I think most people here are suggesting that we ought to, even as an isolationist state, if that is your preference, monitor and be prepared for pandemics even if they appear in other countries.
The question is why the US should have a unilateral office dedicated to pandemics in China when we have another multilateral one. We should have one or the other, for sure -- monitoring pandemics is important for national security -- but why should we have two?
Because a health problem in China, or anywhere in the world, presents a RISK to the the United Stated
Correct. This is why we are the primary fund-provider to WHO. We should be asking why that org failed us, not why we didn't have yet another org for the same purpose.
And after investigating the failure, we should consider whether or not continuing with that org makes sense, or if we should set up another organization and sever ties with the old one, in the interest of not duplicating effort.
If the United States is now expected to have bureaucracies specific to China and other countries, one must wonder why we're expected to provide services to foreign countries while not actually having sovereignty over them.
If there's one thing the Trump administration has done right, it has been to slowly rid America of foreign entanglements. Thank goodness.