Skip to content

Europe and China: Weapons for Investment?

Posted by Joerg Wolf on

Atlantic Community:

EU countries mired in debt are getting help from an unlikely source: China. The ascendant superpower is buying up large amounts of European bonds and investing heavily in euro zone countries. Moreover, there is talk of a reversal of the long standing EU arms embargo on China. Is this all a coincidence?

Kurt Volker, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO and now managing director at Center for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins University commented: "If all this were to play out - that is, lifting the embargo, subsequent sanctions, etc. - it would be a new low point in U.S.-E.U. relations." (HT: NATO Source)

I agree. I hope the EU does not lift the arms embargo. In my opinion NATO countries should not sell any arms to non-NATO members.

Trackbacks

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as Linear | Threaded

Joe Noory on :

That may be, but if history serves, particulary the history of sanctions against Iran, Iraq, and China after the Tianianmin square massacre, the Europeans will let their favor be bought. The irony is that Europe DOES have good defense technology which can be had at a price, but isn't something they are willing or able to use, even if it came to their defense against those that the constellation of weapons and even small arms makers have sold weapons to. It's a risk to anyone who allies themselves with the Europeans.

Zyme on :

In your sense Joe, is always a risk to ally yourself with somebody else. The Americans have become very soft towards the Chinese once the economic relationship became too immense to be risked by tough words. Now when the Europeans develop a first stage of such a relationship, all of a sudden this is proof of our character? Come on Joe, this is the character of all political entities. Lifting the ban would show that the Americans may very well turn themselves to the Pacific towards uprising powers. Especially the US shouldn't be too surprised when others do the same, right?

Joe Noory on :

When have they ever proved their character? They would sell their wares to the Chinese KNOWING that with a little more of their aggressive commercial espionage, that a fine copy can be made. Did the Stealth fighter they rolled out during Scty Gates' visit not tell you anything about their ability and intent? We're talking about weapons that will end up being pointed at Europe's defenders and presumed allies. Think of that ONE Exocet missile that sank the HMS Sheffield. Now get a load of this rationalization: http://no-pasaran.blogspot.com/2011/01/france-on-selling-warships-to-russia.html

Pat Patterson on :

There is a substantial difference in buying stereos and fork lifts from the Chinese but the US has steadfastly, though plenty of lobbysits and politicians wish it not so, has not sold the kind of technology to the Chinese that the EU is getting soft about. It's one thing to sell specialized metals needed to make a variety of products including weapons as the US does and the EU basically contemplating saying, what the heck, just by the weapon already assembled from us.

Zyme on :

As I already pointed out, there is only two ways: Either sell them completely assembled weapons and make them somewhat dependent on these systems as they then do not have to develop their own. Or do not sell them any and they will come up with similar technology in 5 years time, completely independent for a very long time. I am aware of the fact that selling them weapons always includes the risk that these are reverse engineered. But the time needed for being fully capable to reproduce sophisticated systems will take a similar amount of time as their own development would take. And by selling, we at least earn money and keep them in line for the time being.

Pat Patterson on :

That's not realistic as the Chinese want shared technology (they pay extra to get the blueprints) and they also demand that not only maintenance and development costs are included to keep current as well. This was the main reason that the US has on several ocassions sidetracked some high-tech companies from selling whole items and trying to downplay the contract riders. McDonnell-Douglass tried to survvie in California by signing a contract for its last passenger jet and the C-17 but aside from Boxer and Feinstein whining about local jobs what killed the deal was the CNOOC made no promises to still not close the plant and that all the technology would be made available to them.

Marie Claude on :

a good analyse here http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MA11Ad01.html

Pat Patterson on :

The article leaves out one very important point. Why is China not insulted by the US maintaining the embargo but is the EU maintaining the status quo? I think the Chinese know that America will not bend but the Europeans might. They are merely searching out for that weak reed that will use threats against itself to justify anything.

Marie Claude on :

I'm lobbying twitter, facebooks, blogs for thaat doesn't happen

Zyme on :

Should the arms manufacturers here have moral issues with exporting to China, then nothing will go there. If they don't, it isn't the job of the state to interfere for the sake of promoting moral standards at the cost of its proteges. The main job of the state rather is to promote the well-being of its citizens and national companies.

Marie Claude on :

"If they don't, it isn't the job of the state to interfere for the sake of promoting moral standards at the cost of its proteges." No, it's a government political interest to know to whom arms are sold, since these arms manufacturers need a government licence to pursue their business, and that they are often subsidied by state money. And as citizen of a country we are entitled to know if such tradings are profitable for our future, and if we aren't giving away the arm that will return against us, or would be sold in place of us if China gets the technology knowledge that will forcely given with them

Zyme on :

Marie, either you sell it to them or they create their own - it doesn't make any difference to our security at all! By selling we at least have a clear idea of their strategical capabilities - a clear advantage, don't you agree?

