In the standoff between the United States
and Europe over lifting the Tiananmen Massacre
arms embargo on China,
I find myself on the side of George W. Bush, even if my reasons for being there
differ from his. President Bush’s interests are, of course, those of the
world’s leading superpower. Mine are those of a Chinese student leader who,
after more than 15 years in exile, is still waiting to be allowed to go home.
The U.S. position is well summed up by
Peter Brookes, senior fellow for national security affairs and director of
Asian Studies at the Heritage Foundation, who wrote recently: “Lifting the
embargo would endanger U.S.
interests, accelerate China’s
military build-up, undermine stability in the Pacific and send the wrong signal
to repressive regimes everywhere.” These are legitimate concerns, and I see no
reason to contest them. China--currently
second only to the U.S.
in terms of arms spending--is clearly seeking to extend its influence in Southeast Asia and into the Pacific via the sea lanes
controlled by U.S.
allies Japan
and Taiwan.
And, yes, China
continues to be a repressive state, and to kowtow now would send the wrong
message to similarly repressive regimes.
But, as an exiled Chinese citizen who has lived in
Paris and the U.S.,
before settling in Taiwan,
I would add to Peter Brookes’ list the objection that lifting the embargo now
makes a mockery of the Europe’s decision to
put it in place to begin with.
Perhaps from the worldly, sophisticated perspective
of the Europeans, I am taking things too personally. But if Europe
does go ahead--as it says it will--and lifts the embargo shortly after the
British elections, expected around May 5, I do have to wonder just what China has done
to deserve the favor. To be sure, China is richer and more powerful
than it was when I was forced to leave in 1989. But have human rights improved?
Have there been substantive moves towards participatory politics? Is there
greater freedom of speech? Can I go home? The answer is “no” every time.
And then there is the question of Taiwan, which I
also happen to take a personal interest in because it is now my home. Europe’s decision takes place as China puts into
place a so-called anti-secession law. This in effect legitimizes the use of
force to take over a liberal democracy and the world’s 15th largest trading
economy. From where I stand, I cannot help but be reminded of Tiananmen
Square. In 1989, as a leader of a movement that is thought to have
brought up to 100 million people onto the streets China-wide, I saw the ugly
face of Chinese Communist Party rule. Here in Taiwan in 2005 I worry that before
long, I will see it again.
This is precisely what I mean when I say
that lifting the embargo now makes a mockery of the decision to put it in
place. When China
turned its troops and tanks on its citizens in Tiananmen
Square, the world recoiled in horror and imposed sanctions.
Sixteen years later, as China
embarks on a massive military build-up aimed at enforcing a disputed territorial
claim on Taiwan,
Europe decides that the best course of action
is to supply it with the high-tech weaponry to do so. I’m afraid the logic of
this defies me.
It could be argued, of course, that Chinese
leader Hu Jintao, who just succeeded Jiang Zemin as chairman of the State
Military Commission, gave a relatively measured--if not conciliatory--speech to
the National People’s Congress on the subject of Taiwan late last week. Proof, Europe might say, that China is doing everything it can to
resolve the Taiwan
problem peacefully. It would only use the weapons we are selling them, Europeans
might say, if Taiwan
did something rash like enshrining independence in a new constitution or,
heaven forbid, allowing the island’s 23 million people to cast a vote one way
or another, for or against: unification on some mutually tolerable grounds, or
independence.
It is a disingenuous argument. Firstly, we
are asked to believe that the Chinese leadership can be counted on to be
reasonable, and I know for a fact that this is a naïve and dangerous assumption--I
have been guilty of making it myself once before, with disastrous consequences.
And secondly, we are asked to ignore the fact that China’s military arms purchases are
aimed as much at denying its own people and the Taiwanese the right to
self-determination as they are to national self-defense.
In short, whatever the strategic aims of
its China
policy, in terms of my personal engagement with the Chinese government, Europe’s position is morally flawed and intellectually
absurd. I may not have the advantage of a European education, but I say that
when the Europeans tell us that one plus one do not equal two, that the
advanced weapons it has for sale will never be turned on the Taiwanese people,
I say they are wrong. When the Europeans tell us it’s time to forget Tiananmen,
I say I am sorry but until I hear an apology I cannot even begin to forget. And
when the Europeans say, China
has improved, I say, does that mean I can return to my homeland and visit my
ageing parents without going to jail?
——Published 2005.03.16, Wall Street Journal Europe.
