0
   

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

 
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 08:11 am
I wanted to provide some more context for the statement in the Times

Quote:
The EU is currently moving towards lifting the arms embargo imposed on China immediately after the Tiananmen Square massacre. It believes this move would help further to bring China into the global community, and recognise it does not harbour hostile intentions towards its neighbours; rather less piously, a number of large EU nations, notably France, have identified a lucrative export market for their weapons.


I was trying to find statements by European politicians which would underline aforementioned claims.
Most notable might be the EU summit in Den Haag in December 2004. The embargo lift was discussed as a possibility, but it was made clear by Jan Peter Balkenende, chairman of the European Council, that no such steps would be taken in 'foreseeable time'.

In order to lift the embargo on China at all, the heads of state of all 25 EU members would have to agree on it in the European Council. Nevertheless, the members are far from sharing a common point of view on this issue. Especially Schröder and Chirac are in favor of lifting the embargo. Reasons for this are not exclusively the economical possibilities the Chinese market holds. Closer ties to China are regarded as a counterweight to the last remaining superpower and ally in the West, the United States of America.

However, some scandinavian countries are strongly opposing an embargo lift, mentioning the human rights situation in China. Great Britain with its traditionally closer ties to the US is following these arguments.

And while chancellor Schröder is promising an enormous upswing in German-Chinese trade once the embargo is lifted (the embargo lift having been a condition Wen Jiabao set for further trade with Germany during Schröder's Peking visit), the Green coalition partner in the German government clarified that this is not the German point of view at all.

During a Bundestag debate the red-green coalition voted unanimously on upholding the embargo until China would fulfill several conditions. Amongst others those would be ratifying the UN treaty about political and civil rights as well as introducing autonomy rights for ethnical minorities.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 08:21 am
So, I'm thinking JB is saying that civil rights is a primary concern and so is Old Europe.

Welcome to A2K Old Europe. Your comments are both interesting and enlightening.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 08:28 am
I'm really just re-bookmarking this thread, it looks like there's been some solid discussion here. But I'll do it by copying something I just posted on another thread. Its from an article that otherwise focuses on some of those "growing pains": arbitrary disposessions and corruption, resulting local insurrections, etc. If I have time I'll translate some of that, it was fascinating. But these macro-numbers remain amazing, in any case.

---
This may be some of the background of the long-term concern America may need to consider re: China:

(translated from Dutch, sorry for errors)

Quote:
The awaking Chinese giant is a country where the econnomy managed to reach a fabulous average growth of 10% per year for the past twentyfive years. [..] The economy of China is tightly interwoven with those of the rest of the world. As a nation, China annually saves 40% of its GDP, America no more than 2%. A lot of those savings the Chinese government invests in the purchase of American securities. In the first nine months of 2004 alone China bought American government bonds to the amount of 180 billion dollar. If China would stop ever again investing hundreds of billions of dollars in American securities, the American economy would probably collapse. It is after all thanks to the Chinese and Japanese investments that the American government and the American consumers can still afford to live generously beyond their budget. Much of the money it lends out China earns back through American purchases of cheap Chinese products. The country at the end of 2003 was the fourt trade nation in the world, after America, Germany and Japan. China in the first ten months of 2004 had a trade surplus with America, according to US numbers, of 131 billion dollars.

Since it opened itself in the late seventies China has attracted over 500 billion dollas in investments from abroad, while India succeeded in attracting less than a tenth of that amoount. It has thus grown to be the factory floor of the world. The earned capital is now invested in ever greater scale also in Chinese business investments overseas.

(That was from the Magazine of the NRC Handelsblad)

I think in the long term China will take over from the US as the top dog. Dont know whether it'll be in my lifetime, but eventually - unless its growing pains escalate and uprisings take the country down in flames.

The EU will remain in third place at best throughout.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 08:49 am
And I followed Nimh's post on the other thread with this:

I think there is no comparison between the two economies and they cannot be compared in the same way.

The United States 2003 GDP was roughly 10.9 trillion dollars. The China 2003 GDP was roughly 1.4 trillion dollars placing it behind Japan, Germany, the UK, France, and Italy individually.

The population of the United States is roughly 285 million; China roughly 1.3 billion. Somebody smarter than me can figure productivity per capita.

I will imagine the 2004 numbers will come in with no change in those ratios.

China will have to change systemically before it becomes a serious economic threat to anybody anytime soon I think.
_______________________________

I should have qualified my remarks on the other post that I do not minimize the fact that China is an up and comer in the economic world and probably economic conditions within China have been steadily improving.

I draw my opinions from looking at the decades of history of communistic regimes rising to power and comparing their productivity with those of the free world and the lot in life of their rank and file citizen with those in the free world. I just can't believe a communistic form of government is going to be as successful.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 10:39 am
bm
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 11:03 am
Giving old europe's excellent summary just another perspective re German view: lifting the ban is clearly a wish by the industry ... and many conservatives.
Schröder is following here their line, but this is not the view of his party in general.

I fully agree with nimh's last sentences - especially re "Dont know whether it'll be in my lifetime": I'm rather sur, he will!
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 11:43 am
CIA Gives Grim Warning on European Prospects

Sun 16 Jan 2005

NICHOLAS CHRISTIAN

THE CIA has predicted that the European Union will break-up within 15 years unless it radically reforms its ailing welfare systems.

The report by the intelligence agency, which forecasts how the world will look in 2020, warns that Europe could be dragged into economic decline by its ageing population. It also predicts the end of Nato and post-1945 military alliances.

In a devastating indictment of EU economic prospects, the report warns: "The current EU welfare state is unsustainable and the lack of any economic revitalisation could lead to the splintering or, at worst, disintegration of the EU, undermining its ambitions to play a heavyweight international role."

It adds that the EU's economic growth rate is dragged down by Germany and its restrictive labour laws. Reforms there - and in France and Italy to lesser extents - remain key to whether the EU as a whole can break out of its "slow-growth pattern".

Reflecting growing fears in the US that the pain of any proper reform would be too much to bear, the report adds that the experts it consulted "are dubious that the present political leadership is prepared to make even this partial break, believing a looming budgetary crisis in the next five years would be the more likely trigger for reform".

The EU is also set for a looming demographic crisis because of a drop in birth rates and increased longevity, with devastating economic consequences.

The report says: "Either European countries adapt their workforces, reform their social welfare, education and tax systems, and accommodate growing immigrant populations [chiefly from Muslim countries] or they face a period of protracted economic stasis."

As a result of the increased immigration needed, the report predicts that Europe's Muslim population is set to increase from around 13% today to between 22% and 37% of the population by 2025, potentially triggering tensions.

The report predicts that America's relationships with Europe will be "dramatically altered" over the next 15 years, in a move away from post-Second World War institutions. Nato could disappear and be replaced by increased EU action.

"The EU, rather than Nato, will increasingly become the primary institution for Europe, and the role Europeans shape for themselves on the world stage is most likely to be projected through it," the report adds. "Whether the EU will develop an army is an open question."

Defence spending by individual European countries, including the UK, France, and Germany, is likely to fall further behind China and other countries over the next 15 years. Collectively these countries will outspend all others except the US and possibly China.

The expected next technological revolution will involve the convergence of nano, bio, information and materials technology and will further bolster China and India's prospects, the study predicts. Both countries are investing in basic research in these fields and are well placed to be leaders. But whereas the US will retain its overall lead, the report warns "Europe risks slipping behind Asia in some of these technologies".

For Europe, an increasing preference for natural gas may reinforce regional relationships, such as those with Russia or North Africa, given the inter-dependence of pipeline delivery, the report argues. But this means the EU will have to deal with Russia, which the report also warns "faces a severe demographic crisis resulting from low birth rates, poor medical care and a potentially explosive Aids situation".

Russia also borders an "unstable region" in the Caucasus and Central Asia, "the effects of which - Muslim extremism, terrorism and endemic conflict - are likely to continue spilling over into Russia".

The report also largely en dorses forecasts that by 2020 China's gross domestic product will exceed that of individual western economic powers except for the US. India's GDP will have overtaken or be overtaking European economies.

Because of the sheer size of China's and India's populations their standard of living need not approach European and western levels to become important economic powers.

The economies of other developing countries, such as Brazil, could surpass all but the largest European countries by 2020.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 11:49 am
JustWonders, were do you find all those awesome articles to copy-paste here?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 11:52 am
Yes, for decades those guys at Langley are known to prophesy everything absolutely correct .
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 11:59 am
I think Walter found the same opinion piece I did, which ended with

Quote:
On the other hand, a new CIA analysis has predicted the collapse of the EU within 15 years. It's a bit unsettling to find that the guys at Langley who've got absolutely everything wrong for decades suddenly agree with me. If this pans out as most CIA analysis does, Europe is on course to be the hyperpower of the 21st century.


link that I wouldn't recommend following
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 12:00 pm
High five, Walter!!

ROFL
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 12:07 pm
ehBeth wrote:
I think Walter found the same opinion piece I did, which ended with


Read it already 12 hours ago, hell, I've even sunscribed "my conservative" newsletter there :wink:
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 12:34 pm
The first reference I can find to this "CIA" report is on FreeRepublic from about Jan 12th (I've already closed the window so can't say the exact date) - but it doesn't seem to be appearing in any media not tied to FR. May search again later.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 01:01 pm
Diplomatic Immunity Extends to Eurocrats


What the Government describes as "a small, technical and non-controversial" Bill now being nodded through Parliament will give the equivalent of diplomatic immunity to the employees of a range of "international organisations", mostly organs of the EU. The "privileges and immunities" it grants will be enjoyed not just by staff members of these bodies, but by all members of their families and "households".

Although questioning of this curious Bill has been led by a tireless Eurosceptic, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, it has raised the eyebrows of even such a committed Europhile as Lord Wallace of Saltaire. He was surprised to discover that, since his wife is a director of the Robert Schuman Centre, part of the European University Institute, he will share her "immunity from domestic taxation" and other privileges, as her "dependent spouse".

The danger of this Bill, according to Lord Wallace, is that it will create "two classes of people - those of us who are subject to domestic law and pay our taxes and parking fines, and an increasing number of people who do not".

While insisting he is a "strong supporter of the further development of the European Union", he regards "the powers, privileges and status of the Commission and many of its agencies with mixed feelings", fearing that "there is a real danger of a popular backlash against the emergence of this privileged elite".

The significance of this is that, as Lord Wallace himself pointed out, there are ever more of these EU bodies whose staff enjoy privileges above national law. In response to a question from Lord Pearson, the Government itself only named 28, ranging from the European Railways Agency and the European Plant Variety Office to the European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia, although the Foreign Office concedes that its list will have to be updated "as new bodies are added".

What the Foreign Office would never explain, however, is how these fast-proliferating organs in many ways now represent the true government of our country. Just why therefore the privilegentsia that works for them should be granted the immunities traditionally accorded to diplomats of a foreign power is likely to inspire not just puzzlement but, as Lord Wallace suggests, very great resentment.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 01:08 pm
JW, are we discussing UK policy here now?

Quote:
International Organisations Bill
Government Bills

Long Title of Bill

A Bill to 'make provision about privileges, immunities and facilities in connection with certain international organisations.'

Synopsis

The International Organisations Bill would confer legal capacity and privileges and immunities on the following international organisations, so that they might work effectively:

Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Commonwealth Secretariat
International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea
International Criminal Court
European Court of Human Rights
EU Bodies created in the pursuit of a Common Foreign and Security Policy and Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters.

Legal capacity would allow the organisations listed to make contracts, acquire property and initiate legal proceedings. Privileges and immunities would be granted to allow the organisations to carry out their work.

Parliamentary Progess

This Bill is currently awaiting Third Reading in the Lords


Introduced to the Lords by Foreign Office Minister Baroness Symons - 24 November 2004


Second Reading - 16 December 2004 (occurred)


Grand Committee - 11 January 2005 (occurred)


Report Stage - 7 February 2005 (occurred)


Third Reading - 28 February 2005 (provisional)
Source

Link to full text of the Bill
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 01:33 pm
The only opposition for this "Bill now being nodded through Parliament" comes from the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which isn't represented in Parliament but only has got a couple of MEP's, nota bene: although they are against this institution!
(Robert Kilroy-Silk, the flamboyant right-wing UKIP-MEP, had recently split from the UK Independence Party and founded a new party.)

I really don't mind discussing UK politics here, especially not about matters related to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office - I 've certainly some knowledge about this due to my private contacts :wink:
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 01:39 pm
I guess JW didn't heed my warning about not following that link to the telegraph. Full of nutters and opinions, that site, not so much in the way of actual news.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 02:10 pm
old europe wrote:
I wanted to provide some more context for the statement in the Times

Quote:
The EU is currently moving towards lifting the arms embargo imposed on China immediately after the Tiananmen Square massacre. It believes this move would help further to bring China into the global community, and recognise it does not harbour hostile intentions towards its neighbours; rather less piously, a number of large EU nations, notably France, have identified a lucrative export market for their weapons.


I was trying to find statements by European politicians which would underline aforementioned claims.
Most notable might be the EU summit in Den Haag in December 2004. The embargo lift was discussed as a possibility, but it was made clear by Jan Peter Balkenende, chairman of the European Council, that no such steps would be taken in 'foreseeable time'.

In order to lift the embargo on China at all, the heads of state of all 25 EU members would have to agree on it in the European Council. Nevertheless, the members are far from sharing a common point of view on this issue. Especially Schröder and Chirac are in favor of lifting the embargo. Reasons for this are not exclusively the economical possibilities the Chinese market holds. Closer ties to China are regarded as a counterweight to the last remaining superpower and ally in the West, the United States of America.

However, some scandinavian countries are strongly opposing an embargo lift, mentioning the human rights situation in China. Great Britain with its traditionally closer ties to the US is following these arguments.

And while chancellor Schröder is promising an enormous upswing in German-Chinese trade once the embargo is lifted (the embargo lift having been a condition Wen Jiabao set for further trade with Germany during Schröder's Peking visit), the Green coalition partner in the German government clarified that this is not the German point of view at all.

During a Bundestag debate the red-green coalition voted unanimously on upholding the embargo until China would fulfill several conditions. Amongst others those would be ratifying the UN treaty about political and civil rights as well as introducing autonomy rights for ethnical minorities.


This article from about a year ago says the lifting of the embargo is "right on track".

Quote:
No 'Exact Date' for Lifting Arms Embargo on China: Solana

EU foreign and security policy chief Javier Solana said in Brussels Wednesday that the discussions on lifting arms embargo against China within the European Union (EU) are "on right track," but he could not tell the "exact date" for the lifting at present.

"I don't think lifting arms embargo is a big problem (for the EU and China)" said Solana, adding that the issue is only "a question "that is being discussed by the two sides.



After a meeting with Guan Chengyuan, head of the Chinese Mission to the European Communities, Solana told some Chinese media that the EU-China partnership has profound and broad content.



He noted that a mechanism of regular meetings of leaders between the EU and China has been set up, adding that apart from the leaders' meeting for this year, there will be frequent exchanges of visits between the senior officials from both sides.



Solana also expressed willingness to foster up not only good relations between the EU and the Chinese government, but good personal relations between the EU leaders and the Chinese leaders as well.

On Jan. 26, the EU foreign ministers' meeting discussed the issue of lifting arms ban on China, and the ministers demanded the working groups under the EU Council examine the issue and then report to the ministers.

(Xinhua News Agency February 12, 2004)


http://www.china.org.cn/english/international/86986.htm
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 02:17 pm
JustWonders wrote:
This article from about a year ago says the lifting of the embargo is "right on track".


Which doesn't make it more true.

(Besides, we recently got a new Commission :wink: )

Now, back to your post before this: shouldn't we discuss UK politics seperately from this thread?
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 02:36 pm
Walter - read the title of the article again. If you see it as strictly UK politics, fine. The diplomatic immunity referenced clearly states it is extended to commisioners of the EU.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/15/2024 at 09:55:45