Why is Washington selling arms to Taiwan now, provoking Chinese anger? Will Inboden writes in Foreign Policy:
So why might the US rock the sampan now with these arms sales? Precisely because maintaining Taiwan’s capacity to defend itself is vital to maintaining the peaceful trajectory in China-Taiwan relations. If Taiwan is able to deter the potential Chinese use of force, than the only realistic option in the relationship will be peaceful coexistence built on growing economic ties and political rapprochement. Whereas if China’s military modernization and expansion eclipses Taiwan’s defense capabilities, China might find adventurism more enticing.
The arms sales to Taiwan should be seen in light of the broader U.S. grand strategy in Asia, stretching back to the end of the Cold War. It is based on maintaining strong ties with traditional and new allies and partners such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, India, and yes, Taiwan, while simultaneously helping encourage China’s economic growth and peaceful integration into the international system. In the past year this strategy has started to wobble, particularly with U.S.-Japan ties fraying, and other Asian powers such as India being uncertain of the Obama administration’s commitment. This arms package to Taiwan is a needed reassurance to the region that the U.S. will not abandon its friends in Asia. (…)
The first year of the administration’s China policy was predicated on some assumptions that are now proving to be wrong, namely that conciliatory gestures by the U.S. would be reciprocated by China. This was not to be.
Leslie Gelb, by contrast, is worried about the consequences for US-Chinese cooperation on international issues:
The cage rattling won’t come close to blows, but it will unsettle and unnerve international affairs, and ignite a new and damaging testing of great power wills. Count on this tug of war to block mutual cooperation on stifling the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea and to further sour ongoing trade and investment disputes and charges of Chinese Internet censorship, and whatever else turns up. Most worrisome, it’s not at all clear that Chinese and American leaders have thought strategically about their next moves and how to keep the situation within bounds.
Haiti: Bill Clinton will be named international coordinator for relief efforts, Reuters reports.
Turkey’s view of a nuclear Iran. The Brookings’ Ömer Taşpınar writes:
Turkey, a historic rival of Shiite Persia, is clearly against a nuclear Iran. Yet, Ankara is less alarmed by such a prospect because it does not fully share the threat perception of Tel Aviv or Washington. Turkey is against destabilization and military conflict in the region. It clearly considers a US or Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities as potentially more destabilizing for the region than a nuclear Iran. To the dismay of American officials, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan often argues that Tehran’s nuclear program appears to be for civilian purposes and makes calls for a nuclear-free Middle East — a tacit criticism of Israel’s nuclear arms. (…)
Ankara has significant economic ties and energy contracts with Tehran. The total trade volume between the two countries is $10 billion and expected to double in the next three years — given Turkey’s growing need for natural gas and willingness to lessen its dependence on Russia. As a result, Turkey will resist Western efforts to tighten economic sanctions against Tehran. Ankara’s position will matter, not least because of its presence on the United Nations Security Council as a nonpermanent member until the end of next year.
“Obama disses Europe”: Gideon Rachman comments on Obama’s decision to skip the planned EU-US summit in Madrid in spring:
There is no doubt that the Spanish government, which currently holds the rotating presidency of the EU (You thought it had been abolished? Fooled you!), will treat this as a bitter blow. The Spanish prime minister Jose Luis Zapatero was royally snubbed by George W. Bush and so it was really important to him to underline that he has a great relationship with the sainted Obama. (…)
The Spanish are not the only Europeans feeling snubbed by Obama. The president of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso, was enraged when – on a recent trip to Washington – Obama failed to schedule a lunch with him, and the Commission president was fobbed off with Joe Biden. Back in Brussels, Barroso was heard to rage – “Bush never treated us like this.” When the Europeans are getting nostalgic for George W. Bush, you know that their noses are seriously out of joint. (…)
It’s simply that the European Union is not very high up his list of priorities. The Europeans should take this as a perverse sort of compliment. Obama’s top foreign policy priorities include places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, China, Russia. The European Union, by contrast, is a nice quiet place that seems to be getting along fine. Why fly all the way to Madrid, just to eat some tapas and exchange some polite chit-chat. It’s a nice thing to do, if you have the time – but Obama has enough on his plate to be getting on with.
Read also the Wall Street Journal’s follow-up story (Leadership Confusion Accompanies Obama’s Decision to Skip Talks) and Honor Mahony’s commentary on her EU Observer blog: here.
Will the EU lift the arms embargo on China? “Not soon”, says the Economist’s Charlemagne: “What is going on, as usual, is that individual EU countries are attempted to suck up by positioning themselves publicly as calling for its lifting.” Catherine Ashton, he says, must assert her authority:
Come on Catherine Ashton, slap the Spanish down. Start with the unhelpful comments coming from Spain about lifting the EU arms embargo on China. As a member of the European Union, Spain is free (though wrong-headed) to think that lifting the embargo is a good way to suck up to China. As holder of the rotating presidency of the EU until July 1st, Spain also has every right to seek to influence the agenda on various policy areas, such as trade with China.
But when it comes to the common foreign and security policy (CFSP) of the EU, the Lisbon Treaty makes it quite clear: it is time for countries that hold the rotating presidency to pipe down, and take a back seat. Meetings of foreign ministers are chaired by Baroness Ashton, as High Representative. Move up a level from ministers, and when it comes to CFSP decisions by heads of state and government, responsibility for announcing those to the outside world falls under the new permanent president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy. This may sound arcane, but it is about something pretty simple: one of the big promises was that Lisbon would end the unhelpful cacophony of EU relations with big, important powers like China. Once the line from Europe stopped changing every six months with each new rotating presidency, the theory went, it would be easier for the union to “speak with one voice”, in the well-worn phrase.
Israel into the EU? AP reports:
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said Monday he hopes to bring Israel into the European Union, at the start of a three-day visit to the Jewish state. (…) Under Berlusconi’s leadership, Italy has become one of Israel’s strongest allies in Europe. Berlusconi’s efforts to strengthen ties with Israel followed decades of a pro-Arab tilt by previous Italian governments. (…) Speaking on arrival in Israel, Berlusconi told Netanyahu that “my greatest desire, as long as I am a protagonist in politics, is to bring Israel into membership of the European Union.”
Israel has close trade ties with the EU but is not pressing to join the bloc. The European Commission was unavailable for comment about Israel’s possible inclusion into union.
Mariann Fischer Boel calls EP “the paradise of lobbyists”. Talking to the New York Times, the outgoing agricultural commissioner is highly critical of the European Parliament:
She does not hide her relief that she did not have to deal so closely with European lawmakers. Under the Lisbon Treaty, which took effect in December, members of the European Parliament will have an equal voice with national governments in deciding the final shape of legislation. “I feel extremely privileged because I did not have to cope with the European Parliament,” she said. “I went there, I listened, I discussed. But there was no co-decision from the E.P. at that stage, and I think it would have been more difficult if there would have been.” Even without these new powers, she said, lawmakers have shown a tendency to speak up for special interests, noting how they tried to delay reforms to eliminate tobacco farming subsidies.
Quote of the day. Gideon Rachman reports from Davos:
At this year’s Davos, the western delegates seemed depressed, defensive or even mildly deranged in the case of Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president. After listening to Mr Sarkozy’s passionate attack on financial capitalism, one Russian participant was overheard saying that he had found the experience pleasantly nostalgic. He remembered hearing many similar speeches in the Soviet Union.
From today’s EU agenda: At 15.00, Barbara Lochbihler, head of the Parliament’s EU-Iran delegation, will give a press conference on Iran. Watch it live here or here.
Read today on Global Europe: A seat at the table. Eastern Partnership: What role for civil society organizations? By Jacqueline Hale, Senior Policy Analyst (Caucasus and Central Asia) at the Open Society Institute in Brussels.
To receive the Global Europe Morning Brief every weekday by email, send an email to globeurope@gmail.com