canada, Mexico and the US held their first ever trilateral meeting.
US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said the symbolic meeting was an “unprecedented opportunity to try to bring together our nations in a common approach to continental security.”
Mexican Secretary of National Defense Guillermo Galvan Galvan added: “We intend to pursue the principle of shared responsibility. Undoubtedly, what each country does or fails to do will have a direct impact on the others.”
With the eyes of many in the US focused on Afghanistan, the nuclear summit in South Korea, the threat of a North Korean missile launch and a myriad of other security and economic issues, the meeting of the three defense ministers seemed to slip under the radar.
Even so, the Ottawa gathering came as the US has begun a gradual retrenchment; pulling back from some foreign entanglements. The polls have shown that, among other reasons, people in the US have become war-weary and tired of carrying a heavy political and economic burden around the world.
Critical to the effort to reduce commitments abroad is the willingness of allied and friendly nations to pick up some of the load.
As a South Korean diplomat said: “America can no longer do it by itself. Others must help.”
After decades of neglect, it is especially vital that the US cultivate reliable neighbors along its northern and southern borders. Only then can it count on help in stopping the infiltration of terrorists, smugglers, illicit drug runners and people traffickers.
The meeting in Ottawa was but a first step in that campaign.
In the words of Canadian Minister of National Defense Peter MacKay: “When you talk about the security of North America, none of the three of us will ever be able to work alone. We have to work together.”
The defense ministers agreed than an early task would be to fashion a common threat assessment.
As host of the meeting, MacKay said: “We will work together to develop a trilateral threat assessment for the continent that will provide a basis for common understanding and an approach as we work to address these challenges.”
“We’ve also pledged to better coordinate our armed forces’ support to the work of civilian public security agencies, countering illicit activities in the hemisphere such as narcotics, narco-trafficking, human trafficking [and] trafficking in arms,” he added.
He mentioned in particular the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The Mexican defense minister added: “Our first decisions will be made within a framework which formalizes our trilateral cooperation. We are aware that the manner and level of reciprocal collaboration can vary by country depending on competing national interests and the specific threats which have to be faced.”
He said Mexico would “enthusiastically endorse” a proposal by MacKay “to institutionalize our dialogue and meet on a regular basis in order to follow up with the purpose of facing head-on and neutralizing the threats and improving security and prosperity for all of North America.”
Panetta sought to encompass the US-Canada-Mexico alliance in a wider context.
He said that in the new US defense strategy “is the recognition that America must continue to strengthen key alliances and build innovative new partnerships around the world. This is exactly what we’re doing today.”
Among the other elements of that evolving strategy is what US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has called a “pivot to Asia,” in which the US national security establishment is to focus more on the Asia-Pacific region. Within the region, attention and forces are being shifted from Northeast Asia to the South China Sea.
Richard Halloran is a commentator based in Hawaii.
I think it is fair to say there is a widespread sigh of relief among many Americans — particularly those of us focused on foreign policy — that the chaotic and unpredictable Trump years will soon be over. Mr. Trump brought little real knowledge or experience to his foreign policy, and it showed. He also — in my humble opinion — did not err on the side of expertise in his choice of top foreign policy officials. Nor was he particularly open to listening to advice. All in all a poor set of traits for overseeing the complex foreign policy
After more than eight years of talks, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) was signed on Nov. 15, combining the individual free-trade agreements signed between ASEAN member states on the one hand, and China, Japan, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand on the other. Under the leadership of ASEAN and China, most observers did not expect the RCEP to provide a high degree of openness, and the announced agreement lives up to these expectations, containing few surprises. All products covered by the RCEP tariff reductions are agricultural and industrial products, but reductions of agricultural product tariffs are very limited, for example covering
While the nation grapples with its falling birthrate, it is also imperative to address how parents are raising their children. The phenomenon of “dinosaur parents” — who lash out at teachers, store staff or people on the street when confronted about their children misbehaving — has been an issue for a while, but there seems to be an uncomfortably high number of incidents making the news lately. On Saturday, a preschool teacher on an online forum wrote about a mother who often visited the school and screamed at the staff for various reasons — including her child being late to school
On Nov. 14, Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) commented on the nation’s low birthrate, claiming that young people would surely have children if only they married first, and that the low marriage rate among young people is the cause of the rapid aging of Taiwan’s society. The Taipei City Government therefore proposed to offer subsidies to couples willing to marry. Ko’s comment stirred up a great deal of protest. As a sociology student, I would like to remind the mayor that his remarks not only decontextualized the population aging issue, but also oversimplified the low birthrate problem. First, a look at systemic