EU Reassures China over Plans To Lift Arms Ban

[onedomino]

I am not sure if the following story is accurate. It is, after all, filed by an AFP reporter from the EU Brussels Politburo. If the EU goes forward and sells weapons to the totalitarians in China, then the US should immediately halt all military technology transfers to the participating EU nations. The weapons that the EU sells to China will be pointed at Americans defending democracy across the Taiwan Strait. Certainly, this would greatly please the French. Observe that America’s Asian allies (e.g., Singapore, Australia, India, and Japan) do not plan to sell weapons to the commissars in Beijing. Only America’s political enemies in the EU plan such cynical behavior. Let there be no mistake: punitive actions against the EU should also include the UK if it goes ahead with its threat to participate in the EU-China arms bazaar. Such action would mean, among many punitive details, that the UK and Italy would forfeit their participation in the F-35 Joint Strike-Fighter program. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/ If the UK sells weapons to the Chinese, then it should be prepared to sacrifice the sixty RN F-35C-STOVL aircraft it intends to obtain from America to replace its aging Sea Harrier jump jets. This would render UK aircraft carriers virtually obsolete. Instead of the first tier technology JSF, UK aircraft carriers would have to continue to utilize obsolete Sea Harriers (used, for example, in the 1982 Falklands war with Argentina). Why should countries that give succor to our enemies receive out best military technology? It is time to play hardball with the Brussels Politburo. The US Congress should pass a preemptive law outlining the military technology repercussions of EU weapons transfers to China.

EU Reassures China over Plans To Lift Arms Ban
By Michael Thurston, Agence France-Press, Brussels

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=728917&C=asiapac

The European Union on March 17 reassured China that it was pressing ahead with plans to lift a 15-year-old arms embargo on Beijing, despite an international storm sparked by its anti-secession law targeting Taiwan.
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said the controversial law, which authorizes the use of force if Taipei moves towards independence, had caused “complicated atmospherics” around the debate over the EU arms ban.

But the EU plans remain on track, he said after talks with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing in Brussels.

He recalled that EU leaders agreed last December to work notably on beefing up an EU code of conduct, as preparation for lifting the embargo slapped on Beijing after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre.

“We are working politically towards that end. We want that end to be a reality. We are working very hard ourselves on compromises that we have to find among ourselves,” he told reporters. “The sooner the better.”

The EU’s current Luxembourg presidency has set a target of agreement on lifting the ban by the end of its term at the EU helm in June, but the anti-secession law has clouded the issue.

Solana conceded that this had had a political impact. But he also said there were some “positive” elements in the Chinese law (Solana, you Euro-weasel, what positive elements are there in a law that authorizes PRC military action against Taiwan?), and indicated it did not fundamentally change the EU’s aim of lifting the embargo.

“The atmospherics ... may have been a little more complicated with some countries or some parliaments (Yes, things will be quite a bit "more complicated" if, as threatened by some members of the US Congress, America ends military technology transfers to the EU). We’ll see how things evolve. But the political will continues to be ... to keep on working on achieving that aim.”

Those demanding an end to the arms ban — a group of EU states spearheaded by French President Jacques Chirac — argue that the EU ban is outdated given the political changes of the last decade and a half. (France has always been adept at rationalizing business transactions and political support for despots.)

Critics allege that those pushing for the ban to be lifted are appeasing China in the hope of securing trade and political benefits from the emerging global economic titan.

Earlier this month Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian warned the EU bluntly that lifting the arms ban could threaten the whole region.

“Should the EU decide to lift its arms embargo against China it might lead to a tilt in the military balance in the Taiwan Strait which would pose a clear threat to peace and stability,” he said in a videoconference with EU lawmakers.

The United States has made it clear it opposed ending the EU ban, warning it could help upset the military balance between China and Taiwan, and members of the U.S. Congress have even warned of trade reprisals if the EU goes ahead.

Responding to the U.S. concerns, the EU sent a delegation to Washington this week — and Solana said March 17 that progress had been made in clearing up “misunderstandings.”

Solana added that he plans to travel to Washington at the end of March to personally explain the EU plans.

The Chinese minister, holding a day of talks with EU officials in Brussels and Luxembourg, said he believed the EU had enough “political wisdom” to end the embargo, which he said was “irrational” and discriminatory.

“I believe that the EU, as a very important group of countries, will have enough political wisdom and political courage to lift as quickly as possible this measure,” he said after talks at the Belgian parliament.

Solana declined to forecast when the ban will be lifted, or if it still can be by June.

“We are working as fast as we can. But I cannot guarantee you (when it will be lifted). But it will be,” he said.

 

[taff]

I am not sure if the following story is accurate. It is, after all, filed by an AFP reporter from the EU Brussels Politburo. If the EU goes forward and sells weapons to the totalitarians in China, then the US should immediately halt all military technology transfers to the participating EU nations. The weapons that the EU sells to China will be pointed at Americans defending democracy across the Taiwan Strait. Certainly, this would greatly please the French. Observe that America’s Asian allies (e.g., Singapore, Australia, India, and Japan) do not plan to sell weapons to the commissars in Beijing. Only America’s political enemies in the EU plan such cynical behavior. Let there be no mistake: punitive actions against the EU should also include the UK if it goes ahead with its threat to participate in the EU-China arms bazaar. Such action would mean, among many punitive details, that the UK and Italy would forfeit their participation in the F-35 Joint Strike-Fighter program. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/ If the UK sells weapons to the Chinese, then it should be prepared to sacrifice the sixty RN F-35C-STOVL aircraft it intends to obtain from America to replace its aging Sea Harrier jump jets. This would render UK aircraft carriers virtually obsolete. Instead of the first tier technology JSF, UK aircraft carriers would have to continue to utilize obsolete Sea Harriers (used, for example, in the 1982 Falklands war with Argentina). Why should countries that give succor to our enemies receive out best military technology? It is time to play hardball with the Brussels Politburo. The US Congress should pass a preemptive law outlining the military technology repercussions of EU weapons transfers to China.

Your hatred for the UK still revolts me you little keyboard cyber warrior.You keep harping on about the f-35 deal as if we depend on it.Get a grip.The norm is we make and use our own equipment. I have heard nothing in the UK about deals with China so in the future please wait till there has been a deal before you condem us.Prick.

 

[onedomino]

Brilliant rejoinder, daft. Since you cannot address the issues you engage in personal attacks. For your belated information, Jack Straw is in the EU vanguard that wants to sell weapons to China: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/15/wchina15.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/01/15/ixnewstop.html

 

[taff]

I am not sure if the following story is accurate. It is, after all, filed by an AFP reporter from the EU Brussels Politburo. If the EU goes forward and sells weapons to the totalitarians in China, then the US should immediately halt all military technology transfers to the participating EU nations. The weapons that the EU sells to China will be pointed at Americans defending democracy across the Taiwan Strait. Certainly, this would greatly please the French. Observe that America’s Asian allies (e.g., Singapore, Australia, India, and Japan) do not plan to sell weapons to the commissars in Beijing. Only America’s political enemies in the EU plan such cynical behavior. Let there be no mistake: punitive actions against the EU should also include the UK if it goes ahead with its threat to participate in the EU-China arms bazaar. Such action would mean, among many punitive details, that the UK and Italy would forfeit their participation in the F-35 Joint Strike-Fighter program. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/ If the UK sells weapons to the Chinese, then it should be prepared to sacrifice the sixty RN F-35C-STOVL aircraft it intends to obtain from America to replace its aging Sea Harrier jump jets. This would render UK aircraft carriers virtually obsolete. Instead of the first tier technology JSF, UK aircraft carriers would have to continue to utilize obsolete Sea Harriers (used, for example, in the 1982 Falklands war with Argentina). Why should countries that give succor to our enemies receive out best military technology? It is time to play hardball with the Brussels Politburo. The US Congress should pass a preemptive law outlining the military technology repercussions of EU weapons transfers to China.

And if our military equipment is so poor then we were dam lucky in the Falklands then werent we?Which other country of our size could have achieved victory so far away from home with such a small contingent sent to complete the job?

 

[taff]

If i slagged America would i not be personaly attacked.You persistantly attack Britain so i will always bite to your posts.

 

[onedomino]

Having a hard time with reading comprehension, daft? I am criticizing British government policy, not attacking Britain. If the EU carries through with its threat to sell weapons to China, then the danger to US service personnel in the Taiwan Strait will increase. Moreover, the threat to Taiwanese democracy will intensify. Americans realize that many Europeans could not care less about increased Chinese threats to US service personnel and Taiwanese democracy. Thus American policy and law must be such that the EU understands what will happen if it sells weapons to China: US military technology transfers to the offending countries will end. Since you think that Britian makes its own military equipment, then you have no need to be worried. I can assure you, however, that the Royal Navy does not share your view.

 

[taff]

Having a hard time with reading comprehension, daft? I am criticizing British government policy, not attacking Britian. If the EU carries through with its threat to sell weapons to China, then the danger to US service personnel in the Taiwan Strait will increase. Moreover, the threat to Taiwanese democracy will intensify. Americans realize that many Europeans could not care less about increased Chinese threats to US service personnel and Taiwanese democracy. Thus American policy and law must be such that the EU understands what will happen if it sells weapons to China: US military technology transfers to the offending countries will end. Since you think that Britian makes its own military equipment, then you have no need to be worried. I can assure you, however, that the Royal Navy does not share your view.

