The EU placed an arms embargo on China in 1989 to sanction the authoritarian regime for disregarding human rights in the wake of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. The EU should now lift the embargo, the French and Germans have argued, as the human rights situation in China has improved, thus nullifying the reason for the embargo.
But beneath this political superficiality, we all know that the Chinese government hasn't changed, the most recent example being the jailing of the Chinese surgeon who exposed China's cover-up of SARS, for no apparent reason.
What has changed is French and German estimates of weapons sale revenue from China. Russia has been a major beneficiary of this, as a non-participant in the ban.
Leaving aside the grand talk about the ideal of respecting human rights, what matters to the French and German governments is the need to balance their trade deficit with China and sustain favorable economic conditions for both their national defense and private sectors.
In light of a "real" need for economic prosperity, "idealistic values" such as human rights and democracy go out the window. So the Taiwanese government, and other non-governmental organizations, in trying to find friends in the EU to continue the embargo, should start thinking from the Europeans' point of view.
We don't stand a chance of making an impression if we start by urging a shared responsibility of Asia Pacific regional safety, or the immorality of making money from an untapped market -- even enhancing the military capability of an authoritarian regime.
We might receive a more receptive response if we point out to EU countries that lifting the weapons sales ban is unlikely to result in a significant increase in their sales revenue.
Since China has been purchasing weaponry from Russia for decades, the compatibility of China's existing weaponry with Russia's supply exceeds what EU countries can offer. Even with the current ban, EU countries were given considerable room to interpret and hence have been able to supply components or subsystems to China. After the 1989 declaration, European countries such as the UK, Italy and France continued to permit the transfer of non-lethal and dual-use equipment to China, including helicopters, radars, jet engines and satellite technology.
The amount of weapons China would want to buy from France and Germany that Russia can't make or offer at better structural compatibility is uncertain. So what does the EU stand to gain with the lifting of the ban?
Enhancing China's military capability may be a subconscious manifestation of the EU's dislike of the US' unilateral imperialism. But it cannot be denied that such a step would destabilize regional security in the Asia Pacific -- an already tense situation, with North Korea's constant false alarms on their nuclear programs and China barking across the Taiwan Strait. A war in the Asia Pacific might be of little concern to European countries, since their sensitivity to the possibilities of war may have faded with the passing of time. But it is the shared experience of war and impoverishment among EU countries that binds them.
It is the shared values on which the EU rests -- respect for human rights and dignity, liberty, democracy, equality and the rule of law -- that binds these governments together, not the individual country's self interest.
So before the EU countries cast their vote on the lifting of the embargo on China, whose government tramples on human rights, we would like to remind them that their current ability to pursue economic prosperity is built on their values. Do they now forgo the foundation on which their identity is based?
Wen Wei-ni is a freelance writer based in Taipei.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS