The Whole-of-Society Defense Resilience Committee, which is to hold its first meeting on Thursday, marks an important step in developing the national conversation about enhancing the nation’s resilience and constructing a more informed defense policy in the face of increasing threats in a more dangerous world.
Established by President William Lai (賴清德) in June, the committee is good politics in that it bypasses the conservative Ministry of National of Defense, which has consistently resisted any attempts to reform national defense into a whole-of-society approach.
The committee also brings the concept of whole-of-society defense directly into the national discourse legitimized and backed by the authority of the Presidential Office.
This is important because members of the pan-blue camp have denigrated and chastised attempts by civil society groups, such as the civil defense organizations Kuma Academy and Forward Alliance, to build societal resilience. They say building a national mentality of resistance and resilience is scaremongering and erroneously hypes China as a threat.
However, Lai setting up the committee is not just good politics, as the whole-of-society concept itself helps build toward the new force structure and operational concepts envisioned by former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) in her televised address to the nation on Dec. 27, 2022.
While Tsai’s announcement that she would increase military conscription from four months to one year garnered most of the headlines, more significant was the blueprint she laid out for how the military should reorganize itself to defend against contingencies, one which envisions civil defense playing a larger and more critical role.
Tsai’s reform blueprint is anchored on four mutually reinforcing elements: a main battle force, a standing garrison force, a civil defense system and a reserve force.
While her blueprint envisions the main battle force being responsible for frontline defense — air, land and sea — the garrison force would defend critical infrastructure such as bridges, hospitals and airfields, while the civil defense system would support both forces by helping to coordinate disaster response, distribute essential supplies, oversee public safety and conduct emergency repairs. The reserve force would be organized into units, streamlined and fed into the main battle and garrison forces.
Augmenting the military’s disaster response and defense capabilities through civil defense units makes sense in light of the challenges the military faces in reaching its recruitment quota after the transition to a “volunteer military.” It was expected that the military would easily reach its recruitment targets after transitioning, but this has been far from the case.
The Ministry of National Defense envisions an active-duty force of 175,000 personnel, but last year it was reported that it had just 155,218 volunteers in active service. Some frontline units are also reported to be at just 60 percent of their authorized strength.
With a whole-of-society reform, civil society can take some of the pressure off the frontline troops by taking up more responsibility at the rear, such as by coordinating disaster relief, so the main battle force can focus on frontline defense.
This makes sense in light of military recruitment challenges, but also makes use of Taiwan’s considerable human capital in areas such as cybersecurity, healthcare and logistics.
The committee is an advisory body to the president and has no decisionmaking authority, but by bringing together representatives from government, the military, police, fire fighters and civil defense organizations, its establishment is a significant and positive step in furthering the national conversation about national defense, and in constructing better and more informed policy to enhance national resilience.
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
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS