The Ministry of National Defense on Tuesday announced that the military would hold its annual Han Kuang exercises from July 22 to 26. Military officers said the exercises would feature unscripted war games, and a decentralized command and control structure. This year’s exercises underline the recent reforms in Taiwan’s military as it transitions from a top-down command structure to one where autonomy is pushed down to the front lines to improve decisionmaking and adaptability.
Militaries around the world have been observing and studying Russia’s war in Ukraine. They have seen that the Ukrainian military has been much quicker to adapt to changing circumstances than the Russian military. Experts say this is largely due to the NATO-style reforms Ukraine implemented after Russia’s invasion in 2014. The reforms transitioned the force away from its Soviet roots of slow and rigid top-down command, which still characterizes the Russian military, to one in which Ukrainian troops have more autonomy to use their initiative to make tactical decisions in the thick of battle.
Military cultures reflect the societies from which they emerge. Autocratic political systems create militaries that are hostile to open communication, autonomy and delegation. Democracies create militaries in which decisionmaking can be decentralized and officers have the freedom to adapt to circumstances.
Taiwan is a democracy, but it has been slow to implement NATO-style military reforms. With its top-heavy command structure and numerous top generals, the military looks closer to the Soviet-style Russian military than a Ukrainian or NATO military.
On one level, this is not entirely surprising. Taiwan’s military traces its founding to the Whampoa Military Academy in China’s Guangdong Province, which was set up by Soviet officers and with Soviet money. Vasily Blyukher, a Soviet commander, was its chief adviser.
Silverado Policy Accelerator founder Dmitri Alperovitch, author of World on the Brink: How America Can Beat China in the Race for the 21st Century, says it is unsurprising that Taiwan’s military is wedded to outdated ideas about force structure and strategy. The US cut Taiwan’s military off when it established diplomatic relations with China. The result is that for nearly four decades the nation’s military has been unable to learn best practices from NATO-standard militaries. It is hardly surprising that it has not adapted, although that is changing.
Adapting the military into a command and control structure able to fight modern wars requires a cultural change, which can be helped by increased democratic oversight and accountability to civilian command. This is why President William Lai (賴清德) appointed Wellington Koo (顧立雄), a civilian, as minister of national defense. Koo has not been socialized in an outdated system wedded to old concepts.
Former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) made great strides toward changing society’s relationship with the military and building trust in an institution that has long been associated with the authoritarian period. She went out of her way to visit military bases, dress in camouflage and be photographed holding weapons. She also helped build the military’s trust in and respect for civilian, Democratic Progressive Party leadership.
Lai wants to go further and change the military culture, especially the defeatist mentality among conservative generals that Taiwan cannot resist China.
“In history, there are many cases where the few win out over the many, and there are countless ways to win over old-fashioned enemies with new thinking,” he told air force officers at an air base in Taichung on Tuesday.
It will take time to change the military culture, but the direction being taken is positive.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS