20110120 EU arms ban on China stays, for now: experts

EU arms ban on China stays, for now: experts

NOT YET OVER:MOFA said while it was not overly worried about the issue, it has asked allies such as the US and Japan to persuade the EU to maintain the embargo

By Shih Hsiu-chuan / Staff Reporter

Pundits who said the EU was unlikely to lift its arms embargo on China were proven right again recently, but this does not mean that the issue has died off, officials and academics said.

During an interview with the Taipei Times on Jan. 7, European Economic and Trade Office (EETO) head Guy Ledoux confirmed that the issue was included in a paper examining EU-China relations at the meeting of heads of state and government on Dec. 17.

Though he would not go into details on a paper that Catherine Ashton, the EU’s High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy, presented in a confidential meeting, Ledoux said Ashton’s office should be able to “clear the air.”

“There was a debate at the summit about the EU’s strategic partnerships [based on] papers regarding our major partners — the US, Russia and China. Each raised a number of issues ... But those papers are not setting policy. They are just setting the scene. That’s all,” Ledoux said.

The 21-year-old embargo, issued in the wake of the Tiananmen Square Massacre in June 1989, prohibits arms sales and transfers of weapons technology to China.

Following the Dec. 17 meeting in Brussels, where the broad political orientation of the EU was set, media reports said Ashton recommended looking into the issue again as the EU reformulates its China policy, officials have said on condition of anonymity.

Quoting Ashton’s paper, the EUobserver wrote: “The current arms embargo is a major impediment for developing stronger EU-China cooperation on foreign policy and security matters. The EU should assess its practical implication and design a way forward.”

French daily Le Figaro quoted a source close to Ashton as saying that the arms embargo “could be lifted in early 2011,” adding that “the Netherlands, Britain and to a lesser extent, Germany, had each lowered their opposition to lifting the ban.”

NO COMMENT

Ashton’s office has yet to provide an official comment on the reports. E-mail inquiries by the Taipei Times referred to her office via the EETO on Jan. 7 also went unanswered.

Taiwanese authorities have reacted with calm, aware that the arms embargo could only be lifted if all 27 EU members agreed to do so. To this day, the matter remains far too contentious and divisive for members to reach a consensus.

“The right atmosphere for the issue to be discussed in the EU does not exist, as the conditions conducive to discussion have yet tot be met,” said James Lee (李光章), director-general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Department of European Affairs.

Lee was referring to comments by Benita Ferrero-Waldner, then-European commissioner for external relations, who told Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) in 2007 that China had to “ratify the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to free those jailed for their involvement in the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989 and to abolish the ‘re-education through labor’ system of imprisonment without trial” before the EU could lift the embargo.

Despite the frequent re-emergence of the issue in the past 21 years, no significant movement toward lifting the arms embargo has occurred, except from late 2003 until early 2005, when the EU reconsidered its position because of a changing global environment and heavy Chinese lobbying.

Debate surrounding the policy went far beyond concerns over the human rights situation in China and extended to a wide range of topics, including the impact on EU-China relations, the effectiveness of the non-legally binding ban, which has been considered to be more symbolic than substantial, Chinese military expansion and the security threat it represents.

EU INTERESTS

Also debated were EU strategic interests in the Asia-Pacific, a possible arms race stemming from EU sales to China, as well as the impact on relations with the US in terms of defense cooperation and technology transfers.

The EU came close to lifting the embargo in early 2005 following a December 2004 announcement by the European Council that “reaffirmed the political will to continue to work towards lifting the embargo.”

US threats of harsh sanctions were the main factor behind a decision by the EU to postpone its decision to lift the ban. The passage of the “Anti-Secession” Law by Beijing in March 2005, which sets the parameters under which it would use force against Taiwan, also contributed to the EU’s change of heart.

“Given the immense complexity of the issue, it is difficult to reach a consensus within the EU, but we have to face it squarely. The move by Ashton marked the first time such a recommendation came from the European External Action Service since it was launched,” a ministry official said on condition of anonymity, as he was not authorized to comment on the subject.

The service was launched on Dec. 1 under the Lisbon Treaty to assist its high representative to the Common Foreign and Security Policy carry out his or her duties of directing all its external relations activities and of helping make policy by making proposals.

Ashton’s mention of EU-China disagreements on the arms embargo and the status of China as a market economy as the main obstacles to further developments in their relations showed that “the arms embargo issue is at the top of her agenda,” the official said.

The ministry is not overly worried, but it will nonetheless lobby against a possible lifting of the ban, the official said.

“We’ve already asked our overseas offices in Europe to assess the position of every EU member on the matter and have also expressed our concerns to the US and Japan to persuade them to urge the EU to maintain the arms embargo,” he said.

Ashton’s proposal also marked the first time an agenda that was skeptical of the arms embargo was pursued by the EU’s executive branch rather than individual member states as in recent years.

“Even so, Ashton did not raise immediate prospects of the ban being lifted, as the requirement of unanimity means the prerogative lies with all member states,” said Marc Cheng (鄭家慶), executive director of the European Union Center in Taiwan.

Cheng said Ashton likely sought to initiate a debate on how the EU would benefit from normalizing relations with China without the arms embargo, whose effectiveness in preventing arms exports to China has come into question.

The arms embargo involves the suspension of “military cooperation” and “trade in arms” with China, but the terms “military cooperation” and “trade in arms” were never defined, Cheng said.

LOOPHOLES

Consequently, its contents have been interpreted and handled differently by European countries, which has provided convenient loopholes for countries seeking to circumvent the embargo or even its more substantial Code of Conducts on Arms Exports for dual-use items, Cheng said.

Coupled with the argument that the ban had failed to stem the flow of arms to China while spoiling relations with Beijing is the undisputed fact that Chinese military modernization has accelerated and improved in pace and scope at a surprising rate despite the embargo, he said.

Cheng said the critical argument in EU deliberations on the arms embargo would continue to focus on human rights “because putting the values of human rights ahead of other interests is something Europeans are proud of.”