In 1970, I traveled to Egypt as part of a delegation representing the US at the funeral of president Gamal Abdel Nasser. Back then, Egypt was closely aligned with the Soviet Union. When we arrived in Cairo, it seemed that everywhere one looked there was evidence of the Soviet presence -- Soviet tanks, missiles and troops.
During the visit, we were sched-uled to meet with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat. No one in our delegation was sure what to expect, given the uneasy relations between our two countries at the time. To our surprise, Sadat told us that he, in fact, had respect for the US. The reason? As a young military officer, he had visited our country and had had an excellent experience.
And, indeed, within two years of taking power, Sadat expelled the Soviets from Egypt and began to build a friendship with the US that, despite challenges and periodic differences, has proven important and valuable ever since.
I mention the importance of these military-to-military relationships because the US in this new century is undergoing a significant transformation of its military arrangements and partnerships around the globe -- necessary adjustments based on the new realities and new threats that have emerged since the Cold War's end.
It is important to note that since 2001, the US has probably done more things, with more nations, in more constructive ways and in more parts of the world, than at any other time in its history.
In the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, US President George W. Bush helped fashion and lead the largest coalition in history -- 80-plus nations -- to fight the global war on terror. Furthermore, roughly 60 nations are currently cooperating in the Proliferation Security Initiative to prevent dangerous weapons and materials from being transported to terrorists or outlaw regimes.
There has been a rethinking of the structure and role of our traditional military alliances, including the NATO, which is setting up a new NATO Response Force and has moved outside Europe for the first time with the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
The focus of attention today is on Iraq and Afghanistan. But in future decades, priorities will change. And much of what we may be called on to do in the future will likely be determined by choices made by others.
Consider Russia, a nation with vast natural resources, an educated population and a rich heritage of scientific and cultural achievements. Like Americans and others around the world, they are threatened by violent extremism. Russia is a partner with the US on some security issues, and our overall relationship is the best it has been in decades. But in other ways Russia has been unhelpful -- using energy resources as a political weapon, for example, and in their resistance to positive political changes in neighboring countries.
The same holds true for China. The Chinese are educated and talented, and China has great poten-tial, with high economic growth rates and an industrious work force. Nonetheless, some aspects of Chinese behavior remain unsettling and complicate our relationship.
Last year, a US Department of Defense report noted that China's defense expenditures appear to be much higher than acknowledged by the Chinese government. Coupled with a notable lack of transparency, this understandably concerns China's neighbors.
In addition to the choices that these and other countries make, the US' own choices will be an important factor determining what kind of future it faces. From time to time, US public sentiment has opposed playing an active role in the world and fulfilling our commitments to allies -- and, indeed, to the cause of freedom.
In the early 1970s, as US ambassador to NATO, I remember having to fly back from Europe to testify against legislation in our Congress that would have pulled US troops out of Western Europe and NATO, just as the Soviet Union was in the midst of a huge military buildup.
Today, nations that were members of the Soviet Union's Warsaw Pact, as well as some of the former Soviet republics -- countries that we used to call "captive nations" ? -- are valued members of NATO and represent some of our most stalwart allies in the war on terror.
This did not happen by accident or by chance. Looking forward, I am convinced that if we have the wisdom, courage and strength to adjust long-standing strategic arrangements, embrace new part-ners and, above all, persevere in the face of adversity and difficulty, we will see a similar victory in this "long war" against violence extremism and the other threats that may emerge in an uncertain new century.
Donald Rumsfeld is US secretary of defense.
Copyright: Council on Foreign Relations and Project Syndicate
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS