I'm sure most of us have heard about the efforts by France and Germany, pushing to sell arms to China by ending the European Union's arms ban on the country.

Lately it seemed that pressure, primarily from the US had at least delayed such a decision. After China passed a law authorizing military force to be used against Taiwan.

..but certain statements put this in doubt.

Germany Says China Arms Ban to End on Time
Supporters claim that ending the arms ban would not necessarily lead to increased arms sales.

Other parties are doubtful of this reasoning.

Europe's Shift on Embargo Places Taiwan at Center Stage
So...

Is this the right time for the the EU to end its arms embargo on China?

If not, what conditions must first be met?

Do you think the arms ban will be lifted in the very near future?

What would be the effect of ending the embargo on the balance of power in the region?

Is this the right time for the the EU to end its arms embargo on China?

No.

If not, what conditions must first be met?

In my opinion? Democracy in China.


Do you think the arms ban will be lifted in the very near future?

Nope. There are other nations in Europe than France and Germany and I put my faith in Britain, Holland and the Scandinavian nations.

The Chinese have already been threatening Finnish and Swedish telecommunications with repercussions if their governments move to stop the ban being ended. In both cases, those nations have refused to be intimidated and I count myself proud to be Scandinavian.


What would be the effect of ending the embargo on the balance of power in the region?

I don't know and I don't care.

For my part, the problem here has nothing to do with the problems between Taiwan and China. I don't understand the complexities of that situation and I'm not to bothered as to whether or not the Chinese have a problem with that.

What bothers me about this issue is the way the French and Germans have put their own domestic problems ahead of the best interests of the EU. I am sick and tired of Jacques Chirac and his eternal meddling with the EU.

Because this problem has nothing to do with 'Europe' and everything to do with France and Germany's inability to meet the very economic conditions they were so adamant that all other EU nations had to meet. Their own economies are in the toilet (I saw today that Germany's economic is far worse than previously thought) and they're looking to increased deals with the murdering bastards in Beijing in order to save them.

Its humiliating to be identified with people like Schroeder, Fischer and Chirac. To see them smirking and salivating over deals with people Ghaddafi and the military suit wearing murderers in China.

Its also astounding to have the USA, the worlds premier arms dealer to tyrants and murderers, wagging its finger at Europe. And especially for the threat of doing what Israel has been doing for years! One should never underestimate the human capacity for hypocrisy.

Is this the right time for the the EU to end its arms embargo on China?

Hell no.

If not, what conditions must first be met?

Kudos to Moif for stating simply what must be the tip of the iceberg that is the Chinese menace.

Aside from that, I have a few requests:

That China must:

Stop all oppression of all religious groups, ethnic minorities, and political dissedents
Removal of all troops from Tibet
Stop allowing children to work in horrid conditions in dangerous occupations
...and the abolishing of the "One-China policy" in regards to Taiwan

...now back to reality...

What would be the effect of ending the embargo on the balance of power in the region?

Easy. If the EU lifts the embargo, China will be even more emboldened to "reunify" Taiwan with the mainland. You don't give someone who threatens your life a gun, why would you sell guns to a nation which is threatening a peaceful, democratic nation?

Emboldening China by selling them weapons, which by the way the EU says they have no intention of doing so why lift the embargo (*ahemabunchoffreakinliesahem*), is a huge mistake that will result in the continued oppression of ethnic Chinese, Tibetans, Chinese Muslims in the northeast, Buddhists, Christians, other religious minorities, political dissesents, and women, along with the aforementioned threat to Taiwan. And when that happens if the lift the ban, guess who will be the one who gets to clean it up? Us, and the nations who have sold them weapons won't be anywhere to be found after the fact.

...I thought that was Russia by a long shot, all those AK-47's and RPG's still flooding the Middle East.

Other than that...
I basically agree with your responses, though I would be interested if you had any information of the opinion of individual EU nations on the ban. I know of UK and Swedish objections, but it seemed to me that the most of Europe (or at least the governments) was in favor of selling weapons to the Chinese.

I would admit however that the quality of information isn't to good in the English language press on the web it seems. This whole thing has been touted as a trans-atlantic spat, I don't know what the situation is in Europe.

I'm also not so sure of the failure of the measure. The UK may be able to hold it off while they hold the EU presidency, but I hear that after that things are doubtful.

turnea

Unless you can read Danish then its sort of difficult to point you to any usefull links I may have

What I can do is translate some paragraphs from the DR news site



And here is an EU news site in English:


They probably are, though I wonder at how many of them are old Soviet weapons. They don't tip the balance though. The USA is by far the worlds leading weapons dealer and if the US congress and the GW Bush government were really so worried about US weapons technology falling into Chinese hands, then why have they always turned a blind eye to Israel's escapades?

I can't but help wondering if the real problem here is not so much the weapons (China is not exactly short of weapons) but rather certain technologies that could enhance weapons. Have you heard of the European Galileo satelite navigation system? It could be used to guide long range smart weapons just like the US GPS system.
And the Chinese already have an economic interest in it.


Don't ask me why we're getting into bed with Beijing

Agreed we've made some imprudent and shortsighted military transactions through the years (the UAE has more advanced F16s than we do)...Though not nearly as imprudent as the Russians and French have done. Israel cannot be compared to China. It is surrounded by hostile forces, and certainly isn't announcing invasion plans in the Middle East, and it is a Democratic country not some authoritarian regime. Furthermore, much of our arms trade with them is obligatory due to the Camp David Accords agreement.

Per the topic questions, I hope the EU does not lift its arms embargo on China. The Chinese have practically openly declared an intention to invade Taiwan with the new anti-succession law. Though China is not completely transparent about its military spending, it announced a 12+ percent increase last year, a 13 percent increase the year before, and something like 17 percent before that. They have the world's second highest GDP, and spend about 4.5 percent on their military (in 2002 figures). We spend about 3.5 percent.

As far as regional stability goes, the United States has an obligation under the Taiwan Relations Act to “maintain the capacity 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”. If this ban is lifted, the Europeans would be effectively supporting and arming an authoritarian regime which has announced active plans for aggression against a thriving Democracy which the US has an direct interest in protecting, and an indirect obligation to protect. I think we're right to wag the finger.

No Turnea I think it is fair to say the US is the largest arms dealer in the world. Although it is interesting to see what nations export to what regions or other nations. Unlike moif I actually have data to back up my argument. Moif claimed that Israel, because we all know Israel is where all the problems in the ME lie and where the worse examples of government human rights abuses are in the ME is further exasperated by America's military support and weapons trade when he said...The USA is by far the worlds leading weapons dealer and if the US congress and the GW Bush government were really so worried about US weapons technology falling into Chinese hands, then why have they always turned a blind eye to Israel's escapades?
Why was Israel chosen to make a comparison? ...the US's biggest military customer for 2003 in the Middle East was not Israel but rather Egypt. An enemy of Israel wouldn't we all agree? Then a close runner up was Saudi Arabia...again not one we would consider an ally of Israel. Then came Israel..whose total purchases did not even account for half of Egypt's.

I am still trying to figure out what Israel..a functioning democracy who does not even come close to the human rights violations of China..has to do with this issue and why Israel is being used as a moral comparative to China? Why not use Egypt? Or KSA? When they are clearly the leading importers of US arms ..as a total mind you worldwide...and happen to be a little more closely aligned to the style of government China practices.

Europe is facing economic growth problems...arms trade is big business. This is just a means to accomplish two things..a political superiority over the US (which will then lead into economic superiority) and an economic boost.

I take no issue with trading arms to China based on reasons this embargo was first implemented. If we feel it is appropriate to trade arms with KSA, Egypt, or the UAE (all in the top five of US arms customers) then how can we take exception to China based on her human right's abuses or lack of democracy? This is why the embargo was first implemented as a response to Tiananmen Square massacre...not China's approach to Taiwan.

What does anger me about the approach the EU is taking in this issue is her apparent approval of China's policy on Taiwan. Since the new passing in China of an anti--secession law..it seems China is being very forward about her desire or commitment to this stance..the one-China policy. So I think in return the EU and the US must further reiterate and more strongly so..their own commitment to Taiwan and her right to independence

I feel that the current EU stance..and yes I am including all of the EU nations not just France and Germany because it is only the Vatican that bothers to stand up and recognize Taiwan as a nation in all of Europe...is very very wrong. I don't understand their desire to not lend Taiwan their support and in fact it seems they wish to oppose Taiwan. The leaders of Germany and France claimed that the UK's desire to further delay this embargo lift based on the anti-secession law that was just passed in China was only an a attempt for Blair to play favour to the US...but what about Taiwan!?..Taiwan herself appealed to the EU and told the EU itself that the anti-secession law in China "would pose a serious threat to the existence of Taiwan as a separate entity and as a functioning liberal democracy."
How can these nation's claim that opposition to this only lies with America?..how terribly predictable of them to play the anti-American card..yet again.

I do not support any action that threatens the continuing existence of Taiwan as a democratic state which would only destabilize the Pacific region. I think America has EVERY right to stand up against this lifting of this arms embargo based solely on our desire, commitment and pursual of democracy in the Pacific region...and I wish that those in Europe who support lifting the embargo would be brave enough to tell China the same.

I think if the EU wishes to lift the embargo then they should make at least one meaningful demand of China in return...to allow Taiwan it's independence.

I'll first start by saying that I don't support China in any way, shape or form - I have much the same feelings about them as Titus does, perhaps not so passionate though.

However, I believe this is an important component of this debate which is being overlooked. China does have the second largest GDP in the world, and that gives them an incredible amount of economic muscle. Furthermore, they are key to how business runs and grows for a great many industries for many countries. Just the same as the middle eastern countries have a stranglehold on the world over oil, China has a stranglehold on the world when it comes to cheap labor and expanding markets.

I wonder if everyone knows how many companies rely on trade with China to stay competitive. I know there are quite a lot of them in the United States and I can only assume that there are an equivalent number if not more in the EU. Furthermore, the asia-pacific markets are very important for a lot of companies which are expanding at the moment. China with its billions of people is a very important component of that and they also have considerable influence over some of the smaller countries as well.

The net of that is - China has a lot of economic muscle and if they don't get their way they can shut down your operations and hurt you financially.

So, it is very important to consider this before anyone goes villifying EU countries for bending to their wishes. You have to realize that China has many of these countries in a position of weakness. Now it is admirable that Finnish and Swedish companies have not bent to this intimidation, but there are some countries with worse economic conditions and they don't have a choice in the matter.

This kind of thing really should start opening everyone's eyes a little bit about the next foreign dependency that is building and it'll be far worse than the oil thing ever was or will be.

France & Germany don't have a choice in the matter?! That is a bit of stretch. Of course they have a choice. Personal economic pain or allowing for the oppression of others. I don't think that we should be at all surprised by France & Germany's stance on this.

You do bring up a good point about dependence though. I disagree though that the world's labor dependence on China is going to surpass the oil dependence of the Middle East simply because labor is easily found elsewhere. What China provides can be replaced. The amount of oil that the US is using can not.

As for the debate questions, Moif summed it up quite well IMO. Once China improves their human rights situation, then I could understand stopping the embargo.

I am not suggesting they don't have a choice. I'm suggesting their governments are acting in their self interests the same as the United States acts in its best interests. They are choosing to cave in to China's demands because they think that is in their best interest to do so from an economic perspective - especially if their decision perhaps makes their companies more favorable in China's eyes.

You'd have to believe that France and Germany support China's ambitions to take over Taiwan if you are suggesting they are doing it for reasons other than economic motivation and I think you'd have to have some evidence there - not the usual France and Germany bashing stuff.


I think you are wrong, because the kind of labor China is offering cannot be found anywhere else and certainly not in the United States or increasingly in the EU and that is the problem. China provides the cheapest labor in the world, in the international business world the lowest price is often referred to as the "China Price". The reason why they can do this is a large combination of factors but it has to do with work force size, their government, their standard of living and their take on human and worker rights.

You add all those up and you get not only the cheapest labor force on the planet but also the largest one. They are also becoming increasingly skilled moving into more white collar professions too. Any company which ignores China (or does something to offend them) is going to have a hard time competing with their competitors as a result.

There was a good article on this in INC Magazine this past March. It is a very good write-up on all of the facts as well as why this situation is a new one in our history. I won't quote it here but it does support my assertions in this topic if you care to browse through it. There were a few related articles in this issue of INC.

We are only going to continue to get more and more in bed with China economically in the coming years which increasingly gives them more power as related to other issues like this arms embargo. Some countries will stand their ground, others which are significantly tied up with China economically will not. I think this relationship is really the core issue here, not just for the EU but also the US, not this side issue of an arms embargo where that power is just manifesting itself.

Funny. You said exactly the opposite in a previous post. "they don't have a choice in the matter." Since you've reversed your position, we are in complete agreement. France and Germany are apparently willing to sacrifice Taiwan for their own economic gain.

I agree that the Chinese economy is immense and their growth is unprecedented in history. Your article clearly points that out, and it is very accurate. But that does not mean that we are going to end up as labor dependent on China as we are oil dependent now. #1) While China has billions of workers, so do India and Africa. If China tries to shut the door on it's market to a certain country, there will be competition and any market shortfalls can be quickly adjusted for. If OPEC shut it's doors, where is the competition for oil? How fast can the market adjust by either decreasing demand for oil or drilling for more? Not nearly as fast as it can find labor. #2) The Chinese standard of living has to improve greatly in the future. Right now the Chinese government is keeping the juan's value artificially low by pegging it to the US dollar. This essentially makes their citizens slave labor to the rest of the world. A change in that policy alone would drop all trade deficit's significantly. And as the Chinese standard of living improves, the cost of their labor rises.

Why do you assume that is what it means? The Chinese passed the law allowing them to invade Taiwan if they so choose - France and Germany had nothing to do with it. Do you really think the Chinese don't have more than enough military power to invade Taiwan without arms from the EU? Please. They spend more money on their military than we do, I'm sure they are quite capable. That makes this whole arms embargo thing a red herring. Simply selling arms to the chinese does not effect whether they will invade Taiwan or not. I'd like to know if you really think the Chinese can't invade Taiwan without the EU's guns.

And I didn't contradict myself, perhaps my point just wasn't clearly made as you pointed out.


really? Perhaps you should tell that to American corporations then. How much of the stuff you buy on a daily basis comes from China? Probably a lot. If you shop at Wal-Mart (like a great many Americans do) then probably 90% of the stuff there comes from China.

From a manufacturing perspective and from a sheer market expansion perspective American and EU companies are quickly getting into bed with them. China is now moving into white collar industries that places like India and Russia have previously dominated.

Africa will not be any kind of economic force for a long time for the simple reason that they do not have any kind of infrastructure whatsoever.


And why would they change this policy or improve their standard of living? You forget that the Chinese government is not a Democracy, they are a communist regime that has embraced capitalism (which I guess doesn't make them so much communist as a dictatorship). The people that are working are not going to be able to live the quote "American Dream" and work their way up the ladder - they are going to be abused by those in power and their wages will be held artificially low just like their currency is held low. It might not always be this way, but it will be for the forseeable future.

The Chinese have pulled a pretty impressive move here and because of corporate greed and the quest for new markets everyone is falling right into it. Because consumers demand $39 DVD players, we are putting our country in a dangerous position.

Why do you think that China is so important in the negotiations with North Korea? Because North Korea has to bend to their will to a certain extent or they will find themselves with no trading partner.

I feel I should point out that I am not comparing Israel to China... I said:
...in other words, Israel has already been selling sophisticated electronics and other weapon systems to China.


editted to add:

Because, to the best of my knowledge, Egypt has not sold sophisticated weapons tech to the Chinese. If you have any information to the contrary I would be very happy to see it.

I see what you are saying now. Sorry, I misread your post. I don't imagine we are happy that Israel is selling weapons to the Chinese, and haven't pointed fingers towards them and attempted to curb it. I don't see that as hypocrisy, though. If the EU starts selling arms to the Chinese we aren't going to dissolve NATO and end our military joint-operations and weapons transfers with those countries.

Is this the right time for the the EU to end its arms embargo on China?


Depends on who you are. For us Chinese, the answer is fairly clear, "Yes."
Our government's position is that we see the ban as a form of discrimination and it is harmful to EU-Sino Economic relationship, and I think there is some validity to that. Imagine how Blacks would feel, if Wal-Mart had a sign on the door that says "Blacks cannot purchase hunting gear here."

For the EU, delaying it to the end of the year may be a wiser choice, just to make America feel slightly better.


If not, what conditions must first be met?


For the EU, it would be when such a move would be strong enough of a bargaining chip on certain trade negotiations.


Do you think the arms ban will be lifted in the very near future?


December 2005.


What would be the effect of ending the embargo on the balance of power in the region?

By itself, nothing, nil, zero. Actual arm sales still need to be authorized on a case by case basis. There really isn't anything the Europeans are willing to sell us that the Russians can't sell to us or we cannot make ourselves.

Hmmm, I suppose this is based on the assumption that democracies are not aggressors? May I respectfully remind you that a DEMOCRATIC USA launched a pre-emptive war on Iraq just 2 years ago, and in its not-so-long history, the DEMOCRATIC USA had started more wars than its two neighbors combined. Democracy, by itself, does not guarantee having no aggression.

And don't get me wrong, I am for democracy in China, most of my generation of Chinese are, but it might take us 20 to 30 years. And again, democracy and wars are not mutually-exclusive, because I can guarantee you that every single democratically-elected president of China will be willing to go to war to protect our territory.




The telecom industry in China is still state-owned, to me, it is fairly reasonable that a customer leave a restaurant that gives him second-rate service.

Want to bet on this? I say end of the year.




Well, all of the current Chinese leadership, except the Minister of Defence, do NOT have a military background. President Hu Jintao's background, I believe, is in Civil Engineering, Prime Minister Wen Jiabao's background is definitely in Geology, Wu Bangguo, the Chief of the National People's Congress has a background in political science I think.

Oh wait, you are talking about me? I do wear camouflage when I play paintball, so you want to make this personal now?


Haven't you heard? Good guys finish last.

The USA's foreign policy is great for the interest of Americans and that is enough.

By dollar amount, it is DEFINITELY the USA; if you want to go by number of individual pieces, it's a different story.

MRS. PIGPEN, I'm so dissappoint.
Have you read the actual text of the Anti-Session Law? Only 1 of the 10 articles of the law mandates "non-peaceful means", and there are conditions that limit the use of such means.

Here's a link:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2...tent_424643.htm

While I have problems with the ambiguity and would like to see these clarified through amendaments, I don't think it is fair to call this law "a law that authorizes the use of force" or in the way you described it. To say that the Anti-Session Law "openly declared an intention to invade Taiwan" is the equivalent of saying that the Constitution of the USA supports slavery and inequality because of the part of the US Constitution that says something to the effect of "A slave counts as 3/5 of a normal person."

And by the way, Japan has the 2nd highest GDP, we have the 6th. I'll discuss the defence budget issue with you in another post.



Hey, great! Now both of us are on the same boat -- we both have every reason to maintain the status quo. And I don't know about "active plan" since the "non-peaceful means" are only authorized IF Taiwan formally declares independence.

I was hoping this discussion could occur without all the fear mongering of the power hungry Chinese who secretly own America. I guess it just isn't possible. You say China and all the American isolationists get all riled up.

Cube Jockey..
You have such an imbalanced view on all this in my opinion. Why do you feel it is only China who holds the power in all this? And why do you feel the Europeans are cowering to China's demands?

With China having a GDP that is OVER 60% dependent and made up of Foreign investments...who needs who? It is the idea or the concept of those of us who support and welcome globalisation that with further securing, promoting and establishment of shared prosperity that we as a world will in fact...prosper. But the key word in all that is shared.

China wants to be invited to the international communities little arms trade parties..fine then she must share the responsibility and act like a international power..not a threat.


That is not the least bit true. This is international politics..all of which has happened on the international stage amongst international allies involved in an agreed upon international embargo. It is hardly a domestic dispute that we as neighbors have no business in. Taiwan directly appealed to the EU in a plea for an alliance and directly sited the anti-secession law as something troubling to her own sense of security. How can you claim it has nothing to do with them!? ...they have directly chosen to not support Taiwan in her conflict with China even when Taiwan personally requested it. Again such an imbalanced view.




Well first I would like to see your own information on the "sophisticated weapons tech and other weapon systems" that Israel has sold to China. I am quite certain the US gov. investigated such claims and found no evidence.
And being that this topic of discussion is the arms embargo on China ....is Israel a participating member of this embargo? No, it was the EU and the US alone. Israel and the US have their own separate agreements on arms sales to China and Israel has been known to bend to US demands on this too.

So again I still do not understand why you are talking about Israel. You wish to focus on dangerous weapons tech being shared between rogue nations then there is no reason to have to focus on any other nation then the one that we are supposed to be focusing on....China. How many nations has China assisted into claiming nuclear fame?

I have an imbalanced view? I was trying to highlight a point everyone was glossing over, I actually don't really care about this topic at all. I am hardly an isolationist and I think you should actually read that article in INC magazine (which happens to be heavily pro-business and right wing, but I still enjoy reading it). You go ask any businessman about the economic power China has and you are going to get the same answer. If you want to refute my position then provide some kind of evidence bucket.

I was merely suggesting that perhaps there was another angle here to avoid the typical France and Germany bashing that goes on around here (which I am more than tired of reading). Every country acts in their own best interest and as Moif suggested China did threaten some Finnish and Swedish firms. Is it out of the realm of possibility that they did the same for some German and French firms and perhaps the government reacted differently?


What are you talking about? I said - "The Chinese passed the law allowing them to invade Taiwan if they so choose - France and Germany had nothing to do with it."

Are you suggesting that they were participating in the Chinese political process? Are you suggesting they had something to do with the actual passing of the legislation? I never suggested it was none of their business. I never suggested it wasn't something the EU shouldn't deal with. I don't even know how you possibly could have read that from my post.

What I am asking for those that feel this is such a big deal, is why does it matter whether the EU sells weapons to China or not? If the Chinese want to invade Taiwan don't you think they are perfectly capable of that now? As has already been cited in this thread the Chinese have a GDP only second to ours and they spend 1% more on their military. Do you honestly think they have an arms shortage? In fact I'm quite sure that the Chinese army would give the US army a good run for their money.

Mrs. Pigpen

No, but the threat has been made to curb military technology from America to Europe.

Some Americans have attempted to stop Israel from dealing with the Chinese but their efforts have not always been successful. Some deals (see examples below) have been stopped, but most have taken place and the USA continues to pour military and economic aid into Israel regardless.

Now we in Europe are confronted with a very irate US government, with both Rice and Bush making veiled threats towards Europe, merely on the basis of the possibility of the EU raising its ban, whilst pointedly ignoring the fact that Israel, the largest recipient of US military aid in the world, is currently the second largest supplier of military technology to the Chinese.

If that isn't hypocrisy, then I don't know what is.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


j10pilot

The EU is not a hunting shop and China is not an ethnic minority. There is no possible advantage for the EU to be arming China. None. And as such we should act in our best interests. Our best interests are not served by arming a repressive non-democratic government with further aspirations to invading its neighbours, whether they be democratic or not.


Yes there is. Neither China nor Russia has anything remotely approaching an independent GPS system. Europe is due to launch such a system in 2008 (called Galileo) and China has expressed so serious an interest in that system that the USA has told the EU that it would be forced to use space based weapons against Galileo if China ever attacked Taiwan.


So? What does that have to do with us in Europe? We are not responsible for the breakdown of principles in the USA. We are only responsible for our own actions.

And besides. The USA might have violated the doctrine of non aggression, but the end result of American aggression is always more beneficial than even the most generous actions of China towards the nations it has violated. Iraq will soon be free to decide their fate for themselves. The same cannot be said of any peoples, territory or land grabbed by the Chinese.


And thats quite admirable. No one is saying that China, or any other nation does not have the right to defend itself from attack...

But might I ask, just how was Tibet attacking China?


And all restaurants have the right to eject loud mouthed bully's from their premises and refuse to serve them.


You are confusing language with meaning. Military suit wearing murderers does not indicate they are of the military. It indicates they wear suits like uniforms. That they are no different from the military. That they belong to an elite which spans both the business and military sphere's of influence in their nation.

The bottom line is, they are unelected tyrants, no matter what clothing they are wearing.


How could I have been talking about you as I made my statement before you entered the debate?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

bucket



As you wish:

WASHINGTON – China has deployed Israeli-made anti-radar weapons opposite Taiwan, the Washington Times reported Tuesday.
U.S. intelligence spotted several Israeli-made "Harpy" drone weapons engaged in large-scale exercises in southern Fujian province opposite Taiwan, the Times quoted defense officials as saying.
"The Chinese were observed moving them close to the coast," one official said.
The official would not say how many weapons had been seen.
The Harpy, a pilotless drone weapon equipped with anti-radar sensors and a bomb, flies near a target radar for up to two hours and when illuminated by electronic waves is guided to the target and explodes.Link.


For years, the US government has expressed concerns over Israel illegally transferring technology to China. During the Gulf War, the US gave Israel Patriot missiles as protection against Iraqi Scud missiles. In 1992, a US intelligence report revealed that soon after the end of the Gulf War, Israel had sold Patriot anti-missile data to China. Israel denied the intelligence report.

Washington has also alleged on several occasions that Israel violated agreements by exporting restricted US technology it buys with yearly US subsidies. This was the case with the largely US-funded Lavi fighter-plane program. Israel, the Americans believe, passed on technology to Beijing. China's F-10 fighter jet is believed to be almost identical to the Lavi. Link.


Israel. s independent policy on its own arms exports has been a source of tension with the United States for the past decade. Israel has a long-standing history of defense cooperation with China, and is currently, and controversially, the PRC. s second largest arms supplier.

An initial public accusation against Israel came in 1992, with a State Department Inspector General. s report on the potential re-transfer of U.S. military equipment and technology without U.S. permission. In 1992, the State Department Inspector General found that

reports of significant alleged violations of the AECA and ITAR [International Traffic in Arms Regulations] retransfer restriction by a major recipient of U.S. weapons and technology [Israel] had not been properly acted upon by PM [State Department Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs], which is responsible for initiating the reports of violation and ensuring compliance with U.S. laws and regulations governing arms exports. The violations include sales of sensitive U.S. items and technology to countries prohibited by U.S. law from receiving such items. The violations cited and supported by reliable intelligence information show a systematic and growing pattern of unauthorized transfers by the recipient dating back to about 1983. Despite receiving recurring evidence of violations over the past few years, and only after OIG [Office of the Inspector General] involvement, PM has recently taken action to curtail the unauthorized transfers (p.17).

(snip)

Matters recently came to a head during a stand-off over a sale of radar to China. Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) agreed in 1999 to sell China a Phalcon airborne early warning and intelligence system for $250 million. The sophisticated radar would enable Chinese aircraft to view up to sixty aerial targets in all directions over a radius of up to 250 miles. Israel had signed a contract and accepted a deposit from China. Though Israel insists that the Phalcon does not contain U.S. technology, . U.S. officials say the system is closely related to the [American] AWACS, or airborne warning and control system. ('Israel-China Radar Deal Opposed', Washington Post , April 7, 2000).

The Phalcon radar had significant potential to assist China vis-à-vis its bitter cross-strait rival, Taiwan. Richard Aboulafia, an aircraft analyst with the Washington, DC Teal Group explained that . . A couple of AWACS can make a greater difference in the scheme of things [between China and Taiwan]. than anything else.[& ] The purchase of these planes could tip the scales in Beijing' s favor in the cross-strait balance . if they deploy [the Phalcon] correctly and use it correctly. . (quoted in Defense Week , 4-10-2000). The United States, of course, is committed to providing the defense of Taiwan. In spring 2000, the U.S. had denied Taiwan. s request for a AWACS.Link.


The real danger comes in Israel's habit of reverse engineering U.S. technology and selling to nations hostile to U.S. interests. Israel's client list includes Cambodia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, the South Lebanon Army, India, China, Burma and Zambia. The U.S. has most recently warmed up to India and is now in fact competing with Israel for arms sales there, but the other Israeli customers remain dubious at best.

Perhaps the most troubling of all is the Israeli/Chinese arms relationship. Israel is China's second largest supplier of arms. Coincidentally, the newest addition to the Chinese air force, the F-10 multi-role fighter, is an almost identical version of the Lavi (Lion). The Lavi was a joint Israeli-American design based upon the F-16 for manufacture in Israel, but financed mostly with American aid. Plagued by cost overruns, it was canceled in 1987, but not before the U.S. spent $1.5 billion on the project.

Last April, when the Navy EP-3E surveillance plane was forced to land in China after a Chinese F-8 fighter flew into its propeller, photos show Israeli built Python 3 missiles under the fighter's wings.

If Israeli weapons sales to China induce misgivings, including the most recent U.S. blocked sale of Israel's Phalcon airborne radar, the beneficiaries of Chinese arms transfers of Israeli-American technology are even more disturbing. In 1996, as disclosed in the UN Register of Conventional Arms, China sold over 100 missiles and launchers to Iran, along with a handful of combat aircraft and warships. Even worse, in 1997 the New York Daily News reported that Iraq had deployed Israeli-developed, Chinese PL-8 missiles in the no-fly zones, endangering American pilots.

Americans deserve to know where their money is being spent, and how money allocated for friends and technology shared with friends can all too easily end up in the wrong hands, threatening all parties involved. At a minimum, discussions on a new security framework for the Middle East should include plans to monitor and restrict Israeli transfers of U.S.-origin military equipment to potential adversaries. Otherwise, this deadly technology could come back to haunt U.S. and Israeli forces in future conflicts.Link

You'll note the last paragraph is the exact same argument put forward by Bush and Rice in their warnings to Europe...


Because I perceive a hypocrisy in the US position on this matter. Why should Europe curb eventual weapons deals with China if Israel is granted free reign?

I will never underestimate your capacity for making snide remarks about America/Americans, flush with rhetoric and a complete lack of objectivity.

"the world's premier arms dealer to tyrants and murderers"
I presume you're discussing our arms deals to Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war?... Regardless, I challenge you to show to whom the US was selling arms to during an embargo.

If Europeans are selling arms to China during an embargo, then frankly, lay blame where blame is due.

You missed the point of the Analogy. The EU ban is targeted specifically at us Chinese. Had the ban be something along the line of "non-democracies cannot purchase weapons from the EU" or "countries with a high potential to be involved in a conflict cannot purchase weapons from the EU", we would've been fine with it.

On the democracy issue, I think I have said enough. Democracy does not guarantee non-agression, that is my point.



Moif, you are not serious. The Russians have the Glonass and we have the Beidou, which has good coverage locally over Asia. Plus we already signed a Memorandum of Undestanding with the European Space Agency regarding cooperation on the Galileo system last year. This, my friend, is more or less a done deal.



Are you sure about this, Moif? The Native Americans rounded up into reservation qualify as a "beneficial end result"? How about the ones who were killed in the process?



Tibet was considered part of China during the Qing, or Manchu, Dynasty, although it enjoyed a high degree of autonomy. No major country has ever recognized Tibet as an independent country.



Good, now that we know you are refusing service us, maybe we should stop trying to buy from you. Samsung makes great telecom products, and they are probably cheaper too.



I'm confused now, does Tony Blair not have influence on the British military? Is George W. Bush not the Chief of the US military? So do these two fellows count as
Military suit wearing murderers?

aevans176

There is nothing 'snide' about it, I assure you. I am completely honest and up front about my opinion with regards to what I perceive as American hypocrisy.

As for a 'lack of objectivity', pray explain to me how I should 'objectively' regard the differences between Europe selling weapons to China, and Israel selling weapons to China...

Since I fail to see any real difference between these two examples... other than the fact that Israel is apparently allowed to sell weapons to the Chinese, regardless of US wishes... then I shall continue to retain my subjective, and personal point of view.

By all means, please feel free to enlighten me as to anything I may have over looked that explains why Israel is held to a lower standard, and Europe is held to a higher...

And with regards to selling weapons to Iraq... No, I was not referring to just that one nation. I was referring to the fact that the USA is the worlds largest weapons manufacturer and the worlds foremost weapons dealer. If I had to list every single shady deal I've ever heard about concerning US weapon systems to undesirable countries, then I'd be here all day.

And yes, Europe has also sold weapons to nasty dictators. I'm not claiming we have clean hands. The difference lies in the fact that Europe is not holding America to account for its deals or allowing third parties (like Israel) to be exempt from its own position.

And then there is the scale of the problem. The combined Europeans weapons industry is half the size of the US industry and our combined weapons exports are a fraction of the USA's.

And if you care to do a Google search for the words Rumsfeld & ABB, you'll find that often, when European companies are doing deals with shady characters, there is often a Washington Hawk pulling the strings from some dark corner.

Lack of objectivity? Don't make me laugh!


Except for the little detail that the EU (unlike Israel) is not selling weapons to the Chinese. It has merely proposed the option of lifting the embargo. No final decision has yet been made though, so if you want to start laying blame for weapons and US based technology being sold to China, then I suggest you take an 'objective' look at your nations foremost 'ally' in the middle east.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


j10pilot

Of course democracy is not a guarantee. There are no guarantee's in life.

The difference is, whilst a democracy may sometimes go wrong, a dictatorship (by any name) is ALWAYS wrong.

I don't have anything against the Chinese people, and neither I'll wager, does the EU. Its the unelected, self serving, Beijing government that is the problem. Get rid of them and their delusions of grandeur, and then we can talk about the failings of democracy.


I'd forgotten about the Glonass system. Its been such a long time since I've heard about it that it had slipped my mind. Sorry about that one.

As for the Beidou satellites... well I'd never even heard of them, so I looked them up. Alas for your argument, a few navigation satellites do not constitute a GPS system.

As for the done deal. China has a possible share in an as yet unlaunched system. There is no 'done deal' until the system is in place. Until then, everything is up to review and if China thinks it can throw its weight around and bully European nations into complying with its wishes just because it has a potentially large market for mobile phones, then think again because you might just find that the 'done deal' is no deal at all.


What about them? Its ancient history. What happened in those days has very little, if any, bearing on what happens today.

Contemporary geo-politics are not decided on the background of events that happened two centuries ago...


...except in backward places like China where apparently the distant past is as good an excuse as any to invade a nation of peaceful people and subject them to tyranny and brutal persecution.


Thats the free market my friend. You are free to buy where you will.


In my opinion? Yes.

But my opinion does not matter. The difference between Bush, Blair and the Beijing mob is that Bush and Blair are accountable to their people.


editted for grammar

Thanks for the link, J10. I hadn't read it before, but I still have reservations about the actual text.

Taiwan obviously does not desire "reunification". At what point will China decide that the "possibility of peaceful unification has been exhausted"? It is exhausted already, IMO. Taiwan des not desire to reunify. It has its own president, its own currency, its own military. The above does not require that Taiwan announce succession outright, only that "major incidents" regarding secession occur. Maybe something is lost with the translation, but the message i'm reading is that Taiwan must stop talking about succession, and reunify, or China will use non-peaceful means.

I thought so, too...but I found the figures here.

Edited to add: Something I just considered....Much of our weapons sales to foreign countries is not simply based on profit. It lowers production cost for us and the buyer pays for much of the cost of the technological development (this is why the UAE has better F16s). France and Germany might be considering increasing their military capabilities, and look at weapons sales to China as a cost-effective means to do so. Just a thought.

I already did and I asked you a question and you "glossed over it" China's GDP (which is very speculative to begin with because the regional governments lie about it tremendously) is said to be over 60% dependent on Foreign investments....it is what they call FDI go look it up and read from whichever trusted source and you will see that China's growth and her economy is dependent on foreigners dramatically more so than any other nation in the Pacific region. China runs her own trade deficits you know...just not with the US...but it is easy to guess with whom she has the largest deficit with..Taiwan of course!

You complain about 35$ dvd players coming from China and yet the reason Americans have such price advantages right now seems loss on you..it is not China that guarantees this or has the power to provide this to the US..it is competition between China, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, and Korea. And exactly who or which nation has helped these other nations in the Pacific prosper? China or the US? And that is what is being sought in regards to China's arms sales...competition and more fair and competitive pricing.

And I seriously doubt every businessman the world over has the exact same view on China's economic power and growth. That is ridiculous.

If China is so independently powerful all on to her own then explain to us all why her stock market performs as poorly as it does. Is it China that we are investing in? Or is it our own interests in China? What makes China a secure and attractive investment exactly Cube Jockey? Perhaps you should better answer these questions first before you go about informing others as to what powers China possesses in the international markets.

No I think I made it perfectly clear ...and I did say it how many times?...that the anti-secession law was not a domestic issue but rather an international one. You were very dismissive of France and Germany's responsibility to this action by China. And you still will not address it even tho I have further explained the situation and have in fact shown that the EU was asked to act or take on some role of responsibility to this action on the international stage. Would you wish to further clarify your stance or not?


No I do not feel that China is perfectly capable of taking on the US military ..which is what she would be doing if she chose to invade Taiwan. I don't think that the amount of money China spends on their military is indicative or anything other than my original statement that China does not or is not allowed competitive pricing when it comes to her military purchasing.

Moif again as I said before many of the allegations of Israel transporting or sharing sensitive weapons info with China has not been proven. The US gov investigated the patriot missile accusation and found no evidence to support it. Yet again I must ask since you have not answered...was Israel involved in this arms embargo against China? The US and Israel have their own separate agreements on arms sales and control in regards to China and even tho you used the example to perpetuate this belief that Israel has acted against US interests on this issue or is given "free reign" with the The Phalcon radar system it was opposed by the US and Israel made the decision to not go through with the sale. I think the US holds far superior control and influence in regards to such situations with Israel than she does with say France.

Regardless you can name other incidents of Israel providing military equipment I won't deny that I was just interested to see what you are all enraged about or condemning Israel for and I fail to see it's significance being it is the EU not Israel that is America's ally in the embargo.

The arms embargo on China is not as strict as you seem to believe it is. American and EU companies have still provided China with military technology. The EU nations being more lenient on how they each interpret the embargo than the US is.
I found it amusing you chose to highlight a satellite system as what China needs from us..or desires when American and EU corps. have been selling satellite technology to China for years now. That is why this issue is resurfacing the prior US admin was far more lenient and lax in it's interpretation of this embargo then the current one.

As I said before I don't think it is so much a matter of not allowing China these military goods but more or less a matter of not allowing her any price competitiveness on such items.

Bucket

It is no secret that Israel is the second largest supplier of weapons to the PRC.


Did it? I have yet to see you prove anything...


Yes, its a useful convenience for Israel that is is exempt from any agreements, resolutions or laws or that might otherwise force them to act with the same standards as other democratic nations.

And in answer to your question; No, Israel, as usual, had no arms embargo against China. Thats my point. Israel will happily trade with any nation that doesn't directly threaten Israel, (as they did with South Africa during the apartheid years) and America will merrily continue to fund Israel's exploits without so much as a murmur of annoyance from GW Bush or Condoleeza Rice.

And, to the best of my knowledge, the EU ban on weapons sales to China was not an 'agreement' with the USA. My understanding is the EU placed the ban on China by its own volitation. Perhaps I am mistaken but I have never heard of the embargo as being any sort of agreement with Washington.


So, alliances are now selective to single issues alone and regardless of the consequences?

How convenient for Israel, and how ironic for the US soldiers who may one day find themselves being killed by Israeli weapons their own taxes helped to put into Chinese hands

As for being 'enraged', you asked for examples of the "sophisticated weapons tech and other weapon systems" that Israel has sold to China. I provided it and you sought to down play it, Thats fair enough, but I don't see how that makes me 'enraged'.


Indeed. I have no illusions as to the EU and the USA. I am not aware of having said anywhere in this thread, or any other, that I am under the illusion that either has clean hands in this matter.

My only objection has been that the USA has the audacity to point the finger at the EU despite having looked the other way with regards to Israel all these many years.

But, of course, if Israel doesn't have an agreement with the USA.. well then, obviously its just A okay for the Israeli's to sell as many weapons to China as they can!


I fail to see the joke...

Perhaps my sense of humour is lacking some vital ingredient but I am not sure what is so amusing about the example of the Galileo satellite system. The Chinese have a share in that project yes, but they are excluded from the military aspects of it.


GW Bush appears to disagree with you since he doesn't want us to sell any weapons at all to the Chinese.

I'm sure he doesn't. It's really not a terribly good idea at this point I don't think, for the region, for the EU, for the US. What I fear is that the fallout of such sales and/or technology transfers to the Chinese would be to start a new arms race and that would be a massive drain in the world economy. If the EU and Russia are upset over what the US is doing with SDI now, just wait and see what happens if China starts making noise by developing technology capable of targeting the US mainland with nuclear weapons.

Aquilla

I was under the impression that China already had the means with which to hit targets in America with ICBM's

But having said that, I must admit that for once, I actually agree with GW Bush. In this issue I don't see that we have any great need to be helping the Chinese arm themselves with weaponry that may one day give us problems.

On the other hand I do recognise the practical nature of supplying weapons to ones enemies in that it gives one the advantage of understanding the enemies weapons better than the enemy does. If China were to go it alone, which they probably could do if they really wanted to, then they would be armed with all manner of secret weapons with unknown properties, in much the same way as the Soviet Union once was.

The latest estimate I've seen concerning Chinese ICBM capability, and it'd dated, puts it at possible, but relatively primitive from a targetting, guidance, MIRV type of standpoint. Certainly nothing close to the capabilities the Soviets had. And, I haven't read anything to indicate that they are being terribly aggressive at developing such a capability at this point.

Your point about them being able to develop things on their own is also true, but such development programs chew up huge resources. While they are spending the resources developing weapons systems, they aren't using them to deploy and threaten their neighbors. It is almost always cheaper to buy rather than to build, even for the Chinese.

Well if you had read the article I cited you would know the answer to that Bucket. China artificially holds its currency below the US Dollar for one thing. For another they aren't exactly a true free market capitalist country either.


I didn't answer it before because I don't think it is relevant but since you have repeated it I'll answer it now.

Are you suggesting that China isn't powerful because foreign investment there is heavy? Does that mean you think all these countries would just pull their investments out and go home?

That is pretty ridiculous not to mention unrealistic. First of all the majority of these "investments" aren't loans to the Chinese government that could just be recalled. These investments are businesses which have setup operations in China, they've built factories, etc. If they were to suddenly pull out they would stand to lose a large amount of money and on top of that they'd still have to find another place to get their products made cheaply to stay competitive and keep prices low.

Furthermore, it would have to be a coordinated pull out of investment or a lot of companies would find themselves at a serious competitive disadvatange if one or several of their competitors didn't pull out.

Pulling foreign investment out of China is completely unrealistic Bucket so there is no threat there. Just because China was made an economic power by the US and other countries does not mean they are not an economic power. Your logic simply does not make any sense.


Does it really make a difference? The net effect is the same. What is your point?


Once again if you had read the article or perhaps taken an international business class the answer would be blatantly obvious here. China is a good investment because they are a huge untapped market and they also provide a huge labor pool for cheap unskilled labor and increasingly skilled labor.

And China is NOT a secure investment by any stretch of the imagination - neither is virtually any foreign market development investment.

I'll once again ask you the question here - what is your point? Just because china isn't a "secure" investment (meaning with as little risk as US Bonds), what does that have to do with their relative power in the global market place?


I'll try this one more time.

Let's say the United States passes a law in Congress that they are going to shoot all Mexicans that cross the border. This law is passed and signed by our president. Clearly this is something that would shock and digust the international community and they would clearly have an "interest" here.

So, what responsibility do France, Germany or any EU country hold for our actions Bucket? In your mind should they have marched into Congress to prevent us from passing the law, or taken some kind of more extreme measure? What if they did do something and we passed it anyway - are they to blame?

Your position that they were somehow responsible (or any of the EU for that matter) for the passing of this law on China's behalf is completely ridiculous. Now they do have a responsibility to react to the information and factor it in to their decisions when dealing with China and of course if they actually did invade Taiwan then they'd have a responsibility to decide if they wanted to take action or not.

So I don't know what I'm not addressing here, because the simple fact of the matter is no foreign country is responsible for the actions of another. T