In August 2012, the Taiwan Central Bank signed a currency agreement with its Chinese counterpart which enables greater development of the Taiwan economy. China is not only now Taiwan’s number one destination for foreign direct investment, but China introduced a package of 31 incentives to attract Taiwanese companies to the mainland, offering tax breaks and subsidies for high-tech companies, research grants for academics. It promised to allow Taiwanese companies to bid for government infrastructure projects, even those involved in China’s development plan in southern Asia and the Middle East. Taiwanese Vice Premier Shih Jun-ji cast it as an effort to undermine Taiwan’s economy. “China’s attempt to attract Taiwan’s capital and talent, especially high tech and young students, has clear political intentions,” he told a press conference introducing eight countermeasures designed to keep investors and their money at home. Bilateral trade between China, including the mainland, Hong Kong and Macao, and Taiwan reached $181 billion in 2017, up from $35 billion in 1999. China is Taiwan’s largest trading partner, accounting for more than 30 percent of the island’s trade. More than 93,000 Taiwanese companies have invested in the mainland since 1988, though outbound investment to the mainland declined for its third consecutive year in 2017. Reciprocal mainland investment in Taiwan is rising, but at a slower rate. China and Taiwan have also agreed to allow banks, insurers and other financial service providers to work in both. Taiwan’s closer economic links to the mainland pose unique challenges, with political differences remaining at a time when China’s economic growth is slowing.

Beijing’s targets in the Indo-Pacific and closer to home in the Caribbean and Latin America generally share the same characteristics: Poor when compared to the GDP of the 50 states, underdeveloped and generally forgotten. All sorts of basic infrastructure and other improvements are built or promised. Think hospitals, schools, highways, ports and airports. Some are freebies; others involve loans that will never be repaid. Moreover, as independent countries they have full voting privileges at the United Nations. This in and of itself is worth every yuan. The Solomon Islands, one of Queen Elizabeth II’s “other realms and territories,” became the most recent example. It ended diplomatic recognition of Taiwan after China promised $500 million in funding. Closer to home, Panama with the strategically important Panama Canal ? another former U.S. territory ? and the Dominican Republic, which voted for U.S. annexation in 1869 during the presidency of Ulysses S. Grant, have also aligned with Beijing. In addition to tariffs against China the president has also dispatched senior administration officials, including cabinet secretaries, and military leaders to the territories and elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific. Mr. Trump even hosted a historic White House summit with heads of state from the island-republics. The administration rightly understands that U.S. hegemony is at stake, if the flag isn’t flown over the American Lake. But merely flying the flag or even levying tariffs isn’t enough. Washington must up its game. It should start with a revival of the Monroe Doctrine. There also needs to be a re-examining of the relationship with the islands and their individual political status.

Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific is hardly a new development. But what was once confined to the construction of artificial islands in the hotly contested waters of the South China Sea near the Philippines has expanded into new fronts as China eyes Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, where America’s day begins. Even American Samoa is faced with challenges. In addition to the long-ignored U.S. territories, there are three island-republics ? the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau ? that have relied upon the grace and favor of the United States since the postwar years. The relationship between these freely associated states and Washington is governed through an instrument called the Compact of Free Association. Together, the territories and island-republics are geographically situated between Hawaii and the Philippines ? itself a former U.S. territory that should have been admitted to the Union ? in a vast swath of the Indo-Pacific informally called the American Lake. The nickname reflects what was an exclusive U.S. sphere of influence. Until the rise of China, the only other power exercising postwar clout here was Australia, which is also struggling to confront Chinese influence. The receding of the American Lake became most evident during the final years of President Obama’s administration. Despite its so-called Pivot to Asia, the Obama administration did little to assert itself on these islands. I discovered this reality during the 2016 presidential campaign, when I island-hopped across the territories. The geopolitical importance of these islands should be acutely recognized but their power in international politics has been overlooked. China’s inroads have been helped by the War on Terror, which has occupied Washington’s attention for the past 18 years.

The new report reinforces last year’s National Security Strategy (NSS) which identified China as the most significant long-term threat to the United States, with programs and plans “to erode American security and prosperity.” China and Russia, the NSS concluded, “are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence.” The most recent National Defense Strategy (NDS), formulated while James Mattis was serving as secretary of Defense, concluded that China is continuing “its economic and military ascendance, asserting power through an all-of-nation long-term strategy.” The goal: “Indo-Pacific regional hegemony in the near-term and displacement of the United States to achieve global preeminence in the future.” One particularly threatening component of China’s strategy is cyber-enabled economic warfare (CEEW), a term coined by Samantha Ravich, my colleague at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD). The term implies using cyber means to weaken or even cripple America’s economy as a way to diminish America’s military and political power. A recent FDD report concluded that Chinese government cyber warriors are “reversing many of the U.S. military’s technical and industrial advantages and creating potential vulnerabilities should a conflict arise.” Imagine this scenario: A conflict breaks out between the United States and China over freedom of navigation in Asian international waters. Suddenly and mysteriously, America is hit by massive blackouts, and our electronic financial systems crash.

Last week, presidential contender Joseph Biden asked rhetorically: “China is going to eat our lunch?” He added: “I mean, they’re not bad folks. But they’re not competition for us!” As vice president and, before that, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Biden met foreign leaders and voted on foreign policy legislation. On that basis, he fancies himself a foreign policy expert. But at least where China is concerned, he has not kept up. Evidence of China’s grand ambitions, hostile intentions and advancing capabilities has been mounting for years. Last week, the Pentagon issued a new report on Chinese military power. The People’s Liberation Army, it emphasized, is training “across all warfare domains” and preparing to fight “strong military opponents,” including those “beyond China’s periphery.” To whom do you suppose that might allude? More specifically, China is developing the means “to degrade core U.S. operational and technological advantages.” China engages in extensive cyber espionage and wholesale cyber theft ― hundreds of billions of dollars of intellectual property every year, including technologies it can’t invent, blueprints for U.S. weapons and control systems among them. At a time when Americans are concerned about Russian disinformation campaigns, China is conducting “influence operations against cultural institutions, media organizations, and the business, academic, and policy communities of the United States, other countries, and international institutions to achieve outcomes favorable to its security and military strategy objectives.” China also uses “coercion and blackmail” to manipulate “Chinese citizens or ethnic Chinese citizens of other countries” to do their bidding.

Initially, a “capitalist” was someone in possession of funds or property ? not someone who believed in a specific system of economic organization. Adam Smith, often called “the father of capitalism,” never used that term. “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” published in 1776, was more descriptive than prescriptive. He observed the positive results produced by free markets, incentives, enlightened self-interest and voluntary divisions of labor. A century later, Karl Marx wrote about the “bourgeoisie” whom, he predicted, would inevitably be overthrown by the global proletariat, the “workers of the world” united. Though intended as a pejorative, “capitalism” came to be embraced by proponents of entrepreneurship, and opponents of collectivized and command economies. Despite the starkly contrasting track records of capitalism and socialism, the next Democratic candidate for president could be a self-declared socialist. Teen Vogue, formerly an adolescent fashion magazine, now apparently an ideological journal of the left, tells its readers: “To conservatives’ dismay, the modern idea of socialism … has become increasingly popular among young people in the past several years, following Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders’ underdog run for president and the authoritarian creep of the ultra-capitalist, anti-socialist Trump regime.” Most responsible for that, I suspect, are America’s universities which, since the Sixties, have been increasingly occupied and ruled by socialists of various stripes. Mr. Sanders and AOC may be among the beneficiaries. If so, the rest of us, those who have managed to learn a thing or two over the years, will be the losers.

Socialism is cool again, thanks not least to septuagenarian Sen. Bernie Sanders and millennial Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (aka AOC). Socialism has been cool before, of course, notably during the Great Depression and what became known as the Sixties, the era of Vietnam, the civil rights movement, hippies and the (old) New Left. Soviet communism, also called “scientific socialism,” was a failure, as were the various forms of “utopian socialism” that preceded it. Perhaps you’re thinking that there are other socialist models. I thought so, too. Advised by Western academics and “development experts” at the U.N., virtually every African government in the post-colonial era chose “the socialist path to development.” The problem with that, as the Ghanaian-born scholar George Ayittey noted recently: “Nowhere in Africa was the socialist experiment successful.” In Latin America, too, socialism has led to dismal outcomes. Venezuela is only the most egregious example. In a speech this year(2019년), Kim Jong-un said it was North Korea’s “historic task” to “accomplish the cause of socialism.” If so, his regime has a way to go. China’s “socialist market economy” creates wealth, though without liberty and basic human rights. The state’s repression of dissidents and minorities ? e.g. Uighurs, Tibetans, Falun Gong and Christians ? is severe. But at least there’s income equality, right? No, according to the International Monetary Fund, China is “one of the world’s most unequal countries.” Back to me: Disenchanted with both communism and socialism, I began reading up on capitalism. I came to understand that, unlike socialism, capitalism wasn’t invented. It arose spontaneously.