You are attacking Britain as you are not just criticizing Britain you are also suggesting taking action against Britain by not selling us equipment.It goes both ways as you use our aging harriers also.What exactly do you think your policy to Britain should be, do as we say or else.Like i said before.Prick.

 

[taff]

Quick now cyber warrior.Run off and find some links to hit me with.

 

[taff]

In fact you should ask for an anti British thread to be opened just for you.Not just cos of this thread but because of your constant whining about Britain.Are you of Argentinian descent by any chance?

 

[onedomino]

It's not my suggestion, daft. The termination of American military technology transfers to the EU as a result of arms sales to China has been suggested by members of the US Congress. I agree with them. Discussion with you, however, is pointless. You do not address the issues; you engage in personal attacks.

 

[taff]

This is just one issue you have with Britain.We have allready discussed this issue on a thread started suprisingly by yourself where i agreed with you that Britain should not sell arms to China.

 

[taff]

In fact to make it up to you i.ll do you a favour.I shall browse all the UK papers dailly and everytime i find a negative comment about the UK i shall e-mail it to you.You can start a nice little thread with it.All the best Onedomino or Onebraincell as we say in the UK.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Your hatred for the UK still revolts me you little keyboard cyber warrior.You keep harping on about the f-35 deal as if we depend on it.Get a grip.The norm is we make and use our own equipment. I have heard nothing in the UK about deals with China so in the future please wait till there has been a deal before you condem us.Prick.

If the uk does nothing to stop this lunacy of selling arms to china, then they are a repugnant spineless nation.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This is just one issue you have with Britain.We have allready discussed this issue on a thread started suprisingly by yourself where i agreed with you that Britain should not sell arms to China.

And as part of the EU they are bound to do something about their european neighbors doing it.

 

[Annie]

UK could step up to take the lead regarding this dangerous issue, I'm surprised at Jack Straw.

 

[taff]

If the uk does nothing to stop this lunacy of selling arms to china, then they are a repugnant spineless nation.

And you supporte terrorism till it came back to bite you on the arse.i dragged many Americans out of demonstrations in Ireland and plenty of Brit soldiers killed with american financed bullets from the IRA.

 

[onedomino]

Daft is not intelligent enough to argue based on the issues. Instead, he mindlessly spews invective and betrays his ignorance. For more thoughtful remarks by Daft, check this thread, where he does his slow-witted best to insult the American military: http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?p=255283#post255283

 

[onedomino]

Rice: European Nations Must Not Arm China

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050320/D88ULKPO0.html (full article)

BEIJING (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested Sunday that European governments are irresponsible if they sell sophisticated weaponry to China that might one day be used against U.S. forces in the Pacific.

"It is the United States, not Europe, that is defending the Pacific," Rice said. She spoke in Seoul, the penultimate stop on her weeklong tour of Asia.

South Korea, Japan and the United States are all Pacific powers and all contribute resources to keep the Asia-Pacific region stable, Rice said.

The European Union may soon lift an arms embargo on China that was imposed after the deadly 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square. Lifting the embargo would allow sale of technology and weapons that China badly wants to modernize its creaky military. China has recently gone on a military spending spree that Rice said concerns the United States.

"The European Union should do nothing to contribute," to the possibility that Chinese forces might turn European technology on Americans, Rice said after meetings with the South Korean president and foreign minister.

Rice has earlier said that China's recent statements about a possible invasion of Taiwan should give the Europeans pause. China passed a law this month codifying its intention to use military force against Taiwan should the island declare formal independence.

-

 

[Adam's Apple]

More information on this topic:

Europe Poised to Make Mistake Selling Arms to China
By Senator Richard Lugar, Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee
March 21, 2005

In response to the brutal crackdown on peaceful demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989, both Europe and the United States imposed arms embargoes on China. Now, the European Union appears to be on the verge of lifting its embargo.

This would be a serious mistake. Republicans and Democrats in Congress are united with President Bush in imploring the Europeans to turn back from this unwise and potentially dangerous course of action.

This is not about bashing Europe. I have long championed strong ties with our European allies, and I also favor appropriate engagement with China. But U.S. national security interests could be harmed if the European Union countries sell sophisticated weapons and technology to China.

The primary threat is proliferation. China's military is aggressively seeking more advanced weaponry and electronics for its ongoing modernization. Europe will have little practical control over where that key technology may end up. China is a notorious proliferator of weapons technology and it has been proven difficult to rein in.

Last year alone, the United States imposed sanctions on 23 Chinese individuals and companies for violating U.S. proliferation laws. These violations have included the shipment of chemical and biological weapons or materials and missile technology to Iran. China has also helped Pakistan's nuclear program and passed on military technology to North Korea and the repressive junta in Burma.

