The philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” I very much hope this is the fate of British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s idea of compulsory national service for school-leavers.
Sunak’s first big announcement of the election campaign was that a re-elected Conservative government would oblige all 18-year-olds to take part in a form of national service. This would come in two forms: A minority would serve full time in the military for a year, while the majority would be expected to do voluntary work for one weekend every month for non-military organizations such as the fire service, police, National Health Service or charities.
Enter the predictable ridicule.
Illustration: Constance Chou
The idea was a “teenage dad’s army,” Labour leader Keir Starmer said.
The X mob said the Tories were pandering to the Colonel Blimp brigade, engaging in geriatric nostalgia, scapegoating the young, engaging in social engineering, playing politics with national defense and launching a ￡2.5 billion (US$3.2 billion) initiative without working out the details.
There is a striking imbalance, for example, between serving in the military full time for a year and volunteering for just one weekend a month.
There is no clarity about what sanctions people would face if they do not turn up (British Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs James Cleverly said no one would go to jail for refusing to participate), or how national service would affect the now sacred British tradition of the gap year.
Fleet Street went to town on the fact that Minister of State for Veterans’ Affairs Johnny Mercer, himself a former soldier, dismissed the idea just four days before Sunak’s announcement, on the grounds that “being in the military is very different now.”
There are signs that ridicule would harden into sustained opposition, in the unlikely event that the Tories win the coming election. Senior military figures vented their longstanding hostility to conscription.
Admiral Alan West, a former First Sea Lord, proclaimed that the idea is “basically bonkers.”
Richard Dannatt, a former Chief of the General Staff, went with “electoral opportunism.”
There are certainly legitimate objections to the Conservatives’ big idea — from lack of detail about what it would cost and how it would be paid for, to failure to prepare the public for their new thinking.
The Conservatives also foolishly reinforced the impression that they are pandering to older voters by then announcing that they are upgrading the triple lock on pensions to a quadruple lock.
However, none of these criticisms is dispositive. The fact that the Tories are embracing a new policy after 14 years in power is a sign they are continuing to think.
I would have plenty to say about Sunak’s failures as a campaigner in the next day or so. However, his idea for national conscription is an exception to what has otherwise been a mess — it needs to be subjected to serious debate rather than asinine ridicule. He has recognized that we live in a very different world from the one we inhabited after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Today, Russian troops are rampaging through Ukraine; Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) are pledging eternal friendship; Iran’s proxies are stirring up trouble across the Middle East; and British allies in Nordic countries, France and the Baltic have either reintroduced some form of national service or are thinking of doing so.
The strongest argument in favor of national service is that it would engineer a change in public attitude toward military risk.
The public has not yet woken up to the full extent of the danger from the autocratic powers: People still regard the war in Ukraine as a humanitarian catastrophe rather than a strategic risk and China’s sabre rattling as noises off the stage. National service would act as a cold shower for people who have been wallowing in the warm bath of the peace dividend long since it has run out.
We can no longer afford to contract out warfare to a professional cadre of soldiers while leaving the population at large to go about their business in blissful ignorance. Even the restricted military service that Sunak envisages would help to create a reservoir of skills in the population that can be called on in future conflicts.
In Switzerland and Norway, the 18-year-olds who serve become a trained reserve that can be used to expand the professional army when needed.
The Conservatives are frustratingly vague about the relationship between volunteering and military service. However, even people who do not go down the army route could be given instruction in the dangers of information war and cyber threats. National service might also help the UK address three other pressing problems.
One is the mental and physical health crisis among the young. Fully one in eight 16-to-24-year-olds say they are suffering from long-term health problems — and the growth of health problems in this group is worse than any other group within the working age population. This is largely driven by mental health issues — often associated with loneliness, alienation and screen addiction — although rising levels of obesity among the young also play a part. Hardcore military service would obviously be good for physical fitness, but even volunteering would help to reconnect young people to the wider society.
Contrary to Labour’s insistence that national service represents a conspiracy of the old against the young, a survey by the think tank Onward, laying out the case for national service, found that two-thirds (66 percent) of those aged 18 to 34 wanted to help out locally.
The second problem is social fragmentation. The UK is increasingly a class-bound society in which privileged young Britons only meet their less-privileged contemporaries when they receive their Amazon parcels or decaf lattes. The higher-education system only reinforces such social division. National service would force people from different backgrounds to engage in a common experience directed at a shared aim: defending the country from anti-democratic enemies.
The third is opportunity. The UK’s last great attempt to improve upward mobility, by expanding higher education, was only a partial success, in part because middle-class girls did so much better than working-class boys. Military service could create a new avenue of upward mobility that might appeal to people who demonstrate practical skills and team leadership more than academic virtues.
Here Sweden’s example is both instructive and encouraging. Only people who can pass rigorous mental and physical tests are allowed to choose the military rather than the civic option in Sweden’s compulsory national service. They are then trained in warfare and leadership for 15 months and enrolled in Sweden’s reserves for another 10 years. Sweden’s annual armed service recruitment rate now tops the US’, and the products of the enlistment system are routinely showered with job offers.
Election campaigns being what they are, we can expect nothing but ridicule from the Labour Party on Sunak’s grand idea. However, for how much longer?
David Lammy, the Labour Party’s Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs and one of the party’s biggest beasts, has vigorously advocated “a form of compulsory national service,” although of an exclusively civil variety. Even if Sunak is not around to implement his big idea, it would eventually become self-evident.
Adrian Wooldridge is the global business columnist for Bloomberg Opinion. He is a former writer at the Economist, and author of The Aristocracy of Talent: How Meritocracy Made the Modern World.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS