In his nomination acceptance speech at the National Democratic Convention, US Senator John Kerry emphasized that he would only go to war if faced with "a threat that was real and imminent." He said he "will be a commander-in-chief who will never mislead us into war" and that "the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to." I believe that Kerry's words prove that military thinking and military ethics are intricately linked with the stability of national security and the strategic situation.
The book Military Ethics published by the US's National Defense University pointed out that the American Catholic Bishop's Pastoral, in their discussion of the 1983 made-for-television film Day After Tomorrow indicated that many American people were concerned about issues related to the ethics of armed conflict.
In the aftermath of the recent military exercises by China, Taiwan and the US, it is important that we raise the issue of the ethics of conflict. We should also consider preventive defense, which consists of "softer" strategic options and provides a basis for reducing military tensions, by dispelling the increasingly dense atmosphere of imminent conflict to avoid an unintended conflagration.
Military Ethics emphasizes the deep strategic thinking behind the idea that soldiers who hold a position and await orders are also making a contribution. It expounds the value of a strong defensive stance and preventive action. It goes on to point out that the reason that the military exists is to protect the nation and prevent it from becoming a victim of the threats of its enemies.
We can see from its arguments that the US National Defense University sees the job of the military as guaranteeing peaceful development and stability. It proposes the idea that peace stems from restraint. Restraint is a form of endurance and self-discipline, but it is usually regarded as being "soft." In the past, soldiers have created an impression of fierceness and strength, but what we want to emphasize now is a restraint that serves people rather than brings them into conflict.
Military Ethics also points out that the reason the military is given the absolute right to use major weapons by society is because it can only use this force under conditions of the greatest restraint, and that the use of force must be preceded by the correct procedures and oversight. "Peace" is therefore a precondition for "using military force," which should only be used to give a guarantee of peace.
Peace and military action support each other. For without a foundation of peace, any conflict can bring on terrible dangers which will extend into the future. The results of the second Iraq war gives us a clear indication of what can happen without such a foundation.
It is better to avoid conflict than to seek it. Lightly starting a conflict is something that strategists have always sought to avoid, as they know it is unwise and likely to have bad results. Former US secretary of defense William Perry is a proponent of "preventive defense," which he regards as being analogous to preventive medicine. Preventive medicine supports health and preempts dangerous developments. Preventive defense seeks out defensive opportunities prior to any threat to US national security maturing, and maintaining the security of the US by avoiding crisis situations.
Taiwan is a small country with a large population and it has few strategic options. The government should inculcate the idea that "prevention is better than cure," and it should create space to maneuver by showing goodwill to all, establishing the idea of "seeking battle only after the victory has been won" and keeping the conflict outside the country. In this way it can achieve the strategic goals of prevention and restraint.
The nation's geographical location and conditions means that it has a certain strategic value and importance. In the face of the constantly changing international situation and the tricky nature of cross-strait relations, we should use preventive defense to peacefully resolve problems in their early stages, making use of "soft" national security strategies to open up international maneuverability and avoid any crisis that might give rise to conflict. This is the proper way to proceed.
In this age of advanced technology and information, military ethics and preventive defense are not rarified concepts which few can follow, nor do they ignore the current international scene. Their main purpose is to emphasize the importance of soft strategies of peace, ethics, restraint and prevention.
This can serve as a platform to achieve the ancient human ideals of ending war. And it is something to contemplate for China, the US and Taiwan -- who in their recent military exercises have been intent on confrontation and competition.
Li Hua-chiu is a part-time researcher with the National Policy Foundation.
Translated by Ian Bartholomew
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations