France and Germany have been leading the drive to get the EU arms embargo against China lifted. As a result of China's new "Anti-Secession" Law, the EU might now delay its plan to lift the embargo. How should we respond to this situation?
The Tienannmen Square Massacre took place on June 4, 1989, in Beijing. Heads of state and government of the then 12-nation European Community (EC) strongly condemned Beijing's crackdown on the pro-democracy movement, announced a freeze on arms sales to and military cooperation with China and imposed restrictions on bilateral exchanges in scientific and cultural fields.
Although the sanctions against China were uniformly stipulated by the EC, they were implemented by individual member states. Each country had different considerations regarding the collective stance adopted by the community. In addition to its booming economy, China's importance in international affairs was such that the EC could not simply ignore it. This mixture of political and economic reasons caused the EC to resume political dialogue with Beijing soon afterward. In the mid-1990s, EC members lifted almost all the sanctions imposed on China.
The arms embargo announced 15 years ago was no more than a political statement. Since 1998, EU members have based their consideration of arms exports on eight criteria (not specifically targeted at China).
If the potential purchaser of the arms appears to have conducted a gross or large-scale violation of human rights or may employ the arms to realize expansionist ambitions, then no member states "should" sell arms to these countries. It is clear from this that the criteria are not mandatory.
In view of the fact that the extent of European arms companies' business with China has been barely restricted (arms exports to China in 2003 had a value of 400 million euros or US$526.5 million), vigorous efforts by Germany and France to lift the arms ban are probably not targeted at the business opportunity the arms could bring about but at making a political message, demonstrating an equal partnership between the EU and China and at enhancing bilateral trade relations.
As a matter of fact, if the EU wants to end its ban on selling arms to Beijing, issuing a joint statement would be adequate. If such a statement was made at a leadership summit, this would also serve to show that the EU has comprehensively normalized relations with China. European leaders, however, not only have to take the US opposition into account but also have to, as heads of free and democratic nations, consider the majority opinion in parliament and overall public opinion.
In Germany, the Social Democratic Party and the Green Party jointly put forward quite a few prerequisites for the lifting of the arms embargo, including the improvement of China's human rights record and the peaceful resolution of the Taiwan issue. They also demanded that the EU retain the embargo until after the revision of the union's Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.
This shows that lawmakers of both parties, which formed a coalition government, do not see eye to eye with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
Beijing's Anti-Secession Law has been internationally criticized for authorizing the use of non-peaceful means to resolve the cross-strait issue. The US government and Congress, the EU Council, European Parliament and non-governmental organizations, one after another, have made statements or passed resolutions to urge the EU to maintain the arms ban because of China's failure to improve its human rights situation or the strategic stability in Northeast Asia and the security interests of the US in the region.
Luxembourg, which currently holds the EU's rotating presidency, has also reiterated that both sides of the Taiwan Strait should seek peaceful resolution, and opposed the use of force.
Pushed by France and Germany, the EU has roughly completed the revision of the code of conduct, necessitating a further restriction of military exports and strengthening the exchange of information on arms sales. Quite a few EU countries have agreed to delay the knotty issue of lifting the arms embargo, which was scheduled to take effect during the first half of this year, so it is now just a question of timing.
Other than reminding the EU that lifting the ban may send the wrong message to Beijing, and that this action should be delayed as long as possible, what should Taipei do?
It could consider turning to Washington or find other channels to present the EU and its member states with a list of weapons and technologies that it should consider when tightening the restrictions placed by the Code of Conduct on Arms Exports on so-called dual-use technology (technology capable of civilian military applications), so that the cross-strait military balance won't be altered or stability and peace in the region threatened.
Chung Chih-ming is an assistant professor at the Institute of European Studies at Nanhua University.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS