.jpg/dims/resize/740/optimize) |
In my last column, I argued against American interventionist policies. Historical evidence supports my main assertion: American foreign policy, along with its European counterparts, isn't good for America or the world, often creating conditions for dictatorships, radicalism, poverty and a host of other social ills attendant with imperialism.
Playing peacekeeper of the Earth has also meant high opportunity costs to American society, and has seriously, negatively affected the quality of life for many Americans. Some Western Europeans, and citizens of the British Commonwealth, scoff at the backwards and arcane ways in which America's healthcare system operates, for example. Their derision is appropriate in this way: America is the wealthiest, most powerful nation in the world, so why are so many of its people without basic healthcare?
Meanwhile, other OECD members, such as the aforementioned Europeans, spend less per capita on healthcare, have better healthcare outcomes, and provide access to healthcare for all of their citizens.
Since 1945, America has provided security via its military and nuclear umbrella to all of Western Europe, as well as wealthy nations such as Japan and Korea, ostensibly for free.
Free global security afforded these nations the ability to provide a generous social safety net for their citizens, and more than just free, universal healthcare (although that's a huge benefit), many of these countries also give fairly substantial welfare benefits for the young, unemployed, elderly and poor, free or reduced tuition to universities, and a variety of training programs to place recent graduates in gainful employment.
Free healthcare offers a huge advantage for corporations operating in these countries. The massive costs associated with medical pensions are non-existent. American companies like General Motors can only dream of such a thing.
More importantly, people who live in countries with universal healthcare live longer, better lives, and due to preventative care, are less of a burden on other parts of the healthcare network and the social welfare system overall.
Donald Rumsfeld, the former Secretary of Defense in the Bush Administration, was wrong about most things, but right when he admonished first world countries to spend a lot more on their militaries.
Korea and Japan share part of the costs to host America's military, but not all of it. Germany pays even less for America's presence there. Now, due to China's new (and outrageous) claims of sovereignty over much of the South China Sea, amongst other places, countries such as Vietnam and The Philippines are scrambling to increase their beleaguered defense budgets and warming up to opening defense partnerships with the US, as in long-term army and naval bases, a la Korea and Japan.
As soon as these developments surfaced, my question, the same as famed conservative luminary Patrick Buchanan, was this: "Um, who's going to pay for all this?"
Why is America obligated to be everywhere and do everything without the financial support of the nations it protects?
Not only has American dominance in global defense led to weak social welfare programs and an ever-increasing wealth gap at home, it's made many of the nations under America's defense umbrella ill-equipped to properly administer and maintain their own militaries.
Korea is actually the most glaring example of this. The United States planned to handover military operational control (OPCON) of Korea's wartime defense apparatus in 2015, but President Park and former Defense Minister Kim Kwan-jin requested the handover be delayed indefinitely. President Obama obliged. Newly-appointed Defense Minister Han Min-koo hasn't made any statements thus far to change that delay.
American and Korean defense officials are split on whether the delay is wise or not. Some Korean experts think it's time to allow the Korean military to take charge of its own defenses, and the budgetary responsibilities thereof, sooner than later. Many American officials, including high-ranking military officers, concur.
The new commander of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK), General Scaparrotti, is quoted as saying, "It [Korea] is a sovereign nation, and sovereign nations should be responsible for their own national defense in times of war." In fact, General Scaparotti and his staff had initially been planning to meet the original December 2015 deadline of transferring OPCON responsibilities to Korea before the Park Administration made its request for the aforementioned delay.
American lawmakers, like Senator Carl Levin, powerful chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, feel the same way as Gen. Scaparrotti, and have been on record saying as much.
I am not a fan of Japanese Prime Minister Abe or his conservative administration, but I do find his increasing Japan's military readiness, and the budget thereof, refreshing. The Abe Administration is actively increasing their share of the burden for their nation's national defense.
Brunei, Thailand, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, The Philippines, amongst others, are in hotly contested territorial disputes with China's giant and growing military might, and need to do the same.
Deauwand Myers holds a master's degree in English literature and literary theory and is currently an English professor outside of Seoul. He can be reached at deauwand@hotmail.com.
