I believe that in the Asia-Pacific region, the values, missions, and standards of performance of all our armed forces are coming together in a way that is good for the region.
My three main reasons for saying this, are these:
-- First, there is an overall trend in the region towards smaller, more professional armed forces that are under political control.
-- Second, the primary focus of armed forces in the region is still on sovereignty and self-defense.
-- And third, there is growing multilateral cooperation among armed forces in the region.
So, let me first discuss the trend towards smaller, more professional armed forces that are under political control:
Over recent decades, power has shifted from military to political authorities. Military leaders and forces play a smaller role in politics. They have transferred many internal and border security tasks to police forces.
Think back 20 years ago to the roles of generals in the Republic of Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, and other nations. The trend is striking. There have recently been changes of government in Indonesia and in the Philippines, in which the armed forces remained in the barracks, playing no direct role.
For the past three years, I have had the honor of hosting a conference of the Defense Chiefs of the Asia-Pacific region. The discussions take place in closed sessions, and the Chiefs are candid.
There is strong agreement among all the Chiefs on the qualities they seek in their armed forces:
-- They seek armed forces of volunteers who are motivated by patriotism, well-educated, and technologically savvy;
-- They seek officers and soldiers continually educated and trained during their service, including schooling in the military educational systems of other countries;
-- They seek compact armed forces with modern equipment, rather than larger, but poorly equipped forces;
-- They seek armed forces removed from internal politics, responsive to authorized political control of their governments; and
-- They seek armed forces accountable for their actions to their people.
Not all armed forces in the region reach all these goals. There are many reasons. One is lack of central government funding. When they are not adequately funded for salaries, operating expenses, and modernization, armed forces turn to other sources of revenue. Some armed forces are involved in business. Some Army units are stationed in regional cities and perform regional government functions for pay. In many countries, officers supplement their very low salaries by running personal businesses, or taking cuts of government contracts. Individual soldiers, with pay inadequate to take care of their families, sell their weapons and ammunition and take payments for services rendered, or even extort them. All these practices are bad for the armed forces themselves, and for the countries they serve.
My recommendation to you parliamentarians is this:
-- Insist on professional conduct from your armed forces,
-- And at the same time, fund them properly.
If governments insist on accountability, and provide resources to match the size and mission of their armed forces, this favorable trend towards smaller professional armed forces in this region will continue.
A former justice on the US Supreme Court, Louis Brandeis, once wrote, "If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable."
Let me now turn to my second point, focusing on the primary military missions -- of protecting national sovereignty -- and self-defense.
At one time, nations thought that they could improve their prosperity through armed conquest. Thankfully, modern nations know that peace is much more effective than war in providing prosperity for their people. A robust capability for self-defense by all nations in the region is good for the region as a whole. Incentives for aggression are reduced, and peaceful resolution of disputes is encouraged. Unfortunately, not all abide by the principles contained in the Vancouver Declaration, which calls for -- "renunciation of the threat or use of force except in self-defense." There are two places in the Asia-Pacific region -- in which the threat of aggression plays a significant role.
North Korea retains its "military first" policy -- in spite of dire economic circumstances. In recent years, it has moved its forces forward, so they are more capable of a sudden attack against the Republic of Korea.
And China retains the threat of force if Taiwan does not meet certain conditions. It is deploying missiles and modernizing its armed forces with the stated purpose of intimidating Taiwan.
With these exceptions, however, military programs in most countries are primarily for self-defense. I do not see arms races in the region. The development of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan is a special case. Countries need to maintain a basic force structure for defending their sovereignty and interests. Equipment wears out, and replacement systems are more expensive. In general, force levels are going down in the region.
Protection of national sovereignty includes defeating separatist movements and insurgencies. The armed forces of this region realize that military means are not the entire solution to defeating insurgencies. They understand that military forces must be applied both with discrimination -- and under careful rules of engagement; and they must be held responsible for following those rules. In this region, the armed forces of the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Indonesia, India, and Nepal are dealing with significant separatist movements -- and other countries with lesser insurgent movements.
When I talk with the leaders of these armed forces, they tell me that their troops cannot stop insurgencies with military means alone. Governments must also provide just political arrangements, and economic assistance to impoverished regions.
These military leaders also understand there is no other form of military action more difficult at the tactical level than counter-insurgency. To be effective, it requires very disciplined, mature, well-trained troops, with good equipment. Unfortunately, some countries send poorly trained and equipped units to the field to fight rebel forces. The result too often is indiscriminate shooting by inexperienced troops, and has even included a complete loss of discipline by these units. Some have joined in the very violence they were sent to stop. My recommendation to you parliamentarians is to provide the political and economic components of policies, which deal with insurgencies. Also, ensure that your troops sent to deal with rebel forces are adequately trained, equipped and led -- and hold them responsible for their actions.
The third and last trend is increased multilateral cooperation among armed forces in the region.
Defense of the nation is the fundamental mission of all of our armed forces. However, if you ask the regions' Chiefs of Defense what are now their most pressing tasks, they would answer as follows:
-- My answer (as a US officer) would be: "Combating terrorism."
-- The Australian chief would add "Illegal immigration."
-- The Thai Chief would answer "Countering narcotics."
-- The Philippine Chief would reply -- "Stopping hostage-takers."
But what all these missions have in common is that their solution is beyond the resources and authority of any single country and its armed forces. These enemies draw on worldwide networks of support, and use international borders to their advantage. These foes can only be defeated by international cooperation. The Asia-Pacific region does not have well-developed arrangements for regional military cooperation. Yet, regional cooperation is the key to success against these threats to the security of all of our citizens.
The armed forces of the region have shown they can cooperate well together: In East Timor, Australian, Philippine, and Thai commanders have led a force that includes units from many regional armed forces, and others from outside the Asia-Pacific region. This force has successfully provided the security needed for East Timor to emerge as a new nation.
Many of the armed forces in the region also train for other UN peacekeeping operations, and participate in them regularly.
Cooperative efforts have also succeeded in other areas:
-- Many nations in Asia have come together to counter illegal drug trafficking.
-- Nations across the region are beginning to cooperate effectively against piracy, particularly the growing piracy around the Strait of Malacca.
-- The number of multilateral exercises on missions such as submarine rescue and maritime mine clearing -- grows each year.
However, all the military leaders in the region would tell you we have a long way to go. Our armed forces need the support of their governments to continue to work together in multinational operations.
Over the past several months, countering international terrorism has been our first priority in the US But the events of Sept. 11 also accelerated security cooperation among Asia-Pacific nations and their armed forces on many fronts.
We all realize that no government is safe from groups like al-Qaeda that use suicide attacks to kill as many innocent citizens as possible. We know that international cooperation is vital to long-term victory over international terrorism.
The coalition of Asia-Pacific nations that has come together to fight terrorism has been strong:
-- All nations in the region provided diplomatic support.
-- Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand, and many others offered and provided forces for operations in Afghanistan, for stronger defense at home, and for logistic and humanitarian support.
-- Many others provided access and overflight for US forces moving to South Asia and the Middle East.
Operations thus far have defeated al-Qaeda forces in Afghanistan and their Taliban protectors. The next phase of the campaign against international terrorism will be different.
There is no second Afghanistan here in our region. All our governments oppose international terrorism. However, we will need a sustained regional campaign -- as al-Qaeda looks for places to establish new cells, and training camps -- or other terrorist networks seek to expand in Asia and the Pacific. Our common goal is to destroy international terrorism and its support structure in our part of the world, and to ensure that outside groups do not move in and take root here. The unprecedented coordination among armed forces, intelligence, and law enforcement agencies has dramatically increased the number of terrorists hunted and arrested, and has put them on the run. Coordinated aggressive pursuit of terrorists and their support is the key to victory.
The needs for coordination are different with different countries:
-- With many countries, like Malaysia and Singapore, we emphasize sharing information, and their security forces track and arrest terrorists in their countries.
-- In Thailand, we are finding that our cooperation on countering drug trafficking translates directly into capability to combat terrorism.
-- In the Philippines, the US is offering more extensive training and support to make Philippine armed forces more capable of defending their sovereignty against internal threats with international terrorist links.
These nations and others in Southeast Asia are cooperating among themselves against terrorism.
The US is also looking for ways to improve effective cooperation with security forces in Bangladesh, India, Indonesia and Nepal. I am convinced that we will be successful.
We seek an Asia-Pacific region that solves its disputes peacefully as it improves the lives of its people. We seek a region that cooperates against terrorists, drug lords, international criminals, and natural disasters that threaten regional security and peaceful development.
Professional, competent, properly funded, and properly trained armed forces under political control of their governments can contribute a great deal towards a peaceful and prosperous Asia.
Admiral Dennis C. Blair is commander in chief of the US Pacific Command. This was his speech at the Asia-Pacific Parliamentary Forum in Hawaii on Jan. 8, 2002.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS