An End to Europe’s “One China” Policy?

  • Edward Friedman


An old American political adage has it that “where you stand depends on where you sit.” Europe, after World War II, was far from Taiwan, China, and Japan, and lacked the military involvement in Asia that the United States had. America, after leading the coalition that defeated the aggression of Hirohito’s Imperial Japan, democratized Japan and kept military bases in Japan. It would, of course, see neighboring China/Taiwan in ways that differed from a distant Europe recovering from a devastating war. Beyond differences in economic strength, geographical distance, and military responsibilities, large global changes such as the end of the Stalin-Mao alliance, Mao’s détente with Nixon, the economic rise of East Asia, the enrichment of petroleum exporters, and the rise of China as a great power would reshape Europe’s understanding of its interests on Taiwan/China relations in ways that reflected both particulars unique to Europe and also general tendencies of virtually all the industrialized democracies. In sum, European attitudes toward China’s claim to Taiwan would at times, but not always, be Japan’s or America’s.


European Union Chinese Communist Party Diplomatic Relation European Government Shanghai Cooperation Organization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Jiri Kominek, “China Seeks Czech Military Technology Through Europe’s Backdoor,” China Brief, vol. 5, no. 23 (November 8, 2005), pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guy De Jonqueres, “My Seat at the Ringside of History in the Making,” Financial Times, March 29, 2007.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    David Shambaugh, “The New Strategic Triangle: U.S. and European Reactions to China’s Rise,” The Washington Quarterly, vol. 28, no. 3 (2005), pp. 20–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Matt Moore, “Premier Wen’s Tour of Europe Highlights Business Ties to Detriment of Rights Issues,” AP, September 15, 2006.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen Kuide, “Reflections on Seventeen Years of Exile,” China Rights Forum, vol. 3 (2006), p. 85.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chalmers Johnson, “No Longer the ‘Lone’ Superpower: Coming to Terms with China,” Japan Policy Research Institute Website, 2005, p. 15.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cited in Michael Elliot, “Upsetting Asia’s Delicate Balance,” Time Asia Magazine, March 7, 2005.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kay Mueller, “Studies of China’s Foreign and Security Policies in Europe,” in China Watching: Perspectives from Europe, Japan and the United States, ed. Robert Ash et al. (London, Routledge, 2007), p. 179.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    Andrew Bounds, “China Fights EU Shoe Duty,” Financial Times, December 21, 2006.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    Alex Berkofsky, “Europe Gets Tough on China,” Far Eastern Economic Review, January/February 2007, pp. 42–44.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Chietigj Bajpaee, “China and the ‘Other’ West,” China Brief, vol. 6, no. 10 (May 10, 2006), p. 4.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    John Leicester, “Wary French Pols Eye China market,” AP, January 5, 2007.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    James Kynge, China Shakes the World (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2006), p. 95.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    Michael Enright, “Rethinking China’s Competitiveness,” Far Eastern Economic Review, October 2005, p. 16.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    Elisabeth Rosenthal and Elisabetta Povoledo, “Milan Tension Mirrors Tensions Involving Many Chinese Communities,” International Herald Tribune, April 26, 2007.Google Scholar
  16. 19.
    George Parker and Alan Beattie, “EIB Accuses Chinese Banks of Undercutting African Loans,” Financial Times, November 29, 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Peter C. Y. Chow 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward Friedman

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations