EU Foreign Policy and Contempt for Human Rights

[j07950]

What clean countries? Germany and France? At this point, the need to buy weapons and systems suggests they are not able to afford the cost of developing their own. It is cheaper to buy them then it is to develop and manufacture your own. Selling China weapons and systems will also invovle training, by the euros, which will probably lead to future development of their own weapons and systems. This is just my opinion though, I could be totally wrong.

Yeah you're right...that was not my point though...I said I was against europe sellong weapons...so say they don't get them from europe...I'm saying China will eventually get them from other countries...and if not, over time will developp their own, I mean even if it takes times they have the ressources...so the weapon thing isn't really the important part anymore...we have to be careful about their foreign policies, and also what they are doing within their own state...not wether they have weapons now or later...because I'm assuming they have enough now to do what they god dam want

 

[Said1]

Yeah you're right...that was not my point though...I said I was against europe sellong weapons...so say they don't get them from europe...I'm saying China will eventually get them from other countries...and if not, over time will developp their own, I mean even if it takes times they have the ressources...so the weapon thing isn't really the important part anymore...we have to be careful about their foreign policies, and also what they are doing within their own state...not wether they have weapons now or later...because I'm assuming they have enough now to do what they god dam want

You know what, I didn't realize we were in agreement (for the most part) until after I posted the reply. Not used to that I guess. I figured you would catch on, so I didn't edit.

However, I think prolonging the unavailability of weapons is crucial, given their track record of threats and abuses. They are not interested in human rights at this point are they?

Which country has systems they would want anyway? The goal is advanced weapons and systems, not replicas of what they already posses, or lesser qualities. And no, I doubt they have the resources to develop their own systems and weapons, otherwise they would have done so already.

 

[j07950]

You know what, I didn't realize we were in agreement (for the most part) until after I posted the reply. Not used to that I guess. I figured you would catch on, so I didn't edit.

However, I think prolonging the unavailability of weapons is crucial, given their track record of threats and abuses. They are not interested in human rights at this point are they?

Which country has systems they would want anyway? The goal is advanced weapons and systems, not replicas of what they already posses, or lesser qualities. And no, I doubt they have the resources to develop their own systems and weapons, otherwise they would have done so already.

Over long time I think they do have the ressources...they have the money, the brains and the connections...Doesn't europe trade with other countries in the world??? I mean countries that could sell them to China? I don't have an example but there must be some.
But yes, we should prolonge the unavability of weapons...but like I said before, they have such a huge army that even with conventional weapons they could do a lot of dammage if they wanted to...diplomacy is going to have to do wounders in upcoming years...

 

[Said1]

Over long time I think they do have the ressources...they have the money, the brains and the connections...Doesn't europe trade with other countries in the world??? I mean countries that could sell them to China? I don't have an example but there must be some.

Great point, like touche. Maybe you could find out what countries, and let me know if selling THEM weapons is a good idea. Especially since they think nothing of (as you say) re-selling them to countries like China.

But yes, we should prolonge the unavability of weapons...but like I said before, they have such a huge army that even with conventional weapons they could do a lot of dammage if they wanted to...diplomacy is going to have to do wounders in upcoming years...

Diplomacy, good idea. Maybe the UN can hep out.

 

[Annie]

Over long time I think they do have the ressources...they have the money, the brains and the connections...Doesn't europe trade with other countries in the world??? I mean countries that could sell them to China? I don't have an example but there must be some.
But yes, we should prolonge the unavability of weapons...but like I said before, they have such a huge army that even with conventional weapons they could do a lot of dammage if they wanted to...diplomacy is going to have to do wounders in upcoming years...

Clinton allowed China to get too many of our secrets. However, at this juncture in time, does a country want to make excuses or lead?

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,349133,00.html

Gerhard Schroeder's lonely battle to lift the European Union's arms embargo against China is hardly out of character: after all he's never been one to worry much about the oppression of people under communist dictators. But it is Foreign Minister Fischer's fate which is one of the most regrettable outcomes of the ruckus.

Schroeder in China: For the German chancellor, a look into the eye of the dragon is political nirvana.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has never been one of those politicians who put the issue of human rights at the center of their political ethics. Back in the 1980s, when the former opposition leader of the state of Lower Saxony peered over the East German border, he didn't perceive it as being a regime that used guns, spies and barbed wire to deprive its subjects of the kind of political freedom that was taken for granted by people in the West. For many in the left-wing of the Social Democrats at the time, East Germany was considered an irreversible result of World War II, something you just had to accept.

But a look at Schroeder's historical comments and letters suggests he straddled the fence between just accepting and embarrassingly buttering up the communists. Just look at the way he addressed the German Democratic Republic's communist leaders: In 1985, Schroeder described Honecker, the then East German dictator, as a "deeply honest man." Then, one year later, Schroeder sent a letter to Honecker's deputy, informally writing: "Dear Egon Krenz: I will certainly need the endurance you have wished me in this busy election year. But you will certainly also need great strength and good health for your People's Chamber election." Of course, there were no democratic elections in East Germany.

In view of these sentiments, one can only imagine the kind of resoluteness and determination with which the chancellor reminds Beijing about human rights and democracy during his visits there today as Germany's leader.

Even as late as June 1989, as the GDR was coming unglued and the "honest" dictator and "Dear Egon" were losing their subjects, who were fleeing en masse over the Hungarian and Czechoslovakian borders, Schroeder still didn't get it. Just five days before the Wall fell, he offered this gem: "After 40 years of West Germany, we shouldn't lie to a new generation about the prospects for re-unification. There aren't any...."

 

[IceEyes]

I don't think this discussion is carried at the correct level. First of all USA and EU act in the exact same way, generally speaking. We all use politics to pave the way for our companies in one way or another and it doesn't matter if it is regarding weapons, food, oil or technology.

The thing with China is that it only works with money. Selling arms? Great! China get more military power, - we can make another reality show. But the system, the dictatorship of China only does what it need to get the benefits out of our short-sighted goals.

I don't mean that two wrongs make one right, but I think it is the way the western society sometimes take an too easy route.

 

[Annie]

I don't think this discussion is carried at the correct level. First of all USA and EU act in the exact same way, generally speaking. We all use politics to pave the way for our companies in one way or another and it doesn't matter if it is regarding weapons, food, oil or technology.

I don't think that is necessarily true, though few of us would have doubted EU allies prior to Iraq war, though some of the earlier dealings with UN did leave a niggling feeling.

To be perfectly honest, seems the US is often out of step with Europe, which may well be the reason so many of our ancestors originally chose to leave. While Europe tried appeasement prior to WWII, US chose isolation, which is different. WWI, Europe chose nationalism, US chose isolation.

WWII did change US, fundamentally. Vietnam mitigated those new tendencies for awhile, but probably not to the extent in the big picture that the UN 'ceasefire' in Korea did. The failures of US administrations from Carter on, including both GOP and Democratic, to meaningfully address the terrorist threat, was brought home to US on 9/11. US citizens in general, perceive things very differently than our distant European cousins. Each of our governments reflect that.

The thing with China is that it only works with money. Selling arms? Great! China get more military power, - we can make another reality show. But the system, the dictatorship of China only does what it need to get the benefits out of our short-sighted goals.

I don't mean that two wrongs make one right, but I think it is the way the western society sometimes take an too easy route.

As for China, there may be a huge problem here, then again we may be watching the machinations of a system undergoing collapse. Too soon to tell.

 

[IceEyes]

.
.
.
To be perfectly honest, seems the US is often out of step with Europe, which may well be the reason so many of our ancestors originally chose to leave. While Europe tried appeasement prior to WWII, US chose isolation, which is different. WWI, Europe chose nationalism, US chose isolation.
.
.
.

I see what you mean, and probably you are right too. Still, maybe work can be done here and maybe other upcoming events will make it apperant who's who in the world. The thing is, I don't know anyone feeling closer to eastern Europe or Turkey than USA. I don't think USA and Europe need to agree always, but I think both Europe and USA would benefit from a friendly and open relation. This will also require a better unity from Europe.

 

[Annie]

.
.
.
To be perfectly honest, seems the US is often out of step with Europe, which may well be the reason so many of our ancestors originally chose to leave. While Europe tried appeasement prior to WWII, US chose isolation, which is different. WWI, Europe chose nationalism, US chose isolation.
.
.
.

I see what you mean, and probably you are right too. Still, maybe work can be done here and maybe other upcoming events will make it apperant who's who in the world. The thing is, I don't know anyone feeling closer to eastern Europe or Turkey than USA. I don't think USA and Europe need to agree always, but I think both Europe and USA would benefit from a friendly and open relation. This will also require a better unity from Europe.

Turkey, I wouldn't be so sure. There are problems there, but still trying to address. They are in a very bad neighborhood.

Eastern Europe, yes we support them, perhaps most importantly from our point-of-view, they reflect the ideals we hold dear and seem willing to stand up for them, within their abilities to do so.

 

[IceEyes]

Turkey, I wouldn't be so sure. There are problems there, but still trying to address. They are in a very bad neighborhood.

Eastern Europe, yes we support them, perhaps most importantly from our point-of-view, they reflect the ideals we hold dear and seem willing to stand up for them, within their abilities to do so.

All of these countries has alot of problems to sort out. But what I meant was that we have a much closer bond to USA than with some of our closer European countries. To some this bond is something that they tend not to mention, or even denies.

After WWII Sweden silentley took the side of USA against Soviet. Being a neighbour to Soviet totally formed our post-war politics. Swedish airmen were actually killed performing missions for getting intellegence. Something USA, Sweden and Soviet denied together - cold-war-logic. We are highly influenced by America. From television to clothing and well, you know. Kids in school generally talks with an Amercian accent, instead of English.
I hear people gripe about what USA has done and haven't done, but I expect you have the same sort of debate domestically?

I don't think Sweden and USA has never had a exceptional political relation. But that is not a sign of mistrust, I think it is fairley sound really.

So, how does this reflect the rest of Europe thinking? Some where in the middle I would guess. I am not pro-USA. I am pro-Constructive thinking and pro-Our way of life. Mostley that put us fairly close to countries like yours but also countries like France, Germany, Austraila and so on.