Adopt 'soft' strategies for security on Aug 20, 2004

Adopt 'soft' strategies for security

By Li Hua-chiu

In his nomination acceptance speech at the National Democratic Convention, US Senator John Kerry emphasized that he would only go to war if faced with "a threat that was real and imminent." He said he "will be a commander-in-chief who will never mislead us into war" and that "the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to." I believe that Kerry's words prove that military thinking and military ethics are intricately linked with the stability of national security and the strategic situation.

The book Military Ethics published by the US's National Defense University pointed out that the American Catholic Bishop's Pastoral, in their discussion of the 1983 made-for-television film Day After Tomorrow indicated that many American people were concerned about issues related to the ethics of armed conflict.

In the aftermath of the recent military exercises by China, Taiwan and the US, it is important that we raise the issue of the ethics of conflict. We should also consider preventive defense, which consists of "softer" strategic options and provides a basis for reducing military tensions, by dispelling the increasingly dense atmosphere of imminent conflict to avoid an unintended conflagration.

Military Ethics emphasizes the deep strategic thinking behind the idea that soldiers who hold a position and await orders are also making a contribution. It expounds the value of a strong defensive stance and preventive action. It goes on to point out that the reason that the military exists is to protect the nation and prevent it from becoming a victim of the threats of its enemies.

We can see from its arguments that the US National Defense University sees the job of the military as guaranteeing peaceful development and stability. It proposes the idea that peace stems from restraint. Restraint is a form of endurance and self-discipline, but it is usually regarded as being "soft." In the past, soldiers have created an impression of fierceness and strength, but what we want to emphasize now is a restraint that serves people rather than brings them into conflict.

Military Ethics also points out that the reason the military is given the absolute right to use major weapons by society is because it can only use this force under conditions of the greatest restraint, and that the use of force must be preceded by the correct procedures and oversight. "Peace" is therefore a precondition for "using military force," which should only be used to give a guarantee of peace.

Peace and military action support each other. For without a foundation of peace, any conflict can bring on terrible dangers which will extend into the future. The results of the second Iraq war gives us a clear indication of what can happen without such a foundation.

It is better to avoid conflict than to seek it. Lightly starting a conflict is something that strategists have always sought to avoid, as they know it is unwise and likely to have bad results. Former US secretary of defense William Perry is a proponent of "preventive defense," which he regards as being analogous to preventive medicine. Preventive medicine supports health and preempts dangerous developments. Preventive defense seeks out defensive opportunities prior to any threat to US national security maturing, and maintaining the security of the US by avoiding crisis situations.

Taiwan is a small country with a large population and it has few strategic options. The government should inculcate the idea that "prevention is better than cure," and it should create space to maneuver by showing goodwill to all, establishing the idea of "seeking battle only after the victory has been won" and keeping the conflict outside the country. In this way it can achieve the strategic goals of prevention and restraint.

The nation's geographical location and conditions means that it has a certain strategic value and importance. In the face of the constantly changing international situation and the tricky nature of cross-strait relations, we should use preventive defense to peacefully resolve problems in their early stages, making use of "soft" national security strategies to open up international maneuverability and avoid any crisis that might give rise to conflict. This is the proper way to proceed.

In this age of advanced technology and information, military ethics and preventive defense are not rarified concepts which few can follow, nor do they ignore the current international scene. Their main purpose is to emphasize the importance of soft strategies of peace, ethics, restraint and prevention.

This can serve as a platform to achieve the ancient human ideals of ending war. And it is something to contemplate for China, the US and Taiwan -- who in their recent military exercises have been intent on confrontation and competition.

Li Hua-chiu is a part-time researcher with the National Policy Foundation.

Depoliticize transport links issue

By ChangWu-ueh

Among all cross-strait issues, the issue of direct transportation is the most controversial and slowest-moving. Yet it is also what the public cares about most. Upon joining the Institute for National Policy Research in 1989, the first project I dealt with concerned direct cross-strait links. Over the past 15 years, I have hosted several initiatives at the Mainland Affairs Council and the Taiwan Electrical and Electronic Manufacturers' Association. I also exchanged opinions with the relevant Chinese authorities. Direct cross-strait transportation, however, has yet to materialize.

Governments and people on both sides have wished for direct cross-strait transportation for many years. The sluggish progress results from suspicion and buck-passing on both sides. With no foundation for mutual trust at the current stage, it is difficult to initiate cross-strait talks on highly political issues.

Political dialogues or talks about mutual military trust are unlikely. Talks on issues of a low-level political nature, however, do not help the present situation and may even fall victim to the discrepant political views of both sides.

In addition to creating an atmosphere of goodwill, pushing forward negotiations on direct transportation could serve as a touchstone for improving cross-strait relations. Direct transportation is hardly a simple economic issue. It involves complicated political and national security concerns.

In dealing with the issue, we first encounter two principle challenges: how to position the cross-strait transport routes and what can serve as a negotiation mechanism.

Positioning the direct cross-strait transport routes can be either thorny or easy. If Beijing constantly stresses its "one China" premise and views the cross-strait transport routes as a domestic affair, or attempts to advance a similar political agenda during talks, it will be difficult to get Taiwan to sit down at the negotiating table or sign any agreements.

However, if Beijing does not attempt to embody or implement its "one China" policy, but only prevents Taiwan from declaring one country on each side of the Strait or making the cross-strait transport routes international ones, then cross-strait talks will be likely to proceed.

Similarly, if Taiwan uses the "one country on each side" of the Strait model as the premise for negotiations or attempts to use the talks to embody a political objective, it will be extremely difficult to get Beijing to sit down at the negotiation table and sign agreements. However, if Taiwan aims at preventing the cross-strait transport routes from becoming China's "internal" routes, it will be easy to make the direct transportation talks happen.

Since government authorization is indispensable to flight talks, we need still to ask what may serve as the negotiation mechanism. There is actually common ground between what President Chen Shui-bian and China's Vice Premier Qian Qichen have said. They've both said the negotiation mechanism has to be equal, pragmatic and does not have to be between governments or between Taiwan's Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) and China's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait.

As a matter of fact, Taiwan seldom takes part in flight negotiations under government auspices. The two most frequently used representatives for flight negotiations are the Taipei Association of Civil Aviation and the airlines themselves. Not even the title of the SEF was used in the flight negotiations with Hong Kong after 1997.

A double authorization mechanism -- allowing the SEF to further authorize another entity to delegate negotiations -- was introduced in last year's amendment to the Statute Governing the Relations Between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area. The purpose of such a legal change is to ensure a flexible mechanism for future negotiations between Taiwan and China.

Direct cross-strait links are important to the division of labor in industries as well as businesses' global deployment. They also affect whether China and Taiwan will be able to better share resources, thus complementing each other in the globalization trend. And they will have an immediate positive impact on cross-strait peace and development.

While China aims to use direct cross-strait links to achieve unification, Taiwan wants to strengthen itself, using its superior competitiveness as support for its political security. Once direct links are in place, will Taiwan be forced to unify with China? Or will it grow strong enough to have its own way? The answer is determined by the country's strength and competitiveness, not by the unilateral wishes of the government on either side.

In the face of delays in initiating direct links, both sides pass the buck to the other. If Beijing does not return to Qian's stance to position the cross-strait flights and separate the issue from the "one China" policy, then China will have to shoulder the blame for an impasse. But if Taiwan does not activate the double authorization mechanism now that the statute has been amended and the SEF restructured, then Taiwan is to blame.

The more political implications can be detached from the issue of direct cross-strait transportation, the easier it will be to start negotiations.

Chang Wu-ueh is an associate professor at the Institute of China Studies at Tamkang University.