Bush highlighted another problem in his talks with the Europeans: Lifting the embargo would "change the balance of relations between China and Taiwan." Tensions across the Taiwan Strait have just been made worse by Beijing's ill-advised passage of a so-called "anti-secession law," which authorizes a military attack on Taiwan to prevent a formal declaration of independence. In light of such a potentially destabilizing action, this is no time to be taking steps that might either help China achieve a decisive military advantage over Taiwan or send the wrong political signal.

for full story http://www.indystar.com/articles/1/230710-4771-022.html

 

[onedomino]

March 22, 2005
European Union Said to Keep Embargo on Arms to China
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/politics/22diplo.html

ASHINGTON, March 21 - Yielding to pressure from President Bush and threats of retaliation from Congress, the European Union has put off plans to lift its arms embargo on China this spring and may not press the issue until next year, American and European officials said Monday.

The officials said that in addition to American pressure, European nations have been shaken by the recent adoption of legislation by the Chinese National People's Congress authorizing the use of force to stop Taiwan from seceding. The Chinese action, they said, jolted France and undercut its moves to end the embargo before June.

"Europe wants to move forward on the embargo, but the recent actions by China have made things a lot more complex," said a senior European official. "The timeline has become more difficult. The timeline is going to have to slip."

The embargo was imposed after China's crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square in 1989, and although some countries have eased their restrictions, it has curbed the supply of weapons to China while also becoming a major irritant in China's relations with the West.

A senior State Department official said European "signals" of a shift in position had been transmitted in the last few days, most notably by Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, and by a comment from the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, over the weekend.

Mr. Straw said in a television interview in Britain on Sunday that the problems of lifting the embargo "have actually got more difficult rather than less difficult," and that the Chinese action on Taiwan had created "a difficult political environment" that had stirred concern by both conservatives and liberals in Europe.

In Beijing early Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Mr. Straw's "sobering comments" reinforced the United States' continuing concern that lifting the embargo now would alter the balance of military forces in the region and undercut American efforts to get China to improve its human rights record.

Ms. Rice returned from Asia on Monday evening after several tough comments directed at China and, less directly, at Europeans. With tensions building in the Taiwan Strait, she said, and China seeking advanced technology for its navy, the sale of European equipment would jeopardize American efforts to secure the area.

"After all, it is American forces here in the Pacific that have played the role of security guarantor," Ms. Rice said.

European officials say the European Union will not back off its commitment, made last December and pressed by President Jacques Chirac of France, to lift the embargo at some point, but that doing so now would not be worth jeopardizing relations with the United States.

American and European officials said internal European politics had played a role in the timing of the planned easing of restrictions: Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain was willing to go along with the move, but he did not want it to occur while he serves as president of the European Union.

The presidency alternates among the union's 25 members every six months. Mr. Blair, who takes over at the end of June, could not be seen as defying American wishes on such a critical issue, those officials said. Some European and American officials said action on the embargo would probably wait until next year, after he has stepped down.

In the past few weeks, Europeans have pressed their case for lifting the embargo with the administration and with Congress, arguing that the rules covered lethal weapons but not the high-tech equipment that the United States worries about, like equipment that could help China with its command and control systems and tracking submarines and ships.

A top European envoy, Annalisa Giannella, was sent by Mr. Solana to Washington last week to make the case that Europe would expand a "code of conduct" restricting such equipment and set up a regime that would be effectively tighter than the current one. But Ms. Giannella was said to have persuaded no one, especially in Congress.

Indeed, administration and European officials say that Europeans have been taken aback by the ferocity of Congressional opposition to lifting the embargo, led by such Republican heavyweights as Senators Ted Stevens of Alaska and John McCain of Arizona.

Mr. Bush and his top aides have been increasingly vocal over the last couple of months in their demands that the arms embargo not be lifted. In addition, President Bush was reported by administration officials to have told the Europeans in Februrary that even if he went along with lifting the embargo, Congress would not. Congress has been alarmed by Chinese military expansion since the 1990's, when it opposed moves by President Clinton to expand military sales to the Chinese.

After Ms. Giannella's visit, Congressional leaders reiterated their opposition to lifting the embargo, in some cases threatening retaliation by blocking purchases of European military equipment for American forces.

The senior State Department official noted that Ms. Giannella "said she was here on a listening mode" and was "pummeled" on Capitol Hill. "The alarm bells tipped off Brussels that this wasn't going to work," he said, referring to the headquarters of the European Union.

President Chirac first proposed lifting the embargo in late 2003, arguing that it was obsolete. European diplomats say that France is not so much interested in selling arms to China as using the possibility of such sales as a way to sell commercial equipment, from Airbus planes to computers.

The European Union cannot take any action without a consensus. Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice have impressed enough European leaders with their stance that consensus to move on the embargo is now unlikely.

"You won't see a backing away from the commitment," said a European official. "But there's no consensus to act right now."

-