The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

Another Perspective

(Page 2 of 3)

Some Europeans also hope to become a counterweight to America and believe a relationship with China will aid that effort. A French foreign ministry figure was quoted: "Of course we are in favor of lifting the embargo. It no longer corresponds to the reality of the Euro-Chinese strategic partnership."

The betting now is that the EU will drop the prohibition at its June meeting in Brussels.

HUMAN RIGHTS CONCERNS about Beijing remain valid, but that's not the most important point. International security is the issue.

If Europe itself planned on becoming a military counterweight to China, Washington could say go ahead. But for all of the European talk of establishing an independent foreign policy, even leading nations like Germany have no intention of spending the money necessary to develop serious military capabilities. The obligation for real war-fighting will remain America's.

Unfortunately, Beijing is thinking about war. It has been buying advanced Russian weapons, including long-range missiles, aircraft, guided-missile destroyers, and submarines.

Explains Shi Yinhong, professor of international relations at Beijing's People's University: "China really wants to have another source for modernizing its military, especially for the possibility of military confrontation with Taiwan." And confrontation with Taiwan could easily lead to confrontation with the U.S.

Which means high-tech weapons sold by Europe could be used against America. Some EU officials point to Israeli weapons transfers to Beijing, but that is no less an unfriendly act.

Others say don't worry, we will limit the sort of weapons we sell. But that won't be much solace should conflict occur.

Another argument, articulated by French Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie, is that European sales might slow Chinese development of its own capabilities. "So maybe if we can sell them the arms, they will not make them. And in five years' time, they will not have the technology to make them."

Actually, even European businessmen worry that China wants to appropriate technology as much as acquire weapons. It's hard to believe that any "code of conduct," especially a voluntary one subject to individual national interpretation, would be enforceable.

The best case has been made by British diplomats, who contend that the existing ban is ineffective. They suggest creating a more limited but transparent export control regime.

It's true that Europeans weapons exports to the PRC have been rising. Beijing already has been able to purchase dual-use micro and nanosatellite technology, jet fan blades, helicopter design assistance, naval engines, and trucks, according to Richard Fisher of the Jamestown Foundation. Unfortunately, the British seem to be about the only ones who are talking about selling less rather than more.

IF EUROPE IGNORES AMERICA'S concerns, the administration's options are limited. The U.S. could deny export licenses for sensitive defense sales to companies and nations that sell to China. Beyond that would be the threat of a full-scale trade war. Which would be in no one's interest.

Hopefully a less ostentatiously dismissive Bush administration can forge a more cooperative relationship with Europe. Secretary Rice has called for a "new chapter" in relations and Washington should acknowledge the legitimacy of EU disagreements with American policy and the wisdom of rethinking outmoded institutions, such as NATO.

Most important, the U.S. must recognize the commercial sacrifice it is asking of the Europeans, while convincing them to look beyond to a future in which China's positive role is by no means assured. Washington needs to make the argument to individual governments as well as the European Commission. Indeed, the European public seems to be on Washington's side on this issue, with the European Parliament passing resolutions supporting the ban.

topics:
Foreign Policy, Trade, Business, Military, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Israel, European Union, NATO, Nuclear Weapons