Belgium is one of the most reliable allies when it comes to defending and safeguarding Taiwan’s territorial integrity amidst authoritarian threats.
The Belgian coalition government’s agreement, signed in February, included language supportive of maintaining peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea. This topic was addressed from two perspectives: Chinese threats to Taiwan’s sovereignty and the consequences arising from a conflict between the two Asian nations.
The Belgian government referred to Beijing’s “military maneuvers, provocations” around Taiwan and “internal destabilization actions” as examples of its intention to conquer the nation through diplomacy or force.
The coalition government pointed out that the potential effects stemming from a direct invasion or a gradual strangulation of Taiwan by China “would have considerable political and economic consequences,” given “the prominent place” Taiwan occupies in the semiconductor market.
Brussels’ proactive approach toward the multilayered issue of a potential confrontation between Taipei and Beijing is by no means axiomatic. Various European countries, even if strong economically and financially, are afraid of the consequences arising from addressing China in a proactive and strategic way.
That is why Belgium’s case could lay the foundations for a renovated EU’s approach toward China, both economically and from a security point of view. As the Belgian government said in its coalition agreement, “we must reduce our economic dependencies and effectively protect our economic potential.”
The Belgian government showed its awareness of the situation by referring to the risk of espionage, cyber and hybrid threats coming from China.
Brussels emphasizes the need to act as a counterbalance to China’s different vision of the multilateral world order and universal values. In particular, Belgium regards its role, within this context, as grounded on “closely monitoring and raising the human rights issue with China.”
This approach is a brilliant example of the new Belgian government’s foreign policy agenda, in line with those of the past, as regards human rights, democracy and liberal values. This commitment was reaffirmed in the Belgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ “2025 Policy Statement,” which notably mentioned Chinese military drills around the nation as a way of “deliberately undermining social stability in Taiwan.”
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Taipei welcomed this statement by asserting that it was “looking forward to deepening bilateral exchanges and cooperation with Belgium as to jointly safeguard the rules-based international order and advance peace and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific.”
Last month, the Belgian parliament once again showed its willingness to deepen ties with Taiwan by adopting a resolution unanimously, calling for Brussels to strive “together with the governments of the federated entities for more economic, scientific, cultural and parliamentary exchanges between Belgium and Taiwan.”
It also went beyond the common language used by European parliaments as regards Chinese threats to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait and the South China Sea by urging Beijing to “immediately cease all actions and intrusions into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone and violations over Taiwan’s peripheral islands, as well all other gray zone military actions, including cyber and disinformation campaigns.”
Given the bipartisan support for the resolution, the latter can be deemed as an emblematic manifestation of Belgium’s posture toward China’s assertive agenda regarding Taiwan, the South China Sea and the subversion of the existing global order.
With Russia, Iran and North Korea on its side, Beijing is looking to use sharp power activities to implement its vision of a multilateral global order lacking in the international liberal values it is opposed to.
As Belgium increases awareness of how the situation might unfold, there is a general understanding that other European countries should follow in its footsteps as regards the adoption of a proactive approach. China and Russia are two sides of the same coin: It is only through such awareness that a different future can be written than the one anti-Western powers intend to achieve.
Michele Maresca is an analyst at Il Caffe Geopolitico, an online international law journal, and the think tank Geopol21.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS