When the EU-China summit was held in The Hague on Dec. 8, the international media focused primarily on the outcome in terms of the arms embargo issue -- that the EU did not lift the embargo at this time, but gave a signal that it might do so on a future occasion.
The EU has indicated it is reviewing its policy on the basis of three criteria -- China's human-rights record, the impact on tension in the Taiwan Strait and the as yet incomplete EU code of conduct on arms exports.
However, another matter virtually escaped attention. On the Taiwan issue, the EU expressed its hope for "a peaceful resolution through constructive dialogue." The EU position, therefore, is that China enter into a constructive dialogue with Taiwan, no pre-conditions, no pre-determined outcome, no artificial clinging to a nebulous "status quo."
The EU did do a ritualistic reaffirmation of its continued adherence to the "one China" policy -- meaning that it recognizes Beijing as the government of China, period, with no further pronouncements on Taiwan's status.
The phrasing represents a subtle move on the part of the EU to express itself on an issue that has been dominated by the uneasy Taiwan-US-China relationship. During the past decade, Europe has significantly increased its trade relations with both China and Taiwan, leading to an increasing awareness of the prickly political situation between the two.
Also, the increasing openness of Taiwanese society after the political transformation of the late 1980s and early 1990s has led to an increase in contacts between European academia and political circles -- such as the European Parliament -- and an appreciation on the European side of the position of the Taiwanese democratic movement which brought about democracy and an increase in Taiwanese consciousness. A telling recent headline in De Volkskrant, a major Dutch newspaper, said: "Taiwanese increasingly vote Taiwanese."
All this does not mean that this has become a major issue on the European political scene, but it does mean an increasing assertiveness by Europe to use its significant political weight to help resolve conflicts around the world.
The message from Brussels to Beijing is thus clear: a constructive dialogue is preferable. But what is the reality?
The administration of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has repeatedly indicated its willingness to enter into a dialogue with China, but from the Chinese side there are only military threats, intimidation with some 600 missiles and virulent attempts to isolate Taiwan internationally.
The "anti-secession law" recently proposed by Beijing is not helping matters either. It will lead to a dangerous escalation of tensions in the Taiwan Strait, and is certainly not contributing to a dialogue of any kind.
The EU would thus do well to express its deep concern about this unilateral attempt by China to have its way on this issue. Certainly, the new Chinese law should be an indication to the EU that any relaxation of its arms embargo against China is helping the one-party authoritarian bully on the block to intimidate one of Asia's most vibrant and dynamic democracies.
Europe prides itself on its own long history of democracy and has stated it supports the growth of democracy around the world. This is an opportunity to show it is serious in its resolve to stand on the side of a blossoming democracy and oppose a dictatorship and regional threat reminiscent of the dark days of pre-World War II Europe.
Gerrit van der Wees is editor of Taiwan Communique.
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