 |
| |
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:22
|
|
quote:
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/2...15008-9802r.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.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
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. |
I agree with you for the most part. It was handled extremely poorly. On the other hand, without Tiananmen, the overthrow of the "communist" governments in Eastern Europe would not have happened so soon, or at all.
quote:
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. |
But they aren't having it all their own way.
quote:
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. |
True as far as I know.
quote:
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. |
This is where I disagree. I guess this is where my Marxist leanings show themselves. Politics is largely, for me, a superstructure over the existing economic base. Change that base and politics will change, perhaps not immediately, but eventually.
The creation China of a western style bourgeoisie will, in my humble opinion, force change. Of course it will be a peculiarly Chinese form of change, and it will probably appear strange to us on the outside, but it will happen nonetheless. Politics is the shadow cast on society by its economic form of organization.
The problem (or not) with the bourgeoisie is that they get it into their heads that their silly and largely self-serving beliefs should gain public airing and be listened to. And they get very petulant if ignored (the working people don't; they are used to being ignored). Unlike the Tiananmen students (who very nearly succeeded), they have significant economic clout behind them and occupy positions of prominence.
Western police have no problems beating up on students and working class malcontents. but they will hardly ever go against the bourgeosie. In fact I can't think of a single instance in which they have.
The Chinese communist party, or at least some parts of it, probably know this already. I imagine that many have already positioned themselves to benefit from it, and it is that greed which will destroy the party as we know it.
The other big problem is their futile attempt to control information technology. But we all know that power tends to co-opt and absolute power co-opts absolutely. Nevertheless I don't envy them the task. If the party manages the transition with little or no bloodshed or economic disaster, then there will be quite a few gold stars to be put down in the giant ledger of good deeds, even though hardly anyone will notice.
So I guess I am just more of an optimist than most people.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DaShi
|
 |
The Taste of Japan
Sep 2000
time: 05:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
quote:
Instead they do it to gain advantages in business. So long as a healthy middle class is kept fat and satiated and the wealthy still have their say, the lower classes will ignored until it gets so bad that only another revolution can change it. |
Again, I agree. But a characteristic of capitalism is that it cedes central control, and that capitalists compete with each other. They've let the cat out of the bad, but it hasn't started scratching people yet.
As for another revolution to rid us of our overlords. Count me in 110%  |
But in reality, the result is the big business seeks control of the government. Money is useless without power. Think of how many reforms could be passed in America, if big businesses weren't holding them back.
quote:
quote:
Why don't most Americans care about the wide class gap or the injustices in its own country? |
Because they are more worried that gay people might be having sex. 
Really, it's because the media is controlled by capital. They control the consensus of what is considered respectable opinion. Most working class Americans do not like the system, it's just that they are constantly told that there is no alternative, so they put up with it.
Moreover, it is almost impossible for radical change to happen in the US political system. It is heavily biased against new movements. This means that they get co-opted and diluted so that the capitalists and their enablers (or most of them) don't lose out. |
The media is controlled by the party here, which tells them that things are always getting better and bad news is from foreigners. Also, China is just as resistent to new movements unless the party supports them. Just look at Falun Gong for a simple example.
quote:
Primarily the bourgeoisie are motivating the whole thing. I was thinking about this when I wrote. |
Yes, because they rightfully fear being replaced by their mainland "Communist" counterparts. Those with party connections have the most power in business, especially in newly acquired territory.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Straybow
|
 |
SG(2)… gone but not forgotten
Jan 1970
time: 23:22
|
|
Thank you, GePap, for showing that you are both ideologically obtuse and don't understand the principle of peace through strength.
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
quote:
Originally posted by Straybow
...How they were too weak just 5 years later to oppose Hitler, the Brits and French turning their backs as Hungary was forced to surrender the Sudatenland. |
OH, invoking Godwin already! Good for you, first Nazi reference! ... |
Ah, invoking Godwin so that you can ignore valid comparisons to Hitler! Good for you, awarding yourself internet nebbish brownie points instead of actually making a point in debate!
quote:
But lets take your little rant- lets say China became "fascist"- how does that directly threaten Europe? Answer, it does not. |
First, China already has become "fascist" (or at least the twisted misinterpretation that the term has come to mean). The language of China talking about the need to include the ethnic Chinese living on the island of Formosa into One China is exactly parallel to Hitler "uniting" the German peoples in Austria and in Polish and Hungarian border regions with the Fatherland.
Second, some people have this grand idea about opposing oppression on principle, rather than waiting until an oppressor's tanks are rolling in our own streets to do something about it. We thought our allies in Europe agreed, but the last decade has proven their agreement to be more academic than practical.
quote:
quote:
If you are weak, your enemies are encouraged to take advantage of that weakness. There was no WW3 against the Soviets because we never let down our guard. There will be no WW3 with the Chinese if we continue to keep our guard up. |
You realize that this goes ditto for the other side? Unless you assume some basic aggresive intent on only one side, and assume the other side is made up fo sugar, spice and everything nice? Yes, the US kept its guard up - AND SO DID THE SOVIETS. Do you think that is the US had seen a window of opportunity to destroy the Soviets because of Soviet military weakness, the US would not have taken it?
This means that China has a huge incentive to build itself up, to prevent any possible hostile US intent- I know you will haw about how that is insane, and other crap, but you know what? The US has as good a record of foreign aggression as China, heck, in the last 50 years a much bigger one. |
I know this is hard to comprehend, contradicting Hollywood/New England leftism and all, but please try.
First, the US does not want to rule over our neighbors Canada and Mexico, or Europe, Russia, etc. That goes for the red states as well as the blue states. We've pretty much got what we want here. Before WW2 we tried, really hard, to live in isolation from the political and military strife outside our fair continent. We had a small army and navy sufficient for our own border security.
The Soviets were not satisfied with what they had. At the first opportunity they casually divided Poland with Germany and invaded Finland. In the wake of WW2 they conquered and maintained a de facto empire in Eastern Europe. As much as the French and Germans would be better off under our enlightened rule ( ) we did not make ourselves an empire.
Second, the USSR and PRC were founded on, and deeply held, the Marxist doctrine that capitalist societies had to be overthrown by force and capitalist property owners killed off or turned into chattel. The USA is founded on, and deeply holds, that self-determination is a fundamental virtue and is generally sought by all peoples to whom the idea has ever been introduced.
Third, the USSR and PRC acted internationally on their doctrine by funding and training terrorists and revolutionaries in nearly every country in the world. I suppose a few countries like New Zealand and Leichtenstein escaped their attention.
Fourth, US aggression during the period was almost exclusively directed to countering Soviet/PRC supported activity against legitimate governments. Y'know, the whole self-determination thing. Invasion of Nicaragua to depose Noriega is perhaps the sole exception (but note that it wasn't for conquest, either).
Fifth, there was never, at any time, military planning or political posturing to invade (much less conquer and rule) the USSR. Kick the damn Commies all the way back to Russia, as Patton desired? Perhaps in response to an initial move by the Eastern Bloc. Only in twisted Hollywood visions of warmongery were limited nuclear exchanges "acceptible risk."
In fact, the Soviets did falter, yet we never made a move to exploit that weakness militarily. We didn't move against China either, with their love-hate neighbor USSR on the ropes and PLA still 40 years out of date. The Soviets, by contrast, had Cyrillic street signs for every major city in Western Europe prepared and warehoused for the day their opportunity came.
Please allow a moment for this to sink in. Refrain from swimming or operating heavy machinery until your equilibrium returns by either a) reconciling your thinking to the real world or b) resuming your ingrained political beliefs as though nothing happened.
quote:
So do pray tell why, when you have people going on and on about the grave Chinese threat in the US, should the Chinese not say : these people are ideologicall nutters, and lets be armed to the teeth to make them think twice. |
Once more, please educate yourself before opening your virtual mouth. The threat we perceive is primarily not to us but to our allies whom we'd rather not see under a Chinese empire. Y'know, that whole self determination/anti-oppression thing again.
quote:
quote:
Is this principle something you honestly don't understand, or are you merely ideologically obtuse?  "If we all just laid down our guns there'd be no more war." |
NO, in fact, unlike you, I realize all conflicts have two sides. It works better when you see this, instead of living in some fantasy charicature world were your side is eminetly good and pure, and evryone who does not see that must be some satan spawn. Or is that too hard for you to understand? |
Incorrect. Not all conflicts have two sides. Some are decidedly unilateral, like Hitler wanting to conquer Europe when nobody had the least interest in conquering Germany. And then there's that whole Marxist "overthrow the capitalists and murder the bourgeoise landowners" thing. Russia has relinquished the Baltic, Slavic, Caucasus, and central Asian republics. Yet China still holds Tibet.
If Mao and his heirs had been content to enslave his own people instead of preaching murderous revolution abroad there would be little conflict except for that sticky bit about Taiwan, Tibet, and maybe a couple other border regions. If the Chicomms weren't oppressing their own people (and Tibet, and ethnic minorities, etc) there wouldn't be any conflict at all.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
24-02-2005 05:17
|