Union faces huge dilemma over China arms embargo

Date: 20/01/05

"They're talking about helping the Chinese kill Americans more effectively.

"It is not at all in the EU's interest to lift the arms embargo.

"Efforts we've made to open, widen, deepen transatlantic defence industrial trade are going to be circumscribed."

This is how the American defence community talks about EU's moves towards lifting the 15-year old arms embargo on selling arms to China.

The Pentagon is stepping up pressure on its European allies over China, warning that lifting the embargo could lead to a curtailment of military technology co-operation between the US and Europe.

These reactions were in response to the declaration by EU leaders at the European Council meeting on 17 December of their "political will to continue to work towards lifting the arms embargo". But the European Council also "underlined that the result of any decision should not be an increase of arms exports from EU member states to China, neither in quantitative nor qualitative terms".

The US argues that a resumption of arms sales would undermine Taiwan and encourage domestic repression in China.

The main American concerns are clearly over Taiwan rather than human rights, although there are both American and European worries that lifting the ban would accelerate the modernisation of China's military capability, thereby endangering human rights as well as regional security.

The ban was imposed in 1989 following the Tiananmen Square massacre. No one is suggesting that China's current human rights record meets EU standards. EU leaders continue to stress that Beijing must respect human rights. But the situation has improved during the last 15 years and the reason for imposing the embargo has disappeared.

And the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports - which is to be strengthened - precludes sales to countries which might use the weapons to abuse human rights. But the code is not mandatory and cannot, in itself, prevent member states from selling weapons to Beijing.

China resents being included on a list of pariah countries such as Myanmar, while even Libya is no longer on the US or European embargo lists.

Exerting pressure on China with a view to establishing the rule of law, in accordance with China's World Trade Organization commitments, is likely to be more effective than keeping it on the black list.

Respect for human rights should be presented as an issue of national interest for China and not as external pressure. As European Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson put it: "Human rights should increasingly be seen as the way to release the full potential of the Chinese people, as well as an important political pressure valve, and therefore a national interest."

But the US human rights policy is riddled with hypocrisy. Leaving aside its Guantamano Bay and Abu Ghraib prison practices, the US - and Europe too - continue to supply arms to several countries with poor human rights records.

As to Taiwan, the Union does have a duty under the existing arms export code to ensure that sales do not lead to regional instability in general or to strengthening China's military position vis-à-vis Taiwan in particular. EU leaders recalled the importance of the criteria of a new EU code of conduct on arms exports, "in particular criteria regarding human rights, stability and security in the region and the national security of friendly and allied countries".

But the ban has not prevented China from building up its military strength, with an official annual defence budget of $22.5 billion [17.2bn euro] (estimated by the Pentagon at over $70m [53.45m euro]), by buying from Russia and Israel, but also from France, Italy, the UK and the US, for some arms components.

On the other hand, if the EU does not lift the embargo, it would fail to achieve one of its foreign policy goals, that of entering into a strategic partnership with China. The EU can hardly contemplate entering into such a partnership (as defined in the European Security Strategy), as the Chinese leaders would not understand how a strategic partner could be subject to weapons bans.

The public pressure being put on the Union by the US could backfire. Members of Congress are seeking to restrict transfers of US military technology to European countries selling arms to China and to forbid Pentagon purchases from such countries. This could affect current US efforts to make American forces inter-operable with the forces of its European allies. The UK would be the hardest hit from US retaliation over such a move, both because of its increased reliance on American military technology and because two of its companies are major suppliers to the Pentagon.

Heavy-handed pressure from Washington could in fact help the EU-25 reach agreement on lifting the embargo. But it should only be lifted once the code of conduct on arms exports is strengthened and after China has signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Deal close on revamped Code of Conduct

• Efforts are continuing to strengthen the EU's rules on arms export. Diplomats say a deal is now near on beefing up the Union's voluntary Code of Conduct which sets out common criteria for approving arms exports;
• the revised code of conduct is set to include tougher measures on arms brokerage in third countries and exports of "intangible" hi-tech exports such as jet aircraft;
• but experts are still discussing the contents of a separate 'toolbox' for dealing with countries that are coming out of an embargo, as China may in the near future. This toolbox is expected to be adopted before any move to ease measures against Beijing is decided;
• it would include five safeguard measures including compulsory reporting of accepted and denied export licence requests. It would also introduce periodic reviews of past exports and consultation on policy changes;
• member states will also be expected to issue a declaration stating that the overall level of their exports will not increase;
• although there is no agreement yet on all aspects of the package, diplomats say that with only a few reservations remaining the deal could be wrapped up in February.
• Stanley Crossick is the founding chairman of the European Policy Centre. He writes here in a personal capacity.

Article reports on reactions in the US defence community in response to the declaration by EU leaders at the European Council meeting on 17 December 2004 of their 'political will to continue to work towards lifting the arms embargo'.

The general line of argument in the United States is that a resumption of arms sales would undermine Taiwan and encourage domestic repression in China.