| Author (Person) | Spinant, Dana |
|---|---|
| Series Title | European Voice |
| Series Details | Vol.10, No.16, 6.5.04 |
| Publication Date | 06/05/2004 |
| Content Type | News |
|
By Dana Spinant Date: 06/05/04 EU MEMBER states are braced for a controversial discussion on what could replace the 15-year- old embargo on arms sales to China, amid a dramatic rise in Beijing's economic power. Following mounting pressure from the Chinese government to scrap the embargo, from the US administration to maintain it and faced with a reluctant public opinion, EU governments are heading for a decision on this in the autumn. Member states are split on the issue, with France leading the group of those wanting to scrap the embargo, while Sweden, the Netherlands and current EU president Ireland oppose lifting it. But diplomats predict the embargo could be ended - or at least eased - in the second part of the year, under the Dutch presidency. While the Irish have avoided concrete moves on this, despite a call from last December's European Council to review the embargo, Dutch officials have indicated they could try to reach an agreement during their term in office. But The Hague, under pressure from its parliament, has warned such a decision could only be taken "as part of a larger package", involving a review of the code of conduct guiding member states' weapons sales, to allow for more scrutiny of arms transfers to China. Is the call to lift the embargo justified? The embargo was installed by one line in the 27 June 1989 Madrid European Council conclusions, in the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square massacre: "[the European Council calls for] the interruption by the member states of the Community of military cooperation and an embargo in arms with China". The call followed strongly-worded condemnation of the Beijing regime's repression of demonstrators, which left hundreds of protestors dead. Arguably, today's China, a leading trade partner for the US and the EU, which joined the World Trade Organization in 2001, is different from the pariah of the international community it became in the wake of the Tiananmen massacre. One member state ambassador to the EU points out the Union cannot continue treating China as it did in 1989. "To treat China like we treat Burma or Zimbabwe is very disappointing for the Chinese authorities," he said. "We cannot, and we will not, close our eyes over the human rights situation. But we must operate a distinction between China and rogue states or failed regimes," he added. French officials argue that lifting the embargo would primarily be a "political signal" for Beijing. However, this is precisely what Washington does not want: "We don't think that such a political signal would be justified at this stage, as China's human rights record has been going backwards," Jim Foster, the deputy head of the US mission to the EU, said. "There is a broader question: what is the purpose of China's military modernization? We've seen an acceleration of that over the past few years," he added. But the EU state ambassador commented that the US has a mistrust of China's rising power. "The Americans regard China as a superpower in the making and are naturally more cautious towards it, especially towards its military might," he said. And while it has been suggested that France's insistence for lifting the embargo is driven by pressure from its large but struggling defence industry, which would like to sell on the Chinese market, the ambassador points out there is more than a commercial interest in Paris' stance. "There is that, but I believe it is not that significant and France is not alone on this. The UK or Belgium would also be happy to export to China," he said. "But France looks at China in terms of a strategic partnership. China is a permanent member of the [United Nations] Security Council. Its accord would be needed for any important decision to be taken in the UN; they are also a nuclear power, you cannot simply treat China as if it were Iraq under Saddam Hussein," he added. One important objection raised by US officials is that a militarily-stronger China would upset the sensitive balance in south-east Asia. "Lifting the embargo could lead to a military build-up in the region," one US diplomat said. However, a Council of Ministers official retorts that concerns over the militarization of the region have not prevented Washington from selling arms to Taiwan. On the other hand, if Beijing wanted "to crack down on its human rights activists, it is already rather well equipped militarily for doing so, it would not need arms from the EU". What could replace the ban? EU member states are only likely to lift the embargo if an improved code of conduct to scrutinise arms exports to China were developed instead. "Just lifting it is certainly not an option; it would only be acceptable if new checks are being introduced," the EU ambassador said. "But that means a stronger code of conduct." However, member states are unlikely to submit to tougher scrutiny of their arms sales. The present code, adopted in 1998, is a vaguely worded set of guidelines under which EU states are asked to notify rejections. In order to be a reliable scrutineer of the export of weapons, the code must provide more transparency on arms deals and more details on the type of weapons which states accept can be sold to third countries. However, as it is unlikely that member states will agree on such a significant reform of the code at this stage, the embargo should not be lifted, but merely eased. A new declaration by member states should specify what type of material should not be sent to China (lethal weaponry) and what type of non-lethal military equipment can be sold. This could still be presented as a political signal of openness towards China, while providing an incentive for Beijing to press ahead with political reforms. Article considers the arms embargo imposed by the European Union on China in 1989 following the Tiananmen Square massacre. The European Union will have to decide in Autumn 2004 whether or not to lift the ban on arms sales. Member States are split on the issue and the United States administration is against ending the ban. |
|
| Source Link | Link to Main Source http://www.european-voice.com/ |
| Related Links |
|
| Countries / Regions | China |
