MCLC: ditch Taiwan (3)

[Denton, Kirk]

MCLC LIST
From: anne henochowicz <annemh at alumni.upenn.edu>
Subject: ditch Taiwan (3)
*********************************************************

In a letter published in both The Atlantic and Foreign Policy, Kane
defends his "modest proposal."

Anne

=================================================

Source: The Atlantic (11/17/11):
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/11/selling-taiwan-to-
mainland-china-the-author-explains-his-swiftian-intent/248637/

Selling Taiwan to Mainland China: The Author Explains His 'Swiftian' Intent
By James Fallows

Please see significant UPDATE below.
____

Last week I made fun of a New York Times op-ed that recommended a
grand strategic bargain to resolve several big US-China tensions at
once. The Chinese would write off the trillion-dollar-plus debt owed
by America. Presumably this would apply only to U.S. Treasury debt in
the hands of Chinese government institutions, since otherwise it would
be hard to convince some rich family in Tianjin or pension fund in
Shenzhen to walk away from loans or investments it had made in the
United States. Further on practical difficulties here. In exchange,
the United States would stop selling arms to Taiwan and end its
promise to defend Taiwan against military attack. The only plausible
source of such attack is of course mainland China, which views Taiwan
as an integral part of its nation and is therefore permanently
aggrieved about US-Taiwan military ties.

I began my item wondering whether the article was "some kind of
put-on" and ended with a link to a Taiwanese cartoon parody. The
author of the op-ed, Paul V. Kane, has written asking if he could
reply. Below, in full and without further comment by me, is his
expanded view of the argument he wanted to make. Thanks to him for
weighing in.

Paul V Kane writes:

Was the piece intended to stir the pot and provoke debate? Absolutely.
If a piece is not provocative, it doesn't get published, it doesn't
get read, and it has no impact.

The primary point though of the piece is that our "economic security"
is more important than our traditional view that military might trumps
all.  You can't pay for military might without adequate economic
security and a healthy economy. You can't support allies without a
purse full of coins and a treasury filled with gold. Is it not true
that senior U.S. military leaders have said and fretted aloud that the
single greatest threat to the existence of the American Republic is
our national debt and spend-like-a-drunken-sailor-on-leave ways? No
offense to sailors intended.

As Leslie Gelb presciently said, "GDP matters more than force."

It was my intent to mix serious issues and facts with irony and
Swiftian satire to engage readers and make my points. No apologies on
that count.

Isn't it ironic that nearly 40 years after Nixon went to Communist
China, they own 8-9% of casino capitalist America's government debt?
Isn't it ironic that we the American people fund the U.S. Navy, the
chief instrument ensuring the global sea lanes are free and open for
Chinese goods to flood the world?  Isn't it ironic that while we spend
from our finite treasury to move military chess pieces around the
Pacific, China is out buying all the bauxite rights in the Congo, and
is acquiring energy and water assets that will feed their economy for
a generation?

Could we do a deal with China for debt and resolution of Taiwan's
status. Absolutely.  Should we?

If you put a gun to my head and asked me if I truly thought we should,
I have small children, so I would have to answer you honestly.

No, that was a "modest proposal" along the lines of the master of
satire Jonathan Swift's solution for poverty in Ireland.  Satire is
not a joke, it is an extremely useful way to provoke new, original
thought and debate.  What is hilarious is that some academics in
Taiwan and elsewhere stayed up late at night reading the piece
literally and trying to build cases to refute its content, and
castigating my logic and morals, and cooking-up deep financial
analysis of how a deal would impact the U.S. Treasury Bill markets...
Take your wife out to dinner!  Professor or Joe Blogger, it was time
miss spent.

The New York Times is kind enough to host my writings every few years.
In 2009, I had a piece with them, "Up, Up and Out" about U.S.
military reform that, again, included serious points, humorous and
ironic ones, and suggested "First, we should eliminate the Air
Force..."  It was a month before the sonic boom F-18 overflights of
our family home stopped...

Did I think that the Air Force should go away, literally?  No.  But I
did believe, as did many other military service members then, that the
then Air Force was insufficiently martial, too corporate, and not
pulling its weight in the wars."  Point made.  Did the Secretary of
Defense read and get a chuckle out of that piece.  You bet. Impact.

Anyone who has served in combat will tell you that in that environment
you see first-hand that life is brief and intense and filled with
irony, terror, deadly seriousness and the deadly boring mundane, risk
and joy, and yes, humor.  Combat makes you much more of an
out-of-the-box thinker when facing issues in policy or in life.  You
are able to freely ask, "Why are we doing this? What are we trying to
accomplish here? Is there a better way to do this for the greater
good?"

Many thanks to you James and your The Atlantic readers for taking time
to read and consider my Op-Ed's points.

- - Paul V. Kane

----
UPDATE: I see that Kane has sent an essentially identical letter to
Joshua Keating of Foreign Policy, asking that it be published there. I
had not known that this was his intention and wouldn't have felt an
obligation to give him a right-of-unedited reply if I had thought he'd
be making the same case verbatim in multiple venues. Just for the
record