Feeding the Dragon, Hurting the Alliance

[Agathon]

The primary worry is that they'll be the stronger party in future diplomatic/political/economic confrontations.

So? It will also give Euros an opportunity to use China to play off the US.

It's a double edged sword, but to get back to the original point. What difference will China's military improvements (which will still leave them short of the US) have on such negotiations?

Chinese economic power will have much more influence, and there's nothing we can do about that.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Agathon

The primary worry is that they'll be the stronger party in future diplomatic/political/economic confrontations.

So? It will also give Euros an opportunity to use China to play off the US.

And it gives the US the opportunity to use China against Europe. Increased opportunity for tricksery won't offset the relative decline in basic strength.

It's a double edged sword, but to get back to the original point. What difference will China's military improvements (which will still leave them short of the US) have on such negotiations?

Not much. Which is why I said that if it weren't for the risk of increased tensions across the Formosa strait, I'd have no objections to making some money from China's rearmament. As it is, such tensions and the irritation the sales will cause in Washington may not be worth it; I'm undecided on this.

Chinese economic power will have much more influence, and there's nothing we can do about that.

That's no reason to be happy about it.

(The really cynical approach would be to try and persuade the Chinese to buy as much weapons as possible, on the logic that every yuan they spend on guns they don't spend on more productive investments; they're unlikely to use them against us, and if they attack Taiwan they screw their economy more than ours.)

[Agathon]

Yes, be virtue of the club being a democracy only club. China remains a one party dictatorship with one of the worst human rights records of any modern nation. It is shocking that you spend so much time whining about gitmo but spend zero time talking about the gulagos run by the Chinese communist party.

Because the Chinese people didn't vote for the gulags.

[Drake Tungsten]

Chinese economic power will have much more influence, and there's nothing we can do about that.

Economic power does little on its own to buy a country influence, as the example of Japan shows.

[Drake Tungsten]

Bush warns of China arms sales

By Bill Sammon and Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

President Bush yesterday expressed "deep concern" that the European Union is planning to lift its arms embargo against China, suggesting that Beijing might use new weaponry against Taiwan, a move that could pose a threat to U.S. forces and other countries in the region.

"There is deep concern in our country that a transfer of weapons would be a transfer of technology to China, which would change the balance of relations between China and Taiwan, and that's of concern," Mr. Bush said in a joint press conference in Brussels with NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

It was the first time that the president publicly addressed Europe's desire to lift its arms embargo, which it imposed after Beijing's 1989 crackdown on unarmed pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square.

Congressional aides said yesterday that Congress is considering legislative action to restrict U.S. technology transfers to Europe if the European Union follows through, which it has said it plans to do as early as June. Yesterday in Brussels, Mr. Bush also threatened the Europeans with possible congressional action.

Earlier this month, the House passed a resolution sponsored by Rep. Henry J. Hyde, Illinois Republican and chairman of the House International Relations Committee, warning the European Union that lifting the embargo could lead to restrictions on U.S. technology transfers to Europe.

The Senate is expected to pass a similar resolution.

"The resumption of arms sales to China represents a potential serious threat to the security of the U.S., Japan and Taiwan, and a diminishment of the European Union's stated commitment to democratic values," Mr. Hyde said yesterday through a spokesman.

"In the mad dash to secure lucrative Chinese contracts, more thoughtful Europeans might want to assess the potential damage to trans-Atlantic defense cooperation."

For his part, Mr. Bush warned that Europe's plan to limit arms transfers after lifting the embargo through a "code of conduct" would have to be sold to the U.S. Congress.

The president said he raised his concerns during meetings with French President Jacques Chirac, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the European Union.

"And they, to a person, said, 'Well, they think they can develop a protocol that isn't — that shouldn't concern the United States,'" he said. "And I said, 'I'm looking forward to seeing it' and that they need to make sure that if they do so, that they sell it to the United States Congress.

"But the Congress will be making the decisions as to whether or not — as to how to react to what will be perceived by some, perhaps, as a technology transfer to China," he added.

Mr. Bush said both he and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have warned European leaders about "the concerns of the United States" on lifting the arms embargo.

"They're listening to the concerns of the administration, as first articulated by Secretary of State Rice, and they know the Congress' concern," he said.

"And so they will try to develop a plan that will ease concerns," he added. "Now, whether they can or not, we'll see."

A European Union fact sheet, issued to reporters after Mr. Bush's press conference, said the European code would require member states to regulate licensing and technology transfers, emphasize export controls and promised "increased sharing of information and transparency."

An administration official in Brussels said the White House would have to study the details before responding.

Mr. Chirac said in a separate press conference after Mr. Bush's that the European Union still intends to end the embargo, saying it was no longer justified.

A Bush administration official involved in Asian affairs, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said yesterday that the United States opposes lifting the EU embargo primarily because the arms and technology will end up threatening U.S. forces.

"The immediate threat is to Taiwan. The potential for U.S. involvement in a Taiwan scenario is very real," the official said. "Any assistance to the Chinese military is a great concern to us. The trend lines are not good, and China is building up its forces aggressively."

The Chinese military buildup was discussed last week in Senate testimony by CIA Director Porter J. Goss, who said that "improved Chinese capabilities threaten U.S. forces in the region."

Additionally, Japan and other Asian nations fear that China could augment its growing military power with advanced European weaponry and use that power against them.

Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura urged the European Union to retain the arms ban in a recent telephone conversation with Javier Solana, secretary-general of the Council of the European Union.

The minister said lifting the arms ban "would seriously affect the security of not only Japan, but also other countries in the East Asian region," Japan's Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper reported.

China's record of arms proliferation to states like North Korea and Iran is another reason the Bush administration wants the ban kept in place.

"The Chinese don't have the capability to fully implement export controls to control proliferation, and proliferation is a concern," said the U.S. official involved in Asian affairs, adding, "We don't know that sensitive technology imported by China will stay in China."

Strategically, the Chinese government appears to be using pressure on Europe to lift the embargo as a way to create a EU-China entente aimed at countering U.S. influence in both Asia and Europe, the official said.

"This drive to lift the embargo is coming at a time when we should be working with Europe to manage the rise of China," the official said. "This is not the time to let China play one of us off the other."

The official said the arms embargo is "clearly part of a Chinese attempt to drive a wedge between us and our friends."

Richard Fisher, a private-sector specialist on the Chinese military, said weak controls by European states already have boosted China's military.

"The Europeans already sold the [People's Liberation Army] new anti-satellite warfare technology, and helped them with a new fighter-bomber for air and naval forces, courtesy of Rolls Royce jet engine technology," Mr. Fisher said.

Additionally, defense firms in France and Germany are providing Beijing's military with diesel engines that will be built into a new class of warships and a new attack submarine, said Mr. Fisher, vice president of the Washington-based International Assessments and Strategy Center.

A recent Senate Republican report on the EU embargo warned against lifting the ban.

The report said China's arms-buying efforts show that the military there has a dual-track approach. China is buying "hard" capabilities such as fighter aircraft, submarines, surface ships and anti-ship cruise missiles from Russia.

China wants the arms ban lifted to develop "soft" military capabilities through enabling technology from Europe, especially command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance goods.

"These softer capabilities, what the Europeans call nonlethal items, are really more dangerous than the platforms Russia sells, because at present, [China] has difficulties putting its missiles on target," the report said.

• Bill Gertz reported from Washington and Bill Sammon reported from Brussels.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050222-115008-9802r.htm

Seems Japan is very much against European arms sales to China. I'm willing to bet Taiwan is as well, not to mention other countries in the region.

[Last Conformist]

Well, Taiwanese opposition can pretty much be taken for granted, I'd say. They're pretty much the declared target of those systems.

Japanese opposition is hardly surprising either, tho it's not like this is posing any direct threat to Japan.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't see how it doesn't pose a direct threat to Japan. Right now, China is the big but backwards power while Japan is the small but advanced power. European transfers of arms (and therefore technology) will completely destabilize the current balance of power in East Asia. That leaves Japan with a choice: expand their military to try to reacquire balance with China or trust to the good graces of a country that has been indoctrinating its population for decades to hate Japan with a passion.

I think an expanded Japanese miltary (and ensuing arms race) is the more likely outcome...

[Joseph]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
What a stupid, innane article.

And who wrote the title to that anyways? Was it the journalist or you DinoDoc? Whoever it was, I find it funny how fast whatever Bush says enters into the lexicon of every right wing idiot there is.

Bush says the US and EU are an "alliance" (12 times in the speech yesterday) and now suddenly its true.

But listen Dino. Why shouldn't the EU be able to sell China arms? What are they going to do with them besides equip their army, the same thing the US does. Only wacko right wing politicos and armchair pundits see China as anything but a commercial threat. They're not invading anyone. They couldn't even invade Taiwan for Christ's sake.

Get real, and keep on chasing those ghosts.

In 1933, Germany could not invade Poland, in 1939 they did.

[Agathon]

In 1933, Germany could not invade Poland, in 1939 they did.

So the Chinese communist party is the equivalent of Hitler? Howay man!

The Chinese do not have a history of manic aggression. They want Taiwan back, because its part of China (which even the Taiwanese admit, but they think they should be in charge of China) and they invaded Tibet because it was a weak state between them and India, a country with which they have hostile relations.

That doesn't put them in the same league as Hitler who announced that he wanted to conquer his way to the Urals and engage in a policy of racial extermination.

That leaves Japan with a choice: expand their military to try to reacquire balance with China or trust to the good graces of a country that has been indoctrinating its population for decades to hate Japan with a passion.

I imagine that, among other things, this has to do with petty Chinese grievances over events like the Rape of Nanking. There are plenty of people in other countries who hate Japan too, for related reasons.

None of it means that they want to invade Japan.

[Agathon]

And what's all this crap about China being aggressive?

Has China ringed the United States with military bases?

Do the Chinese continually violate US airspace with spy flights?

Have the Chinese moved masses of military assets right up to the coast of the United States?

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten


Good lord Ted, what happened to you?

Awesome response.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Patroklos


Yeah, takin gover an entire country without even waking up, let alone getting out of bed, means we wasted our entire military.

What is the army's loss percentage again, .01?

When half of the units in Iraq are Guard and Reserve units, I'd say that means they are stretched beyond their sustainable means.

Secondly there is still a war going on in Afghanistan.

That doesn't leave much ground room to summon up a powerful ground force when the time arises.

Finally of all this sh1t is insanley EXPENSIVE in terms of MONEY.

You don't go around looking for trouble because trouble always finds you first. That is like the biggest DUH rule ever.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Agathon
And what's all this crap about China being aggressive?

Has China ringed the United States with military bases?

Do the Chinese continually violate US airspace with spy flights?

Have the Chinese moved masses of military assets right up to the coast of the United States?

A very similar thing happened in the 80s, when Japanese were on the road to usurping the US as the world's economic superpower.

There was alot of backlash towards the Japanese when the hegemony was on the verge of being threatened.

The same thing is going on here.

[Agathon]

A very similar thing happened in the 80s, when Japanese were on the road to usurping the US as the world's economic superpower.

There was alot of backlash towards the Japanese when the hegemony was on the verge of being threatened.

The same thing is going on here.

Yeah, I know. Thanks for reminding me.

Silly isn't it....

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Agathon
And shutting China out of this is going to make it easier for democracy to come about in that country?

Tiananmen is the reason China won't have an easy time becoming democratic. The point of Tiananmen wasn't 'if it succeeded it would have caused China to colapse.' I agree that the protestors demands should not have been met. The problem was the way it was handled. It was a peaceful protest met with military assault and the death and imprisonment of many innocent people who just wanted a better system. It showed the Chinese people that resistence would be met with extreme prejudice. Even today, very few people here speak out about the government. No one would dare form another political party. Had it been solved peacefully without giving into demands, a budding democracy could form. The idea of peaceful protests could be used as an outlet for people to express concerns. Now they are just scary. The only protests here now are government sponsered anti-japanese protests and the violent protests of the minorities and poor who have been trodden on in China rise to economic power.

The massacre also demonstrated how far the current leadership would go to hold onto power. Democracy would mean relinquishing some of that power. This will not happen easily. Look at Hong Kong, which was supposed to be a starting point for democracy in China. Instead China has done everything it could without violating the passover agreement to maintain strict control of the islands.

You must also look at the history of China. There has never been a major democracy movement. The country has been ruled by one force for thousands of years. The force has only changed through violence. But a singular force has always remained. Even at the height of the empire, the country was still ruled by one party. To think that improving the quality of life through the economy will lead to a more democratic system in China is a bit naive.