Military development on Nov 14,2004

Military development direction clear

INDICATIONS: Chen Shui-bian's comments to the National Security Council on Wednesday show how he wants the military to develop in his second term
By Lin Chieh-yu  STAFF REPORTER 

Of the 10 points raised by President Chen Shui-bian at the National Security Council (NSC) meeting on Wednesday, two of them concerned weapons purchases, giving insight into the direction Chen intends to take with regard to both military reform and national strategic planning.

Former president Lee Teng-hui tried for a long time to change Taiwan's military strategy and the armed forces structure that supported it from repelling a ground offensive to an air and sea-based strategy intended to keep the enemy away from Taiwan's shores.

Although both the government and the opposition parties reached consensus on this, the actual implementation has met with obstacles and interference, especially from officers who still believe that Taiwan should keep a large land army for the long-discredited and abandoned purpose of reconquering China.

"Up to now the military still likes to procrastinate. It likes to dodge pressure from the legislature and the government," said World United Formosans for Independence Chairman Ng Chiau-tong.

"From now on trimming really does mean the actual reduction in the number of serving soldiers, especially officers."

Su Chin-chiang, an NSC senior advisor

Ng said that when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was the opposition party, it always advocated reduction of the size of the armed forces and in particular the army.

But when Chen took power in 2000, he had to spend more time and effort on personnel issues than the military structure. Inheriting armed forces that often saw themselves as simply a tool of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), Chen had to spend time selecting and promoting an officer corps that was more in line with his own vision of a professional, non-political military dedicated to the defense of Taiwan.

Only when this was complete was he free to start on questions of force structure.

Former NSC deputy secretary-general Antonio Chiang said: "the Chen administration in its first term met enormous oppositions, even rows, whenever there was any personnel reshuffle in central government or state-operated businesses. But in the promotion of military officers, it was always quite smooth. The key to this was the deputy secretary-general of the NSC, Ko Cheng-heng.

Chiang says that even in former president Lee had to go through six years of very careful personnel planning in order to gain control of the military, and thereby actualize his national defense goals. When Chen assumed office in 2000, there was an air of instability among the middle-ranking military officers.

Chen sought to prioritize stability, emphasize both principles of morality and professionalism, and slow down personnel reshuffling. This was a fundamental step in military reform, Chiang said.

Military specialist and former NSC senior advisor Su Chin-chiang said that for Chen now the priority is reducing the armed forces' size by 100,000 by 2008.

This means that Chen is determined to reduce the size of the army to 250,000 before the end of his term. This is a far greater speed of reduction than was anticipated and is taken as a sign of determination to have a smaller but better quality military.

"The organization of the military in the last few years has been through various phases of trimming and streamlining. But in fact only positions left empty or unfilled were really removed. From now on trimming really does mean the actual reduction in the number of serving soldiers, especially officers. Combined with reducing the term of compulsory military service to one year, the goal of trimming 100,000 military positions can definitely be reached," Su said.

"The key is President Chen's determination," Su said.

Chen also said at the NSC meeting that the government is willing to publicly promise not to develop weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear or biological weapons.

Powell had it backwards

By James Walsh

Richard Hartzell asks when the Republic of China (ROC) in Taiwan first became a sovereign nation (Letters, Nov. 8, page 8). I write to answer his question. Hartzell notes that, at one time, Taiwan's sovereignty was held by Japan. How did that happen? Well, the Empire of China gave Taiwan and its people to the Emperor of Japan. And who gave the Emperor of China the right to do so?

It was done under the "traditional model of sovereignty in which the king or ruler had the right to power" through his or her descent from a dynasty blessed by God.

It has been said that "In these systems of power based on the blessing of God, state authority was not vested in the people, but sanctified for reasons of background, tradition or religious beliefs, carried by mythical powers and structured in such a way as to deny access for citizens."

(For further discussion of this concept see: http://www.dadalos.org/int/Demokratie/Demokratie/Grundkurs3/wahlen/souveraenitaet.htm.)

However, "Every democratic constitution contains different wording to the effect that all state power is vested in the people and exercised by them. Therefore, state power is only legitimate when it is carried by the free will and with the agreement of the people. The principle of people's sovereignty replaced the traditional model."

In the 21st century, it is long past the time when "sovereignty" can be said to have been granted to kings by gods. The only genuinely sovereign government is one which has the freely-given consent of its people.

And the sovereign people of Taiwan granted legitimacy to the ROC government when the democratic reform of the government was completed by the direct election of Lee Teng-hui as the ROC's first democratically elected president. Thereafter, the ROC was the sovereign and legitimate government of Taiwan.

In short, sovereignty rests in people, not kings or gods, and the Republic of China in Taiwan became sovereign when it obtained the consent of the Taiwanese people in free and fair elections.

And, by the way, what does this say about the Chinese Communist Party-controlled government of the People's Republic of China (PRC)?

Well, obviously, it is an illegitimate government based on the oppression of its people.

In other words, US Secretary of State Powell had it backwards: it is the PRC which lacks legitimacy and sovereignty, not the ROC.

Editorial: Sub incident shows China's stripes

After days of speculation and a chase by Japanese destroyers and a surveillance plane, it has finally been determined that the nuclear submarine that intruded into Japanese territorial water between Okinawa and Taiwan was Chinese. The fact that the incident took place, and Beijing's response in its aftermath, give legitimate reason for its neighbors to feel alarmed.

It goes without saying that the Chinese submarine, which was spotted on Wednesday, intruded into a highly sensitive area. It's near a disputed gas field that Japan and China have wrangled over. But it is also only 300km southwest of Okinawa, where the majority of the 40,000 US troops stationed in Japan are located.

The Japanese government waited for two days before it openly declared that the intruding submarine was Chinese and asked for an apology. It is hard to believe that the Japanese government needed two whole days to determine the identity of the submarine. After all, it doesn't even take five fingers to count the countries that have nuclear submarines in the area and the required familiarity with the nearby waters. If it had been a US submarine, it would certainly have identified itself. So, after Russia had categorically denied that it was a Russian submarine, the only possible suspect left was China.

In all likelihood Japan hoped that Beijing would step up and claim that the entry into Japanese territorial waters was an accident. However, Beijing disappointed the well-intentioned Japanese government.

Even after the Japanese government openly identified the submarine as Chinese and demanded an apology, Beijing has continued to maintain an aloof stance. The state media in China has remained quiet by not even reporting about the incident. And when Chinese envoy Cheng Yonghua was asked for an explanation and an apology, Cheng refused, saying that his government was still investigating the matter. The likelihood that Beijing does not know by now that it was a Chinese submarine is about zero.

The arrogance of Beijing makes conceding such a mistake -- let alone making a formal apology -- extremely difficult, if not downright impossible. Moreover, the likelihood of the intrusion being an open provocation cannot be ruled out. At the very least, given the location where the submarine was spotted, the incident shows that China is actively and aggressively expanding the reach of its nuclear submarine activities. This is a sign which should rightfully worry all members of the region, not just Japan.

Ironically, as some Japanese media pointed out, Japan probably helped China fund the specific submarine that was chased out of Japanese territorial waters. After all, Japan has provided more than six trillion yen to the Chinese government over the years to aid development. Yet, in the face of such a powerful neighbor, Japan did not dare to take a strong position until it was certain that China was not about to come clean.

The incident also reveals the admirable capability of the Japanese navy and air force. The intruding Chinese submarine was almost immediately spotted and then became the target of a two-day chase by Japanese destroyers and a surveillance plane. Surely, if it was Beijing's intention to test the waters about how far it can go in provoking Japan, Beijing will think twice before pulling the same stunt again.