Source: wechat official account: Bu Yi Dao has been authorized to reprint
Pen / Sword laugh & amp; Sister Tao Tao
Can the EU act as a “mediator” in the Taiwan Strait Crisis?
On the 23rd, many foreign media put the words of European Union High Representative for foreign and security policy Borrelli on the title.
However, no matter the complete information Borrelli talked about that day or the essence of the Taiwan Strait issue, people can see clearly that this is actually a discourse trap and another manifestation of this senior EU official’s backseat on the Taiwan issue.
This formulation is intended to internationalize the Taiwan issue.
In terms of historical latitude and legal principle, the Taiwan issue is China’s internal affairs and China’s “domestic affairs”, so there is no need for outsiders to intervene. Outsiders do not have this qualification and power. Borrelli, who do you think you are?
External forces, including the United States, continue to play the Taiwan card in an attempt to “use Taiwan to contain China.” all these are gross interference in China’s internal affairs. This essence can not be fooled by Borrelli’s words.
one
On the 22nd local time, when attending a forum activity entitled “where is Europe going?” in Santander, northern Spain, the EU high representative for foreign and security policy threw this “self positioning” of the EU at the reporter.
This formulation was immediately put on the headlines by some media.
According to the report of the South China Morning Post, Borrelli’s talk on that day began with the incident of US House Speaker Pelosi fleeing to Taiwan at the beginning of this month. He was “deeply concerned” about the turmoil in the Taiwan Strait caused by this incident. When asked whether he planned to go to Taiwan, the European “foreign minister” clearly said that he would not, and he believed that European Commission President von der lain would not go either.
At first glance, this part of the statement seems to be tolerable.
However, immediately after that, he began to read that set of fallacies about the Taiwan issue.
One is to defend Pelosi, saying that she “has the right to go wherever she wants”.
Borrelli also pretended to “reflect”, saying that it is one thing to have rights, and whether the timing is appropriate is another. He said that he has seen how “uncomfortable” the US side has become because of this trip. This incident has led to “extremely delicate” relations between the United States and China.
However, after summing up, the “lesson” he drew was to criticize the Chinese Mainland again, claiming that “it is necessary to avoid providing the Chinese side with an excuse to escalate the situation”.
In fact, if you think about the joint statement made by Borrell, as the high representative of EU foreign and security policy, and the foreign ministers of the group of seven on August 3, you can know the attitude of the EU’s top diplomat on the issue of Pelosi’s flight to Taiwan. At that time, the statement criticized China’s reasonable counter-measures and slandered us for “raising tension and causing regional instability”.
Second, when asked how the European Union would react if Chinese Mainland attacked Taiwan, Borrell began to play up the “strategic ambiguity” concerning Taiwan.
He said that western countries “defend the right of Taiwan to develop its own political system, but they are all extremely cautious in trying to avoid direct confrontation with Chinese Mainland.” This is exactly what the United States has been trying to avoid carefully, Borrelli added.
What is more, he even called Taiwan a “country” that day. Borrelli made this statement in Spanish, but the report of the South China Morning Post specifically noted that he had “verified” this statement. However, later, this senior EU official mentioned that “Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations and it is not recognized as a country”. Therefore, the west can only maintain “strategic ambiguity” toward Taiwan.
After all, the intention of “strategic ambiguity” in Borrelli’s words has become more and more obvious. In fact, he is learning from Washington and hollowing out the one China policy promised by the EU itself.
The complete content of Borrelli’s own talk has exposed the real position and intention behind the pretended good intentions of being a “mediator”.
Cui Hongjian, director of the European Institute of the Chinese Academy of international studies, said that if the EU believes that the tension between China and the United States is unfavorable to all parties and wants to play a constructive role as a third party, it is understandable. But the problem is that it wants to extend the so-called “mediation” to the Taiwan issue, which is obviously inappropriate.
two
It is not surprising that Borrelli made such a remark.
Since he became the EU high representative for foreign and security policy in December 2019, Borrelli has taken a tough stance on many issues related to China.
As soon as he took office, he stressed that Europe is a powerful force for defending human rights, and the EU will continue to express its concern about the so-called human rights issue in Xinjiang.
In May 2020, when the epidemic was raging around the world, Borrelli wrote in the media that he would conduct an independent scientific investigation into the origin of the epidemic, and also required China to adopt an attitude “commensurate with its status” to deal with the epidemic responsibly, participate in vaccine research and development, and boost the global economy.
In May this year, Borrell openly slandered the SAR election system and election results, and smeared the central government’s policy towards Hong Kong.
……
This is more than that.
Borrelli has always called on the EU to adopt a “stronger” China policy.
In 2020, Borrelli’s reason is that in the face of an increasingly confident and powerful China, the EU must find a “stronger strategy”.
By 2021, Borrelli’s view will change.
In a letter submitted to the European Council, he said, “the reality is that there are fundamental differences between Europe and China, whether in the economic system and the response to globalization, democracy and human rights, or in dealing with third countries. These differences will continue to exist in the foreseeable future and must not be underestimated.” Therefore, “the EU should give full play to its own strength… And cooperate closely with its allies and partners on the China issue.”
By the end of 2021, Borrelli publicly regarded China as “a challenge, a strategic and ideological challenge”.
Although half a month later, he still used the official tone of “partner, competitor and systemic opponent” to describe China when he posted an article on the official website of the European Union, his comments on China immediately went too far. He said that China’s domestic human rights situation has “worsened” and he also “feels aggrieved” for Lithuania.
three
In addition to human rights and Lithuania, the European Union’s attention to Taiwan Affairs has continued to increase in recent years. The “decibel” of negative voices has obviously increased. The vice president of the European Parliament even visited Taiwan recently.
This gesture, as well as Borrell’s remarks on “mediators”, also has the intention to highlight the EU’s sense of presence in the Asia Pacific region.
Cui Hongjian, director of the European Institute of the Chinese Academy of international studies, said that for the EU, the so-called “Indo Pacific” has become a new “strategic perspective” for the EU and EU countries to adjust their policies.
The “pitch black 2022” 17 nation military exercise being held in Australia was attended by three European powers, Britain, France and Germany. They all want to strengthen their security role in the Asia Pacific region.
Among them, Germany is the most concerned. In the past, its external image was mainly an economy, and its performance on security issues was relatively cautious. Now it has made some breakthroughs. Participating in the “pitch black 2022” military exercise is the first time that German military aircraft appeared in the Asia Pacific region after World War II.
Cui Hongjian believes that the long-term goal of Britain, France, Germany and other European countries in the future is to maintain military and security presence in areas and hot spots where big power games are concentrated, whether using the EU framework or their respective actions.
In the Asia Pacific region, it is necessary for them to ensure their existence.
First, the Asia Pacific region is becoming more and more important. The center of the world economy is shifting to the Asia Pacific region, and the Asia Pacific region is also becoming the main place for major countries to play games. These European countries believe that one of the main signs of keeping themselves at the center of the world stage is that they can not be absent in areas where the game of great powers is concentrated.
Second, maintain a sense of presence in hot spots. They believe that the geopolitical situation in the Asia Pacific region is changing and the possibility of geopolitical conflicts is increasing.
Cui Hongjian said that since the colonial era, European countries have had a mentality that the scope of its influence and the acquisition of interests cannot be limited to domestic or regional areas. They believe that the main source of wealth in Europe is reflected in areas outside Europe.
It is not surprising that when describing his concern about the so-called “freedom of navigation” in the South China Sea, Borrell said that “because 40% of the EU’s exports are through these waters”, he deduced that “this part of the world is the aorta of the European economy”.
Cui Hongjian said that Europe first found the reason that the prosperity and stability of the Asia Pacific region are closely related to Europe, and later put forward the view that “Eurasian security is inseparable”. From this perspective, they believe that their interests are increasingly relevant to the Asia Pacific region.
However, the EU’s own strength and influence are limited. In particular, it needs to think carefully about how to avoid falling into the “trap” of the big power game while doing so.