In January, the Allies commemorated the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by Russian troops. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder did an exemplary job in leading the commemorations, finding the right words of atonement for the horrors perpetrated by the German Nazis.
After World War II, the general cry in devastated Germany was nie wieder -- "never again" will we allow a dictatorial regime to push us towards the precipice of so much destruction and human suffering.
It is thus perplexing that Schroeder's Germany is pushing ahead in the direction of another Holocaust, this one in far-away Asia. We are referring to Germany's leading role in the EU's proposed lifting of the arms embargo against China.
China today has many similarities with pre-World War II Germany: A strong economy and a booming military-industrial complex, strong nationalism, a feeling of having been wronged, and an expansionist view vis-a-vis its smaller neighbors.
The Nazis annexed neighboring countries while the rest of Western Europe looked the other way, and tried to appease Germany. The nadir was British prime minister Neville Chamberlain's trip to Munich in September 1938, and his proclamation of "peace in our time." Germany occupied all of Czechoslovakia just months later, and then invaded Poland.
Just like the British and French in those days, Europe today insufficiently realizes that China's recent movements strongly indicate that it intends to use force against a small, peaceful and democratic neighbor, Taiwan.
With its "one China" unification policy, China is using precisely the same methods regarding Taiwan as Hitler's Germany did with Austria back in 1938.
In the past few years, China's military budget has grown by between 12 percent and 18 percent a year -- while the budgets of all other nations in the region have remained stable or even decreased. China has purchased advanced Mig aircraft, Kilo-class submarines and Sovremenny destroyers from Russia.
Just this past Monday, the rubber-stamp National Peoples Congress passed an "Anti-Secession" Law, mandating the use of force by the People's Liberation Army in case Taiwan wants to remain free and democratic instead of "reuniting" with a Communist China of which it was never a part, even for one day.
All this should have given the EU pause for reflection. But the EU seems to be charging ahead toward lifting the arms embargo anyway. This is all the more peculiar, because it was the EU which accused US President George W. Bush of charging ahead with the Iraq invasion without proper thought of what he would do afterwards. Now the EU seems to be making a similar mistake.
What would be the right way forward? The EU should immediately stop its headlong rush into lifting the arms embargo. Trade relations between the EU and China can proceed equally well without lifting the embargo. China can be a respected nation and a full member of the world community without any arms purchases, from Europe or elsewhere.
But the EU can do more: It can use its new-found leverage with China to impress on the leaders in Beijing that peaceful coexistence between China and Taiwan as two friendly neighboring states is the solution that will win Beijing respect around the world.
The EU could start by building up direct contacts with the democratically elected government of Taiwan and working toward normalization of relations with the island. In the context of the UN, it could start by urging an end to Taiwan's isolation and work towards the nation's full membership to the world body on the basis of the right to self-determination in the UN Charter.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique, a publication based in Washington.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS