Under political pressure from the US, the EU has finally agreed to delay lifting its arms embargo on China. Given that UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, who enjoys a good relationship with Washington, is to take over the six-month presidency of the EU in the latter part of this year, we can expect that the arms ban will not be lifted during this period. The EU will not sell arms to China until at least next year.
In addition, the New York Times quoted EU officials as stating that another major factor in the decision was China's enactment of the "Anti-Secession" Law, which, they said, introduced complications.
This is good news for Taiwan, and if the special arms budget bill goes through due to compromises in the legislature, Taiwan will be able to be on a more equal footing with China for a number of years to come. If, in addition, the US continues to play a leading role in maintaining security in the Asia-Pacific region, and dissuades the EU from engaging in such activities for the short term, Taiwan need not be concerned about the Anti-Secession Law's threat for the time being.
But what about the longer-term outlook?
Clearly, US pressure on Europe will not work indefinitely. The EU doesn't want to sell arms to China merely to generate revenue from these sales. It also wants to curry favor with Beijing to secure smoother business transactions. Commercial interests can be very persuasive, and this issue cannot be decided by diplomats and national security experts alone. Elected governments face pressure from the electorate as well as interest groups.
Previously, Taiwan purchased arms from European countries whose governments could not refuse, as these deals supported weapons companies that were facing bankruptcy.
Because France sold arms to Taiwan, China did not allow it to bid for the contract to build the Guangzhou Metro. China also boycotted the adoption of Japan's Shinkansen bullet train after it gave a visa to former president Lee Teng-hui (
Money talks in the international community, and there are no long-term guarantees on security issues simply based on ties of loyalty. In the last few decades Taiwan has been quite adept at securing the advantage for itself by playing the situation, and this is in fact one of the major factors contributing to its continued development. In all honesty, Taiwan cannot demand that the EU keep its arms embargo on China.
Remember, Taiwan took advantage of European sanctions on Beijing after Tiananmen to get first dibs on the Chinese market, dropping sanctions just like Japan did. Taiwan's economy might well be in dire straits now if it weren't for that move into China at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s.
It is wrong for Taiwan to rely on the goodwill of the US, Japan and the EU, for this goodwill is at the mercy of considerations of interest. Without strength, Taiwan has nothing to give them in exchange. Therefore, when considering whether Taiwan should stop talks with China on direct flights, or on other commercial activities, we should think about what is good for us. Naturally, direct flights would be of mutual advantage. If we sacrifice direct flights to protest the Anti-Secession Law, we should give some thought to which side will be losing the most.
Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.
TRANSLATED BY PAUL COOPER
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS