The front page story in yesterday's Taipei Times reported that the EU has temporarily suspended moves to lift the 15-year-old arms embargo on China. The EU should be commended for showing its concern for international security and upholding human rights, rather than bowing to commercial interests.
The EU's arms embargo on China was first put in place following China's bloody suppression of the Tiananmen Square democracy demonstrations in 1989. It was intended to prevent Europe from becoming an accomplice in China's suppression of human rights through the use of arms bought from EU nations. In order for the ban to be lifted, it must first be shown that the human rights situation in China has improved -- and that is clearly not the case.
First, EU records on the human rights situation in China show that although China has made progress in some areas, there has been little improvement in freedom of speech, religion and association. Moreover, the "Anti-Secession" Law passed by China earlier this year allows the use of "non-peaceful means" when dealing with Taiwan or Chinese regions seeking independence from Beijing. This is nothing less than a blank check for war, allowing China to use "non-peaceful means" as it deems necessary against Taiwan, Xinjiang or Tibet. If China were to take any such action, the results would be many times worse than Tiananmen.
China is already a regional power, with a national defense budget of approximately US$70 billion. The Rand Corporation, a US think tank, published a report yesterday suggesting that China's military expenditure exceeds the officially recognized figure by an additional 40-70 percent, and that it will reach levels higher than that of any of the US' allies within 20 years.
At present China has more than 100 ICBM missiles and 600 conventional missiles, a navy of more than 2,000 ships, and an air force with over 3,000 combat aircraft. Its military might far outstrips its defensive needs. Even Japan, after witnessing the surge of anti-Japanese sentiment in China, is beginning to worry over the military threat posed by China. If the EU removes its arms embargo on China, and China gets its hands on advanced European weapons systems, it could pose a real threat to regional security.
The international community is concerned about peace in the Taiwan Strait, but the risk to security there does not come from the possibility of an attack from Taiwan: it comes from China, with its 700 missiles aimed at our country. If European states choose to sell China advanced military equipment such as radar systems, the threat posed to Taiwan will increase. The result will be continued military escalation across the Taiwan Strait, jeopardizing stability in the Asia Pacific, and even endangering international security.
China has now initiated a "united front" campaign -- through which it aims to divide and conquer the Taiwanese -- as a response to international pressure following its enactment of the "Anti-Secession" Law. The campaign has included visits to China by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (
All of which demonstrates that China has zero credibility as a supporter of human rights. The EU has maintained its arms embargo for 15 years, and there's no good reason to lift it now.
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