When it comes to intelligence matters, the past month has not been a good one for the defense establishment, with at least two instances (that we know) of military intelligence being leaked. From shredded documents obtained by the media to Navy officers copying classified material for access on insecure systems at home, the ramifications of such shoddy handling of secrets are manifold.
The most obvious consequence of these leaks is that it increases the chances that the enemy will get its hands on the material and thereby gain a military advantage. Minutes of meetings, orders of battle and contracts with foreign militaries -- all, if they end up in the wrong hands, can be detrimental to the security of a nation. They facilitate treason and can also subject individuals to blackmail.
A second area that can suffer from security lapses is ties with allied militaries. If a nation cannot be trusted with secrets, its allies will be hesitant to pass on classified material for fear it will be accessed by the wrong people. Alliances are based on trust and sometimes classification isn't only a product of what is told or shown in a document but rather of the sharing itself not being for public consumption. In other words, sometimes allies do not want the rest of the world to know that an alliance exists.
If leaks occur on a frequent basis and a nation's allies do not perceive that the problem is being addressed, chances are the latter will consider ending cooperation on intelligence and perhaps even on the sale of advanced weapons that, if mishandled, could result in technology transfer.
Leaks can also jeopardize sources -- electronic and human -- as well as collection methods and obviate years of efforts, an outcome that is all the more serious when the product comes from a foreign agency that does not want its expenditures in time and money to go down the drain as a result of irresponsible handling by an ally.
Lastly, news of intelligence leaks undermine public confidence in the state's ability to defend itself, giving rise to fears of institutional ineptitude or, perhaps worse, that the authorities simply do not take their responsibilities seriously. It can also give the enemy a psychological advantage, if not prompt it to act on the assumed weakness of its opponent. All in all, this is not the image the defense establishment wants to project.
Minister of National Defense Lee Tien-yu (
In many countries, even recruits caught taking home mock classified documents used for training purposes are not given a second chance -- they are fired on the spot. Leaks, willful or otherwise, are a career-ender. They don't result in transfer from one department to another, or in mere reprimand.
How defense and intelligence apparatuses handle classified material has very little to do with secure computer systems, firewalls and shredders. Dependable agencies have in place institutional ethics that make leaks exceptional events warranting serious action, not an almost routine occurrence that make onlookers shake their heads and wait for the next one to happen.
Heads must roll, Mr. Lee. Plug the hole.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS