Over the past few years, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a visible change in the EU’s approach to Taiwan. I call this phenomenon European hype about Taiwan. The change is noticeable at both the EU and member-state levels, with parliaments and Central Europe leading the way.
The best example is the fact that Taiwan is finally mentioned in various EU documents (a real novelty compared with the past 30 years), in addition to statements by European politicians, an increase in bilateral contacts, a growing awareness of Taiwan’s importance and its contribution not only to European prosperity, but also, or even primarily, to security.
The latter has become particularly important since China’s support for Russian President Vladimir Putin after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, embodied in their (in)famous “no limits” friendship.
However, despite the EU’s Taiwan hype, there is still palpable criticism, or at least disappointment, that this change is symbolic rather than substantive. The EU’s unwillingness to start negotiations on the Bilateral Investment Agreement (BIA) is often cited as an emblematic example of the EU’s alleged lip service. I disagree with this assumption.
As we await the new EU institutions after the June elections, it is worth assessing the achievements of the EU’s Taiwan policy so far, and underlining why they are substantial and not merely symbolic.
First, language matters: We should not complain that the EU’s change in Taiwan policy is merely linguistic. I do not buy this argument. If narrative is unimportant and merely symbolic, then why is it so common to claim that there is an ongoing “battle of narratives” between democratic and authoritarian states, and that China in particular is gaining the upper hand when it comes to imposing its own political slogans and understanding of international norms and values, for example in the UN system? Focusing on this and sounding the alarm about China’s behavior is the best evidence that narrative really does matter.
The EU’s surge in mentioning Taiwan and the Taiwan Strait as such, focusing on the nation’s crucial role in the EU’s prosperity and security, should not be underestimated. Four years ago, most Europeans had no idea about Taiwan’s role in the semiconductor industry, ordinary people had no idea how vital the Taiwan Strait is for international trade. I would even venture to say that many Europeans did not know what Taiwan was.
Today, the situation is very different. Europeans’ knowledge of Taiwan, including China’s coercion of the nation, has changed dramatically.
Second, one of the ways to raise Taiwan’s international status and deter China from provoking a crisis is to connect the nation closely to the democratic world. The best way is to increase two-way contacts. Europe’s real contribution to Taiwan’s security is not almost exclusively military, such as sending warships through the Taiwan Strait. This is a very simplistic way of thinking.
The EU is trying to “bind” Taiwan to the free world. This is not just a symbolic approach. Talking more about Taiwan and having more contacts between the two sides on the one hand increases European awareness of Taiwan’s importance, but on the other shows China that, despite its efforts to cut Taiwan’s official diplomatic allies, Taiwan is not isolated, but on the contrary is gaining more friends and becoming involved in the democratic world.
Third, for the sake of substance, it is sometimes better not to make a particular cooperation or progress public or to put it high on the agenda. This is particularly risky in the case of member states, where the high hopes raised by politicians now in power might be dashed after a change of government. In other words, sometimes it is better to keep a low profile to be more effective. And this is the case in EU-Taiwan relations at both the EU and member-state levels.
The BIA is a good example of the argument that sometimes a low profile is better than megaphone diplomacy. For the sake of substance, it is better to avoid highly divisive moves like the BIA. Despite the possibility that starting negotiations is slim due to the lack of political will on the part of the European Commission and the European Council and the fact that Taiwan has reduced its pressure on the issue, experts, both from Taiwan and Europe, are still complaining about this.
Some say that the agreement is being held hostage to the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI), which the EU concluded with China in 2020. The CAI has been put on freeze following Beijing’s sanctions against the EU, and no one knows whether it would ever be thawed to pave the way for the BIA.
However, the question is whether it is worth focusing on an issue that could actually be detrimental to both Taiwan and the EU, but beneficial to China. Is there any economic rationale for this agreement when investment from both sides has been steadily increasing and there is no pressure from either the Taiwanese or European business community?
Moreover, at least since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the EU has shown a consistent and united approach to Russia and China. This is also part of a growing awareness that the security situation in Europe and Asia, especially in the Taiwan Strait, is highly intertwined.
If the BIA is to be put on the EU agenda, this means that the member states (the council) should give the European Commission a mandate to start negotiations. It is almost certain that this would open a public debate about Taiwan, its status, etc. Are we sure that all member states are openly Taiwan-friendly? Is it worthwhile for Taiwan and the EU to have this debate, which would facilitate divisions within the EU? I doubt it. Above all, it would be a huge gift to China.
Justyna Szczudlik is deputy head of research and China analyst with the Polish Institute of International Affairs. She is the former head of the Asia-Pacific Program (2016-2021) and a Taiwan Fellowship recipient (2013, National Chengchi University). Her research focuses on China’s foreign policy, especially China-EU and China-Central Europe relations, as well as cross-strait relations.
There are moments in history when America has turned its back on its principles and withdrawn from past commitments in service of higher goals. For example, US-Soviet Cold War competition compelled America to make a range of deals with unsavory and undemocratic figures across Latin America and Africa in service of geostrategic aims. The United States overlooked mass atrocities against the Bengali population in modern-day Bangladesh in the early 1970s in service of its tilt toward Pakistan, a relationship the Nixon administration deemed critical to its larger aims in developing relations with China. Then, of course, America switched diplomatic recognition
The international women’s soccer match between Taiwan and New Zealand at the Kaohsiung Nanzih Football Stadium, scheduled for Tuesday last week, was canceled at the last minute amid safety concerns over poor field conditions raised by the visiting team. The Football Ferns, as New Zealand’s women’s soccer team are known, had arrived in Taiwan one week earlier to prepare and soon raised their concerns. Efforts were made to improve the field, but the replacement patches of grass could not grow fast enough. The Football Ferns canceled the closed-door training match and then days later, the main event against Team Taiwan. The safety
The National Immigration Agency on Tuesday said it had notified some naturalized citizens from China that they still had to renounce their People’s Republic of China (PRC) citizenship. They must provide proof that they have canceled their household registration in China within three months of the receipt of the notice. If they do not, the agency said it would cancel their household registration in Taiwan. Chinese are required to give up their PRC citizenship and household registration to become Republic of China (ROC) nationals, Mainland Affairs Council Minister Chiu Chui-cheng (邱垂正) said. He was referring to Article 9-1 of the Act
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
RSS