Weapons to China

#1
from the Times...

British arms firm will spurn China if embargo ends
By Michael Evans, Anthony Browne and Gabriel Rozenberg



BRITAIN’S largest defence company, BAE Systems, will not sell arms to China if the European Union lifts its arms embargo, for fear of jeopardising its extensive American interests.
The disclosure to The Times last night added fuel to the longrunning dispute between the United States and EU, which threatens to sour the new mood of unity between the two blocs when President Bush meets European leaders in Brussels today.



Mr Bush conspicuously failed to mention the dispute during his wideranging speech in Brussels yesterday, in which he appealed for a “new era of transatlantic unity”. However, Peter Mandelson, the European Trade Commissioner and a confidant of Tony Blair on foreign policy issues, gave warning to Washington not to pick a fight on the embargo because “it cannot win”.

Richard Lugar, the relatively moderate Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, hit back in a newspaper interview by saying that he would support curbs on sales of high-tech military equipment to the EU if it lifted the embargo.

The suggestion by BAE Systems that it would prefer to protect its huge US investments rather than pursue new markets in China suggests that the American threats are biting. BAE Systems has greater potential to sell arms to China than any other British company, but senior sources said that there was no question of taking any action that might imperil the company’s relationship with America.


At stake are annual defence sales to the US of more than £3.8 billion and 27,000 BAE jobs in America. “We can’t do America and China, and we want to preserve our business relationship with the US; we’re not going to spoil that for the sake of winning new business in China,” one official said.

Brinley Salzmann, exports director of the Defence Manufacturers’ Association, said that the British defence industry would not benefit from lifting the embargo as it would still be bound by other export rules.

The industry was concerned that if the embargo were lifted, the US would erect retaliatory trade barriers, threatening trade with Britain worth more than £1 billion a year and jeopardising collaborative projects such as the Joint Fighter Jet.

“We have got nothing to gain by lifting the embargo. There won’t be any additional business. But we could potentially have far more to lose by the US reaction,” Mr Salzmann said.

The EU imposed an arms embargo after China’s brutal suppression of the Tiananmen Square democracy protests in 1989, and its plans to lift the embargo will be on the agenda when Mr Bush meets leaders of the Union’s 25 member states this afternoon.

Mr Lugar’s warning underlined American concern that renewed arms sales to China could destabilise the region and aid a country that the US sees as a potential military rival. Washington is anxious to stop sales of high-tech dual-use electronic equipment, which China could use to jam American aircraft carriers deployed to the region to protect Taiwan.

Mr Lugar said in a newspaper interview: “The technology the US shares with European allies could be in jeopardy if allies were sharing that through these commercial sales with the Chinese . . . I really am troubled why at this particular point in our relationship and history Europeans would find an obsession with pushing these sales.”

The EU intends to replace the embargo with a strict code of conduct regulating arms sales that would cause less offence to Beijing. Mr Mandelson said: “I think Europe should do it — and I think the (Bush) Administration would be wrong to pick a fight with Europe over this which it can’t actually win.”

Any attempts by British companies to sell to both China and America could be blocked by Congress.

Other EU members, notably France, whose defence companies do not have a strategically binding relationship with America, are hopeful that scrapping the embargo will lead to some major contracts with China. France is keen to sell Dassault fighters to Beijing.

Despite the dispute over China, Mr Bush is likely to make progress on other contentious transatlantic issues. At a summit with Nato leaders this morning, Gerhard Schröder, the German Chancellor, will propose expanding the role of Nato so that it becomes a political forum for discussing issues such as the China arms embargo and Iran’s nuclear weapons programme.

“We want the role of Nato to be stronger and broader. To this end, we want to enhance the political dialogue,” a German diplomat said.

At the US-EU summit of leaders this afternoon, Mr Blair hopes to gain stronger US backing for European diplomatic attempts to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons.
I can't believe they are considering selling weapons to China. Grossly irresponsible. I realise it might help to encourage China in 'from the cold' but still seems like a huge risk considering there is a possibility we could end up fighting them and that they aren't really up to scratch on the human rights side of things.
 
#4
Whats it got do with us? We didn't really do much about Tibet did we, so why start now with Tiawan.
 
#5
My personal pet war scenario is china removing the Ssiberian oilfields from Russia, and stopping at that, without threatening the surival of Russia, reducing incentive to unleash nuclear war.

Leaving a destabilised, weakened Russia bordering Europe, and an aggressive china with no worries about energy supplies.

I though it was an origional scenario. Apparently, so did that fatherless T Clancy.
 
