The Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC), introduced by the Ministry of National Defense, recently received much criticism on the letters pages of local newspapers.
Some readers wrote that the ROTC should be abolished, saying that the overall training environment and hours of ROTC officers are inferior to those of regular officers from public military academies, making it difficult for the training corps graduates to adapt to being in the military or to be promoted.
Other readers wrote that by following the example of the Nanya Institute of Technology — which in 2018 founded the country’s only ROTC military academy in Taoyuan — a private military academy should also be established by a college in northern, central, southern and eastern Taiwan.
I am glad that the public is concerned about national defense and that many are willing to discuss the pros and cons of the ROTC. I have also met or worked with many ROTC officers in the military, so I would like to share some thoughts.
First, ROTC officers can contribute to reform and innovation in the military’s organizational culture. Given that such officers study, live and receive military training at a private college, their approaches and perspectives are often different from those of students who live 24 hours a day under centralized management at regular military academies. This certainly affects military leadership and organizational practice.
ROTC officers can help make adjustments to the conservative and stereotypical practices that are projected by the military’s regulations and orders. ROTC cadres and troops are willing to change gradually while breaking rigid command styles and stern management.
The inclusion of ROTC graduates has the potential to reform the military organizational culture and enhance its efficiency. It cannot be done overnight, but is a work in progress.
Next, high-ranking officials must stop perceiving officers from regular military academies as having more legitimacy than ROTC graduates. There is no difference between them in quality or so-called legitimacy. The key lies in their personal characteristics as well as willingness to give their best to the military.
Those who are willing to contribute can “learn by doing, do by learning,” and ability becomes strong as experience is accumulated in command coordination, leadership, management and administrative integration.
This is certainly not something that can only be achieved by officers from regular military academies. Officers from past special programs and the junior college of the ROTC Military Academy, professional officers, specialty officers, reserve officers and even ROTC officers can also do the job and do it well. The military must first reach such a consensus.
It can be seen from the background of students at the National Defense University’s (NDU) War College or Army, Naval and Air Force Command and Staff Colleges, which are responsible for military officers’ advanced education, that all students who meet the requirements for admission are above standard and with great experience.
When I was teaching at NDU, my students included middle and high-ranking cadres from several officer training systems. Even some of Taiwan’s general officers have risen from alternative officer training systems.
Irrespective of a person’s position or origin, as long as they are committed wholeheartedly to the nation, have an aptitude for the military, and are always willing to learn, they are sure to rise to prominence in the military.
Chang Ling-ling is a retired colonel in the armed forces reserves.
Translated by Eddy Chang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS