Who would pay for a global cop?

Lee Kuan Yew had some interesting words to say recently with regard to current events in a piece titled "East Asia and the Bush Victory".

Asia's main concern is security. So strong was the conviction that George W. Bush was the leader to counter the threats from Islamist terrorists, North Korea's nuclear weapons and a possible war with China if Taiwan moves toward independence that Japan's and Australia's prime ministers, Junichiro Koizumi and John Howard, ignored diplomatic niceties and publicly declared, before the election, their strong support for the President. Many other Asian leaders privately shared these views but observed diplomatic reticence. Whatever reservations Muslim leaders in Indonesia and Malaysia had, they knew clearly where President Bush stood on key issues.

The subtext of this is that Asia has outsourced global security to the USA. Is the USA the de facto global cop, bankrolled by Asia? Consider also this statistic gleaned from the Asia Times, December 5, 2004:

The central banks of Japan and China have the world's largest foreign-exchange reserves, and much of this is invested in the Treasury bills that the US Federal Reserve uses to underwrite budget deficits and stabilize the dollar. Combined holdings of government debt by the two countries are believed to amount to at least $1.2 trillion, offering an unparalleled ability to influence internal policies, if they wish.

It is a reasonable inference to conclude that they are satisfied with Bush and with US external policy. In addition, by backing the USA indirectly, China and Japan would avoid attracting the direct ire of radical Islamic militants.

Whence outreach?

According to Associated Press, fewer foreign students are attending US high schools. The Christian Science Monitor notes that foreign enrollment at US colleges is dropping. It had also been noted last year that foreign visits to the US had dropped sharply. This will have negative consequences on the brain drain (to which the H1B visa contributes) that the US has traditionally gained from, as well as reducing one mode of cultural outreach on the personal level, slowing the spread of American values in the world.

That's worth contrasting with the recent report of the Defense Science Board critical of how the US was engaging the world.

To succeed, we must understand the United States is engaged in a generational and global struggle about ideas, not a war between the West and Islam. It is more than a war against the tactic of terrorism...
...those who shaped overseas information and cultural activities believed the challenges required an American response, not just a government response. It was not a task for diplomats and military commanders only. Writers, film directors, scholars, journalists, poets, playwrights, librarians, scientists, foundation executives, business leaders, and labor leaders became involved directly through temporary service in government and indirectly through exchanges and other means.