The Ministry of National Defense released recently its 2009 National Defense Report (國防報告書). Compared with last year’s report, it placed more emphasis on nontraditional security. It listed disaster relief and rescue as one of the military’s central missions, and stated that the structure of military forces will be adjusted according to strategy, tactics and equipment procurement.
However, with the number of forces being reduced as a result of plans to streamline the military and as the country faces more serious natural disasters because of a deteriorating global environment, a lack of effective planning will leave the military open to criticism.
In its assessment of the Chinese military, the report overemphasizes the hard power of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and overlooks its soft power. Speaking at the National University of Defense Technology in April, China’s Central Military Commission Vice Chairman Guo Boxiong (郭伯雄) underlined the importance of establishing information-based troops, adding that to win an information war, China must train large numbers of highly skilled military personnel with new skills.
In July, Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) announced a program to further reform the officer system. Thus, not only are there imbalances in hard military power between Taiwan and China, but the gap between the countries’ soft power is also gradually expanding.
The report shows a clear shift in warfare strategy. The focus now is not to allow the enemy to set foot on Taiwan and to concentrate limited national defense resources on the main troops. Developing asymmetric warfare capabilities and continuing the independent development of Tactical Shore-based Missiles for Fire Suppression or counteroffensive weapons are also cited as good strategies.
However, the report avoids most discussions on the US position on arms sales to Taiwan, although US policy seems to have moved from being “proactive” or “hopeful” to gradual conservatism. Faced with a new strategic triangular relationship, the ministry should consider new national defense strategies and policies to come up with feasible alternative plans to develop the necessary miltiary capabilities.
Enlisting, as opposed to compulsory service, is also a key issue. The ministry said this is the most pressing and complicated change in the military. Based on the concept of maintaining a lower number of soldiers in times of peace and more in times of war, reservists must still train young men for four months. This means that in the future, there may be fewer soldiers on active duty and more soldiers in the reserve. After this change, training mechanisms and methods may see great changes.
As for civil servants leading the military, the report expounded on the promotion and training of civil servants and released some data to support these comments. However, nothing was said about turnover, transfer or promotion rates among civil servants since the National Defense Act (國防法) and the Organization Act of the Ministry of National Defense (國防部組織法) came into effect in 2002, or why they still do not make up one-third of ministry appointments as stipulated in Article 15 of the organization act.
Surprisingly, asymmetric warfare was listed as a tactic that China may adopt in an attack on Taiwan. Asymmetric warfare is an action taken by a weaker side against a stronger side. When China denies or refuses access to the US, these are examples of asymmetric warfare. However, in any Chinese action against Taiwan, Beijing can make use of its economic and technological advantages — and this is not asymmetric warfare.
On the whole, the report seems to lack a concrete vision. Unlike the Quadrennial Strategy Review, the National Defense Report failed to provide a vision for national defense in the next 10 or even 20 years.
The ministry made some changes this year and this should be supported and encouraged, but there is still much room for improvement. Hopefully, in the future, it will be more open-minded and use more diversified modes of thinking and take a pragmatic view of new challenges.
Wang Jyh-perng is a reserve navy captain and a research assistant at the Graduate Institute of Strategy and International Affairs at National Chung Cheng University.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS