Soldiers are trained to understand a basic fact: that no victory in any war falls from the sky; it has to be earned inch by inch and engagement by engagement. The nation’s military, which has been embroiled in a series of scandals and wondering why no one seems to like it, needs to be reminded of the fact.
Like any other phenomenon, the sentiment was a result of the accumulation of a series of historical events. Given the country’s unique modern history, the Republic of China (ROC) armed forces would have to understand why it has been difficult for the people of Taiwan to have great respect for the nation’s guardians.
Almost every male ROC citizen was required to serve between one and two years, some of them three, in the conscription military system, which was adopted right after the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime retreated to Taiwan following its loss in the Chinese Civil War in 1949, so the troops, who were mostly in their late teens or early 20s and led by Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), could “retake the Chinese mainland.”
Thousands of them died in the military — and many more were injured — like army corporal Hung Chung-chiu (洪仲丘), whose death on July 4 sparked public outrage and a demonstration by tens of thousands of people on Saturday to protest against the military and the government’s handling of his death.
Historically, the ROC military, as well as the military judiciary under the supervision of the Ministry of National Defense, played a role in the KMT government’s oppression in the lives and freedom of expression of the Taiwanese, with the most notable example of its role being the 228 Incident. For some, the scars, the memory and the hatred that stemmed from the brutal experience remains vivid to this day.
After democratization in Taiwan, the military has had trouble convincing the public that it is loyal to the nation, not the KMT, military factions or the political ideology of unification.
One does not need to look far. Comments made by several retired generals on trips to China, such as that both the ROC military and the People’s Liberation Army are “Chinese military,” were enough to confuse the Taiwanese, in particular when they recalled being taught at school to oppose communism.
Former premier Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村), also a retired general, notoriously said that Taiwan would not have been democratized if it had not undergone Martial Law rule.
The mistrust of the military could not but have intensified after the defense ministry tried to sweep the Hung case under the carpet, the military prosecutors’ apparent lack of effort in investigating alleged military abuse cases and the infighting between factions that eventually led to the resignation of two defense ministers in one week.
That was why it is unfathomable that military personnel have gone on the offense, claiming that some people are trying to leverage Hung’s death to undermine the military, instead of reviewing what went wrong in how Hung had been treated.
Trying to blame the public, rather than doing whatever it takes to identify and punish the “bad apples” who have damaged the military’s integrity and pride of good soldiers, is not the way to go.
However, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Premier Jiang Yi-huah’s (江宜樺) appeals for the public to respect the military do not mean much, because respect has to be earned, not granted.
If the military and Ma, as commander-in-chief, truly believe the armed forces are facing “the most serious crisis in the ROC’s military history,” they should also realize that it will take years of hard work and reform for the military to rebuild its tarnished image and become an elite force Taiwanese can count on.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers