Glory built on tragedy
As a former Republic of China (ROC) Air Force security force (SF, now under ROC Military Command) field unit commander who led many young men and women like the wrongly executed Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶), I wanted to respond to Wu Ching-chin’s (吳景欽) insightful article (“Chiang Kuo-ching deserves justice,” June 4, page 8) and raise additional points from a tactical leadership view as well as points about the ethics of professional military officers.
First, on the issue of moral awareness and military morale, following the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office Special Investigation Panel’s (SIP) decision not to indict any of the officers involved in this notorious case, the public response was overwhelming and continues to be the topic of conversation across the country.
To ease the public outcry, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), as commander-in-chief of the ROC Armed Forces, has personally offered a solemn apology and expressions of regret to Chiang’s mother, the brave surviving parent after his father passed away after many years of living with frustration and anger over the loss of his beloved son.
The president has demanded that the Ministry of National Defense re-investigate the case and clear Chiang’s name, which is belated justice for an innocent young man who was brutally tortured before being killed for a crime he didn’t commit.
This process must be carried out in a timely manner to promote moral awareness among all officers, junior and senior, and sustain morale for a military that has been tremendously impacted by this case.
Second, the decision-making should be based on the rule of law and due process, not on a military commander’s personal opinion of “not airing dirty laundry in public.” In Chiang’s case, the poor judgement of the air force commander led to a series of mishaps.
When crimes are committed inside military barracks, as in this case, the military police should be the first to investigate, according to the nation’s military justice system, not a --counter-intelligence unit whose task is to handle military -intelligence-related violations, such as espionage or treason, within the armed services.
The third is the lack of professional training received by counter-intelligence unit officers who were involved in the investigation, most of whom were trained in general political warfare with very limited knowledge of criminal investigation, not to mention forensics.
Their initial assignment to the investigation resulted in the mishandling of the case, which was characterized by inhumane treatment (torture) and improper gathering of evidence.
The fourth point I would like to bring up is the ironic issue of officers’ code of ethics.
As an SF field unit commander of those airmen and airwomen serving our nation, we were instructed by senior political warfare officers not to use any verbally abusive language nor to use corporal punishment against service members under any circumstances.
Any officer found in violation of those instructions faced serious punishment, which would negatively impact one’s military career.
In Chiang’s case, all officers involved did just the opposite. Incredibly, they were not punished, but received medals and promotions. This is a slap in the face to all the good officers in the ROC Armed Forces who have exhibited positive leadership and treated soldiers like young brothers and sisters.
When people discuss military power, we often think of high-tech weaponry and fancy hardware, but it is the frontline soldiers like Chiang who do the fighting, not the generals.
As the old proverb says, “the success of the general is built on 10 thousand skeletons,” meaning that soldiers fight and die in battle, not in military prisons.
This country owes so much to Chiang’s family. The military must do its best to clear Chiang’s name as soon as possible and to never repeat this mistake.
Chiang Kuo-ching, please rest in heaven. You will see justice done on this earth.
FRANKLIN HUANG
Taipei
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