Weapons for China

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.

-"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 can’t 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 it’s 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.- It’s a dirty game, but if they want to play this way we need to make it real clear that it’s 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 horse’s 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. Here’s 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. Chirac’s 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. It’s 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.

Red6

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.