The EU plan to lift the arms embargo against China does not seem to make any sense given the unstable situations in the Taiwan Strait, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and within China itself. In addition, China's need to secure energy resources makes the lifting of the ban even more perplexing.
Recently, the French defense minister made the statement that sales of weapons technologies to China could slow Beijing's push to develop its own capabilities. It seems more likely that the PLA looks at it a different way, which is they can quickly implement more lethal, precision technology, reverse-engineer the designs and leapfrog years of research and development.
The Chinese already have some of the most advanced weapons systems on the planet, including the Russian-made, nuclear-tipped, supersonic Sunburn and Oynx missiles. Mounted on their Mig-29s, warships, mobile launchers and subs, these missiles reportedly render aircraft carriers obsolete. The upgraded, undetectable Onyx's impact velocity is supposedly so powerful it does not need a nuclear tip in order to sink a carrier or supertanker. The HMS Sheffield and USS Stark are reminders of what undetectable missiles can do. The Iranians supposedly have them as well, so any carrier in the Persian Gulf this summer may be a sitting duck.
The Taiwanese should be concerned about these missiles, and also by the Israeli-made and recently upgraded Harpy anti-radar drone that China has deployed in the strait. China's use of this weapon may be the reason why the US does not want to sell Taiwan a sinkable AEGIS destroyer. With these weapons China may be able to control the sea lanes in the Strait and cut off a large part of the oil flow to Taiwan, Japan and South Korea. If Taiwan doesn't upgrade their weapons and communication systems soon, they may as well invest in building more underground malls/fallout shelters with plenty of pao-mein packages in storage.
Why else is China pushing so hard to lift the EU arms ban? The reasons that I can come up with are: First, dissatisfaction with the quality and maintenance of the goods they currently purchase from their No. 1 supplier, Russia. Second, perhaps they see Israel, their second largest supplier, as someone they can't depend on in the long term since the Israelis are pushing the US to get involved in Iran, while Iran and China just signed huge liquefied petroleum gas and oil contracts. The US is also getting firmer on what Israel can resell to China.
Third, perhaps for purely business reasons, China may need access to EU weapons to help push down the cost of Russian and Israeli arms.
Fourth, China may be able to expedite the purchases of already planned upgrades to their existing European weapon systems. Fifth, China sees it as a way to upgrade the logistics and management of their defense industries.
Sixth, EU/Chinese stockholder pressure on investment in Chinese defense contractors. In return the EU not only wants the big ticket military orders, but is also looking for power plant, subway and Airbus orders as a way to balance their China trade deficit.
For many in the US, what is most troubling is the way the US has let Israel get away with weapons sales to China for so many years. US troops may have to face the same weapons that they co-developed and paid for, such as the missiles seen during the EP-3E surveillance plane incident in 2001. To make matters worse, Iraq and Iran's "liberation from tyranny" is not only about strategic control of oil, but protection of their country. The compromises our leaders make are a disgrace, as is the power of the lobby groups and banking interests.
For Taiwan, the upcoming trouble the US will have with Iran may push the Chinese navy to make a move to blockade Taiwan, not only to challenge those who support independence, but also to give the US more to deal with since China (and Russia) have partnered with Iranian oil interests. North Korea may complicate matters as well. Taiwan may end up having to fend for itself.
Marc Plumb
Taipei
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS