NationStates Jolt Archive

Should it end? I read this article and it had me considering the matter.
Is it capable of ending anytime soon? Is it really just a Cold War relic that the US pushes as part of its agenda?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/IC15Ad02.html

Europe itching to lift China arms ban
By Federico Bordonaro

China has expressed strong disapproval of the recent US decision to sell a variety of air-to-air missiles to Taiwan. But while Beijing may be genuinely unhappy with the sales, it does provide China's leaders with a useful lever with which to pressure Europe to lift the arms embargo it imposed after the Tiananmen crackdown in 1989.
Some European military-industrial heavyweights are more than tempted to kiss the ban goodbye and to take advantage of the world's fastest-growing defense market. Never mind that the United States has a unique relationship and commitment to defend Taiwan should mainland China launch an attack.

In such a framework, Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian's recent declarations on the importance of the European Union's arms embargo against Beijing came as no surprise. As he visited Britain's Royal United Services Institute for Defense Studies on February 6, Chen expressed the hope that EU pundits and scholars would be able to influence the debate on the ban's future and warned against its being lifted.

The reason for Chen's insistence on the embargo is explained in a note of the Taiwanese President's Office: [1] "Intelligence information ... indicates that ... by 2010 [the mainland] will have the ability to undertake a large-scale war with Taiwan. By 2015, China will have the ability to control the outcome of a conflict, marking the third stage in its three-phase agenda to ensure military preparedness against Taiwan."

He also brought up a US military report according to which the mainland now has 900 missiles aimed at Taiwan. He emphasized that any sale of European advanced defense technology may thus help Beijing to acquire strategic dominance over Taiwan and ruin the island's hopes of maintaining its separation from the mainland.

The ambiguous embargo
The Council of the European Union decided to interrupt military cooperation with Beijing and the halt of military sales to China on June 27, 1989, after Tiananmen. Brussels motivated its decision mainly by pointing to Beijing's violations of human rights. In recent years, however, the utility of maintaining the arms ban has been challenged many times by European member states, especially in 2004-05.

If the analysis is focused on the human-rights issue, then it is fair to say that almost 18 years after its introduction, the embargo seems to have failed its official goals. If the ban's rationale was that of forcing China to change its domestic laws, favoring the emergence of a Western-style liberal democracy, that objective has been clearly missed.

Beijing frequently points out that Europe's embargo discriminates against China, in that EU states consistently sell weapon systems to such countries as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan that are officially accused of rights violations as well.

It shouldn't be forgotten that the arms ban has exceptions. EU states are allowed to sell China "non-lethal weapons" to be used for civilian protection, institutions enhancement, and humanitarian goals. However, as some analyses have shown, weapons producers have been able to exploit such exceptions to sell advanced weapons.

For instance, some EU defense firms have created joint ventures with Chinese ones. According to Jane's Defence Weekly, AgustaWestland and EADS are allegedly selling the new Z-10 helicopter, which is officially a non-military one. China's tightly linked civilian and military industrial sectors made such a project possible.

The US, Japan and Taiwan also fear that Europe's ambitious Galileo satellite navigation system will help China (which joined the project in 2003) to improve the coordination of its armed forces in battle and, most of all, to enhance the precision of weapons-guidance systems. More than one observer has pointed out that Beijing's participation in Galileo has decisively reduced the effectiveness of the arms ban.

The EU's code of conduct when it comes to weapons exports encourages governments to examine the requests of the buyers on the basis of eight criteria related to human rights, regional stability, international terrorism, the risk of technology transfer to "rogue states", and buyers' technological and military capability.

The real reason the embargo still lives is, therefore, the geostrategic balance of power in East and Southeast Asia, although officially human rights remains the chief motivation.

Wrong predictions of arms ban's lifting
Europe's inner divisions in defense policy and strategic orientations are not only causing a headache for European and North Atlantic Treaty Organization decision-makers, but they're also making it very difficult to predict its moves.

Within the EU, France (overtly) and Italy (more discreetly) are favorable to lifting the arms ban. Paris even declared jointly with Beijing, during a visit by Chinese President Hu Jintao on January 28, 2004, that the embargo was obsolete and that it should be eliminated soon.

After those declarations, which came at the moment of highest tensions between Paris and Washington on the Iraq war and on world affairs in general, many observers predicted that the arms ban was soon going to be lifted.

However, the Franco-German strategic combine has lost much of its cohesion in past years, especially after Angela Merkel became Germany's new chancellor in 2005. As Germany started its rapprochement with Washington and London on fundamental global security matters, the pro-Atlanticist factions in the EU were reinforced, while France, Belgium, Spain and Italy experienced difficulties to promote the idea of a strategically more autonomous Europe.

Since 2004 Beijing has repeatedly called for the end of the embargo, but this January 18, the EU officially committed itself to holding firm on the arms ban.

While China courted its best friends in France and Germany, the US also lobbied in Europe and for the moment, Washington apparently has succeeded in influencing key decision-makers on the Old Continent, isolating French President Jacques Chirac's neo-Gaullists.

Moreover, notwithstanding France and Germany's good strategic relations with Russia, especially in the 2002-05 years, Moscow was - and still is - very pleased with the ban, for obvious reasons.

If China is not allowed to acquire the most advanced - and expensive - weapon systems from Europe, it will necessarily choose Russia as its main arms provider. Moscow thus obtains two important results: it reinforces its industrial-military complex financially and strengthens its strategic ties with Beijing.

As a consequence, the predicted lifting of the ban hasn't materialized over the past two years. But Taiwan - just like the US - knows that the match isn't over yet.

What's next?
Chen Shui-bian's preoccupations, backed by US and Japan, reveal that the ban's future remains uncertain. Key events that will decisively influence any EU decision on the issue will be France's domestic political changes, Germany's geopolitical orientations, and the US ability to promote a renewed trans-Atlantic strategic community. Meanwhile, Beijing can be expected to continue its courtship to Europe's weapons producers.

The world is impatient to see who will be the new ruler in Paris. Nicolas Sarkozy, the new right-wing star, is known for being much more pro-American than was Jacques Chirac, while the Socialist candidate, Segolene Royal, is apparently more classically Europeanist, just like Christian Democrat outsider Francois Bayrou. However, it is far from certain that a more Atlanticist French president will renounce Paris's old dream of a European superpower.

Even if France appears less influential than before within Europe, one thing is clear. For the growing European military-industrial complex, whose main protagonists come from France, Germany, Italy and Spain, China's military expansion will remain too big a temptation for not thinking about lifting the ban.

no, i don't think we should export weapons to non-democracies.

No, I don't think we should export weapons at all.

as if they need more weapon's

Why not, its not as if selling weapons to China is worse than the UK and other European countries selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, the USA and Israel.

Why not, its not as if selling weapons to China is worse than the UK and other European countries selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, the USA and Israel.

You have any idea what happens in the world? So in your mind it would be the same as selling weapons to the UK? Your kidding right? China is not a democracy number one. Number two point is that the tech can be turned on European or United States in the event of a war. I know they can now reproduce many weapon systems the west has. However why give them the ability to do it faster? The main Chinese method of acquiring high tech is either by buying it and reverse engineering or stealing.

You have any idea what happens in the world? So in your mind it would be the same as selling weapons to the UK? Your kidding right? China is not a democracy number one. Number two point is that the tech can be turned on European or United States in the event of a war. I know they can now reproduce many weapon systems the west has. However why give them the ability to do it faster? The main Chinese method of acquiring high tech is either by buying it and reverse engineering or stealing.I present to you the Honda Jazz, and the...
http://english.people.com.cn/200412/24/images/1223_D19.jpg

...Hongda Jazz
http://www.tamiya.com/english/products/24251fit/top.jpg
The images have been switched =p

No, I don't think we should export weapons at all.
Not even pea shooters? :(

Not even pea shooters? :(

They are the scurge of every eye doctor. Why won't anyone please think of the ophthalmologists?!?

You have any idea what happens in the world? So in your mind it would be the same as selling weapons to the UK? Your kidding right? China is not a democracy number one. Number two point is that the tech can be turned on European or United States in the event of a war. I know they can now reproduce many weapon systems the west has. However why give them the ability to do it faster? The main Chinese method of acquiring high tech is either by buying it and reverse engineering or stealing.

Yet it is not China that bullies third world countries into accepting its opinion of what governmental system to adopt. Why make an enemy out of China and isolate them when you could ally and try and prevent any future wars. The Chinese will get the weapons either way. Do you have any idea of what happens in the world?

no, i don't think we should export weapons to non-democracies.

Who says that democracy is the right way to govern? Refusing to negotiate with non-democracies only causes resentment from that country and in China's case we cannot afford to alienate one of the world's most powerful nations. Ideally we wouldn't even trade weapons but being realistic that will not happen anytime in the near future and China will one day rival the US as a superpower. Better a powerful China as an ally than an enemy.

China isn't a democracy, but to be honest that's none of our business. They can follow whatever political model they like, and as long as they look after their citizens, we have no right to judge them. I'd point to Zimbabwe as somewhere that needs foreign intervention way more than China; their goverment is far more corrupt, and it's regime is far more violent. The fact is, China is working, and the booming, rich middle class are loving it. Is there anything wrong with that?

Perhaps earlier, it could have been said this prosperity has been at the expense of poorer rural populations. But if you believe what was written in a recent 'The Economist', then they'll have the rights to their land protected soon. Same for workers; a bill was recently passed protecting their rights to have trade unions and such. I suppose nationalised healthcare also helps keep their citizens happy. Why should they want democracy when things are going so well?

China's foreign policy has always been a little dubious. But as the poll points out, this is no different to the USA. Woo.

No, I don't think we should export weapons at all.Why not? Plenty to win, little to lose.

Why not, its not as if selling weapons to China is worse than the UK and other European countries selling weapons to Saudi Arabia, the USA and Israel.

Since when does the USA kidnap people on a basis of them being members of a religious minority, and then rip out their kidneys to resell them as implants? Because that's what China does.

Who says that democracy is the right way to govern?

I guess it is at least better than the way where government sends tanks against protesting students.

as long as they look after their citizens, we have no right to judge them
[...]
Perhaps earlier, it could have been said this prosperity has been at the expense of poorer rural populations. But if you believe what was written in a recent 'The Economist', then they'll have the rights to their land protected soon. Same for workers; a bill was recently passed protecting their rights to have trade unions and such

And a so-called "Communist" country only recently had to pass laws giving some right to workers?

Why should they want democracy when things are going so well?


[clutches his head]
Remember Godwin's Law. Remember Godwin's Law. Remember Godwin's Law. Remember Godwin's Law. Remember Godwin's Law. Remember Godwin's Law.Remember Godwin's Law. Remember Godwin's Law. Remember Godwin's Law.Remember Godwin's Law. Remember Godwin's Law. Remember Godwin's Law.

China's foreign policy has always been a little dubious. But as the poll points out, this is no different to the USA. Woo.

Foreign policy? Maybe. But as to the domestic, I believe in US people who are disappointed with the government don't tend to end up in gulags or some equally pleasant places.

Since when does the USA kidnap people on a basis of them being members of a religious minority, and then rip out their kidneys to resell them as implants? Because that's what China does.

Since when does China start a war based on a lie against a country, whose leader they previously helped to gain the power, killing somewhere between 60.000-650.000 in that war?

Why not? Plenty to win, little to lose.

Except of course our dignity.

China isn't a democracy, but to be honest that's none of our business. They can follow whatever political model they like, and as long as they look after their citizens, we have no right to judge them. I'd point to Zimbabwe as somewhere that needs foreign intervention way more than China; their goverment is far more corrupt, and it's regime is far more violent.

Foreign intervention is more trouble than it's worth. Not to mention that how other governments run their countries is none of our government's business.

Since when does China start a war based on a lie against a country, whose leader they previously helped to gain the power, killing somewhere between 60.000-650.000 in that war?

Been there, done that.

Look up the Sino-Vietnamese conflict.

I guess it is at least better than the way where government sends tanks against protesting students.

Can you say Kent State?

As for a lie to go to war. Gulf of Tonkin incident anyone?

Been there, done that.

Look up the Sino-Vietnamese conflict.

Okay then, but that was back in '79 and nowadays China's economy is far to dependent on business with the west for it to invade another country without the west's approval.
Just to make myself clear I'm not for selling weapons to China nor the US because in spite of China's undemocratic system, I believe that the US is far worse and more dangerous in foreign policies.

Except of course our dignity.Only if that happens to be what your values dictate.

Okay then, but that was back in '79 and nowadays China's economy is far to dependent on business with the west for it to invade another country without the west's approval.You do realize that works both ways, right?

They can invade all they want because if we do something against them, the global economy would tank.

China is a rising danger. Giving them weapons is a horrible idea. They will be a problem enough for the world in about 10 to 20 years.

Hell, its tempting. For a nation with a million-man army we could make a very pretty penny by selling them weapons.

But China then uses those weapons on its own people. Therein lies the ethical snub.

So no, I don't think we should sell weapons to China.

Can you say Kent State?


Yes, because Kent State is soooo equivalent to an all-out massacre of dozens, if not hundreds, of people.

You do realize that works both ways, right?

They can invade all they want because if we do something against them, the global economy would tank.

Do you think that China would take the risk? And why is China any worse than the US?

You do realize that works both ways, right?

They can invade all they want because if we do something against them, the global economy would tank.

Here's what would happen if all trade between the US and China suddenly halted. The US would lose its source of cheap consumer goods, this leads to shortages, price increases, and major problems for Wal-Mart, Target, etc. However, nations like India and Indonesia would quickly move to bring those jobs to their growing populations and the US economy would gradually recover. Meanwhile in China the hundreds of millions employed in making said goods are now unemployed, Chinese GDP (near double digit levels) would screch to halt, if GDP doesn't actually begin to shrink, and China's power on the world stage would be gone.

Tell me who stands to gain there? The answer is no one, but thwe Chinese aren't stupid enough to risk their economy over Taiwan or anywhere else.

I present to you the Honda Jazz, and the...
http://english.people.com.cn/200412/24/images/1223_D19.jpg

...Hongda Jazz
http://www.tamiya.com/english/products/24251fit/top.jpg
The images have been switched =pHongda Jazz??
WTF?

It looks like the Honda Fit to me.

Honda Motors Co. is manufacturing the Fit in China, and exporting it to Asia, and Europe where it will be sold under the "Jazz" name.
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-05/16/content_442540.htm

Since when does the USA kidnap people on a basis of them being members of a religious minority, and then rip out their kidneys to resell them as implants? Because that's what China does.

No the USA decides to invade third world countries and cost the lives of thousands of inocent civilians.

The USA locks people up in camps such as Guantameno Bay without trial or any evidence to suggest they have committed a crime.

The USA abuses POW's in Iraqi prisons and uses torture to extract information.

Yes, China may be dangerous but I think the likes of the USA and Israel are far more dangerous to the world as recent events such as Iraq and Lebanon suggest. Selling China weapons may be seen as bad but is this government really worse than the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia, who also fail to have a democracy but whom the U.K. sells more weapons to than anybody else.

No the USA decides to invade third world countries and cost the lives of thousands of inocent civilians.

The USA locks people up in camps such as Guantameno Bay without trial or any evidence to suggest they have committed a crime.

The USA abuses POW's in Iraqi prisons and uses torture to extract information.

Yes, China may be dangerous but I think the likes of the USA and Israel are far more dangerous to the world as recent events such as Iraq and Lebanon suggest. Selling China weapons may be seen as bad but is this government really worse than the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia, who also fail to have a democracy but whom the U.K. sells more weapons to than anybody else.
China is far worse on the matter of nabbing people and locking them away for no reason. I read an article that said they had somewhere in the order of 100,000 people detained without charge in a penal labour system, can't remember the name of it.

Also, about 200,000 Tibetans died under Chinese rule.

Yes China has committed atrocities in the past. But so has USA. What's the difference between selling weapons to China and selling weapons to Israel? If anything Israel is the biggest troublemaker of the two.

Yes, because Kent State is soooo equivalent to an all-out massacre of dozens, if not hundreds, of people.

Yes it is equivalent. America has still turned it's weapons on it's own citizens so you cannot hold the moral high-ground on that point. The number or people killed in either incident is irrelevant. I repeat, the simple fact is both countries have turned their weapons on their own citizens.

China is far worse on the matter of nabbing people and locking them away for no reason. I read an article that said they had somewhere in the order of 100,000 people detained without charge in a penal labour system, can't remember the name of it.

Also, about 200,000 Tibetans died under Chinese rule.

I never said China wasn't bad for its human rights, I merely stated that the USA is not any better and we sell weapons to them.

I never said China wasn't bad for its human rights, I merely stated that the USA is not any better and we sell weapons to them.
The USA is much better. They don't steal prisoners' organs, they haven't crushed a religious movement, killing thousands of people, they aren't rated 163rd out of 168 for press freedom and they also didn't cause the deaths of more of their citizens than Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia combined.

They don't steal prisoners' organs[/quoute]
Why not? This seems like a prefectly viable course of action to me.

[quote]they haven't crushed a religious movement
Because America hasn't crushed Islam yet.

killing thousands of people
America killed 2,000,000 vietnamese peasents during the course of Vietnam, the majority of which were innocent civilians.

[quote]they aren't rated 163rd out of 168 for press freedom[/quoute]
Oh my God those poor people can only read Government sanctioned newspapers. What an atrocity[/sarcasm]

[quote]they also didn't cause the deaths of more of their citizens than Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia combined.[/quoute]
Give them time.

Also about the killing of civillians. What I'm getting from this thread is that it's ok to kill other countries citizens but not ok to kill your own. I'm loving the hypocrisy of this thread.

The USA is much better. They don't steal prisoners' organs, they haven't crushed a religious movement, killing thousands of people, they aren't rated 163rd out of 168 for press freedom and they also didn't cause the deaths of more of their citizens than Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia combined.

Firstly, I'd like to see figures that the current regime in China is comparable to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. The curent government I'm sure has not committed a holocaust or a purge. Mao maybe was as bad as Hitler and Stalin, but in the modern world China is not comparable to the atrocities of Stalin and Hitler in the 30's and 40's.
Secondly, I seem to remember that the USA has had many problems with civil rights in the past. Anybody remember the KKK, the apathied that existed in the Southern States, the slave trade, the movement of the native Americans to the reserves?
Thirdly, the press may be free in America and not in China but is that really a reason not to sell weapons to a country?
Finally, have you any evidence that China steal's prisoner's organs? I've never heard that story to be honest and I'd like to see if the story is true or not.

Firstly, I'd like to see figures that the current regime in China is comparable to Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. The curent government I'm sure has not committed a holocaust or a purge. Mao maybe was as bad as Hitler and Stalin, but in the modern world China is not comparable to the atrocities of Stalin and Hitler in the 30's and 40's.
Secondly, I seem to remember that the USA has had many problems with civil rights in the past. Anybody remember the KKK, the apathied that existed in the Southern States, the slave trade, the movement of the native Americans to the reserves?
Thirdly, the press may be free in America and not in China but is that really a reason not to sell weapons to a country?
Finally, have you any evidence that China steal's prisoner's organs? I've never heard that story to be honest and I'd like to see if the story is true or not.
Well, to be fair, it was incompetence and callousness rather than evil. Great Leap Forward- about 40 million dead. Wins for China with most dead ever, I think.

Apartheid and slave trade are gone now, though. China is still happily abusing away.

China's admitted themselves they steal prisoners' organs.

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-1-24/50806.html

Yeah, I know that's from the Falun Gong news, so they're not exactly impartial, but I distinctly remember seeing them admitting it on the news around that time.

Well, to be fair, it was incompetence and callousness rather than evil. Great Leap Forward- about 40 million dead. Wins for China with most dead ever, I think.

Apartheid and slave trade are gone now, though. China is still happily abusing away.

China's admitted themselves they steal prisoners' organs.

http://en.epochtimes.com/news/7-1-24/50806.html

Yeah, I know that's from the Falun Gong news, so they're not exactly impartial, but I distinctly remember seeing them admitting it on the news around that time.

You could also say that both Mao and the great leap forward have gone, as have the American atrocities of the past.

China is abusing human rights but I don't think there is a country that isn't, whether privately or publically. China will soon become a superpower, if we make an enemy of it now we will suffer the consequences in the years to come.

You could also say that both Mao and the great leap forward have gone, as have the American atrocities of the past.

China is abusing human rights but I don't think there is a country that isn't, whether privately or publically. China will soon become a superpower, if we make an enemy of it now we will suffer the consequences in the years to come.
The problem is, China hasn't recognised that their Dear Leader was a mass murderer yet, hence the pictures of him all over the place. At least it's generally accepted that the USA had an unpleasant history.

That's a bit harsh, isn't it? Surely not every country abuses human rights.

Every nation abuses human rights to some degree. Paradise does not exist.

But some nations are worse then others. For example, nations that kidnap people and steal their organs.


And nothing is inevitable - I am sure the world can weaken China's regime if we try. But surely we should at least not be helping it.

The problem is, China hasn't recognised that their Dear Leader was a mass murderer yet, hence the pictures of him all over the place. At least it's generally accepted that the USA had an unpleasant history.

That's a bit harsh, isn't it? Surely not every country abuses human rights.

Just because we don't hear of it happening doesn't mean it doesn't. I wouldn't put it past any nation, even the one I live in.

Yes China needs to accept that Mao was a mass murderer. But again this isn't a reason for not allowing it to buy weapons is it? If we make China an ally, we can hopefully keep it on side. The current government is slowly Westernising the country and improving its human rights record. I think that a little reconcilation could help prevent any future wars that may occur and could alow us to put pressure on the government to improve its human rights.

I think that a little reconcilation could help prevent any future wars that may occur and could alow us to put pressure on the government to improve its human rights.

So, 'sell weapons to China now so they would be our friends and we could pressure them later', and say 'you're slowly Westernising, and we like that'?

Why not say: "Not good enough. More civil rights, less kidney-stealing, and we will then reconsider the embargo"?

So, 'sell weapons to China now so they would be our friends and we could pressure them later', and say 'you're slowly Westernising, and we like that'?

Why not say: "Not good enough. More civil rights, less kidney-stealing, and we will then reconsider the embargo"?

We could say many things to Israel over their polocies but we still sell them weapons. Why don't we not alienate one of the worlds most powerful nations? We don't have to actually sell them weapons after all, just stop refusing to trade the weaponry with them. An a EU ban is useless without world wide co-operation anyway.

No, it's not - the EU makes lots of highly advanced weapons which cannot be purchased elsewhere - how many nations do you know that make advanced weaponry, after all?

Besides, the EU is putting plenty of pressure on Israel - and given that Israel is nowhere near the level of China's immense camps, Internet censorship, and torture...

Who really cares what America thinks, last time I remember, Bush practically flipped the finger at the UN and the whole world just before attacking Iraq (remember the huge anti-war demonstrations across the world; talk about solidarity). America is too confrontational, it never make deals "It's either our way or regime change, oh yeah, remember Saddam and his pathetic country we fucked". The joke is on Bush, and goes like this, what has Democracy brought to the Middle East that tyranny didn’t? Now America wants that same bullshit policy to touch the largest Asian country with the highest human population on Earth? China existed way before America did and they had their own solutions for their own problems and they certainly don’t need America’s help. Bush only cares about the oil in Iraq, large US market in China, and the civilians are just a sacrifice for his $$$ gain. China has all the rights to obtain weapons for its national security, especially seeing how America has blood on its hands.

No, it's not - the EU makes lots of highly advanced weapons which cannot be purchased elsewhere - how many nations do you know that make advanced weaponry, after all?

Besides, the EU is putting plenty of pressure on Israel - and given that Israel is nowhere near the level of China's immense camps, Internet censorship, and torture...

The EU might make advanced technology but do remember they have no control over the re-sale of arms.
Also, China's human rights records may be bad but they are better than a few years ago. A weapons ban is no longer necessary and we can put pressure on China to improve its human rights further.

Who really cares what America thinks, last time I remember, Bush practically flipped the finger at the UN and the whole world just before attacking Iraq (remember the huge anti-war demonstrations across the world; talk about solidarity). America is too confrontational, it never make deals "It's either our way or regime change, oh yeah, remember Saddam and his pathetic country we fucked". The joke is on Bush, and goes like this, what has Democracy brought to the Middle East that tyranny didn’t? Now America wants that same bullshit policy to touch the largest Asian country with the highest human population on Earth? China existed way before America did and they had their own solutions for their own problems and they certainly don’t need America’s help. Bush only cares about the oil in Iraq, large US market in China, and the civilians are just a sacrifice for his $$$ gain. China has all the rights to obtain weapons for its national security, especially seeing how America has blood on its hands.

But we were talking about Europe and China......America isn't involved (for once)

Honestly, I could care less about the situation. I'm much more worried about the rising amounts of fuel that they're using. Pretty soon they'll match the US in about a couple years, as I hear.

We could say many things to Israel over their polocies but we still sell them weapons. Why don't we not alienate one of the worlds most powerful nations? We don't have to actually sell them weapons after all, just stop refusing to trade the weaponry with them. An a EU ban is useless without world wide co-operation anyway.First of all, we do say many things to Israel over such issues - you might have noticed Israel seeing a need to apologize for the plan of killing identified threats, rather than just doing it (Which, in all honesty, is what every sane person would do).

And what is sold to Israel tends to be - at time s- completely useless. Or do you know what the hell it could use submarines for?

Furthermore, Israel is a) not strong enough and b) far too closely related to the west to actually, ya'know, follow policies detrimental to its interests, not to mention that it serves as a rather nice buffer.

China on the other hand is strong enough to do the above, and not at all related to the west & its interests. Its human rights record makes Israel look like a country of saints, it guns fo being regional hegemon (As in, even more of one), and and and. The only vaguely feasible argument to sell arms to it is 'Hey, otherwise the russians do it' - and that'd still involve limits on cutting-edge stuff. I don't have much of a problem with selling them, lets say, the G36 or Leopard 2 A4s, but for the love of god no freaking Storm Shadow missiles or Typhoons.

Sort of off-topic but I liked the "Wahh, China has joined the EU project to overthrow the US GPS, we're all doooomed."

I guess it is at least better than the way where government sends tanks against protesting students.

And a so-called "Communist" country only recently had to pass laws giving some right to workers?

Foreign policy? Maybe. But as to the domestic, I believe in US people who are disappointed with the government don't tend to end up in gulags or some equally pleasant places.The important thing to remember is that they really can't do any of that stuff anymore. They won't jeopardise foreign investment by creating a media storm. They know if they offend westerners consumers with their conduct, investments will dry up, or they at least won't risk the chance that they could. They've already increased worker's rights, to appease western corporations.