I agree with you in principle, further down the road China will probably be some semblance of a Democracy. However, I don't think that will happen in our lifetimes regardless of the fact that Democracy seems to be springing up in the middle east. As long as the government is strong they will be able to squash any movements towards democracy and they have certainly been effective there over the past few decades. The governments in the middle east have a tenuous hold on their people at best, China rules with an iron fist. They'd have to experience decay on the order that Russia did to fall overnight.

So, I think the environment will last as long as the Chinese government wants it to last or until the world stands up to them. However the latter is unlikely in my opinion because capitalism dictates that doing business with China is a good thing.

LOL, Moif, you and I, we are the same. Do you know how fervently I defended the US in Chinese forums?

Anyway, so here's my point -- if the arms embargo is designed to discourage armed conflict, then it should not care whether or not a potential client is a democracy or not, just whether or not a client will be an aggressor.


Sure the Beidou is not a GPS, it's more of a LPS -- local positioning system. It only provides positioning capability in East Asia. But that's enough for us, we don't have 150,000 troops deployed half way around the world.


"Done deal" in a business sense. Of course, an agreement drafted by any semi-capable business major would have a clause in there stating that his/her side can terminating the agreement if they wish to do so. But I suspect that in our agreement with the ESA, we would have a clause in there that mentions hefty compensation if the ESA kicks us out.


Well, both George W Bush and John Kerry mentioned "our founding fathers" in their election campaign, so they seem to think that "ancient history" is relevant. How about segregation, the KKK and lynching? Also ancient history?


You should read a little more about Tibet before you start this discussion. And please try not to read only the version by the Tibetan Independence Movement. You'll find a lot of similarities between the early TIM and the insurgence in Iraq today.


So maybe you shouldn't whine about China Telecom saying that they don't wanna buy from Erikson.


Accountable as in "Iraq is an imminent threat"? Accountable as in going to war even when half of the UK's population is against it?

You're quite welcome, Mrs. P., and please, call me Kenny
I believe in providing facts to everyone in a debate, even if it's someone who disagree with my point of view


Like I said, I do have problems with the ambiguity of certain conditions, and these can be addressed via amendments.


Well, a March 15 [a href=http://www.tvbs.com.tw/FILE_DB/DL_DB/yijung/200503/yijung-20050315190415.pdf]poll[/a] done by TVBS, one of the largest media companies in Taiwan, showed that only 21% of Taiwanese are pro-independence, while 58% wants to maintain the status-quo. The same poll found that while 77% of Taiwanese oppose the law, only 28% are clear about the content of the law.

The 2nd condition of Article 8, "major incidents entailing Taiwan's secession," is designed to counter Mr. Chen Shui-bian's effort to get rid of Article 3 of the constitution of the Republic of China (Taiwan), which he promised NOT to get rid of in his 2000 election campaign and inaugural address. It states that the territory of the ROC shall not be changed unless the Congress agrees to do so through an amandment. Currently, the territory of the ROC includes mainland China. Removing Article 3 or amanding it would make it easier for Taiwan to declare independence.

The 3rd condition, "possibility of peaceful unification has been exhausted," is more of a safeguard. And no, the possibilities has not been exhausted yet. Mr. Chiang Pin-kung, the vice chairman of Taiwan's largest opposition party is leading a delegation in China for a week-long trip.

I'll also let you in on a lil secret -- my girlfriend of six years is from Taiwan



Ah, the PPP -- possibly, probably, potentially -- LOL. No, it actually stands for purchasing power parity. I think it's got problems. By the PPP method, China's GDP per capita would be $5,000, but 800 million Chinese still live in rural areas and 100 million are still illiterate or semi-illiterate. The number just doesn't seem right.

Mrs. P., this touches on the military budget issue, so you might be interested as well.


Nor does China need to. China's nuclear policy is one of deterence not first-strike. Which means China doesn't need thousands of MIRVs to take out US ICBM bases. 20 city-busters capable of reaching all major US cities in a retaliatory strike is enough.

This is not to say that China does not have MIRV capability or technology that can evade the NMD outside of the atmosphere. A few years back, a Chinese rocket has successfully put four satellites into four different orbits; this year, China's Shenzhou-6 space capsule will demonstrate the capability to shift into a different orbit while circling the earth. While both projects are conducted by China's cilivian space agency, there is a military use for these technologies.

This is why some analysts keep saying China's announced military budget does not reflect China's true military spending, but hey, how about NASA? Remember the X-planes?


But if the R&D efforts stay in China, it means high-paying Chinese jobs being created, not a bad deal for us
Also, it's always cheaper to buy than to build... until your production reaches a certain level and you start selling what you build

Edit to add response to Titus and message to Admin

To the mighty Admin,
Sorry forgot about the 1 post thing. Been forum-hopping and forgot about the rules here.

To Titus



Your claim that "the People's Republic of China has NO valid legal claim" is false. China's claim on Tibet and Taiwan is based on the "residual sovereignty" principle. It's also based on this that the U.S. returned Okinawa to Japan in 1972 without an election on Okinawa.

Both Tibet and Taiwan were part of China during the Qing dynasty. Taiwan was ceded to Japan thorugh a treaty after the First Sino-Japanese War in 1895, but the peace treaty signed between Japan and the Republic of China, then the legal representative of China in the U.N., in 1953 invalidates all prior treaties between the two countries, and therefore re-instates China's sovereignty over the island of Taiwan.

As for the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, the problem with Tibet's claim of sovereignty lies with #4 and Taiwan's problem is with #2.

First, on Taiwan. Your claim that "After the cival war in '49, the remaining Kuomintang (sp?) nationalist forces retreated to the island of Formosa/Taiwan and established their own government and maintained their military" is wrong. The Nationalists ESTABLISHED their government in 1911, and the name of that government is the Republic of China. Article 3 of the constittution of the ROC states that the territory of the ROC shall not be changed unless the Legislature does so through an amandment. There was no such amandment since 1911. If you were to go to Taiwan today and purchase a map of the ROC, you will see that both Taiwan and Tibet are on it, along with the rest of China. And in their media and government reports, one can often see the year 2005 as "in the year of the Republic 94."

Now, moving onto Tibet. The fact that Tibet had no diplomatic recognition as an independent country is precisely the result of its lack of "capacity to enter into
relations with other states." Need I say more?

Your statement that "The only reason why the U.S. even endorses the farse that is the "One-China policy" is because we're so afraid of being hurt economically that we play nice ad call Taiwan Chinese Taipei" is also wrong. The "One China Policy" was endorsed by both the Nixon administration, when Henry Kissinger visited China in 1972, by the Carter administration, when formal diplomatic relationship was established in 1979, and upheld by every administration in between and since. Back then, the annual trade between the two countris was a whopping TWO MILLION DOLLARS (puts right pinky at corner of lips). There's something other than economic reasons.

I think reading more original documents rather than articles on pro-TI sites would be more helpful in forming one's own opinion on the issue.

By the way, how do you feel about living on land taken away by force from another sovereign nation? How about not paying compensation to decendents of Black slaves after more than a million of them marched to Washington D.C. demanding it? Oh and how about rounding up Natives and force-marching them to reservations?
(Man, I'm evil )

To Doclotus

Don't concede yet. Let me give you some ammo

1. Koizumi, Japan's prime minister, has talked about reforming the pacifist constitution. In fact, Japan's deployment in Iraq may have violated their own constitution.

2. The current mayor of Tokyo, a well-known right-winger, has claimed that Japan has the ability to produce nuclear weapons with a 6-month's notice.

3. Many Japanese destroyers are the size of American cruisers, but they still call them destroyers.

Well, I have Googled, Yahooed, Ask Jeeves, and I haven't been able to see a clear definition of said policy. However, I have seen an eample of it used in the context of the soverignty of our own indigineous peoples.

http://www.airpi.org/pubs/leventhl.html



So, it basically defines their autonomy, something which China has NEVER given to Tibet, and soemthing it has no power to do with Taiwan. In essence "residual soverignty" contradicts your arguement.



I have seen no such treaty as of 1953. I have seen one signed in April of 1952 known as the Treaty of Taipei. That treaty was not made on behalf of or by the People's Republic of China. It was made by the Republic of China, which has always been a name used to identify the soverign nation of Taiwan, so that point is moot.



Well, since you objected to my citing information from pro-Tibetan Independence websites (though I could hardly see how the International Commission of Jurists is a "pro-TI" site) I'll site a piece written by Dr. Michael C. van Walt van Praag who wrote The Status of Tibet: History, Rights and Prospects in International Law

In this piece, he states:



So we have a Dutch Lawyer who can affirm to the fact that Tibet maintained diplomatic relations with other countries, one of whom was in fact a world power.

I don't see where Taiwan is having a problem with having a "defined territory", numerous online atlases, including the CIA Factbook and NationMaster show Taiwan's border and none of them show Tibet or any part of the People's Republic of China as part of Taiwan. Perhaps you could provide us with one of these maps you mentioned that allegedly proves to the contrary?

As far as their not having an amendment for changing the borders, at worst case, that is a Taiwanese problem, not a PRC problem. At best case, the Taiwanese seem to have accepted the evacuation to Taiwan rather sufficiently.



Well, when Carter broke off relations with Taiwan in '79, the U.S. Congress passed the Taiwan Relations act which states that the US will "consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes, a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States." It also established the American Institute in Taiwan.

It also states that the US is required "to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character", and "to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan."

In 1982, the Six Assurances were adopted under President Reagan which stated that the U.S. would not formally recognize PRC sovereignty of Taiwan.



Since this has nothing to do with the thread, I'll gladly respond in a private message if you'd like.

Now, to tie all this information in with the thread, it is blatantly obvious that, aside from China being morally and legally bankrupt, China has no need for arms sales because it has shown that with or without the ban, it is more than capable of maintaining it's armed forces. If the ban is lifted, the next invasion of Taiwan by China will include the use of weapons made by EU member nations.

I'd just as soon not discuss the prospects of the results of a nuclear exchange between the United States and China. That is something that I not only fervently don't want to happen, but something quite unlikely I think.

As far as NASA's budget and the X planes is concerned, that particular research was really of limited use for the military. While certain NASA research and infrastructure (like wind tunnels) has been helpful to the military, it usually works the other way around. Military research budgets are much larger than anything NASA has.

But, I really wanted to address your point about R&D and the "high paying jobs" created. While that is to a very liimited extent true, the real pay off to R&D is in the building of the technology and expertise in an area. If such R&D deals with military systems specifically you will never see a "profit" in the sense of making money on your latest developments. That's simply because it's counter-productive to sell the best you've got unless you have something better in the pipeline.

I am very troubled with the policy of a few members of the EU towards the weapons embargo on China. I can see no evidence that the human rights situation in China has dramatically changed since those atrocities in 1989 happened. The Anti-secession-legislation makes the point more vividly than I could ever have. I see the development in China with great scepticism, the ever-increasing nationalism and the lack of democratic structures need to be addressed by ever head of state of democratic countries.

However, the chancellor of my country, Gerhard Schröder, is willing to step over a passed resolution of the parliament which clearly disapproved any lift of the embargo. This is a legal, but rarely performed procedure, for the executive can decide in matters of national interest against the will of the legislative. Nevertheless I calm myself with the assumption that the Socialdemocratic-Green Party Coalition will break over such an action taken by Gerhard Schröder. He faces reelection in 2006 and the public will not look kindly upon a chancellor that refuses to go to war in Iraq but sells weapons to a post-communistic quasi-dictatorship in China. At least that is what I hope for.

I think that an end to the arms ban seemed like a much better idea BEFORE China introduced the anti-secession law. One of the main assumptions that many EU states were making was that China would never actually go to war over Taiwan (and that the US was just being paranoid).......so that ending the arms ban would be a nice way of a) boosting European defence industries, improving EU-China relations and c) asserting a coherent, unified EU view of the world as opposed to a US view of the world. Typically it didn't work out quite like that.

Basically, the EU is going to keep doing daft things like this because it has no clear sense of identity or purpose - and most members don't really see beyond national interests (after all, why would they?). Until the members sit down and agree on what the EU is, where it is going and its place in the world, then it'll just carry on making a mess of things..

That is what is great about Europe though. Do you honestly believe that EU members can agree on what the EU is, where it is going, or its place in the world? The diversity of the continent, and, more importantly, the massive number of Houses and leaders that must agree makes it difficult. The US gets away with it I think b/c technically, there are only(cough) 570 or so people to please. At the risk of sounding vain, I think that America is partly to blame for Europe's disjointedness the past few years. There are some very legitimate reasons to be angry with America, and it's human nature to not want to help us no matter the circumstances b/c of it.

j10 posed a great point that selling arms should be based on whether China is going to be an agressor as opposed to human rights violations. While I think that it can and should be based on both, the anti-session law clearly points to China being a potential agressor. I hope the EU does not lift ban, despite the fact that President Bush does not want it lifted.

Hehe, don't worry. I don't think there's any chance that we'll nuke each other either.

If I remember correctly, USAF pilots flew more than half of the missions on the X planes. There's clear military applications of supersonic (X-1), hypersonic (X-15), and vector thrust technology (X-29), just to name a few.

I agree with most of your points regarding R&D. A lot of technologies have both military and civilian uses though, so advances in the military area can also bring about advances in civilian area. Case and point -- nuclear power.




Ha! So you are aware of that treaty. Enlighten me, if in fact as you claimed that



Why would Article I of the Treaty state that "The state of war between the Republic of China and Japan is terminated as from the date on which the present Treaty enters into force." Don't forget, Japan was defeated in 1945, and had no standing army for a decade of so from then on. If the ROC were established in 1949, why would it be at war with Japan?

The fact is the Republic of China was established in 1911 and remained the legal representative of China both in the U.N. and on the world stage til 1972. One should not mix the idea of a government with a country or a nation. To say that the Republic of China is a different nation from the People's Republic of China is as ridiculous as saying that the Confederate States of America is a different nation from the United States of America.

Will respond to your other points later.

First off, to clarify the statement about 1949, it was meant to be understood that their government was forced to relocate and reestablish on the island of Taiwan. Second, that fact has nothing to do with the terms of the treaty.

In fact, the U.S.A.'s treaty with Japan which formally ended the conflict and subsequent occupation was signed roughly a year before, which is cited in Article Two of the Taipei Treaty. The Republic of China was an ally of the Americans during World War II.



Well, for five years, the CSA was in essence, a different nation. The south seceded, was led by president Jefferson Davis, and even had their own currency. They even appealed to other nations for help. Yet, the war ended and the Union was restored. You could try to use that arguement here, but what can I say, you guys should have went into Taiwan in '49.

Okay... So following your line of reasoning, the United States of America had no valid legal claim over the 13 or so states within the Confederate States of America in 1861? And does that not make Abraham Lincoln the worst aggressor in US history since he launched a war on a sovereign democratic nation and conquered it? And does that make the United States of America the biggest liar in the history of the world since it called that war a "civil war?"

Well, the problem is there's a huge freaking difference between the American Civil War and the Chinese civil war. That difference being the Confederate States of Americas was established by a group of already existing states, the Comunists had no state.

Frankly, it doesn't even matter if China has a legitimate claim to Taiwan(which they don't).

The US has a long standing policy of defending democracy against communism. So the fact of the matter is that if China attacks Taiwan, the US and likely Japan will attack China. China understands this and is building it's military(est. $70 Billion this year, 2nd most spending in the world) so that they can either have such a strong front that the US will not retaliate when China invades Taiwan, or that they can bog the US down and win the ensuing battle.

Europe is currently in the beneficial position of enjoying the trade that China has to offer, without the burden or responsibility of dealing with the essential dictatorship should they go on the offensive. Dropping the arms ban could lead to China getting strong enough to make a move on Taiwan. If that happens, Europe is going to suffer as much as anyone from the lack of stability and trade in the region.