When the National People's Congress convened in Beijing last week, Premier Wen Jiabao (
The US and Europe have grown apart and no presidential visit will change that. Europe won't be supplementing the US-led garrison in Iraq, for instance. But Washington might be able to convince Europe not to lift its ban on arms sales to China.
The fact that the interests of sovereign nations -- even ones with historical connections -- sometimes diverge shouldn't surprise anyone. Nevertheless, the US and Europe share a number of interests, including preserving their generally free and prosperous societies. No American or European wants to see the rise of a global hegemonic authoritarian power like China.
There's much good that has happened to the People's Republic of China (PRC) over the last three decades. However, further liberalization is by no means guaranteed. And even a more democratic China might be aggressively nationalistic.
That wouldn't be so important if the country was Myanmar or Zimbabwe, two other states under an EU arms embargo. But Beijing is likely to eventually marry the world's largest population with the largest economy. Even that needn't be frightening. After all, there were sometimes significant tensions between a rising US and declining Britain, but they ultimately forged one of the closest international relationships in existence.
With China, however, the differences are more significant, and these differences could conceivably lead to war. Should conflict come, it would be in the interests of Europe that the US prevail.
The EU implemented an arms embargo after the Chinese regime's slaughter of demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. But European firms see potential profits from servicing Beijing's growing desire for weapons. Some Europeans also hope to advance their goal of becoming a counterweight to the US.
The betting now is that the EU will drop the prohibition at its June meeting in Brussels. If Europe planned on becoming a military counterweight to China, Washington could say go ahead. But despite European talk of establishing an independent foreign policy, even leading nations like Germany have no intention of spending the money necessary to develop serious military capabilities. The obligation for real war fighting will remain America's.
Unfortunately, Beijing is thinking about war. Shi Yinhong (
And confrontation with Taiwan could lead to confrontation with the US, which means high-tech weapons sold by Europe could be used against the US. Some EU officials point to Israeli weapons transfers to Beijing, but that is no less an unfriendly act.
Others promise to limit the sort of weapons they sell. But that won't be much solace should conflict occur. French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie has argued that European sales might slow Chinese development of its own capabilities. Actually, even European businesspeople worry that China wants to appropriate technology as much as acquire weapons.
It's hard to believe that any voluntary "code of conduct" would be effective. The best case has been made by British diplomats, who suggest creating a more limited but transparent export control regime.
It's true that European exports especially of dual-use technology to the PRC have been rising. Unfortunately, however, the British seem to be about the only ones who are talking about selling less rather than more. If Europe ignores US concerns, the administration's options are limited. The US could deny export licenses for sensitive defense sales to companies and nations that sell to China. Beyond that would be the threat of a full-scale trade war, which would be in no one's interest. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called for a "new chapter" in relations.
Washington should acknowledge the legitimacy of EU disagreements with US policy and the wisdom of rethinking outmoded institutions, such as NATO. Most important, the US must recognize the commercial sacrifice it is asking of the Europeans, while convincing them to look beyond to a future in which China's positive role is by no means assured.
Washington needs to make the argument to individual governments as well as the European Commission, since the European public seems to be on Washington's side on this issue. Engagement is a better strategy than isolation for encouraging the development of a free China. However, engagement need not mean strengthening the PRC's military.
Beijing will become a significant military power with or without European arms sales. There's no need to hurry the process along.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to the late US president Ronald Reagan. He is co-author of the recently released The Korean Conundrum: America's Troubled Relations with North and South Korea.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS