The appointment of Wellington Koo (顧立雄) as minister of national defense, only the third civilian to hold the role since 2002, shows positive intent from President William Lai’s (賴清德) administration to make significant reforms in the Ministry of Defense, which has long resisted much-needed reforms.
The military has not kept up with the times and is wedded to outdated concepts based on untenable assumptions about modern warfare. The isolated military — an organization which has not been tested or forced to reform for many decades — has failed to learn from other nations facing similar difficult odds to defend themselves, such as Finland, Israel, Lithuania and Estonia.
Left to its own devices, the military has fostered a culture which disincentivizes risk-taking among soldiers, who are also afraid to pass bad information up the chain of command, where senior officers micromanage and training is highly scripted. The result is a top-down military structure unsuited to modern warfare, and a military which is plagued by corruption and charges of spying. This has sapped the morale of personnel and fostered a deep lack of confidence in the military’s ability to keep Taiwanese safe.
It is a sign of the deep disconnect between society and the military. Polling shows that Taiwanese are very willing to defend their nation if attacked — 77 percent, the World Values Survey in 2022 showed — but the military is still struggling to meet its recruitment quotas.
There are many reasons. Many military-aged Taiwanese believe joining the military would be a waste of time, even as part-time reservists, with reports of recruits spending more time sitting through lectures and doing yard work than learning military skills. Moreover, military service does not confer the same social status as in other nations facing similar threats, such as Finland and Estonia.
Nonetheless, the emergence of grassroots civil defense programs, such as the Kuma Academy and the Forward Alliance, shows that when Taiwanese are given a proper outlet to play a role in their nation’s defense, they seize it.
These organizations are based on the theory that integrating civil and national defense into a whole-of-society approach is the best way to enhance national resilience. It is a sign of the ministry’s disconnect that it has resisted the establishment of any such system, despite the clear enthusiasm from civil society and calls for such a system from international experts.
It is highly unlikely that Koo could implement a whole-of-society system, even in the long term. However, such an approach — in which the whole nation plays a role in defense — would be the best route to securing the nation’s safety, as it would confirm to Beijing that a quick victory would be impossible, making a strong contribution to deterrence. It would also make use of the grassroots enthusiasm, especially from young people, to play a role in defending their nation.
In light of this, Lai should seriously consider Forward Alliance founder Enoch Wu’s (吳怡農) call to nationalize his civil defense organization, by formalizing it and providing it with proper state funding, transitioning it into a territorial defense corps similar to local defenses in other nations, such as the Estonian Defense League.
It should be established under the Ministry of the Interior, bypassing the resistant defense ministry. It would also allow Koo to focus on his priority of training and concept reform.
Such a bold reform would show the nation’s allies that Taiwan is serious about its defense and would make use of the as yet untapped enthusiasm from Taiwanese who want to help, but do not trust the defense ministry to put their time to good use.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS