Washington Neo-cons threatening Europeans over arms sales to

[moughoun]

Washington Neo-cons threatening Europeans over arms sales to China
May 15 2004 at 1:03 AM
No score for this post
Xiao Long (Login raven5758)
Member


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington Neo-cons threatening Europeans over arms sales to China

US threat to restrict arms sales to Europe
By Edward Alden in Washington
Published: May 13 2004 22:39 | Last Updated: May 13 2004 22:39


The US House of Representatives is threatening to restrict the sale of US military equipment and technologies to European allies if the European Union decides to lift its arms embargo on China.

The House armed services committee late on Wednesday approved legislation that would slap new export restrictions on sales of US defence and sensitive commercial technologies to any country selling arms to China. In addition, the committee adopted an amendment that would bar the Pentagon for five years from doing any business with a company that sells arms to China, a prohibitive penalty for any of the European defence companies.
US officials said the bill was a "shot across the bows" aimed at strongly discouraging the EU from lifting its ban on arms sales to China.

The ban was imposed in 1989 following the Tiananmen Square massacre, and several European member states, led by France and Germany, are eager to see it lifted so commercial military sales can be resumed. China is currently the world's largest weapons importer, buying more than $2bn in military equipment in 2002.

The EU has already eased its interpretation of the embargo, allowing sales of about $200m in "non-lethal" military equipment to China in 2002.

Despite pressure from China, the EU this month refused to lift the embargo during a visit to Brussels by Wen Jiabao, China's premier. But the issue remains under discussion by the EU member states, even though critics say it will remove an important piece of leverage to press China to improve its human rights record.

The legislation poses a dilemma for the White House. On the one hand, the administration is in the midst of an internal review aimed at easing restrictions on the sales of military equipment to close US allies, particularly Europe, to encourage inter-operability of US and allied forces.

The $200bn Joint Strike Fighter project, for instance, will require much closer sharing of US defence technologies with Europe.

But the administration is also strongly opposed to the EU lifting its arms ban on China, fearing that China will acquire new weaponry that would pose a greater threat to Taiwan.

In addition, powerful Republicans in Congress, led by Duncan Hunter, the armed services committee chairman, and Henry Hyde, the international relations committee chairman, want to block the administration's efforts to ease controls on sales of military goods to Europe, and any weakening of European restrictions on arms sales to China would give them new ammunition.

"It is a burden on the case we need to make if these countries are removing their own obstacles on military trade with China," said a senior State Department official.

[Romulus]

Good!

[UkrainianAmerican]

Good!
Word to daddy.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Why the concern over European exports to China are these Neocons juiced in with US arms companies or are they worried about China's increasing military might.

[Kilgor]

China's human rights record is not up to even close to acceptable standard.

The embargo should stay.

Worse is their continued support of north korea.

[Kriz]

China's human rights record is not up to even close to acceptable standard.

The embargo should stay.

Worse is their continued support of north korea.

Is the USA's human right's record so wonderfull ?? If you see the troops behaviour in Iraq I doubt that.

[weedman]

China's human rights record is not up to even close to acceptable standard.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/amnestynow/i/guantanamo.jpg

[Tengu]

FN will propably never export guns to china because it is in belgium and in belgium we normaly don't send arms to countries like china.

France will be happy to export no doubt.

[oldsoak]

This is not a good approach. Right now, China could be a big help.

[Kilgor]

Thats the way the US treats its enemy.

China human rights record against its own people is terrible.

Some obviously cant tell the difference

[oldsoak]

FN will propably never export guns to china because it is in belgium and in belgium we normaly don't send arms to countries like china.

.

Hang on - didnt FN flog stuff to Zaire and places like that ?

[Tengu]

Could be but i doubt it because a year ago there was a big discussion about sending arms to nepal because of human right violations. In the end they were send to nepal because it was a democray defending itself against commi rebels.

It is very possible that FN has send weapons to the congo recently because we are training the army over there.

[-Max2-]

Its a shame that some EU countries (France surprisingly :roll: ) want to lift this embargo. China is NOT a partner.

If they lift the arms embargo on China, i will be very disappointed by the EU...

[oldsoak]

The Chinese may yet turn to Russia if they dont get what they want from us. Remember we give the Russians stick over human rights, the Bear well may invite the Dragon in for tea. China could fund the projects that the Russians cannot fund in return for the technology. We then have a situation where the PRC and Russia have achieved their aims and we have no influence with either.

