EU embargo must stay
Recent news stories reporting that my country of birth, the UK, is laying the ground work for the lifting of the EU arms embargo against China when it assumes the presidency later this year are very distressing, for a number of reasons.
Remember that the reason for the imposition of the embargo was the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, in which the Chinese army brutally repressed unarmed, pro-democracy student demonstrators with an array of military hardware, including tanks and machine guns. Who can forget that striking image of the lone man, shopping bags in hand, bravely blocking the path of the tanks as they slowly rumbled by on their cruel mission?
Now, only 16 years later, the European Parliament, under heavy pressure from countries with substantial arms trades, most notably the UK, France and Germany, are considering lifting the ban. How can they be considering this kind of action when there has been no noticeable improvement in the style of government in China? The same autocratic, dictatorial regime that ruled the country then is still in power today.
The nations pushing for the lifting of the ban will point to the fact that, since that fateful period in June 1989, China has slowly started improving the living standards of many of its citizens, and that economically it has entered the global community. They also point out that before any arms deals go through, any purchaser -- China in this case -- would be required to give assurances that the arms will not be used for such purposes as violating human rights, oppressing its citizens, persecuting ethnic minorities, or external aggression.
How can the EU give any credence to a promise that originates from the current regime in Beijing? Remember that this is the same regime that is a signatory to most of the UN Conventions on Human Rights. How-ever, it still routinely executes scores of people for minor crimes, such as corruption, fraud and petty theft.
This is the same regime that routinely persecutes its citizens for their religious beliefs, most notably in Tibet, but who can forget the treatment meted out to followers of Falun Gong, the meditation group that "threatened state security?" And this is the same regime that has used the US-led "war on terror" to brutally crack down on Muslim separatists in the northwestern province of Xinjiang.
British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he "understood Beijing's viewpoint that to lump China together with Burma and Zimbabwe is not appropriate."
Why is this the case? Burma and Zimbabwe are notorious for the various ways in which they have cracked down on their opposition parties, by using violence, imprisonment, keeping leaders under house arrest for years and denying their people the right to democracy. Has Straw forgotten what happened to the fledgling China Democracy Party just a few years ago? Some of its leaders received prison sentences of up to 15 years for the "criminal" act of organizing a political party. This reason alone should be enough to keep China "lumped" together with other oppressive states.
Has he also forgotten that Beijing has over 500 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan and that it regularly threatens the nation with invasion unless Taipei agrees to eventual unification? How can Straw and the other European leaders and defense ministers be sure that these weapons will not be used in a future conflict with Taiwan? Even the US, the world's biggest supplier of military equipment, refuses to sell weapons to China for fear that they would be used for this purpose.
Again, we are reminded of the "code of conduct" and that the Europeans will go to all lengths possible to ensure these weapons are not used for external aggression. These are probably the same kind of assurances and guarantee schemes that were in place in the UK during the late 1980s, when British companies covertly sold materials to then Iraqi president Saddam Hussein that were used in the planned construction of a "super gun," a weapon intended for firing nuclear or biological shells at targets up to 700km away. Then, the arms companies worked in conjunction with the British government to secretly relax the rules and sell Saddam the advanced equipment he needed for his weapons programs. They certainly were not worried about internal repression and external aggression then.
This is just another example of the power of the arms lobby and the sway that it holds in certain countries. The sad reality is that there are no "morals" or "codes of conduct" in the international arms trade, whatever assurances may be given. So much for UK Prime Minister Tony Blair's "ethical" foreign policy.
Thankfully, some countries, such as Holland, Sweden and Denmark, still have ethical foreign policies, and respect human rights. They do not choose to look the other way when dealing with China and continue to oppose the lifting of the ban. These countries, combined with strong pressure from the US on its European allies, are all that stand between China and its armed forces obtaining advanced weaponry. We must pray that these countries stand firm, because the lifting of the ban is something that people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait may eventually live to regret.
Richard Hazeldine
Taipei
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS