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.
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