US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher on Tuesday reiterated the US' concern about lifting the EU arms embargo on China. It is obvious that the relationship between the US and China has reached a new depth under the US' so-called "engagement" policy, which was implemented for some very obvious pragmatic reasons. However, the US is also growing increasingly concerned about the rising military strength of Beijing. \nThe level of US concern is further demonstrated by the Committee on Foreign Investments, which is made up of 11 US agencies, including the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security. The committee has expressed concern about IBM's sale of its personal-computer business to China's Lenovo Group. \nReportedly the committee is concerned that Beijing might use IBM facilities in the US to engage in industrial espionage to obtain the technology it needs for military modernization. If the committee refuses to approve the sale, it would not be the first time it has said no to investment from China for reasons of national security. \nIn 2003, Global Crossing had to scrap a deal to sell its telecommunications network to Hutchison-Whampoa, a Hong Kong-based group, for precisely that reason. Under the circumstances, the likelihood of the US imposing sanctions on European arms firms conducting business with China is not to be underestimated. \nJapan is also taking the arms ban issue very seriously. Contrary to its typically humble and pandering posture toward China, Japan has spoken out against the lifting of the EU arms embargo. Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura indicated last week that the possible lifting of the embargo is of "great concern" not only to Tokyo, but also the "security of East-Asia as a whole." \nUnfortunately, despite strong pressure from the US and Japan, the EU seems adamant about lifting the ban. The only questions that remain are when the embargo will be lifted, and whether a code of conduct will be imposed. It is generally believed that the ban will be lifted within six months. \nAs for a code of conduct to ensure that European weaponry is not used for external aggression and internal repression, it is just hard for anyone to honestly believe that such a code can be effectively enforced. Once Beijing violates the code, what can the EU do about it? Whatever the EU does then, it will be too late, and the damage will have been done. \nSo the talk of imposing a code of conduct is simply a way of justifying something that everyone knows is wrong. The question is why the EU stubbornly insists on going through with it, when even the European Parliament has adopted multiple resolutions opposing the lifting of the embargo. \nIt is hard not to point out the enormously lucrative opportunities that would be created once EU nations can openly sell arms to Beijing, which is eager to modernize its military by diversifying the sources of its arms purchases, which currently is primarily Russia. \nOn the other hand, China has cited some extremely laughable grounds to argue for lifting the embargo. First, that it would not go on an "arms shopping spree" after the ban is lifted (didn't Beijing also say that Taiwan "longs" for unification with the "motherland?"). Second, that the embargo is a form of "political discrimination" against Beijing -- which is akin to a murderer protesting that his prison sentence is the result of discrimination. \nIt is a shame that many people in Taiwan do not take the threat posed by China seriously, and have done next to nothing to voice opposition against the lifting of the embargo, when Taiwan is obviously the most immediate target of China's growing military threats.
Chinese strongman Xi Jinping (習近平) hasn’t had a very good spring, either economically or politically. Not that long ago, he seemed to be riding high. The PRC economy had been on a long winning streak of more than six percent annual growth, catapulting the world’s most populous nation into the second-largest power, behind only the United States. Hundreds of millions had been brought out of poverty. Beijing’s military too had emerged as the most powerful in Asia, lagging only behind the US, the long-time leader on the global stage. One can attribute much of the recent downturn to the international economic
Asked whether he declined to impose sanctions against China, US President Donald Trump said: “Well, we were in the middle of a major trade deal... [W]hen you’re in the middle of a negotiation and then all of a sudden you start throwing additional sanctions on — we’ve done a lot.” It was not a proud moment for Trump or the US. Yet, just three days later, John Bolton’s replacement as director of the National Security Council, Robert O’Brien, delivered a powerful indictment of the Chinese communist government and criticized prior administrations’ “passivity” in the face of Beijing’s contraventions of international law
In an opinion piece, Chang Jui-chuan (張睿銓) suggested that Taiwan focus its efforts not on making citizens “bilingual,” but on building a robust translation industry, as Japan has done (“The social cost of English education,” June 29, page 6). Although Chang makes some good points — Taiwan could certainly improve its translation capabilities — the nation needs a different sort of pivot: from bilingualism to multilingualism. There are reasons why Japan might not be the most suitable role model for the nation’s language policy. Bluntly put, Japan’s status in the world is unquestioned. The same cannot be said of Taiwan. Many confuse