Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why the EUs emphasis on profit at the expense of promoting democratic values should alarm America.
According to Jose Barroso, the new head of the European Commission, the EU has grand plans to evolve into an economic superpower in the next five years. Perhaps this is a tacit indication they have realized their anemic spending on their military forces will prevent them from becoming a full-fledged superpower like America. Instead, Barroso says, the EU will focus on prosperity, among other priorities like solidarity and security.
The emphasis on prosperity must explain then why leaders in EU nations have decided lifting the EUs arms embargo against China is a key to this greater prosperity. Chinas economy is massive and growing, and Chinas military-industrial complex is eagerly purchasing weapons and technology from Russia and U.S. companies who skirt US sanctions by using Israel as a middleman. The French call this embargo outdated, claiming it does not conform with the good momentum in the development of relations between China and Europe. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin describes China; "today a privileged partner of the EU and has a major and responsible position in the international system.
From Europes short-sighted standpoint, such a move makes good business sense. From Americas perspective, it represents a dangerous, deadly blind acceptance of Chinas poor conduct and growing hunger for weapons and technology to conquer Taiwan and force the US to abandon its leadership and presence in the Pacific. Indeed, Americans may ask, why reward a regime that has polished its image with empty propaganda and half-hearted efforts to conceal a destabilizing arms build-up? Why concede a valuable moral and political high ground to a totalitarian state that spreads nuclear and missile technology and weaponry to dangerous rogue states like Iran and North Korea?
These are questions advocates of an end to the arms ban brush aside, with serious-sounding but empty promises to keep tabs on what China is buying and what it is doing with the purchased weapons and technology through solemn agreements and programs that are suspiciously similar to the disastrous Iraqi Oil-For-Food program. High-level consultations with America and Japan are offered, though this would likely do little more than give the EU a chance to offer the dead, dying and injured of a conquered Taiwan and a ravaged US 7th Fleet a belated reminder that multilateral talks had been convened in true diplomatic fashion.
The consequences of the EU lifting the arms ban that advocates avoid to mention are galling. China, which already has considerable access to Russian and Israeli weapons technology, as well as its own evolving homegrown defense industry, will now have top of the line European weaponry and technology at its disposal. Make no mistake about it, once the floodgates are open, the weaponry and technology will pour into Chinas eager hands, despite the claims of the EU. Chinas military will grow stronger and more advanced, leading to a more confident and daring regime that may decide the costs are worth the benefit of taking back Taiwan. More disturbing is the prospect this has for the US 7th Fleet, which would likely be the first responders for the defense of Taiwan. How many US servicemen would die from European weaponry? How many ships would be sunk, how many aircraft lost? The possibilities are worrisome, to say the least. An already difficult defense of Taiwan would likely grow even harder.
Then, of course, what is the chance China would share this technology with rogue states like North Korea, Iran and Syria? Would a free and stable Iraq (and its neighbors like Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia) be one day threatened by Iranian military forces upgraded with European weaponry and technology? Would South Korea face North Korean invaders whose already overwhelming numbers were significantly improved by European technology and weaponry? China has rarely kept its promises made to international organizations like the UN and world powers like America and Japan, chief among them being the empty vow not to spread destabilizing and deadly weaponry and technology.
Where does this all leave America and her Asian allies (Japan, South Korea and India, etc), if even after the airing of these real concerns, the EU decides to lift the ban? It is a sobering realization that even after Pres. Bushs policies and efforts have been vindicated by increasing success in Iraq and Afghanistan (and not to forget Ukraine, Georgia and the global war on terrorism), we may yet face another poisonous standoff with our former (and perhaps still current) European allies. Before this point from which relations may be severely strained is reached, America must confer with her strongest friends in Britain, Denmark, Poland and Italy, as well as others. Emphasis must be made on the continued suffering of the Chinese people, especially the dissidents, as well as the destabilizing force China has become with its spread of weapons and technology to rogue states and its obstructionist role in preventing rogue regimes like Sudan from being held to basic human rights standards. Perhaps, with a great and impassioned diplomatic push, America may succeed. If not, Pres. Bush should make it clear that the EU has abandoned the moral position it has held on to for more than a decade now, in playing a considerable and often impressive role in the pursuit of peace and prosperity in the world.
Yet hold on, because as recent developments before this growing crisis have shown, the EU has may already abandoned that important role. Indeed, the EU has been suspiciously abdicating its role as a moral force in the world. It has rewarded Cubas dictatorship for nothing, restoring diplomatic ties with Fidel Castro despite his empty promises and tightening noose on dissidents and free speech. It has avoided taking a firm stand against genocide in Darfur. It dodged most major efforts to assist the new Iraqi government rebuild and revitalize a nation grievously wounded by tyranny. Lip service was paid to the possibility of holding talks with other Arab states, wasting the great potential the carrot of increased EU ties and aid could have had in helping to defuse the largely foreigner fueled Iraqi insurgency and win the new, free Iraq some badly needed regional support. Lastly, it has stood appallingly silent (sadly too often has America recently) as China continues to ruthlessly punish its dissidents, stifle political and religious freedom, and quietly keep the North Korean regime in power through aid and support.
French and German efforts to position the EU as the main counterweight to Americas power and influence are not primarily to blame for this betrayal of America, Taiwan and the oppressed of Chinas totalitarian regime. Indeed, something disturbingly simpler is in play, greed and a cynical effort to acknowledge Chinas ascendancy into the ranks of a newly multi-polar world. Rhetoric like this can be heard from leaders of France and Germany on a regular basis, but for men like Jack Straw of Great Britain to support it should give the Bush Administration serious concern. An unsure, uncertain future looms for Americas cross-Atlantic and cross-Pacific relations if the EU decides to lift the arms ban. America must do everything it can to prevent such a troubling development from coming to pass.
Petty Officer Third Class Eddie Beaver is stationed onboard the USS KITTY HAWK (CV-63), the US 7th Fleet's aircraft carrier forward deployed in Japan.
onedomino said:-
NATO, I think the title is excellent. It contrasts the greed of the EU with the values of America. You might consider specifying "democratic values" (small d) For the EU, profit is their value.
In contrast to your closing paragraph, I believe that the primary motivation of the EU is not a greedy few billion in weapons transactions. Although I am sure that France, with its elevated and stagnant unemployment rate, salivates at the thought of Dassault fighter plane sales to the PRC totalitarians. The fundamental reason behind the EU desire to sell weapons to the Chinese is to hasten the creation of an Asian power center to rival America. Almost the entire EU is obsessed with the fact that America is the lone superpower; especially France, Germany, and now Spain with the advent of the slimy Socialists. Building weapons for the Chinese will provide the EU with income, defense manufacturing expansion, and significantly complicate American foreign policy and defense strategy. All of this will be financed by the massive trade deficit that America now suffers with the Chinese. Of course America could economically slow China by restricting trade. But then where would Wal-Mart obtain goods with which to bankrupt small American retailers? Cynicism aside, selling weapons to the Chinese will give the EU time to build up its own (now pathetic) defense force. This will fulfill the post WW2 dream of the French to become a world power center economically and militarily independent of the United States. EU weapons sales to China will be the final nail in the NATO (sorry) coffin. Is Tony Blair the only European that objects to this French fantasy? http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17257
When you mention Asian allies of the US concerned with the development of Chinese military power, I think you should mention Australia.
Good luck submitting your article. I hope it gets published.
-
yeah, I like thatNATO AIR said:Great points domino, thanks a lot.
Let's try this revised closing paragraph on for size....
French and German efforts to position the EU as the main counterweight to Americas power and influence are partially responsible for this betrayal of America, Taiwan and the oppressed of Chinas totalitarian regime. Indeed, something more sinister is is in play, besides greed and a cynical effort to acknowledge Chinas ascendancy into the ranks of a newly multi-polar world. Is this a further indication the EU realizes its not the best bet to rival the US in military power? The signs hint at the EU edging towards picking a side in the growing competition between China and America, and it is not unthinkable that the EU may be looking to strengthen China's hand to become an Asian power capable of countering America. It is worrisome to see strong allies of America like Jack Straw supporting an endeavour like this, but the facts are there. The EU is preparing to support tyranny over democratic values. A future with the darkening clouds of conflict and betrayal awaits Americas cross-Atlantic and cross-Pacific relations if the EU decides to lift the arms ban. America must do everything it can to prevent such a troubling development from coming to pass.
CSM said:awesome, NATO! There is also the fact that the EU sees itself as a counterbalance to US influence and opening another front in their conflict with the US (it is a conflict, make no mistake about that) makes it more difficult for the US to compete with them...or so they believe.
Besides India and Brazil, there are a host of other countries we could and should establish better relations with, including Indonesia and some of the emerging former Soviet states.NATO AIR said:That is very true. That's why we need to build even stronger relationships with India and Brazil, in order to keep the EU from entrenching their anti-american philosophy in these regional powers.
CSM said:Besides India and Brazil, there are a host of other countries we could and should establish better relations with, including Indonesia and some of the emerging former Soviet states.
Great line, NATO.NATO AIR said:The EU is preparing to support tyranny over democratic values.
Indeed, something more sinister is is in play, besides greed and a cynical effort to “acknowledge” China’s ascendancy into the ranks of a newly multi-polar world. Is this a further indication the EU realizes its not the best bet to rival the US in military power?
NATO AIR said:I intend to submit this for publication on the Weekly Standard's website, but wanted to share it with you all first to collect your thoughts and comments. this is a personal issue for me, because its my fleet (7th) that is endangered by this betrayal.
What does this disjointed word salad have to do with the thread?hylandrdet said:No shit Sherlock! I want everyone here to scroll back to every posting I'd made concerning how our economy can be use more effectively to fight our enemies.
The european community was embarrased when the we shoved them aside and went forth to declare war on Iraq. They want payback, EXCUSE THE PUN!!! What better way to do that than to attack the dollar.
The euro is slowly taking down the dollar's value; at the current rate, the
dollar won't be worth the paper it's written on, when compared to the Euro, within 20 years. With the money, comes the power; particulary the power to prevent a nation from invading another nation, without their permission!
The Bush administration was too distracted by the war in Iraq, to concentrate on our economic policies; to assure that the dollar remained strong.
The 2004 elections...
In that political tug-of-war, did you drag us (democrats) over the line, or did we let go of the rope and are laughing as you (republicans) land on your asses?
It's your (republicans) problem until 2006 congressional and 2008 presidential elections. note: you have 16 months until Bush becomes a lame duck. I'm confident you'll figure it out in time, since you think you're so damn smart!
So now you finally came around and realized that we're now fighting a two front war; a war against terrorism and a war against our economy. But don't get mad at me...I told you what was going on; cry me a river!
Oh, this is going to be so much fun to watch!
:rotflmao:
