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.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS