At a forum held on Oct. 20, National Security Council Secretary-General Chiou I-jen (
After reading media reports carefully, I believe that he didn't intend to say that the two parties involved are in tense opposition. Rather, from a "public policy" perspective, he reviewed fundamental reasons for the disorderly implementation of certain defense policies caused by poor communication and interaction.
The armed forces' passiveness towards the government's defense policies after the power transition is mainly a result of the following three problems:
-- The military's attitude is bureaucratic. Some creative ideas were rejected by the bureaucratic system because such reforms were comprehensive and might affect vested interests. For certain military officials who have a strong political stance of their own, their rejection was even stronger.
-- The ruling party has little experience with defense matters. The cultivation of military and defense talent must follow the military educational system, as military officials pursue further education and promotion step by step. The higher a person's official rank is, the better professional knowledge and experience the person has. As a result, he or she may easily disparage opinions proposed by the ruling DPP's young defense scholars.
Although the Ministry of National Defense (MND) has adopted an open attitude, the gap between the academic circles' defense theories and the military's defense operations still exists. Completely different opinions may be formed if there's no channel for interaction and communication. Their different opinions on whether the Marines should be dissolved serve as a good example.
-- Study by the military's defense think tanks on current defense policies is poor. In response to a policy or opinion -- proposed by the civil government -- military agencies in charge and think tanks must comprehensively and thoroughly study it, objectively evaluating its feasibility based on all kinds of factors so as to provide such references to our decision makers.
The military should thus strengthen its interaction with civil think tanks, especially the ruling party's policy-making bodies, and it should generously exchange unclassified reports with these organizations.
Next, the military should cultivate its officials with correct concepts regarding government-military exchanges so that soldiers will act in accordance with the law without interference from political parties or their political stances.
Last, the MND should open its current strategic education to scholars from civil think tanks. On the one hand, these civil scholars can have knowledge on traditional military strategies. On the other hand, military officials can learn about these civil scholars' perspectives and therefore narrow the gap between the military and the public.
Government-military interaction is a dynamic relationship. It varies due to both the nature of individual cases and the attitude of the parties involved. If the interaction is full of goodwill, the tension caused by insufficient interaction will be easily dissolved.
Shen Ming-shih is a research fellow of the Taiwan Strategy Research Association.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) has long been a cornerstone of US foreign policy, advancing not only humanitarian aid but also the US’ strategic interests worldwide. The abrupt dismantling of USAID under US President Donald Trump ‘s administration represents a profound miscalculation with dire consequences for global influence, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. By withdrawing USAID’s presence, Washington is creating a vacuum that China is eager to fill, a shift that will directly weaken Taiwan’s international position while emboldening Beijing’s efforts to isolate Taipei. USAID has been a crucial player in countering China’s global expansion, particularly in regions where
With the manipulations of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), it is no surprise that this year’s budget plan would make government operations difficult. The KMT and the TPP passing malicious legislation in the past year has caused public ire to accumulate, with the pressure about to erupt like a volcano. Civic groups have successively backed recall petition drives and public consensus has reached a fever-pitch, with no let up during the long Lunar New Year holiday. The ire has even breached the mindsets of former staunch KMT and TPP supporters. Most Taiwanese have vowed to use
Despite the steady modernization of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the international community is skeptical of its warfare capabilities. Late last month, US think tank RAND Corp published two reports revealing the PLA’s two greatest hurdles: personnel challenges and structural difficulties. The first RAND report, by Jennie W. Wenger, titled Factors Shaping the Future of China’s Military, analyzes the PLA’s obstacles with recruitment, stating that China has long been committed to attracting young talent from top universities to augment the PLA’s modernization needs. However, the plan has two major constraints: demographic changes and the adaptability of the PLA’s military culture.
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously