The controversy over a military officer who paid for equipment out of his own pocket has highlighted that investment in military equipment only focuses on weapons systems and neglects personal equipment. This sheds light on two important issues: First, personal equipment should be treated as a morale-boosting element. Second, can the national defense budget transform equipment needs into a “value-added defense economy”?
In advanced nations, personal equipment has always been an important foundation for maintaining morale. Clothing, footwear, gun straps, ergonomic backpacks, rations and other “soft” equipment form the core of troops’ fighting ability.
An example is the Seirogan (征露丸) stomach medicine.
During the Russo-Japanese War, the Japanese army had a widespread beriberi problem. At the time, the importance of vitamins was not understood and it was thought that the disease was caused by bacteria, and therefore the Seirogan pill was developed. However, it failed to alleviate the problem.
The Japanese army later followed the navy’s example and added curry rice with carrots to soldiers’ rations. The addition of carrots to the diet eliminated beriberi, the army recovered their fighting spirit and defeated the Russian forces.
Modern warfare still has the same spirit. During the war in Afghanistan, the US miltiary issued bullet-proof jockstraps and the British army issued bullet-proof underwear to protect the soldiers from improvised explosive devices. Norway developed dedicated apparel for female personnel to prevent the wiring in bulletproof vests from pricking the wearer’s body. French field rations are as famous as French cuisine.
These are examples of how military culture in advanced nations perceives personnel as the core fighting force. Maintaining the fighting spirit is not just a matter of empty slogans, it is a way to reduce the physical and psychological burden on soldiers.
Taiwan is stuck in defense-industry mindset, but major powers consider national defense as an economy. They combine it with “green” energy, which they position as “defense energy.” In other words, they are using national defense needs to assist industrial transition and economic development.
An example is the EU’s joint development of the Typhoon fighter jet. The total cost of research and development was 54 billion euros (US$60.8 billion), but compared with buying US-made F-15E or F/A-18 aircraft, the EU manufacturing their own planes led to savings of 45 billion euros.
The indirect benefit to EU members was the creation of 100,000 jobs. The project also supported 400 small and medium-sized enterprises, which transferred the aircraft technology to the electronics industry, electric vehicles and, eventually, the giant Airbus A-380 passenger aircraft.
The US military is creating a national defense energy industry. In addition to improving the effectiveness of military systems and opening up military land to the installation of solar panels, it promotes a zero net energy consumption policy. This not only reduces emissions, but also helps the US’ harness renewable energy sources and cut the military’s fuel budget.
In Taiwan, the defense budget and economic development have both fallen into the cost-cutting trap; the fear of investment leading to lost opportunities.
For example, the barracks of a Taiwanese army brigade covers an area of about 700m2. That could support a solar panel array producing 60kW of electricity. If the Ministry of Economic Affairs, local governments and the Ministry of National Defense worked together, they could create a “green” defense industry.
Taiwan purchases submarines, aircraft and other equipment, but it already has a high-tech textile industry and an advanced photovoltaic industry, and manufactures advanced consumer goods and electronics.
If all of these could be systematically integrated into defense needs, not only could it swiftly improve the nation’s military infrastructure and personal equipment, it could also launch industrial and business diversification.
Su Tzu-yun is chief executive officer of the Center for Advanced Technology at Tamkang University.
Translated by Clare Lear
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