China Arms-Embargo

Fire of Liberty

Timothy Garton Ash had a thought provoking commentary on the Chinese arms-embargo in the March 24, 2005 issue of The Guardian. While I'm no great fan of Mr. Ash's politics or his pro-EU stance, he still writes one mean commentary. Ash notes that with incidents like Abu Gharib, the EU has sat on its high horse saying they're more moral and civilized than the US and would never fall so low. The only problem is that the EU was doing just what they condemned through their talks of lifting the 1989 arms-embargo on China. Just think about it, the EU condems the US for everything in the book by some out of control hoodlums in a jail in Iraq while they were talking about opening up the weapon sales floodgate to one of the biggest human rights abuser in the World. What makes things worse is the actions that the various EU leaders have done in order to ensure successful deals in the future. Just take a look here:

Jacques Chirac picked this up, and urged the EU to oblige. Meanwhile, he declared 2004 the "year of China", painted (or rather, illuminated) the Eiffel Tower red, backed the Chinese official position on Taiwan and failed to criticise its record on human rights. His servility was rewarded with a few trade contracts and qualified Chinese endorsement of his vision of a "multipolar" world, to counterbalance American power.

The main motive for wanting to lift the arms embargo is not political but, as one senior European commissioner put it to me, "mercantilist". With sluggish growth and high unemployment, France and Germany are desperate to secure more export contracts from the world's largest emerging economy. On the eve of his own wooing journey to Beijing, Chancellor Schröder described this policy as an expression of "true patriotism". Translation: jobs for Germans take precedence over human rights for Chinese.

I guess these EU leaders seem to have lost their moral clarity at the drop of a euro or yuan. When they are willing to sale these arms and only back down when the US threatens to cut defense contracts or slap sanctions on them, you know some steel has been removed from their spines. And these people think they're going to compete with the US on an equal footing.

Along with Ash's piece, here's another piece by Gerard Baker in the March 23, 2005 issue of The Times. He notes that the EU thought it had a blockbuster deal with its lifting of the arms-embargo against the Chinese but it would go down in flames shortly thereafter when the Chinese Parliament passed the Anti-Seccession Law, which was directed at Taiwan. I guess when you appease the Chinese Dragon, it will eventually bite you on the rear. You shouldn't deal with a regime that hasn't reformed from the behavior that resulted in sanctions in the first place. Time is not on China's or the EU's side with these new deals especially with President Bush push for democracy. I think Baker put it best in the following paragraphs:

The US is not back to a pre-September 11 mindset in foreign policy, but it has stopped seeing the entire world through the prism of Middle Eastern terrorism.

Managing China may still be the biggest challenge of the 21st century, and with his commitment to promoting democracy around the world it is hard to see how President Bush cannot take a less accommodating line towards China, especially if it continues to rattle the sabre against Taiwan.

Intriguingly, earlier this month the US signed a new defence pact with Japan, which included for the first time an explicit reference to the mutual interest in security in the Taiwan Straits.

The EU has now got cold feet about lifting the embargo. What looked like such a smart move a year ago has now put the EU in the uncomfortable position of choosing between seriously irritating the US or angering China.

I for one am glad that the US turned up the heat on the EU and its efforts to resume an arms-trade with the Chinese. Chalk one up for the forces of freedom and Democracy.