The EU placed an arms embargo on China in 1989 to sanction the authoritarian regime for disregarding human rights in the wake of the Tiananmen Square Massacre. The EU should now lift the embargo, the French and Germans have argued, as the human rights situation in China has improved, thus nullifying the reason for the embargo.
But beneath this political superficiality, we all know that the Chinese government hasn't changed, the most recent example being the jailing of the Chinese surgeon who exposed China's cover-up of SARS, for no apparent reason.
What has changed is French and German estimates of weapons sale revenue from China. Russia has been a major beneficiary of this, as a non-participant in the ban.
Leaving aside the grand talk about the ideal of respecting human rights, what matters to the French and German governments is the need to balance their trade deficit with China and sustain favorable economic conditions for both their national defense and private sectors.
In light of a "real" need for economic prosperity, "idealistic values" such as human rights and democracy go out the window. So the Taiwanese government, and other non-governmental organizations, in trying to find friends in the EU to continue the embargo, should start thinking from the Europeans' point of view.
We don't stand a chance of making an impression if we start by urging a shared responsibility of Asia Pacific regional safety, or the immorality of making money from an untapped market -- even enhancing the military capability of an authoritarian regime.
We might receive a more receptive response if we point out to EU countries that lifting the weapons sales ban is unlikely to result in a significant increase in their sales revenue.
Since China has been purchasing weaponry from Russia for decades, the compatibility of China's existing weaponry with Russia's supply exceeds what EU countries can offer. Even with the current ban, EU countries were given considerable room to interpret and hence have been able to supply components or subsystems to China. After the 1989 declaration, European countries such as the UK, Italy and France continued to permit the transfer of non-lethal and dual-use equipment to China, including helicopters, radars, jet engines and satellite technology.
The amount of weapons China would want to buy from France and Germany that Russia can't make or offer at better structural compatibility is uncertain. So what does the EU stand to gain with the lifting of the ban?
Enhancing China's military capability may be a subconscious manifestation of the EU's dislike of the US' unilateral imperialism. But it cannot be denied that such a step would destabilize regional security in the Asia Pacific -- an already tense situation, with North Korea's constant false alarms on their nuclear programs and China barking across the Taiwan Strait. A war in the Asia Pacific might be of little concern to European countries, since their sensitivity to the possibilities of war may have faded with the passing of time. But it is the shared experience of war and impoverishment among EU countries that binds them.
It is the shared values on which the EU rests -- respect for human rights and dignity, liberty, democracy, equality and the rule of law -- that binds these governments together, not the individual country's self interest.
So before the EU countries cast their vote on the lifting of the embargo on China, whose government tramples on human rights, we would like to remind them that their current ability to pursue economic prosperity is built on their values. Do they now forgo the foundation on which their identity is based?
Wen Wei-ni is a freelance writer based in Taipei.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS