In foreign policy we should act when we can stop something bad from happening without compromising our own morals, but do not expect the EU to assist Taiwan soon with regard to increasing Chinese pressure, because the EU’s Taiwan policies lack substance and it tends to focus on political statements with poor or no real political value.
The problem with the EU is well known. We are witness to the classic dilemma that the EU is an economic superpower with no coherent foreign policy. Consequently, its high ambitions in promoting human rights and democratic values cannot compete with Chinese trade and investments in Europe.
Chinese pressure on Taiwan has over the past two years reached an unreasonably high level. Under such circumstances it is not enough to talk. Actions are required.
When will the EU start delivering results that significantly benefit Taiwan?
The EU can deliver if its members agree to it. For instance, EU nations continue to praise Taiwan’s efforts in promoting health internationally as European Economic and Trade Office Director Madeleine Majorenko did in August, but it has failed to deliver on Taiwan’s invitation to the World Health Assembly for the past two years. When will Taiwan get an invitation?
The EU also wants Taiwan to be a part of the global discussion, but continues to block Taiwan’s top five government officials from traveling to the EU. When will Taiwan’s president, vice president, premier, minister of national defense and minister of foreign affairs be able to visit the EU for global discussions?
Taiwan needs military equipment to defend itself against an increasingly assertive China. When will the EU allow military sales to Taiwan? The US is the sole provider of military equipment to Taiwan, making defense more expensive for taxpayers.
The list is much longer and includes an investment agreement that is being looked at in parallel with a Chinese agreement. Why is a parallel agreement with China necessary?
The lack of substance in the EU’s actions is even more surprising knowing that delivery on these areas does not violate the EU’s so-called “one China” policy. In the EU’s “one China” policy, the EU prefers to maintain the “status quo” between Taiwan and China, and supports Taiwan’s meaningful participation in international organizations that do not require statehood.
If the EU cannot dream up its own ideas, it can find inspiration in the US, which has introduced the Taiwan Travel Act and the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2019.
Historically, the EU has been reactive rather than proactive toward Taiwan. Consequently, it would require a significant change of mindset to move the bloc in a more proactive direction. For instance, the EU established its representative office in Taiwan in 2003 after Taiwan’s accession to the WTO and many years of investment by the private sector without official support. Taiwan’s visa exemption for the EU was only introduced after the Lisbon Treaty when unanimity was no longer required. The UK was ahead of the EU on this.
On the other side of the equation, Taiwan continues praising the EU’s symbolic talk because it appears afraid of being accused of being a troublemaker.
Taiwan’s foreign policies make sense on many levels, but tend to lock Taiwan and the EU in a hopeless situation only benefiting China. For the EU, foreign policy should not always be about what is rationally best for the union in all cases.
In relation to Taiwan, the EU needs to place values higher than economics. So, when it rightly criticizes Taiwan for recent executions, it needs to look at itself in a broader human rights and democratic perspective.
Michael Danielsen is the chairman of Taiwan Corner.
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
RSS