When it comes to intelligence matters, the past month has not been a good one for the defense establishment, with at least two instances (that we know) of military intelligence being leaked. From shredded documents obtained by the media to Navy officers copying classified material for access on insecure systems at home, the ramifications of such shoddy handling of secrets are manifold.
The most obvious consequence of these leaks is that it increases the chances that the enemy will get its hands on the material and thereby gain a military advantage. Minutes of meetings, orders of battle and contracts with foreign militaries -- all, if they end up in the wrong hands, can be detrimental to the security of a nation. They facilitate treason and can also subject individuals to blackmail.
A second area that can suffer from security lapses is ties with allied militaries. If a nation cannot be trusted with secrets, its allies will be hesitant to pass on classified material for fear it will be accessed by the wrong people. Alliances are based on trust and sometimes classification isn't only a product of what is told or shown in a document but rather of the sharing itself not being for public consumption. In other words, sometimes allies do not want the rest of the world to know that an alliance exists.
If leaks occur on a frequent basis and a nation's allies do not perceive that the problem is being addressed, chances are the latter will consider ending cooperation on intelligence and perhaps even on the sale of advanced weapons that, if mishandled, could result in technology transfer.
Leaks can also jeopardize sources -- electronic and human -- as well as collection methods and obviate years of efforts, an outcome that is all the more serious when the product comes from a foreign agency that does not want its expenditures in time and money to go down the drain as a result of irresponsible handling by an ally.
Lastly, news of intelligence leaks undermine public confidence in the state's ability to defend itself, giving rise to fears of institutional ineptitude or, perhaps worse, that the authorities simply do not take their responsibilities seriously. It can also give the enemy a psychological advantage, if not prompt it to act on the assumed weakness of its opponent. All in all, this is not the image the defense establishment wants to project.
Minister of National Defense Lee Tien-yu (
In many countries, even recruits caught taking home mock classified documents used for training purposes are not given a second chance -- they are fired on the spot. Leaks, willful or otherwise, are a career-ender. They don't result in transfer from one department to another, or in mere reprimand.
How defense and intelligence apparatuses handle classified material has very little to do with secure computer systems, firewalls and shredders. Dependable agencies have in place institutional ethics that make leaks exceptional events warranting serious action, not an almost routine occurrence that make onlookers shake their heads and wait for the next one to happen.
Heads must roll, Mr. Lee. Plug the hole.
Palauan President Surangel Whipps Jr in a letter to an unnamed US senator on Feb. 9 said that China has offered to “fill every hotel room,” in Palau, “and more if more are built” if the small island nation were to break ties with Taiwan. The letter further claims that China offered US$20 million per year for the creation of a “call center” in Palau, a nation whose economy relies heavily on tourism. It is more evidence that for China, tourism is an economic tool for its political gain. Cleo Paskal, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, posted
When Beijing says “Taiwan has always been an inalienable part of China” and calls this “an indisputable legal and historical fact,” it promotes a claim that has absolutely no basis in international law or history. But by aggressively stating that claim time and again over the years, it has made many in the world believe that fiction, especially when the dominant Western media outlets are reluctant to challenge the Chinese narrative. Indeed, some international publications now use the phrase “reunify” without quotation marks while referring to Beijing’s Taiwan goal. The truth is that Taiwan, for most of its history, had no relationship
At a gathering held by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Chinese State Council during this year’s Spring Festival, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) reviewed the achievements of the past year. “Good scenery on this side only” (風景這邊獨好), he said about the global situation. The phrase comes from late Chinese leader Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) poem Qing Ping Le (清平樂), written when he lost power in 1934. It was full of the “Ah-Q” (阿Ｑ) spirit of self-deception. Did Xi not know about this history, or was it a trap laid by his aides? Originally, the Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central
Amid the intensifying Sino-US strategic rivalry, Beijing has become more vocal about its coercive “wolf warrior” diplomacy. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) condemned the US-led “containment, encirclement and suppression of China” at last year’s annual National People’s Congress in Beijing. Xi went on to say that China must “have the courage to fight” in the face of complicated changes at home and abroad. Taiwan is still a very sensitive subject for US-China relations. Chinese Central Foreign Affairs Commission Director Wang Yi (王毅) emphasized that Taiwan was “China’s internal affair” and reiterated that “Taiwan is part of China” during his talk last month with