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
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS