Bravo Europe Union, Shame on you France, Damn the Chinese are smooth

In summary, the European Union has maintained its arms embargo on China, which was imposed after the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown. France has pushed to lift the ban, but most EU states believe there must be clear evidence of improvement in China's human rights practices. The Chinese foreign minister called the ban a relic of the Cold War and expressed patience in getting it lifted. The debate is fueled by the growing trade relationship between the EU and China. The US, Scandinavian nations, the European Parliament, and human rights groups have urged the EU to keep the ban in place. France and Germany are looking to sell weapons to China, while the US argues that lifting the ban will destabilize security in East Asia. The conversation then shifts to discussing
  • #1
member 5645
Bravo Europe Union, Shame on you France, Damn the Chinese are smooth...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3637807.stm

EU maintains Chinese arms embargo


The ban was imposed after the 1989 crackdown in Tiananmen Square
The European Union has told Beijing there will be no early lifting of its arms trade embargo on China.
The ban was imposed after the 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square.


France had pushed to end the ban, but most EU states said there must first be clear evidence of an improvement in Beijing's human rights practices.

The Chinese foreign minister called the ban a relic of the Cold War, but added that "all good things take time".


"This is up to all our European friends," Li Zhaoxing said after a meeting with senior EU officials in Ireland.


The debate is driven by a fast-growing EU-China trade relationship.

European arms makers are keen to supply the fast-modernising military of China, which is the EU's second biggest trade partner after the US.


At a summit last December, EU leaders agreed to consider lifting the ban after pressure from France and Germany, which were keen to sell weapons.

France has argued the ban is "anachronistic", given the improved relations between Beijing and the EU - and had wanted the ban lifted by last month.

"I've given to my Chinese colleague this presidency's frank assessment that we don't believe - as things stand - that a decision is likely during our presidency," Irish Foreign Minister Brian Cowen said at the joint news conference with Mr Li.

The US, Scandinavian nations, the European Parliament and human rights groups have urged the EU to keep the ban in place, citing human rights concerns.

The human rights organisation, Amnesty International, has led the campaign to keep the arms ban, saying pro-democracy advocates in China are not much better off now than in 1989.

Washington also argues that removing the ban will destabilise security in east Asia, where there are tensions between China and Taiwan and between North Korea and South Korea.

Good Job to the EU for standing ground on true human rights and democracy.

Shame on France (and Germany to an extent) for looking to cash in on the Humanitarian crisis occurring in China.

Damn, the Chinese are so patient! They'll get their ban lifted, and they'll do it without improving the human rights conditions I bet. Very skillful politicans!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Trade, don't forget trade phat! Everyone - maybe even including you - enjoys the benefits of free trade, whether it's with the #1 or #2 wilful wrecker of developing countries' agriculture sectors, or that #1 or #2 'untapped' market of 1 billion people, or the nation brutally suppressing the independence aspirations of the downtrodden region of {insert your favourite here}.

The major difference among those who are probably in your 'sin bin' is their ability to divine the key interests of the other guys, and then devise a skillful negotation strategy that maximizes their chances of success. In this respect, how much difference do you see between the US, France, China, Russia, other EU countries, Canada, ... and Belize?
 
  • #3
Yeah, damn those French and Germans for not supporting Bush. I mean, for being "evil" and such...
 
  • #4
Nereid said:
Trade, don't forget trade phat! Everyone - maybe even including you - enjoys the benefits of free trade, whether it's with the #1 or #2 wilful wrecker of developing countries' agriculture sectors, or that #1 or #2 'untapped' market of 1 billion people, or the nation brutally suppressing the independence aspirations of the downtrodden region of {insert your favourite here}.

The major difference among those who are probably in your 'sin bin' is their ability to divine the key interests of the other guys, and then devise a skillful negotation strategy that maximizes their chances of success. In this respect, how much difference do you see between the US, France, China, Russia, other EU countries, Canada, ... and Belize?

I'm fully aware of Trade and France wanting to release the tight trade grip we have on their balls.
I'm aware of the great prospect of selling a billion hamburgers to China. But for now, I'm going to enjoy watching the EU keep France in check
 
  • #5
Yet another reason to dislike Chirac's right-wing government.
 
  • #6
This question is only marginally related ...

Which countries does the US have an arms trade embargo on?
 
  • #7
Nereid said:
This question is only marginally related ...

Which countries does the US have an arms trade embargo on?

That's hard to answer. There are a whole gamut of restrictions from simple weapons, to high tech stuff. Even Canada is restricted from some things.

This site has a lot of info:

http://pmdtc.org/country.htm

Njorl
 
  • #8
Thanks Njorl.

With the exception of exporting (giving?) all kinds of arms to Israel (which is in flagrant violation of all manner of international laws, UN resolutions; illegally occupies the territory of another country, denies civil liberties to the occupied people, etc, etc, etc), where else does the US appear to be, shall we say, somewhat inconsistent in the application of arms embargos?

How about Uzbekistan (and some of the other -stans)? Colombia? Indonesia?

At least it would seem that some of the more outrageous Cold War era arms flows have stopped (though the role that the US played in creating the abhorrant Taliban regime in Afghanistan doesn't get as much airtime as it should, IMHO).

For the avoidance of doubt, no one should be shocked or horrified by the extent to which the US aids and abets regimes which trample on human rights, through arms sales or other means; the US government's motives are no doubt pure and consistent - national self-interest by whatever means deemed necessary.
 
  • #9
Nereid said:
illegally occupies the territory of another country,.
Uhhh, which country is that? egypt... jordan...lebanon?
 
  • #10
C'mon kat, all those settlements and army posts, they're in the sovereign state of ... Israel? No? What about "Golan Heights"?

Anyway, the point is that nation states act in their own self-interest, and their actions make the most sense when seen from that perspective. Trying to keep a "support for/principled stand against" list of states which one (phat in this case) perceives as violating some noble stance (or not) is just plain silly.

I mean, I get all hot & bothered about the fact that the US pours more $$ in subsidies per year into supporting their cotton farmers than the entire world trade in that commodity. The net effect is a nice cosy life for ~25,000 US cotton farmers, and misery for millions in west Africa (and other places). But the way to discuss this is through the benefits of free trade - ALL parties are better off - rather than some kind of 'fair play', or 'natural justice and respect for the right of west Africans to have an opportunity to make a decent living'.
 
  • #11
What you said. And sugar is even worse.
 
  • #12
Hold it,

"nation states act in their own self-interest."

Ultimately that's obvious. it's called "Grand Strategy". The question is "what is self interest". Living in great prosperity but having some poor mislead idiots flying airliners into your prime symbols of prosperity is most certainly not "self interest".

It may be surprising but some countries (I'm fortunate to be living in one of them) have "world wide stability" as number one objective for "self interest". This would translate to mitigating the consequences of wars and supporting the weak. A direct objective of such a foreign policy is containing and reducing the flow of fugitives seeking asylum. Although very ambitious, I believe that this is the only way to achieve real "self-interest".

Now of course all of this is pretty much good advise from the sidewalk for the warring parties within Israel but communication, understanding, respect but mostly sufficient concessions by both parties is the only way to live in the same house.
 
  • #13
And this is how the discussion should be taking place - the self-interest of X is {this}. Now, what sorts of harmony can there be between the self-interest of X and Y (and Z, ...)? How may the inevitable disharmonies be identified, and if possible mitigated?

Of course, it's likely there would be some lively discussion on just what the self-interest of the US, Israel, China, India, North Korea, Pakistan, ... actually *is*!
 
  • #14
phatmonky said:
I'm fully aware of Trade and France wanting to release the tight trade grip we have on their balls.
Mental masturbation, what trade grip? :rolleyes: Is someone taking his wishes for reality?

For the record, concerning the policy towards China I deplore France's decision.
 
  • #15
Simon666 said:
Mental masturbation, what trade grip? :rolleyes: Is someone taking his wishes for reality?

For the record, concerning the policy towards China I deplore France's decision.

Are you serious??
We are THE biggest buyer. With sanctions on China, France does not have anyone else NEAR as big with enough money or want to purchase the military supplies that they are trying to sell to China. By lifting the sanctions, France has a more diversified market and thus we lose clout in purchase power. This is simple business!

Why don't you lose the attitude a little :zzz:
 
  • #16
You have any evidence that the US is the biggest buyer of French weapons?
 
  • #17
Simon666 said:
You have any evidence that the US is the biggest buyer of French weapons?

No, but we are the biggest buyer of weapons in the world.
The fact that France does not compete enough in this market is not the issue.
The fact that we ARE the market is. And France wants China to diversify this- understandable, and it's equally understandable that I'm happily against this.
 
  • #18
The United States would be the biggest buyers of handguns, shotguns, assault rifles, that kind of stuff, not military weapons. They are the biggest seller of that.
 
  • #19
Simon666 said:
The United States would be the biggest buyers of handguns, shotguns, assault rifles, that kind of stuff, not military weapons. They are the biggest seller of that.

We are the largest buyer, and due to Russia's recent activity I will ask you the same you asked me: Any proof of either of your statements??

If we are not the largest buyer of military supplies, why do we have the largest number of submarines, ships, and airplanes??
Even if most of our military is built by domestic companies, it is all up open to international bid, including France.
The president's helicopter may be English soon!

I have no idea what you are arguing anymore. The fact is, and even Adam (who disagrees with me on 99% of everything) knnows that we pump more money into our military than anyone else. As a result, there is the largest market of any country. France is faced with penny penching about with other countries trying to sell to everyone, or going to the largest market on the block. They are trying to open a new market (for more than one reason).
 
  • #20
phatmonky said:
We are the largest buyer, and due to Russia's recent activity I will ask you the same you asked me: Any proof of either of your statements??
http://www.iiss.org/confPress-more.php?confID=453

The United States sells more arms than any other country, and Saudi Arabia leads the world for buying arms among developing countries, a report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) said Wednesday.

(...)

I have not found any proof for the United States being the biggest importers of handguns - hard to find info on that per country - etcetera but I remember reading it somewhere.
phatmonky said:
If we are not the largest buyer of military supplies, why do we have the largest number of submarines, ships, and airplanes?? Even if most of our military is built by domestic companies, it is all up open to international bid, including France.
The domestic shopping is not considered.


phatmonky said:
I have no idea what you are arguing anymore. The fact is, and even Adam (who disagrees with me on 99% of everything) knnows that we pump more money into our military than anyone else. As a result, there is the largest market of any country. France is faced with penny penching about with other countries trying to sell to everyone, or going to the largest market on the block. They are trying to open a new market (for more than one reason).
The US rarely buys its military hardware elsewhere pal, you merely gave a few exceptions. It's not like France, nor Germany, nor the UK has any stake in the US market anyway, not before nor after the Iraq war so your influence on France is zero point zero.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #21
I don't think you guys are talking about the same thing. The US buys the most weapons, but we buy them mostly from internal sources: we do not import them. We do, however export a lot.
 
  • #22
russ_watters said:
I don't think you guys are talking about the same thing. The US buys the most weapons, but we buy them mostly from internal sources: we do not import them. We do, however export a lot.
That correpsonds with what I'm saying. The US is the main exporter and barely imports military weapons. It is one of the biggest importers (and exporters) of handguns and the likes however from my knowledge.
 

Related to Bravo Europe Union, Shame on you France, Damn the Chinese are smooth

What does "Bravo Europe Union" mean?

"Bravo Europe Union" is a phrase used to express praise and support for the European Union as a whole.

Why is France being shamed?

France may be shamed for a variety of reasons, such as political scandals, controversial policies, or failure to meet certain expectations or obligations.

What does it mean when someone says "Damn the Chinese are smooth"?

This phrase could be interpreted as a compliment, referring to the perceived cleverness, smoothness, or intelligence of the Chinese people or government. However, it could also be used sarcastically to criticize or mock their actions or decisions.

How do these statements relate to each other?

These statements are all related to different aspects of international relations and opinions about different countries. "Bravo Europe Union" and "Shame on you France" are both opinions about European countries, while "Damn the Chinese are smooth" is a statement about China.

Is it appropriate to make generalizations about entire countries or groups of people?

No, it is not appropriate to make generalizations about entire countries or groups of people. Each individual is unique and should be treated as such, rather than being associated with stereotypes or assumptions based on their nationality or culture.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
Replies
133
Views
24K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
Back
Top