[Romulus]

The Chinese may yet turn to Russia if they dont get what they want from us.

Doubt that. Russia wouldn't give them the time of day when it comes to arms deals.

[henksmoeder]

mmm, china has a bad record on human rights. Now I'm thinking about it, wasn't it the US who, amongst other countries, who supllied Sadam Hoessein with weapons?

[-Max2-]

mmm, china has a bad record on human rights.Now I'm thinking about it, wasn't it the US who, amongst other countries, who supllied Sadam Hoessein with weapons?

Not really. The Soviet Union, France and China were the main suppliers of arms to Iraq. The United States was a relatively minor supplier...

[anv2]

Restrict the sale of US military equipment and technologies to Europe? Wouldn't that just benefit European defence industry and make american companies lose contracts?

[henksmoeder]

mmm, china has a bad record on human rights.Now I'm thinking about it, wasn't it the US who, amongst other countries, who supllied Sadam Hoessein with weapons?

Not really. The Soviet Union, France and China were the main suppliers of arms to Iraq. The United States was a relatively minor supplier...

A minor supplier is still a supplier -max-. And i don't believe that giving that man the necesary stuff to make bio weapons is to be considered minor.

[Kitsune]

anv2 wrote:

Restrict the sale of US military equipment and technologies to Europe? Wouldn't that just benefit European defence industry and make american companies lose contracts?

That is exactly the point.

[ronin2172]

mmm, china has a bad record on human rights. Now I'm thinking about it, wasn't it the US who, amongst other countries, who supllied Sadam Hoessein with weapons?
what does that have to do with anything? What is your point?

[ronin2172]

mmm, china has a bad record on human rights.Now I'm thinking about it, wasn't it the US who, amongst other countries, who supllied Sadam Hoessein with weapons?

Not really. The Soviet Union, France and China were the main suppliers of arms to Iraq. The United States was a relatively minor supplier...

A minor supplier is still a supplier -max-. And i don't believe that giving that man the necesary stuff to make bio weapons is to be considered minor.
this is about CHINA not IRAQ. And when u say the US clarify that it was private US companies that supplied him not the US government directly

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

I have a little trouble with these neocons policies towards the EU, I believe that Israel has also been informed that if they continue to supply China with technology then they too would suffer restrictions on arms and technology. I have some issues with China's human right record but at the same time they are a powerful lever over some countries that we in the West have no influence over so I for one would not cut them out of the loop. What I find difficult to believe is that the administration fears that China will acquire new weaponry that would pose a greater threat to Taiwan. Would the US pursue such a policy just to protect Taiwan or is there concern that China may in the next 20 years become a powerful rival.

[ronin2172]

I have a little trouble with these neocons policies towards the EU, I believe that Israel has also been informed that if they continue to supply China with technology then they too would suffer restrictions on arms and technology. I have some issues with China's human right record but at the same time they are a powerful lever over some countries that we in the West have no influence over so I for one would not cut them out of the loop. What I find difficult to believe is that the administration fears that China will acquire new weaponry that would pose a greater threat to Taiwan. Would the US pursue such a policy just to protect Taiwan or is there concern that China may in the next 20 years become a powerful rival.
I think there is a concern that china will become a rival. China is actively trying to build a blue water navy, yet they have no rivals in their region with that ability. Russia in the past perhaps, but the russian navy is in a shambles now. In fact there is no one in the pacific with such a force except the US. No country in their right mind threatens China with invasion, considering they have the worlds largest army (not to mention militia) backed up by nukes. The only reason for them to want such a force is to have more influence over other countries in the region. Prehaps with such a force in place it would give them more confidence to take Taiwain should Taiwain (heaven forbid) decide to claim independance. Or it would give them more confidence to take the spratley's , a potentially oil rich island chain to which the chinese "claim" as their own.

[oldsoak]

As Bacilluspolymyxa has pointed out, China has levers.

Dear PRC. we in Europe wont sell you arms to modernise your forces on the grounds of human rights violations, but please, please, please bring round North Korea to our point of view....sorry, did you say go forth and multiply ?
The Chinese perception of Europeans is that we've been nothing but trouble since we turned up on their doorsteps. When we could not subjugate, we attempted to undermine. I think we want to be smart with these guys - a little window dressing now may yeild dividends on the future.

[ronin2172]

As Bacilluspolymyxa has pointed out, China has levers.

Dear PRC. we in Europe wont sell you arms to modernise your forces on the grounds of human rights violations, but please, please, please bring round North Korea to our point of view....sorry, did you say go forth and multiply ?
The Chinese perception of Europeans is that we've been nothing but trouble since we turned up on their doorsteps. When we could not subjugate, we attempted to undermine. I think we want to be smart with these guys - a little window dressing now may yeild dividends on the future.
ok, but just because china has levers and euros have a rather sordid history with china, does that mean u ignore china's transgressions? Kissing china's A$$ doesn't mean that she will do what u want. Besides i don't think selling China weapons tech to get her to pressure NK into giving up anything is what a lot of Euro Governments r really concerned about....profit seems to be their motivation.

And let's say China convinces NK to give up nukes...cool, now what if China uses her new weapon tech to invade Taiwan or grab the spratley's and start a war? Do the ends truly justify the means?

[henksmoeder]

mmm, china has a bad record on human rights. Now I'm thinking about it, wasn't it the US who, amongst other countries, who supllied Sadam Hoessein with weapons?
what does that have to do with anything? What is your point?

Do I really have to explain :roll:? Okay than. Everybody in here is screaming things like, don't deliver to the chinese because they tend to violate human rights etc. Sadam violated human rights but still the US government didn't object to it, because it would be good for the GOP.

[ronin2172]

the point is Iraq has NOTHING to do with this situation. We are talking about China not Iraq....

[oldsoak]

As Bacilluspolymyxa has pointed out, China has levers.

Dear PRC. we in Europe wont sell you arms to modernise your forces on the grounds of human rights violations, but please, please, please bring round North Korea to our point of view....sorry, did you say go forth and multiply ?
The Chinese perception of Europeans is that we've been nothing but trouble since we turned up on their doorsteps. When we could not subjugate, we attempted to undermine. I think we want to be smart with these guys - a little window dressing now may yeild dividends on the future.
ok, but just because china has levers and euros have a rather sordid history with china, does that mean u ignore china's transgressions? Kissing china's A$$ doesn't mean that she will do what u want. Besides i don't think selling China weapons tech to get her to pressure NK into giving up anything is what a lot of Euro Governments r really concerned about....profit seems to be their motivation.

And let's say China convinces NK to give up nukes...cool, now what if China uses her new weapon tech to invade Taiwan or grab the spratley's and start a war? Do the ends truly justify the means?

Ah, there is no need to kiss anyones A$$. We can still push for human rights, but apply pressure tactfully and not in areas where China feels national security is at stake - and we do it behind closed doors. "Reforms" can then be applied without any linkage to the west. China is unlikely to want to invade Taiwan - wars are costly, Taiwan is well defended and international opinion would have a very negative view of it not to mention the possibility of engaging the US. In anycase, sooner or later they will economically dwarf Taiwan and push them from their markets and take them over economically. The Chinese are nothing if not patient, and they are willing to wait - which is a good thing for the stability of that part of the world.
As for the Spratleys - The PRC could argue that Chinese sailors were there and recorded it earlier than anyone else - allegedly. Personally I reckon they should be a world marine reserve - its too precious to leave to profit.
I do take your point about profit being the motive - sad but true, everyone is playing for profit or influence.

[admar2]

China's human rights record is not up to even close to acceptable standard.

The embargo should stay.

Worse is their continued support of north korea.

Is the USA's human right's record so wonderfull ?? If you see the troops behaviour in Iraq I doubt that.

you're a ****in moron if you think there is any moral equivalence between the US human rights record and China or N. Korea's record.

[OB Kenobi]

Why the concern over European exports to China are these Neocons juiced in with US arms companies or are they worried about China's increasing military might.

They're just putting on a show. They would love for China to be more threatening, then they can sell more stuff to China's neighbors.

It's like a neverending poker game, someone keeps raising the ante, if you want to keep playing you gotta pay.

[J-10]

"Europe surpassed the United States in the mid-1990's as the world's largest producer of scientific literature."


"Businesses were going to China not just because of low costs but to take advantage of China's growing scientific excellence."

Pls see this "U.S. Is Losing Its Dominance in the Sciences":
http://daghlian.net/scrapbook/03RESE.html