German Chancellor gerhard Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac are proposing that Europe lift itss arms embargo against China, imposed in 1989 after the crackdown on China's democracy movement at Tienanmen Square.
The two argue that the ban is out of date and does not fit the pattern of improving relations between Western Europe and China.
However, the move seems to be prompted by political expediency and commercial opportunism. It would enable the sale of quiet German submarines and advanced French Mirage fighters to a weapons-hungry China, a country that is one of the major sources of tension in the East Asia region.
Isn't it a fundamental European policy not to sell weapons in hot spots around the world?
That East Asia is a hot spot is beyond doubt: China is aiming some 500 missiles at Taiwan and is increasing its arsenal. The July 2003 US Defense Department Study on the military power of China calls the region a potential powder keg and clearly suggests that China's policy of threatening Taiwan is the root cause of this tension. Quotes from the study include "Preparing for a potential conflict in the Taiwan Strait is the primary driver for China's military modernization," and "China is developing advanced information technology and long-range precision strike capabilities, and looking for ways to target and exploit the perceived weaknesses of technologically superior adversaries."
The phrase "technologically superior adversaries" refers to the US. If Europe sells weapons to China, they will very likely be used against Europe's ally, the US -- not a desirable situation.
But these are three other important reasons that Europe should not proceed with this unsavory idea.
First, China may be progressing economically, but human rights and democracy have not benefitted from this progress.
On the contrary, China is still one of the most totalitarian regimes in the world. Human rights organizations still document widespread violations of human rights, torture in prisons and application of the death penalty.
The second reason is the continued occupation of Tibet by China. If Europe wants to go beyond lip service on this issue, it must emphasize that this is a major issue to be resolved before relations can be improved. What has been perpetrated in Tibet by the Chinese is nothing less than a holocaust.
The third reason is Beijing's perpetual threats against a free and democratic Taiwan.
It is ironic that the leaders of a repressive regime are feted in Paris by Chirac while the democratically-elected president of Taiwan, Chen Shui-bian (
Isn't there something wrong with this picture?
European governments -- and the US administration for that matter -- still seem oblivious to the fact that Taiwan is a democratic nation that beat tremendous odds in overcoming the authoritarian regime of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT).
The KMT was a party to the civil war which ravaged China from the 1920s through the 1940s.
Taiwan, a Japanese colony during that period, was not a party to that civil war. Now the Taiwanese people themselves a free and democratic people being held hostage to the civil war.
It is clear that the "one China" policy, not the ban on arms sales, is out of date. Perhaps Schroeder and Chirac should focus their attention on analyzing what is so terribly wrong with their present policy and work towards normalization of relations with Taiwan.
Mei-chin Chen is the editor of Taiwan Communique and writes from the Hague, the Netherlands.
China badly misread Japan. It sought to intimidate Tokyo into silence on Taiwan. Instead, it has achieved the opposite by hardening Japanese resolve. By trying to bludgeon a major power like Japan into accepting its “red lines” — above all on Taiwan — China laid bare the raw coercive logic of compellence now driving its foreign policy toward Asian states. From the Taiwan Strait and the East and South China Seas to the Himalayan frontier, Beijing has increasingly relied on economic warfare, diplomatic intimidation and military pressure to bend neighbors to its will. Confident in its growing power, China appeared to believe
After more than three weeks since the Honduran elections took place, its National Electoral Council finally certified the new president of Honduras. During the campaign, the two leading contenders, Nasry Asfura and Salvador Nasralla, who according to the council were separated by 27,026 votes in the final tally, promised to restore diplomatic ties with Taiwan if elected. Nasralla refused to accept the result and said that he would challenge all the irregularities in court. However, with formal recognition from the US and rapid acknowledgment from key regional governments, including Argentina and Panama, a reversal of the results appears institutionally and politically
In 2009, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) made a welcome move to offer in-house contracts to all outsourced employees. It was a step forward for labor relations and the enterprise facing long-standing issues around outsourcing. TSMC founder Morris Chang (張忠謀) once said: “Anything that goes against basic values and principles must be reformed regardless of the cost — on this, there can be no compromise.” The quote is a testament to a core belief of the company’s culture: Injustices must be faced head-on and set right. If TSMC can be clear on its convictions, then should the Ministry of Education
The Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) provided several reasons for military drills it conducted in five zones around Taiwan on Monday and yesterday. The first was as a warning to “Taiwanese independence forces” to cease and desist. This is a consistent line from the Chinese authorities. The second was that the drills were aimed at “deterrence” of outside military intervention. Monday’s announcement of the drills was the first time that Beijing has publicly used the second reason for conducting such drills. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership is clearly rattled by “external forces” apparently consolidating around an intention to intervene. The targets of
RSS