Vietnam, like China, has semisuccessfully married political authoritarianism with economic development. That North Korea can do the same should it disarm is the pitch that the Trump administration has made to the Kim regime. But there are reasons to doubt that North Korea can successfully follow the path that China and Vietnam blazed. For one, neither country liberalized until its cult of personality had been disbanded. Deng Xiaoping did not begin his vaunted “opening up and reform” of the Chinese economy until Mao Zedong had died. It would have been impossible to promote free enterprise while the semidivine Mao loomed over the country. Likewise, Vietnam began its own economic liberalization in the mid-1980s, long after Ho Chi Minh had left the scene. It’s no coincidence that economic liberalization is going backward in China now that Xi Jinping, the most authoritarian Chinese leader since Mao, is in control. And to embrace reform was also a tacit admission that Mao and Ho Chi Minh had been wrong. That bodes ill for North Korean reform, where, seven decades into its existence, the Kim cult of personality remains as strong as ever. Mr. Kim also reasonably fears that, given his regime’s decades-long history of unimaginable brutality, he can’t risk true liberalization without meeting the unhappy fate of Romania’s Nicolae Ceauescu. Another problem is that, by the logic of the regime, North Korea is an unfinished project. One of the Kim dynasty’s central aims is to reunify the Korean peninsula ? under its leadership. Indeed, in this sense, the analogy between Vietnam and Korea is improper: It wasn’t until North Vietnam had successfully invaded and absorbed the South, after all, that it began to contemplate reform.

Even now Mr. Kim is creating new front companies - supported by Chinese banks - to circumvent sanctions. A strong forward-deployed presence - with robust allied cost-sharing - is essential in securing the undivided attention of North Korea and China, which think we are irresolute in pursuing our national interests. They must be disabused of this. First, the United States should return two full U.S. Army divisions to South Korea with accompanying field artillery rocket brigades and missile defense units to effectively confront the threat of North Korean tactical artillery and missiles to South Korea. Second, the United States should re-engage in robust U.S.-allied military exercises to demonstrate that if Mr. Kim seeks armed conflict, he will lose. Third, the United States should initiate negotiations with the Philippines to restore our naval and air power projection in the region, making our intent clear to both Pyongyang and Beijing. It’s one thing for the United States to aspire to deterrence and freedom of navigation in the region. It’s entirely another to be a resident there. Fourth, the United States should negotiate with our reliable ally, Australia, to develop a U.S.-Australian joint warfare training and testing center for forces and capabilities that may be called upon to confront armed aggression in East Asia. In resisting Chinese aggression in the region, such joint training and testing would be beneficial. The influence fulcrum shift favoring North Korea and China has accommodated increased Chinese aggression in the region as well as Mr. Kim’s continued brinkmanship. It’s time to set both straight and a resurgence of forward-deployed forces in the region is a vital step in deterring war.

Now President Trump should take notice of the value of forward-deployed forces in asserting U.S. influence in securing our vital national interest in East Asia, including freedom of navigation, deterred aggression and nuclear nonproliferation. The reduction in U.S. forces in South Korea over time clearly signaled that the United States was disinclined to engage in land combat on the Korean peninsula, despite the rising threat from North Korea’s nuclear and missile proliferation. Furthermore, the regrettable U.S. departure from the Philippines benefitted China, which has aggressively asserted its territorial claims to the oil-rich Spradley Islands lying between China, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam, while demanding the U.S. Navy steer clear of nearby sea lanes. That China feels thus emboldened says much about how it sees the influence fulcrum shifting in their favor with a reduced U.S. military presence of forward-deployed forces in the region. This should provide a lesson for President Trump’s policymakers. Both Mr. Kim and China have taken measure of America’s withdrawal from East Asia. Both understand that as U.S. regional presence wanes, their ability to flex their muscles waxes. The value of forward-deployed forces was clear during the Cold War. Indeed, it demonstrated our firm resolve to fight Soviet-Sino aggression wherever it might occur. This proposition is in doubt today and contributes to the perception that the United States lacks resolve in the region. The president’s wise employment of maximum pressure is not enough to assert U.S. influence in North Korea and the region to secure peace.