THE EU, the US, IRAN, and the ARMS EMBARGO on CHINA

The arms embargo on China was imposed EU in 1989 after troops opened fire on protestors in Tiananmen Square.

Since trhe UK (and here Foreign Secretary Straw) has been leading in lifting this ban, it's obvious that a paper like the Times makes this 'subject' the theme of a leading article.

"How firm is the alliance between the EU and the USA re the rest of the "Axis of Evil" and China" - I think, even a poodle doesn't follow always his master.

As seen in this example.

0 Replies

I wonder if the EU lifts the ban, if the European media will be as critical for it 'not working with others' at it has been to the U.S. for its 'unwillingness to work with the UN' etc.?

0 Replies

Lift the arms embargo on China? The EU has proved to be an unreliable ally of the US(remember French behavior towards Iraq) I do not suggest they intentionally undermine US foreign policy. They basically have a wrong view on the issues of world stability. The problem is not the Chinese Human Rights record (which can be accurately described with one word: atrocious), but the geopolitical consequences of a full-equipped Chinese Army if internal conflicts arise in this country. In order to distract Chinese people and prevent violent uprisings, Communist despots are likely to engage in a series of military actions against little countries deemed to be part of a "Chinese Empire", such as Taiwan or Nepal. The dramatic repression we have witnessed in Tibet will begin again. Hard line army officers will take over the control of Chinese politics and will strengthen the current dictatorship.

By the contrary, if their military has operational problems, secession movements will almost certainly be able to face and defeat the oppressive regime of Beijing. The menace this government means for the free world can no longer be contained. As George Bush said in the inauguration speech it is time to aggressively promote democracy all over the world. In this struggle, China should be the main objective.

0 Replies

Thomas Hayden wrote:

The EU has proved to be an unreliable ally of the US(remember French behavior towards Iraq)

Just listing the current EU-member states within the Coalition troops:

- United Kingdom,
- Poland,
- Latvia,
- The Netherlands,
- Italy,
- Hungary,
- Slovakia,
- Lithuania,

Spain withdrew meanwhile its troops, so you may this behaviour unreliable. Then, however, you should include the other nations, who withdrew or will withdraw, as well.

0 Replies

But that wasn't the point I don't think Walter. The point is whether it is responsible for the EU to undertake the policy of fully arming a not-yet-democracy-friendly China..

Right now the United States is often accused of gunboat diplomacy by European doves, but the US stands as the world's sole superpower at this time, and nobody in Europe is the least concerned that the US will use that power toward them for imperialistic ends or any other ends.

Can we be anywhere near as confident that an expansionist minded Chinese superpower can be counted upon to exercise similar restraint?

And welcome Thomas H. Strap on your bullet proof vest and wade right on in.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But that wasn't the point I don't think Walter.

I don't know, if this was the point or not - and actually, I didn't refer to that at all.

0 Replies

I know, Walter, but I think Thomas H. inserted that line strictly as emphasis for the point he was making. He wasn't making that the point. Smile

0 Replies

Thomas Hayden wrote:

Lift the arms embargo on China? The EU has proved to be an unreliable ally of the US(remember French behavior towards Iraq) I do not suggest they intentionally undermine US foreign policy. They basically have a wrong view on the issues of world stability. The problem is not the Chinese Human Rights record (which can be accurately described with one word: atrocious), but the geopolitical consequences of a full-equipped Chinese Army if internal conflicts arise in this country. In order to distract Chinese people and prevent violent uprisings, Communist despots are likely to engage in a series of military actions against little countries deemed to be part of a "Chinese Empire", such as Taiwan or Nepal. The dramatic repression we have witnessed in Tibet will begin again. Hard line army officers will take over the control of Chinese politics and will strengthen the current dictatorship.

By the contrary, if their military has operational problems, secession movements will almost certainly be able to face and defeat the oppressive regime of Beijing. The menace this government means for the free world can no longer be contained. As George Bush said in the inauguration speech it is time to aggressively promote democracy all over the world. In this struggle, China should be the main objective.

0 Replies

By the way, despite Bush's comments to the contrary, this administration's policies towards China have been exceptionally conciliatory--and rightly so. Bush and members of Congress occasionally vent some hot air to humor conflictophiles, but Bush is as Sino-friendly as any president in recent memory.

0 Replies

He better be with a huge chunk of U.S. industry based there these days.

Seriously though I bow to your superior expertise on this one Steppenwolf and admit my own knowledge lacking in what modern China is like.

How long were you in China and how was it that you came to be living there? Are you Chinese or of Chinese heritage?

0 Replies

I was there for only about 7 months as a student. The country is fascinating; I'd suggest it to anyone. It's totally different depending on where you are, both in terms of culture and topography.

I'm not of Chinese heritage, but actually, that might have made the experience better. If you're a white American, you're likely to be treated very well and invited to random strangers' houses for dinner, particularly outside of metropolitan areas. Most of the Chinese are fascinated by Americans, and very friendly. They also absolutely love it when you try to speak Chinese (even if you're very bad at it). If you're of Chinese heritage (I had some Chinese friends with me), they expect you to speak fluent Chinese, even if you're a Chinese American. They're likely to insult you if you don't.

0 Replies

Steppenwolf wrote:

The current Chinese leadership does not consist of the belligerent "hard line army officers" you describe. Hu Jintao, Wen Jiabao, and rest of the standing committee are all deeply pragmatic and devoted exclusively to peaceful, stable, economic growth - they represent a sharp departure from party hardliners even a decade ago.

Though I think you are right to say that the current standing committee represent a departure from the hardliners of yesteryear, I do not think you can justly describe the policy of Red China towards Xinjiang, Tibet, or even Taiwan as one being "devoted exclusively to peaceful, stable, economic growth."

There has been a bit of a thaw in Formosa Strait relations recently, but that comes after another round of rather alarming sabre rattling.

0 Replies

That's the question isn't it Bhound? How peaceful would a fully armed China be compared to the one that knows at this time the USA has the capability to pretty well flatten it and who is committed to the defense of Taiwan? China has us seriously outnumbered, so the only advantage we have is a superior strike force sans ground troops.

China (and everybody else) however knows we won't attack anybody without serious provocation. And as Steppenwolf pointed out, it is to our definite economic advantage to be friends.

0 Replies

bayinghound wrote:

Steppenwolf wrote:
The current Chinese leadership does not consist of the belligerent "hard line army officers" you describe. Hu Jintao, Wen Jiabao, and rest of the standing committee are all deeply pragmatic and devoted exclusively to peaceful, stable, economic growth - they represent a sharp departure from party hardliners even a decade ago.

Though I think you are right to say that the current standing committee represent a departure from the hardliners of yesteryear, I do not think you can justly describe the policy of Red China towards Xinjiang, Tibet, or even Taiwan as one being "devoted exclusively to peaceful, stable, economic growth."

There has been a bit of a thaw in Formosa Strait relations recently, but that comes after another round of rather alarming sabre rattling.

I certainly can't justify Tibet or Xinjiang, but those areas were annexed years ago. It's politically unfeasable for the modern leadership to let those regions go, even if they wanted to; it would only open the door for nationalist hardliners. Imagine if, for instance, Adams decided to give most of the U.S. back to Native Americans. As far as Taiwan is concerned, that's the last potential area for Chinese expansion. It's a problem area, surely, and I agree that there has been considerable saber rattling of late. But that's as far as it's likely to go absent a major political upheaval on the mainland. In any event, we needn't worry about an expansionist-minded China beyond Taiwan.

0 Replies

I am against lifting the arms embargo on China.

(Actually, this is just my way of bookmarking. But I am.)

0 Replies

I'm against that as well - I wonder, however, why the US undecided on UN resolution covering China's human rights record, many Western governments have urged China to show improvement and openness.

US says no decision yet on China resolution at UN human rights meeting

Oh, yes, now I see it: if the Europeans don't end the arms embargo, then the USA will be pro human rights in China.

0 Replies

Despite its reputation, I think the US government doesn't officially meddle in a lot of human rights issues in other countries. There are simply too many in too many places to deal with them all. (I know, that doesn't excuse doing what we can but we kind of are taking care of one problem in Iraq.)

US citizens on the other hand often organize to protest both questionable human rights practices by American corporations overseas and practices by the countries themselves. South Africa's apartheid was a prime U.S. citizen target.

So if both Nimh and Walter are opposed to rearming a somewhat-less-than-democratic China, what rationale is EU using to promote that?

0 Replies

Dunno. Money, probably.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

So if both Nimh and Walter are opposed to rearming a somewhat-less-than-democratic China, what rationale is EU using to promote that?

A diplomatic gesture? I read a statement by Jack Straw about how the embargo sent the wrong message to China by putting them in the same category as Burma and Zimbabwe. I believe that the end goal here is to encourage Chinese integration (that's an optomistic take, anyway).

Behind the scenes, I wonder if the EU is hoping to foster a multi-polar world by adding another major player.

0 Replies

THE EU, the US, IRAN, and the ARMS EMBARGO on CHINA

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know