#6
"an aggressive china with not energy worries."

China is not an aggressive nation but does have massive 'energy conncerns'. They have been having internal problems with Islamists for far longer then we have.
China wants to and will dominate its part of the world.
Tiawan is a rallying cry to help unite the massive population. China's main problems are internal and China will undergoe massive internal changes.
China needs oil not war.
john
 
#7
And if the projection from BBC's This World on Tue is right. The Chinese probably will extinct in 100 year time anyway
 
#9
The policies of trying to produce boys only under Mao is coming home to roost. There are 40,000,000 more Men than women.
 
#10
You mean, the reaction of a patriarchal society to vigorous enforcement of a one-child policy, leading to female infanticide and abandonment of baby girls, has resulted in a significant imbalance of the gender ratio between Chinese men and women?

Serves ‘em right for being bloody ignorant. Maybe they’ll start recording an increase in the gay population in China; except that’s illegal as well. So there’s no shirt lifting, not enough women, and 40,000,000 horny young men?

I mean, that’s like the entire male population of France and Britain going completely off sex! And no chance of getting any!

No wonder they’re so fecking antsy. If I was a old bloke running a huge country, I’d be worried too.

Explains the huge production of sex toys, too.

edited: Ration? What Ration?
 
#11
Bombard said:
You mean, the reaction of a patriarchal society to vigorous enforcement of a one-child policy, leading to female infanticide and abandonment of baby girls, has resulted in a significant imbalance of the gender ration between Chinese men and women?
For a moment there I was really impressed, then I noticed 'ration'. :wink:
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#12
Quick thought - what's the best way to take a load of young men's minds off sex (if that is at all possible)?

answer: put 'em all into uniform, keep 'em knackered, and if all else fails, invade somewhere :(
 
#13
tomahawk6 said:
The Chinese tend to take the long view. They waited patiently to regain Hong Kong and Macao. How patient will they be with Taiwan ?
Chuang Tze vi. 9:

There is a time for putting together
And another time for taking apart.
He who understands
This course of events
Takes each new state
In its proper time
With neither sorrow nor joy. . . .
Or to put it another way - as long as it takes til they get their way.
 
#14
answer: put 'em all into uniform, keep 'em knackered, and if all else fails, invade somewhere
Try that myself, still honey as F*ck.

Although have 40,000,000 young men kill off in World war III may solve the problem. or may be they can export their surplus men to consumers in the west. It can be the next big thing for Ann Summer

Do we really want to defend Taiwan? There aren't oil there nor do I see them welcome us any more then the Iraqi. Remember in the last poll there over 40% would like to re-united with China in some point in the future when the condition is right. They also happen to be one of the largest investors in China. Most of them still see themselves Chinese anyway.

The Muslim is a much bigger issue for everyone, Chinese, Russian, US and ourselves are all engaged in war with them at the moment. Centre Asia where muslim and oil is co-located is where everyone focused.

One more point, if the BAe move there production line to China like the rest of industry, is it mean the MOD can buy more kits for the same budget?
 
#15
Theres an English teacher crying somewhere now...
 
#16
jonwilly said:
"an aggressive china with not energy worries."

China is not an aggressive nation but does have massive 'energy conncerns'. They have been having internal problems with Islamists for far longer then we have.
China wants to and will dominate its part of the world.
Tiawan is a rallying cry to help unite the massive population. China's main problems are internal and China will undergoe massive internal changes.
China needs oil not war.
john
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-06-26-China_x.htm?csp=N009

Its China buying up the worlds oil reserves that is forcing the UK in the not to distant future to a £1 a Litre of Petrol.
(Its 90p a Litre in some areas already)

Its time for the UK Govenment to reduce 'Fuel Tax'

Over 50% is Fuel Duty - Even Before VAT is added...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/world/2000/world_fuel_crisis/933648.stm (Dated Sept 2000 - But you get the idea)
 
#17
"China has a population four times the size of the United States' and an economy that's growing two to three times as fast. Even when it's not buying oil and gas companies, it's buying oil and gas — and other resources — "

China goes through internal revolution on a frequent basis. Its 'Communist' goverment knows this above all.
The Eastern and Southern coastal belts are getting rich, the inland centre, Northern and Western are still poor and providing the 'Coolie' manpower for the rising 'Manderins' of the 'Traditional' business class.
Add to this the massive home grown imbalance in Male/female and the cuntry is heading for yet another internal show down.
john
 
#18
I think BAe's reaction has more to do with having so much investment in the States. If it traded with the Chinese thay would have to say bye to all of that.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top