|
Selling Arms to China Now? (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| zig |
Ok forget the link...heres the article
EU Eyes Lifting China Arms Embargo
Gabrielle Kohlmeier
Despite adamant U.S. opposition, France and Germany are pushing to repeal a 15-year-old European Union arms embargo on China.
Last December, Paris successfully prodded the EU leadership to reconsider the ban. Now, expectations are high both on the Chinese and much of the European side that the ban will be lifted by Dec. 8, when EU and Chinese leaders will hold an annual summit in The Hague.
Arms embargoes against China were put in place by the United States and the European Union after the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. Although sanctions imposed on China by the United States involve concrete prohibitions on the export of any item on the U.S. Munitions List, the European embargo lacks such specificity, resulting in different interpretations of the ban by different EU member states. In some member states, virtually any military sales are banned, whereas in others, such as the United Kingdom, nonlethal military items are not seen as restricted by the embargo.
Moreover, since 1989, both the United States and members of the European Union continued to engage in military transfers to China. According to a 1998 General Accounting Office report, presidential waivers of the U.S. ban between 1989 and 1998 resulted in defense transactions to China worth approximately $350 million. Three EU members—France, Italy, and the United Kingdom—also have delivered military items to China, although no new agreement on the delivery of lethal articles has been negotiated since 1989.
Because sales of some military items have continued, the embargo is seen by many European countries as largely symbolic. Additionally, at a time when the European Union is on the verge of becoming China’s largest trade partner, China has pushed hard for the ban’s removal.
China has become the world’s largest arms importer, with a defense budget estimated at $50-70 billion. Russia is currently China’s leading supplier, providing as much as $2.1 billion worth of arms annually. But Chinese officials claim that many of the Russian items are of inferior quality and that they want to diversify suppliers.
With European defense budgets dropping precipitously, European defense companies have been pushing for entry into China’s market. But critics maintain that lifting the ban will accelerate the modernization of China’s defense, thereby endangering regional security and human rights.
Proponents contend that other safeguards will remain in place, such as the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, a set of principles to which EU members are politically bound. Numerous EU member states have enacted this into their domestic legislation. The code requires EU members to restrict exports to countries with serious human rights violations and to countries where there is a clear risk that weapons could be used for internal repression or external aggression. In addition to strengthening the Code of Conduct, the European Union also is planning to strengthen export controls on dual-use technologies and similarly ambiguous items. Proponents, therefore, argue that with such safeguards in place, repeal of the ban will have a negligible effect on arms sales to China.
That argument appears to have swayed Dutch officials. The Netherlands, which currently holds the rotating EU presidency, had strongly supported maintaining the ban, as has Denmark and Sweden. The Dutch leadership declared the issue of the embargo against China to be one of the most difficult issues it will face during its presidency but divulged that it will not resist if the remaining EU states support lifting the ban.
Support for the ban within the European Union seems to be faltering under French and German pressure, but there remain some advocates for preserving the ban. British European Parliament member Graham Watson, the leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, in an Aug. 3 editorial in the International Herald Tribune called the pressure to lift the ban “commercial, pure and simple,” which goes against the ethical “guiding logic of the ban.”
The United States also has ramped up efforts to convince the European Union to maintain the embargo, which is seen as an essential strategic device to slow China’s defense modernization. Secretary of State Colin Powell has used numerous opportunities this year to emphasize the importance of maintaining the ban, stressing that the reasons for the initial imposition of the ban remain valid today. The United States also is wary of the European Union’s promised safeguards, which it sees as tenuous at best once the embargo is lifted and economic pressures weigh in.
Members of Congress have introduced legislation that will both restrict transfers of U.S. military technology to European countries selling arms to China and forbid purchases by the Pentagon from such countries. This bill could affect current U.S. efforts aimed at making U.S. forces interoperable with the forces of its European allies.
The article was written october 2004..and the reference about December the 8th is obviously irrelevant at this stage..
The article is Published by The Arms Control Association a non profit organisation based in the USA.
Its a very complex area and any single answer is probably not enough to address all the issues involved,as far as i know without doing lots of research on the subject..the EU and the USA started negotiations as regards arms exports worldwide and wanted to come up with a common treaty that would cover all aspects of arms exports (these negotiations started in 1998) The EU were concerned as were the USA at the prospects of the impending EU enlargement (which we both know happened last year) the concerns surrounded countries in central europe many of which were to become later full EU members, but it also included future applicant states to the EU.
These central european states were considered at the time to have very lax arms controls,and would basically turn a blind eye to what many arms manufacturers were doing ie exports abroad to rogue states considered hostile by the EU and the USA,and many of these rogue states were on european and american embargoe lists.
So very strict guidelines were drawn up by the EU in particular in order for these states to be granted full membership of the EU they had to abide by these new guidlines and clean up their act in order to gain membership or be granted application status for future membership.The new EU guidelines in effect worked,but the EU and USA never formally struck a treaty with lasting guidelines for all.
Then along came september 11 2001 and these guidelines were effectively put to one side as the US government invoked its war on terror and supplied arms and weapon technology to countries that it deemed as key allies in its anti teror campaign..Pakistan being a prime example which prior to 9/11 would have been on a US embargo list.
This effectively is still the situation today.....but still very complex...................................................... |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| i dont think the arms embargo makes that much sense, i do think the EU and the US should put much more pressure on China to make them respect human rights tho... i am not really affraid at all that china will go nuts with their weponds, but i am very dissapointed that they doesnt respect basic human rights... |
|
|
| zig |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
i dont think the arms embargo makes that much sense, i do think the EU and the US should put much more pressure on China to make them respect human rights tho... i am not really affraid at all that china will go nuts with their weponds, but i am very dissapointed that they doesnt respect basic human rights... |
Well the EU is taking the view thats its better to engage with them rather than isolate them and have stated that human rights issues are a central part of negotiations before arms exports will resume.
But other factors are at play also and this is probably helping to piss the Americans off further....
Due to the enlargement of the EU in 2004,the EU has overtaken both Japan and the US as Chinas biggest trading partner,in 2004 the trade volume between China and the EU rose by 34.7% compared to the 2003 figures,Germany the Netherlands the UK France annd Italy are Chinas main trading partners in the EU.
China is now the EU,s second largest trading partner the USA still remains the first.......but for how long.........................? |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by zig
Well the EU is taking the view thats its better to engage with them rather than isolate them and have stated that human rights issues are a central part of negotiations before arms exports will resume.
But other factors are at play also and this is probably helping to piss the Americans off further....
Due to the enlargement of the EU in 2004,the EU has overtaken both Japan and the US as Chinas biggest trading partner,in 2004 the trade volume between China and the EU rose by 34.7% compared to the 2003 figures,Germany the Netherlands the UK France annd Italy are Chinas main trading partners in the EU.
China is now the EU,s second largest trading partner the USA still remains the first.......but for how long.........................? |
i think that if the EU (alone or together with the US) put some pressure on china, they would improve a lot on human rights. But since china is becomming more and more of an econmic super power (as you pointed out) they are kissing chinas ass all the time... which is really bad imo... |
|
|
| ©ÍŸoÀíî^©Å |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
i dont think the arms embargo makes that much sense, i do think the EU and the US should put much more pressure on China to make them respect human rights tho... i am not really affraid at all that china will go nuts with their weponds, but i am very dissapointed that they doesnt respect basic human rights... |
HAVE U BEEN 2 CHINA B4?u in bitch u kno nothin bout my country.s u got from THA terrible medias.ged oudda !
͹-_-͹ |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by ©ÍŸoÀíî^©Å
HAVE U BEEN 2 CHINA B4?u in bitch u kno nothin bout my country.s u got from THA terrible medias.ged oudda !
͹-_-͹ |
lol, well you seem like the one to tell me :)
anyway, you think they dont brake basic human rights? :conf: |
|
|
| ©ÍŸoÀíî^©Å |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
lol, well you seem like the one to tell me :)
anyway, you think they dont brake basic human rights? :conf: |
Did u bump yo peanut?i am a chinese.u obviously have no idea wut that was bout, do u? it seems u got everthin right.i really don't have time 2 go into yo b.s. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by ©ÍŸoÀíî^©Å
Did u bump yo peanut?i am a chinese.u obviously have no idea wut that was bout, do u? it seems u got everthin right.i really don't have time 2 go into yo b.s. |
http://www.humanrights-china.org/
for example... |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by zig
Perhaps its just the EU having a different approach to world affairs then the US..the US is by far the largest manufacturer of arms in the world...... |
France wants the EU to become the next USSR - a counterweight to the USA. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| Human rights in China are not that bad. There are far worse countries. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Human rights in China are not that bad. There are far worse countries. |
Agree. They're not the shining example of how human rights should be respected, but there are many countries with a much worse reputation in that matter. Besides, it's not like they don't have a very strong military industry themselves, I don't see how an embargo could accomplish much. |
|
|
| occrider |
| While China has a strong and growing military industrial complex, it's still technologically a decade or two behind Europe or the US. Personally, fears of a confrontation between China/Russia or China/Japan are overrated, however, I would be concerned over Chinese policy towards Taiwan. As it stands, a US carrier or two, along with Taiwan's modern airforce/missile defenses are an effective deterrant. I'm not sure how that would change with technological advancements in Chinese missile technology/airforce. |
|
|
|
|
