|
|
|
|
EU-China arms ban remains, for
now
By Axel Berkofsky
BRUSSELS - Is the end of the European
Union weapons embargo imposed on China in 1989
after the Tiananmen Massacre really imminent?
Well, not just yet.
Contrary to what has
been reported in the press over the past 10 days
or so, the lifting of the 25-nation EU weapons
embargo imposed on China after it violently
crushed peaceful demonstrations for democracy,
free speech and free thought in Tiananmen Square
on June 4, 1989, is not a done deal - not quite
yet and perhaps far from it. Still, there is talk
about possibly lifting it in March.
Even
if commentators, EU officials and human-rights
organizations pretty much agree that the lifting
will come "soon", "later this year" or "some time
in 2005", opponents and advocates cannot agree on
a timetable. Good news, you might think in light
of Chinese and Franco-German pressure to lift the
"anachronistic" embargo standing in the way of a
relationship based on so-called "mutual
understanding" (a term used so many times at
EU-China summits that at some point you actually
think it makes sense) and the common interest in
boosting trade relations, come what may.
While China and Brussels-based Chinese
diplomats want to see the embargo lifted without
"further delay", the EU parliament, Amnesty
International and a number EU member states have
announced their intention to resist Chinese and
Franco-German pressure a little longer. Not too
much longer though, hope Paris, Berlin and weapons
manufacturers in both countries, expecting the
union to scrap the ban at the EU Summit next
month.
The EU Council is preparing for
that contingency and is in the process of
implementing a revised EU code of conduct on
weapons exports to China (and elsewhere), destined
to replace the existing embargo that is largely
voluntary. The new one also will be largely
voluntarily and not easy to enforce.
And
the recent lifting of the EU's weapons embargo on
Libya, another country not exactly known for its
excellent human-rights record and democratic
decision-making process, has confirmed the hope in
China that Beijing is next in line for being
erased from the EU's unofficial list of rogue
states.
But let's try to be optimistic for
now, assuming that common sense and principles
will win over business interests and the EU's
determination (obsession, say some) to implement
the so-called "EU-China strategic partnership",
announced in the union's December 2003 Security
Strategy (the so-called "Solana Paper" named after
Javier Solana, the EU's high representative for
the union's Common Foreign and Security Policy).
The EU parliament for starters has
promised to "make a big fuss" should the EU member
states decide to scrap the ban. It is very likely
to adopt yet another resolution unambiguously
opposing the lifting of the embargo, Asia Times
Online has learned.
Although the
parliament's last resolution opposing the lifting
of the embargo was only adopted last November, the
parliament's "Taiwan lobby" and human-rights
advocates are ready to strike again if necessary,
an EU parliamentarian told Asia Times Online.
However, there is a possibility that the EU
Council could not care less about such a
resolution, and the fact that parliamentary
resolutions are not legally binding will certainly
be helpful when snubbing Europe's lawmakers.
Very much off the record, EU Council
diplomats and bureaucrats tend to refer to the EU
parliament as "irrelevant" with regard to this
issue, emphasizing that the lawmaking body has an
"advisory" role on EU foreign and security
policies. Leaving the democratic deficits of the
EU aside, the council's real "counterparts" are
indeed the national parliaments and their
resolutions opposing the lifting of the embargo.
The Dutch parliament, for example, has such a
resolution in place asking for "verifiable
evidence" that China's human-rights record has
improved before considering the end of the
embargo.
All parties concerned, including
the EU Commission, agree that Beijing has not
delivered evidence of improved human-rights
performance and is not planning to do so, at least
judging by the rhetoric coming from Beijing.
China, a Chinese diplomat-turned-academic told
Asia Times Online, never chose to link human
rights with the weapons embargo in the first
place.
Beijing and Brussels-based Chinese
diplomats have told the commission and this
correspondent on numerous occasions that:
1)
The human-rights situation in China has improved
"significantly".
2) Western standards of human
rights are not "applicable" in China.
3) Human
rights are basically an internal Chinese affair
that needs to handled by Beijing alone.
That of course only sounds plausible when
you assume that the EU "consulted" with China on
what grounds to impose the embargo. Such a
measure, however, does usually exclude input from
the wrongdoer, as an embargo is supposed to be a
punishment and not a bilateral agreement.
Beijing, the European Commission explains,
is of course entitled to its very own
"interpretation" of the term "embargo", which, the
commission insists, does not keep the EU's
executive body from insisting that the EU-China
human-rights dialogue might actually produce
concrete results one day.
Contrary to
Brussels-based Chinese diplomats, the results of
the EU-China human-rights dialogue (since 1996),
however, are usually referred to as "very limited
at best".
"The dialogue," said Dick
Oosting, the director of Amnesty International in
Brussels, "has always been an ambivalent exercise"
indicating that the EU did not put nearly enough
pressure on China to improve its human rights from
"appalling" to "poor". Oosting promised on behalf
of Amnesty to continue making the "right noises"
on the issue and is urging the EU to establish a
mechanism for rights-based sanctions as part of
that strategy.
The EU as it turns out is
prepared to settle for much less than this,
limiting itself to asking China to sign the
International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. However, China is very unlikely to sign
the covenant any time soon and instead has
promised the EU to "work on it".
Besides,
Asia Times Online has learned that the EU
Commission must live up to the spirit of the
EU-China Joint Statement published after the
EU-China Summit in The Hague in December. "The EU
side confirmed its political will to continue to
work towards lifting the embargo," the statement
read. China's poor human-rights record, by the
way, was not mentioned in the statement and the EU
has seemingly turned to arguing that the embargo
was really and only about Tiananmen.That indeed
comes as an unpleasant surprise to those who
thought that the embargo was not lifted in the
last 15 years because China's poor human-rights
record per se.
France for its part,
supporting all hair-splitting exercises that will
further open the Chinese market for French weapons
and weapons technology, wants all opponents to
come forward with their concerns before US
President George W Bush turns up in Brussels at
the end of February. Bush is expected to make a
strong case against the lifting of the embargo
and, much to Paris's chagrin, some EU member
states, namely Denmark, Sweden and the
Netherlands, have not yet joined Paris and Berlin
in the campaign to lift the ban.
Other
member states, notably the smaller countries, say
as little as possible on the issue (at least in
public) and seem to remain in the wait-and-see
mode to go with the crowd should it come down to
voting next month.
The British explanation
that the EU's revised Code of Conduct for weapons
export to China will be better than the embargo
itself has yet to sound plausible to the EU
Parliament, Amnesty International or the European
public. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's
recent "promotional tour" in Europe and Asia
advertising the EU's new code as a "more powerful
tool than the embargo" was not very much
appreciated in Washington either.
The
proposed code of conduct for arms sales has not
been officially released, but these details have
become available: The revised code of conduct aims
to formulate strict measures on weapons and
weapons technology brokerage in third countries
and exports of "intangible" high-tech and dual-use
exports such as jet aircraft. When implemented,
the new code will formulate five safeguards,
including compulsory reporting of export-license
requests and periodic reviews of past and planned
weapons exports to China. EU member states will be
obliged (at least in theory, since the code will
not be legally binding) to consult with the EU
Council on changes of weapons export policies.
Furthermore, it might even be expected from EU
member states to issue declarations that the
overall level of exports of weapons to China will
not increase - a request not likely to please
weapons-exporting nations such as the United
Kingdom, France and German.The new code is
expected to be implemented late this month.
Like the inadequate 1998 version, it will
not be legally binding - maybe the biggest
loophole. It is unclear how the EU wants to
monitor weapons exports from member states. The
effectiveness of the code depends largely on
member states' willingness to respect it. Little
if anything has been said about punishment of
violators.
Worse, the EU and China might
be tempted to cut a deal turning the lifting of
the embargo into a win-win situation for both
sides. Once the embargo gets lifted, some informed
speculation goes, China will decide to commit
itself to come up with "verifiable evidence" that
is has made progress on the human-rights front.
Such face-saving strategy, however, would
hardly be good enough for an institution like the
EU that was founded on the principles of
democracy, human rights and accountability. But
who listens to journalists, idealists and other
spoilers anyway with an illusory EU-China
"strategic partnership" on the agenda?
Dr Axel Berkofsky is senior
policy analyst at the Brussels-based European
Policy Center. The views expressed in this article
are his own.
(Copyright 2005 Asia
Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us for information on sales, syndication and republishing.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
All material on this
website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written
permission.
© Copyright 1999 - 2005 Asia Times
Online Ltd.
|
|
Head
Office: Rm 202, Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Kong
Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
|
Asian Sex Gazette China Sex News
|
|
|
