An interesting flap has developed over the recent publication of a report by a US think tank analyzing Taiwan's national defense decision-making processes.
The report, prepared for the RAND Corporation by its Asia specialist Michael D. Swaine, was recently excerpted in a local Chinese-language defense journal, and immediately sparked an emotional stream of criticism. Swaine's findings have been criticized by defense officials in Taipei as "distorted" and "ridiculous."
Some of the readers undoubtedly got no farther than the very first sentence of the report's introduction, which reads, "The Republic of China government has no formal, institutionalized and regularized interagency process or mechanism for national security strategy formulation and implementation." Hardly diplomatic language, but then, the report was written neither by nor for diplomats.
If one reads further into the report, one finds a catalogue of serious problems in the defense establishment, serious enough to significantly weaken our ability to defend ourselves against China. His policy recommendations, which are targeted at US defense policymakers, call for increased contacts and dialogue between the US defense establishment and ours -- although he cautions against a relationship that could be misinterpreted as moving toward a genuine alliance, in order not to "provoke" China.
Among the most important questions Swaine raised is: What is the ultimate goal of Taiwan's national security strategy? Is it to maintain a strong military in order to gain political advantages in the shifting maneuvers between Beijing and Washington? Or is it to actually defeat an attempted Chinese invasion, or at least maximize the cost to China? This is something to which we also would like to know the answer.
Swaine also, while acknowledging the irregularity of foreign willingness to sell arms to Taiwan at all, strongly criticizes the lack of a clearly articulated procedure for arms procurement. The recent scandals relating to procurement activities in Europe indicate that this is a real problem. We would think that Taiwan's predicament would necessitate a stepped-up planning procedure, not a more ad hoc one.
Actually this is but one of the many problems identified by Swaine which the recently passed Defense Law is intended to address. Others include the need to clarify the chain of command and strengthen civilian and legislative oversight of military activities.
For those who are genuinely interested in an impetus for reform, we would think that the publication of such a report would be welcomed. Simply by stirring debate, it can provide a useful function, focussing public attention on the issues it raises. We encourage those who differ with Swaine's conclusions to consider the report carefully and then present equally detailed and equally objective rebuttals. So far we have seen raised hackles and bruised egos which serve no useful purpose whatsoever. The mission seems to be to contain PR damage rather than sensibly address the issues Swaine raises concerning Taiwan's defense preparedness.
Ideally there should be more such reports, and most of them should be written by local analysts. Unfortunately, there are very few such analysts able to do so. Most of those who have the requisite expertise are employed directly by the defense establishment, the culture of which is, as its reaction to Swaine's assessment shows, not conducive to constructive criticism. The few local civilian scholars who may undertake such analysis are similarly hampered in their work by dependence on personal relations within the criticism-averse military for their sources of information.
If there is any shame to the Swaine report, it is that a foreigner had to write it. We hope that more and more local researchers will take up the study of Taiwan's national defense systems which is so vital to its survival.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing