Skip to comments.Weapons for China
Posted on 01/21/2005 8:50:47 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
The European arms embargo against China, which allows countries such as France and the UK to export torpedoes, military electronics and chemical agents to Beijing, is obviously not entirely effective; European Union figures show weapons export licences to China nearly doubled to 416m (£288m) in 2003.
Yet the EU plan to lift the embargo has angered the Bush administration and Japan, Washington's increasingly assertive Asian ally. The US says ending the sanctions, imposed after China crushed pro-democracy protests in 1989, could endanger US forces in the Pacific and give Beijing an undeserved diplomatic reward.
US officials are particularly annoyed by Europe's disingenuous attempts to play down the issue's significance. Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, described it as a "presentational problem", implying that the US did not understand how serious the Europeans were about maintaining restrictions on arms sales to China. The US says the Europeans do not grasp the implications of what they are doing or see how seriously the matter is viewed in Washington. One Bush official, fearing the use of high-technology European weapons against any US forces that might be called on to defend Taiwan from China, this week threatened European allies with "major problems for transatlantic arms procurement".
Europe does have arguments on its side, including the leaky nature of the sanctions, the fact that they are not legally binding on EU members and the varying degrees of strictness with which they are interpreted. The EU has promised not to lift the embargo until it has strengthened its code of conduct governing weapons exports and introduced a transitional scheme for recently embargoed nations.
European governments, furthermore, can be forgiven for questioning American motives in trying to curb European exports when Israel, a staunch US ally, is permitted to sell high-tech weapons to China. The 2004 US-China security report to the US Congress devotes more space to concerns about Israel, second only to Russia as a provider of weapons systems to China, than it does to the faltering EU embargo.
However, it is clumsy and irresponsible of the Europeans to consider ending the embargo without taking US concerns on board, especially when the re-elected President George W. Bush is holding out an olive branch to them and visiting Europe next month.
Weapons for China, an emerging superpower, is an issue of grave importance for the west on which the Americans and their European allies should co-operate closely. If human rights are regrettably being dropped as criteria - and there is no sign that the US will apply the same "freedom" standards to China as it does to Iran, Burma, North Korea, Belarus and Zimbabwe - Europe and the US must at least agree on a list of items and systems banned for export to China.
Not unreasonably, the US is adamant that China should be refused technology that would threaten US aircraft carrier battle groups, the means by which the US deters Chinese aggression against Taiwan.
Pressed by China to end the embargo and by the US to keep it, the EU dismisses the embargo as outdated but insists its proposed new regime would not lead to greatly increased arms sales. One does not have to be American to find this argument unconvincing. The best solution is for the EU and the US to agree what sanctions they want to keep on China and then to apply them as firmly as possible.
That's a lot of materiel.
Sounds like they need to pass a more effective sanction not throw it in the toilet!
This is just another sign of France's duplicity. Their goal is to harm the US and they'd gladly join Saddam, Mugabe, or Communist China to do it. It's pitiful to watch them attempt to rationalize their backstabbing.
We'll be at war with China within 10 years. They are rapidly building up a 'blue water' navy, and there is only one other navy that can challenge them: The US Navy.
I hope those European scum burn in hell for all the US sailors that will die because of their greed and disdain for the US.
Yes, there is no question we'll be at war soon with China. The only question is when. Your 10 years just might be right but I would be more inclined toward 15. We'll see, won't we!
so when/if we do go to war with china is that the moment we close all walmarts and take chicom GNP go to 0 overnight...
hmm do they know that?
I hope we don't, but reading the news lately, it seems as though it's leaning that way, doesn't it?
I have no doubt my old shipmates will kick ass, but the cost will be terribly high.
(Israel, a staunch US ally, is permitted to sell high-tech weapons to China.)
I don't know about anyone else, but the above bothers me quite a bit. I was ready to blast the EU on this thread before seeing it. Apart from making us look like hypocrites, what the heck is Israel thinking? It would be poetic justice if China turns around and sells the same stuff to Iran!
They already are.
We did it to Germany and Japan. The world was trading then too.
The EU is the enemy and China is the enemy. The new Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact. When will people in government get that. Still at least Bush will stop military support to Europe if they do lift the sanctions. Israel needs to be held accountable too. While I support them against islamofascism, that is no excuse for them to be doing that. What concerns me most. Will britain be STUPID enough to sell the technology of the JSF to China?
Indeed. The cost will be high and all those sailors dying will be saddening. But China's expansionism must be stopped. They took Tibet. They took numorous other territories. We cannot allow them to get Taiwan or Japan.
Some men grow tall by helping others stand, and some men become taller by chopping others off at the knees. It is pretty obvious how the European Union "stands".
You are taking things to extreme. JSF technology is not on the cards for sale to China. There will be severe restrictions on high technology sales. If the Chinese want JSF engine technology for example all they have to do is go to the Russians. The Russians worked with Lockheed on the JSF and supplied all their engine technology from the Yak-141 Freestyle. The Russians were the first to fly the engine set up that is on the STOVL JSF variant.
<< so when/if we do go to war with china is that the moment we close all walmarts and take chicom GNP go to 0 overnight...
hmm do they know that? >>
And -- that on day one and just for starters -- as a kinda show card -- we will simultaneously nuke Three Gorges Dam and Pigking, Shankhiiiiii and Kunming -- and kill about ten million -- or twenty [By then, who's counting?] of them.
[H F -- you named after the Honiara, Guadalcanal, Solomon Islands airport I used to fly out of -- or the one at Midway I've often ferried through?]
US 'anger' at Israel weapons sale
Israel sold repair parts for systems that they had prior approval for. Not the same as selling a half a billion dollars of equiptment against a ban.
You Eurotwit you! -grin-
I just thought your post was....a bit , shall we say, over the top :-)
The UK is pushing hard for it as well.
-"Europe does have arguments on its side, including the leaky nature of the sanctions, the fact that they are not legally binding on EU members and the varying degrees of strictness with which they are interpreted. The EU has promised not to lift the embargo until it has strengthened its code of conduct governing weapons exports and introduced a transitional scheme for recently embargoed nations."-
If there is no cause and affect, people sometimes get stupid.
The problem here is that those nations responsible for the stupidity cant be effectively engaged politically, economically or in security matters.
France is the biggest culprit here and if we take any action against France we ultimately adversely affect other allies. France plays dirty games but is shielded by the fact that being tied into the EU, UN (security council) and NATO as part of Europe geographically they are hard to get back at. Example: Had the US just said Screw you 3 years ago and let the Balkans destabilize because the Germans were playing games with the French, others like the Poles, Romanians, Italians etc will get hurt by our action or lack there of. So while the French and Germans play games we are in a position where we must continue to play level handed and can't easily lash out. They (Germany/France) know this. In this case its a win-win situation for them.
This is no joke. We should consider selling arms to someone who has the money but may bring them to the fight in the Ivory Coast. -Cause and Affect.- Its a dirty game, but if they want to play this way we need to make it real clear that its not without consequence. Where we hurt them is not in Europe, but in their African, Asian, Caribbean, South American and Pacific holdings. France is a colonial power and exerts force outside its boarders for national interests.
Straight from the horses mouth:
"Press conference with French Defence Minister
On 8 April 1997 in Beijing, French Minister of Defence Mr Charles Millon stated:
"With the Chinese leaders, we discussed reinforcing cooperation in three areas:
-- very high level strategic dialogue;
-- the exchange of information and training;
-- cooperation in the technical, technological and infrastructure fields.
. . .
This technological and industrial cooperation will be conducted within the framework of our European and international commitments."
Source: Paris Agence France Presse (in French) 8 April 1997."
We are NOT unreasonable when we expect no sales of arms to China. While we too conduct trade with China, we have tight controls when it comes to anything, which may be used as a weapon. While the European is shocked and of course appalled by my statement that we should sell to someone like a rebel group in Africa, there is really no difference between that and what the French and Schroeder want to do in China. I think Germany is still moderate on issues like this and Schroeder may not be in the majority there yet. Issues like this are better solved in a positive manner. Politics can be executed by: appealing to morals or reason, political or economic pressure or force.
With France I truly believe that we are on a collision course. It won't ever be a war or large scale direct action against one another, but we will ultimately have to define a relationship where there are limits and rules more or less for both sides. The French have been operating with no regard to US interests for a while now. They are KNOWINGLY and even DELIBERATELY doing things that threaten US interests, soldier's lives and regional stability for their own economic gain and to reduce our degree and realm of influence. They think like a "colonial power" to this day and are working against us.
Japan has already screamed bloody murder! In Korea this issues is not looked at good. Heres an excerpt from an Australian paper.
Chirac puts China massacre in past to help trade
By Hamish McDonald Herald Correspondent in Beijing
October 11, 2004
France's President Jacques Chirac declared the Chinese Army's massacre of Tiananmen democracy demonstrators an event in the past as he began a visit here designed to reap lucrative contracts for France's financially pressed state industrial enterprises.
The massacre in 1989 was "another time" he said during an interview with the Chinese Government news agency Xinhua, explaining his call for a lifting of the European Union's arms export embargo on China, imposed after Tiananmen.
The remark brought immediate protests. The New York-based group Human Rights in China, founded by exiles from the suppressed 1980s democracy movement, said that "15 short years" was not long enough to erase a major crime against humanity.
"President Chirac's remarks also profoundly dishonour the many Chinese people who continue to call for accountability for Tiananmen Square," it said in a statement, mentioning the retired army doctor Jiang Yanyong, the thousands of Chinese intellectuals who had signed petitions, and the "Tiananmen mothers" of victims still calling for a reassessment of the official line that the protests were a "counter-revolutionary riot".
Mr Chirac was unabashed as he stood next to the Chinese President, Hu Jintao, for a 21-gun salute from the People's Liberation Army in Tiananmen Square on Saturday before entering talks aimed at cementing what both leaders call a "strategic partnership".
The arms embargo had "no use at all" he told reporters later.
"It was an expedient measure adopted at that time. It was mainly derived from animosity towards China. The European Union has a ban on North Korea. That indicates that this ban is not logical."
The lifting of the embargo has been strenuously opposed by the United States, which fears it could lead to European weapons systems being used against its forces in any conflict over Taiwan, which the US is obliged by one of its own laws to defend.
Mr Chirac said France "completely understands" China's position on Taiwan and was worried tensions between the mainland and the island were worsening.
"Any challenge to the balance in the Taiwan Strait region will be very dangerous and detrimental for everyone," he said.
At an earlier stop in the Western Chinese industrial centre of Chengdu, Mr Chirac declared China a vital front for France in the "global economic battle", with big contracts being sought for the aircraft manufacturer Airbus, the car maker Renault, the fast train maker Alstom and the nuclear power plant firms Electricite de France, Framatome, and Areva.
But France faces stiff competition from US, Japanese and other European nations. Its trade with China, valued at $US13.4 billion ($18 billion) last year, is behind that of Germany and Britain, and some of the new contracts may be won on political rather than technical grounds.
Chinese officials have indicated they might chose Alstom's high-speed train over Japan's bullet train for a new high-speed link between Beijing and Shanghai because of lingering war animosity.
Mr Hu indicated that a Chinese goal in the "strategic partnership" with France was to resist US "unilateralism" and restore the United Nations Security Council as the forum for dealing with world crises.
Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian used his National Day speech yesterday to call for peace talks with China and urge both sides to adopt a system to prevent an outbreak of conflict in the strait dividing them.
Mr Chen said his Government was willing to resume negotiations based on a 1992 understanding over interpretation of Beijing's cherished one China principle, Reuters reported.
While they try to stay neutral in reporting, the Aussies are not too thrilled about Mr. Chiracs new World Order either. In fact NO ONE in that region likes this idea except those selling weapons to China, and of course China itself.
France is a bottom feeder. They make money off of deals where others will or can not. They get special preference in economic deals because they are willing to oppose the US in the UN or because they make other deals or soften up trade restrictions. There is a reason why French products are so prevalent in Iraq. Its not just Food For Oil but the fact that nations like France and even Germany (when it opposed the war) were given preferential treatment by the Saddam regime (This was even all over German TV and bragged about). China is doing the same now. There are secondary economic benefits for being a pariah like France is. Not only do you sell a weapon, but you may get a train or rail contract. Schroeder opposes the arms embargo and shazam Airbus gets a contract in China. International trade is not just governed by price and value.
The UK is in Iraq, for NATO expansion, a NATO rapid Reaction Force, NATO involvement in Afghanistan AND Iraq, JSF, Apache......and much more. They are also part of the EU and are already viewed as outsiders by Germany and France. They still oppose the Euro currency and are tied into the US intel (CIA, NSA; GB helped BUILD Echelon, etc) more than Europe. They don't want to be the outcasts of Europe but are really pushing the envelope of what France and Germany want them to do and are willing to tolerate.
Even we have weapons manufacturers who would do business with China if they could. You hear this today about the UK and China. But it's the French who are the bottom feeders in Europe and today Schroeder is joining their ranks.
Selling arms to China would impact GB as it would us. They would get sucked into a conflict there too while the French and Germans are willing to arm a belligerent but would never get involved if Korea were invaded, Taiwan/Japan attacked or the water ways shut down. The British have the SAME stake as we do; regardless of what anyone one says or writes.
GB must give and take within Europe but they are our allies in EVERY aspect.
I happen to enjoy interacting with Atlantic Friend and other Frenchies, and I think there are plenty who would like to stop the actions leading toward the scenarios you describe above. I do believe it can be stopped, as well.
A lot of this has to do with America's lack of political internal resolve. Our instability sets off tremors in political faultlines all over the planet.
No substantial arguments from me. Thanks for the comments. I do not agree that Bush can stop EU arms sales to China. I don't think the JSF will be on the list of items for sale. I do think that Americans will face these weapons and many will eventually die in battle against them. Their blood is already on the hands of every greedy individual who has had high tech commerce with China in the last 30 years.
Europe is now their largest trading partner.
Sometimes people realize a great leader many years after he is gone.
Bush is pushing missile defense like crazy. Within his next term the Missile Defense system will be up and running. To a large degree it is already.
N. Korea, China, Russia (Not likely but also not 100% stable), Iran, Cuba, Libya, Pakistan, India and Syria. Long term, missile defense is important. Its a defensive system, which acts as a deterrent as well.
I believe Missile Defense will be one of Bushs largest accomplishments when people in the future look back upon his presidency. However, for the time being, the media and peace-nick types will egg him for it.
The reason why we are building this system is because of exactly what you say. Dictatorships and theocracies tend to not always act rationally or predictable. The proliferation of TBMs and even ICBMs is a matter of fact, not theory. N. Korea can could range Alaska and Hawaii in 1997. They don't build these missiles to shoot S. Korea, Taiwan or Japan.
Unless of course it becomes true. Then it is prophetic. If it does not it is just pathetic. I hope it is pathetic, but I fear it is prophetic.