Feeding the Dragon, Hurting the Alliance

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Dry
No NATO nation is allowed to sell anything to non-NATO countries without the agreement of the others.
It's part of NATO contract.

I call BS otherwise there'd be no point with all this lower the arm embargo talk cuz permission won't be given.

[Sandman]

You know, if the US military and their fanboys didn't constantly carp on about their newest weapon system, China wouldn't feel under the same pressure to upgrade its military.

[BeBMan]

"But if the E.U. resumes trading arms to China, it will, in effect, become a full partner in the modernization of the People’s Liberation Army, already the most destabilizing trend in East Asia. By developing a large and growing fleet of ballistic and cruise missiles and submarines and acquiring Russian attack aircraft and destroyers, Beijing, with no external threat to its own security, is driving a new and extremely dangerous arms race in the Pacific. "

So we should rather watch the Chinese developing own stuff - or buying from elsewhere? I am not exactly sure if that stops what the article calls "already the most destabilizing trend in East Asia".

And how do we expect China to put pressure on NK because of its nukes if we treat it already like an enemy, for example, when the article seems to be implying that China shouldn't be allowed to upgrade its military?

[Pekka]

DD, I don't know what good it does. But if US would do it, there would be absolutely no thread about it. It would be 'hey great to see we are warming up!'. THat's the hidden hypocricy in this, because we all KNOW it would be the argument of certain folks, whose **** never stinks.

But as for what good would it do to some European countries to open up, I don't know. Money? Nah really I have no idea.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Everyone is saying that but no one so far has provided a cogent reason why aiding a totalitarian, anti-democratic state against a free, deomcratic state makes either political or strategic sense for Europe?

And I used to think 'Mericans didn't understand irony.

In fact, irony of logic is flowing so thick in both directions that I almost missed the troll.

[DRoseDARs]

And I for one will welcome our new insect overlords...
[/PATIENTLY WAITING]

[laurentius]

Am I seeing things or are some posters actually FLIP-FLOPPING in this thread?

[Dry]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I call BS otherwise there'd be no point with all this lower the arm embargo talk cuz permission won't be given.

Ok, I made some search and it seems you are right.
What need a full agreement is the deployement of NATO units.
It seems indeed that, would the embargo be lifted, the selling of material could occur.
Of course, the usual international rules, about selling weapons to countries at war, remain active.

Today, China's main suppliers of advanced technologicasl weapons, are Russia and Israel (no embargo from their side).

Those mainly interested in the lifting, are France, Germany (eurocopter, missiles) and Italy (Augusta). UK in a lesser extend.

[Sava]

Everyone is saying that but no one so far has provided a cogent reason why aiding a totalitarian, anti-democratic state against a free, deomcratic state makes either political or strategic sense for Europe?

M-O-N-E-Y

[Dry]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Everyone is saying that but no one so far has provided a cogent reason why aiding a totalitarian, anti-democratic state against a free, deomcratic state makes either political or strategic sense for Europe?

As far as I could understand, this is neither strategic nor political.
Seems to me a pure economical problem.
The big 4 weapon sellers in the world are USA, Russia, France and UK. Behind comes countires like Germany, Italy, Sweden, Brazil and Israel. And China itself, of course.

With the embargo running, those who making big money with China are those not involved: Russia and Israel.
France, Germany and a few others don't like that. And they want their shares.

The problem is that China is a big market forbidden to USA for strategical reasons.
The embargo is ok for them, because it forbids huge market shares to 2 of their competitors (France and UK).

All this sh!t is a war between weapons sellers.
USA is the nice guy, but I don't think it's really purposely.

[Agathon]

Does anyone here not believe that China is a more open society than it was 15 years ago?

Does anyone think that things in China are going to get more or less repressive in the next 15 years?

Does anyone think that the Chinese should abandon "communism" the same way the Russians did, with the same results?

[Dry]

Agathon, I don't think this is the problem.

The problem is Taiwan.

China does not want to exclude force to get back Taiwan. That's why the embargo was confirmed by EU parliament a few month ago.

But France and Germany are puting more and more pression on the EU for the lift.
Some smaller weapon sellers could be tempted.

[Agathon]

The problem is Taiwan.

As I've said elsewhere, this "problem" is sorting itself out in the long term.

China won't ever admit that Taiwan is not a renegade province, mainly because it is. On the other hand, the Taiwanese government still maintains that it is the legitimate government of all China.

They'll sort it out eventually. I wouldn't be too scared of Chinese saber rattling.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Jaakko
The US getting cut down a couple of notches is a great benefit to the world. You guys are horribly incompetent at being a world policeman.

And like I said to pchang, preventing a multipolar world is not in anyone but the US' interests.

Problem: The US is strong enought to bully us around.

Solution: Help the PRC to become strong enough to bully us around too.

Somehow, that doesn't seem very attractive to me.




From the American perspective, BTW, this is clear evidence that they should integrate their defense industry further with Europe's. Take, frex, Sweden's chief claim to weapons racing, the JAS 39 Gripen strike fighter aircraft; it includes so much American stuff that America was able to secure de facto veto over to whom it can be sold.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Agathon
Does anyone here not believe that China is a more open society than it was 15 years ago?

Does anyone think that things in China are going to get more or less repressive in the next 15 years?

Does anyone think that the Chinese should abandon "communism" the same way the Russians did, with the same results?

"Trade, China, & Freedom?

Tuesday, June 19, 2001

DOES REPEATING SOMETHING MAKE IT SO?

"Open trade is a force for freedom in China...."
President George W. Bush, May 29, 2001

"U.S. and China Reach Consensus on China's Accession to WTO"
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, June 9, 2001

"China has charged veteran labour activist Li Wangyang with subversion, a Hong Kong rights group said on Monday."
Reuters, June 11, 2001


(Sources: "Remarks by the President to Los Angeles World Affairs Council," Los Angeles, Cal., May 29, 2001, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010531-8.html; "U.S. and China Reach Consensus on China's Accession to WTO," press release, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, http://www.ustr.gov/releases/2001/0610-36.htm; "China charges labour activist with subversion group," Reuters, June 11, 2001)"

http://www.tradealert.us/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=1051

I don't happen to think that China is any more open then they were.