Last week, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the annual report on the implementation of the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy.
The resolution contained strong, supportive language for Taiwan, saying: “Neither Taiwan nor China is subordinate to the other” and “only Taiwan’s democratically elected government can represent the Taiwanese people on the international stage.”
It is important to keep in mind that the resolution is more symbolic than substantial.
The parliament has no power to set or implement EU policy, which is the job of the European Council and the European Commission respectively, but it could be thought of as the seat of the EU’s moral conscience.
EU-Taiwan relations are constrained by European nations’ perceived interests and “one China” policies. However, that is not to say that parliamentary resolutions are meaningless.
It is often said that the EU is not a geopolitical actor — internally divided and lacking a unified EU military. Critics say that the bloc is not capable of shaping its external environment in the same way that true great powers like the US and Russia could.
This criticism is not exactly true. The EU’s power is derived less from its military might, and more from its ability to shape the norms and values of international politics.
The EU has been described by some experts as being a “normative power,” in that it shapes its external environment more to its liking through the promotion of norms such as human rights, democracy and freedom, and setting an example for others to follow.
The European Parliament plays an important role in backing Taiwan and shaping the discourse in support of the nation’s democracy and freedom against China’s propaganda campaigns.
The parliament, through its resolutions, said what the commission’s officials or national leaders might not say, for fear of harming bilateral relations with China. While the bloc’s “one China” policy constrains EU-Taiwan relations, the parliament ensures it does not silence the nation entirely.
It is unlikely that the EU would heed its call to initiate “preparatory measures for negotiations on a bilateral investment agreement with Taiwan,” or to deepen security cooperation. However, the direction of the European project signals positive developments.
EU member states no longer wish to tolerate Germany’s geopolitical folly of building a trade and energy dependency on authoritarian powers into the heart of the European project. This dependence came at the expense of solidarity with Ukraine, and many Europeans do not want to see something similar happen to Taiwan.
Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine is changing the balance of power in the European project. With Germany and France’s theory of diplomacy thoroughly discredited, many are talking about a movement of power east, toward Central and Eastern European countries such as Poland, the Czech Republic and the Baltics, which have more geopolitical clout after being proven right in their warnings about Russia and China. This movement to the east would only be turbocharged when Ukraine eventually joins.
The growing influence of states such as Poland and the Czech Republic, which are strongly supportive of Taiwan, suggest that a changing Europe would greatly benefit the nation.
Central and Eastern European countries know what it is like to live under authoritarianism and they are less likely than their Western neighbors to take the liberal international order for granted.
A more geopolitically assertive Europe could help chasten China and strengthen Taiwan, in time.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
Today is Feb. 28, a day that Taiwan associates with two tragic historical memories. The 228 Incident, which started on Feb. 28, 1947, began from protests sparked by a cigarette seizure that took place the day before in front of the Tianma Tea House in Taipei’s Datong District (大同). It turned into a mass movement that spread across Taiwan. Local gentry asked then-governor general Chen Yi (陳儀) to intervene, but he received contradictory orders. In early March, after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) dispatched troops to Keelung, a nationwide massacre took place and lasted until May 16, during which many important intellectuals
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority