If the road to hell is paved with good intentions, then the government has finally found an infrastructure project that it can complete on schedule.
When a letter written by an anonymous "group" of military personnel was sent to the Ministry of National Defense (MND) complaining about pan-blue opposition to the arms procurement package, the military responded -- at first -- by saying it was neutral and would not comment on political matters.
This was the correct response. However, later comments made by the MND and the remarks of President Chen Shui-bian (
"I clearly understand the frustration of lower-level soldiers, who cannot agree with the irrational opposition from legislators who have boycotted the arms procurement package 43 times," Chen said.
He is wrong to encourage this partisan display.
Since coming to power in 2000, one of Chen's worthiest accomplishments has been progress in de-politicizing and "nationalizing" the military. Unfortunately for Chen, this is not something that lends itself well to rhetoric. It is difficult to explain to people how a non-partisan military affects their daily lives.
But one does not have to be a political science expert to believe that these efforts have already paid dividends. A politicized military would not have kept its mouth shut during the difficult period after last year's disputed presidential election. But the MND behaved admirably at a time when fanatics on both sides of the political spectrum were trying to drag it into the fray. The military did what it was supposed to do: Stay neutral and let democratic processes take their course.
But as difficulties beset the Chen administration, the pan-green camp stands in real danger of adopting the tactics used by its erstwhile enemies.
As Taiwan struggles to shape a workable democratic system out of the remains of a one-party state, its leaders are often tempted to use the mechanisms of authoritarianism -- vestiges of which remain at the government's disposal.
The problem is that this would be shortsighted and self-defeating. Although the pan-blue camp has gone to unreasonable lengths to block the arms procurement package, that is no reason for the pan-greens to abandon reason as they try to provide for Taiwan's defense.
Military personnel, of course, are also private citizens and are entitled to their political views. But they are under no circumstances entitled to "stand behind their uniforms" when presenting their politics.
The military personnel that sent the letter should be punished, for they have forsaken one of their most sacred duties. They have forgotten that they have sworn an oath not to a political party or a segment of society, but to their country. This country is a democracy; within it are people who embrace a host of differing views. As a member of the armed services, one has an obligation to defend all of them.
On the MND Web site's home page is a statement of the military's policy: "The Ministry of National Defense maintains an unwavering neutral stance in keeping with the policy of nationalization of the military."
But the same statement then continues: "At this time, the MND would like to reiterate its position on the national defense procurement legislation ..."
It is hypocritical to declare one's neutrality while simultaneously outlining a policy stance.
Certainly the government has made a strong case as to why the arms package is necessary. But how can any weapons system be worth the price of undermining civilian control of an impartial military?
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —