Writing in his frequent role of spokesman for isolationism, Pat Buchanan argues that the USA might be pulled into a conflict between (1) China and Japan, (2) South Korea and China, (3) North and South Korea, or (4) the Philippines and China because of treaties signed over fifty years ago. To isolationist Pat, these are unwelcome remnants of the Cold War which have no place in current American foreign policy. So let's analyze that situation.
We can begin with the easiest issue: American support for South Korea against its neighbor to the north, a failed totalitarian state run by that nut job Kim Jung Un. Imagine for a moment that president Obama abrogated the treaty under which America pledges its support for the South in its confrontation with the North. What are the most likely results? First, the South Koreans will suddenly have to manage their own defense against the North Koreans. They do this for the most part already. The army of South Korea is huge and quite ready to resist aggression from the North with only a few important gaps in their defense. These gaps, however, are extremely important. South Korea, unlike the North, has no nuclear weapons or missile programs. It also has an underdeveloped air force and navy. Were America to abrogate its treaty obligations as isolationist Pat wants, the South Koreans would surely rush to build their own nuclear weapons. They would have little choice but to do so if they wanted to deter their crazy neighbor from launching an attack. And to be clear, the chance of the North Koreans using nukes on their southern neighbors is much greater if there is no threat of overwhelming American retaliation. In other words, the American military commitment in Korea is working well greatly to reduce the threat of a regional nuclear war. Now to isolationist Pat, the prevention of a nuclear war may be not the business of the United States, but I doubt too many Americans would agree with him.
That leaves us with the rest of the disputes. All of them center on conflicting territorial claims. For example, the Sino-Japanese dispute revolves around the Senkaku Islands. These uninhabited islets have been under Japanese control for all of modern times. In fact, in none of the disputed areas are their Chinese populations or even any recent history of Chinese control. What is actually happening is that China is using its new found power to try to muscle its way into control of areas of the ocean floor that may contain oil and gas deposits. Is it in American interests to ignore that? Suppose that the British assert a claim to Brittany and Normandy in France on the basis of old claims by the British royal family to estates in the region. Would America ignore that? How about if Germany announced that it has an ongoing claim to the land of East Prussia, and area that the German state and its predecessors controlled for centuries until the Soviet occupation after World War II. Would we say that such a claim was not any of our business? What if China made a claim to Guam on the basis of some old imperial Chinese claim. How about if the Chinese claimed the entire country of Nepal? Where is it that America should stand when one country begins to make claims on its neighbors? Are we to go back to the old days of isolationism; in other words, should we just not care? I don't think so.
At the moment, America is by far the strongest country on earth. Even after five years of Obama as president, our military is still way ahead of anyone else. We have all this power, and we should use it to promote peace and the interests of the USA (of which peace is a big one.) No matter how alluring it may be to think of the "good old days" when America did not concern itself with the rest of the world, we just cannot do that anymore. Buchanan is just wrong.
We can begin with the easiest issue: American support for South Korea against its neighbor to the north, a failed totalitarian state run by that nut job Kim Jung Un. Imagine for a moment that president Obama abrogated the treaty under which America pledges its support for the South in its confrontation with the North. What are the most likely results? First, the South Koreans will suddenly have to manage their own defense against the North Koreans. They do this for the most part already. The army of South Korea is huge and quite ready to resist aggression from the North with only a few important gaps in their defense. These gaps, however, are extremely important. South Korea, unlike the North, has no nuclear weapons or missile programs. It also has an underdeveloped air force and navy. Were America to abrogate its treaty obligations as isolationist Pat wants, the South Koreans would surely rush to build their own nuclear weapons. They would have little choice but to do so if they wanted to deter their crazy neighbor from launching an attack. And to be clear, the chance of the North Koreans using nukes on their southern neighbors is much greater if there is no threat of overwhelming American retaliation. In other words, the American military commitment in Korea is working well greatly to reduce the threat of a regional nuclear war. Now to isolationist Pat, the prevention of a nuclear war may be not the business of the United States, but I doubt too many Americans would agree with him.
That leaves us with the rest of the disputes. All of them center on conflicting territorial claims. For example, the Sino-Japanese dispute revolves around the Senkaku Islands. These uninhabited islets have been under Japanese control for all of modern times. In fact, in none of the disputed areas are their Chinese populations or even any recent history of Chinese control. What is actually happening is that China is using its new found power to try to muscle its way into control of areas of the ocean floor that may contain oil and gas deposits. Is it in American interests to ignore that? Suppose that the British assert a claim to Brittany and Normandy in France on the basis of old claims by the British royal family to estates in the region. Would America ignore that? How about if Germany announced that it has an ongoing claim to the land of East Prussia, and area that the German state and its predecessors controlled for centuries until the Soviet occupation after World War II. Would we say that such a claim was not any of our business? What if China made a claim to Guam on the basis of some old imperial Chinese claim. How about if the Chinese claimed the entire country of Nepal? Where is it that America should stand when one country begins to make claims on its neighbors? Are we to go back to the old days of isolationism; in other words, should we just not care? I don't think so.
At the moment, America is by far the strongest country on earth. Even after five years of Obama as president, our military is still way ahead of anyone else. We have all this power, and we should use it to promote peace and the interests of the USA (of which peace is a big one.) No matter how alluring it may be to think of the "good old days" when America did not concern itself with the rest of the world, we just cannot do that anymore. Buchanan is just wrong.
No comments:
Post a Comment