Marie Claude on :

they still have obsolete russian models, they aren't orientated towards research but production, if they develop their own's arms or planes they'll still need more than a decade to achieve them, that's why they are spying wathever new discoveries we make (like Renault electric cars recently) do you mind iif they sell your eurocopters, mercedes, trains at a lower price that you produce them in Germany ? that will happen, they'll ruin your industry too

Zyme on :

"do you mind iif they sell your eurocopters, mercedes, trains at a lower price that you produce them in Germany ? that will happen, they'll ruin your industry too" Now this is the first good argument I hear against lifting the ban. It is certainly worth deep consideration in this discussion. But again this is something the producers, namely the manufacturing companies would best be able to decide on their own on a case to case basis. It is their products that might end up getting copied and sold under a different brand after all!

Marie Claude on :

cars manufacturers can do it, but not the arms manufacturers

Joe Noory on :

Right... what do you care if they point those weapons at allies your countrymen will never step in to help? Oftentimes France and Germany are an albatross around the west's neck for precisely this reason. If the EU can't become an integrated partner in NATO speaking for its' member states with authority and taking up their responsibilities, many of the member states should be reduced to PfP status when it's politically viable.

Marie Claude on :

France enemis aren't obligatory US enemis, see where we are attacked, in Sahel, so we aren't waiting that you mind our Defense, and your new adversaries are on the asian continent, too far away from our worries but if you try to bring back the Irak conflict on board, Saddam wasn't the true target that you should have to destroy, but still Iran, how comes that you didn't bomb it ?

Zyme on :

@Joe: Now wait a minute. The fact that we are allied to the US is nothing I must feel guilty for. So please leave that one out. @Marie: Why are cars manufacturers smarter than arms manufacturers? What justifies the difference?

Marie Claude on :

Because they don't affect policies now check what a american fellow (Habu) posted on chinese infant canibalism http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/01/16/mama-mee-a/#comments hmmm, think that human life isn't sacred for them, and if it happen that they rule EU (as started with the debt bonds), we got to be carreful for our offsprings

Pat Patterson on :

I despair, give a person a keyboard and no sense of humor and they will be convinced that whatever someone quotes, in this case Uncyclopedia (one with no eye) is reliable. Most of Habu's quote comes from that parody of Wikipedia. I think the picture showing the guy trying to eat a baby burger would have convinced the gullible that perhaps the story isn't true

Marie Claude on :

unipedia is a joke, but not his following articles escuse me, but your sense of humor is often defaulting

Pat Patterson on :

If you quote from one bogus source then why assume the next is any more reliable? BTW, unipedia means one foot not as the parody site is named, Uncyclopedia.

Marie Claude on :

you're chicaning as usual !

Pat Patterson on :

Is that French for not knowing how to respond except by insults?

Marie Claude on :

since when "chicaning" is a insult ? chicaner: "chicaner, verbe intransitif Sens 1 Contester quelque chose sans raison valable. Ergoter. Synonyme ergoter Anglais: to quibble over something

Pat Patterson on :

So when I ask where I said anything about French cars I'm quibbling? Or is it that you're too embarassed to admit a simple mistake?

Marie Claude on :

now, you're really HEAVY , I wonder which word is convenient

Pat Patterson on :

But you still have not answered my original question? Did I say anything about French cars and if not why did you claim I did so in any context when the topic was the shooting in AZ?

Marie Claude on :

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Pat Patterson on :

So I can conclude that you would rather look ridiculous than honest?

Marie Claude on :

thus said th fool to himself

Pat Patterson on :

Pseudo Old Testament quotes?

Joe Noory on :

Who secures European and Pacific stability? The Russians? If they aren't going to use those weapons to destabilize their coastal neighbors directly, they will end up in the hands of proxies to use them to triangulate against Europe and North America. You're forgetting just how little depth and complexity Chinese foreign policy still has. So yes, they will be pointing them at American troops, for no other reason that Europeans could not, within the spant of a decade after they are needed, be convinced to contribute substantively in the mainting of any form of stability anywhere on earth: even in the EU's edges, even if it's just with their checkbooks, or their big mouthes going off about "hosting negotiations" and other public bloviations meant to make them feel like they matter. It's not even a matter of acting in their self-interest, because they don't even seem to get out of bed for that either.

Marie Claude on :

Chinese Espionage and French Trade Secrets | STRATFOR http://shar.es/XNPtk

Marie Claude on :

some will appreciate Colbert hurt by Rush Limbaugh's Chinese impression http://shar.es/XLCwP

Pat Patterson on :

To paraphrase JFK, 'The Germans have nothing to fear but the French." Berry Smutny, the CEO of OHB Technology, a company that has a £475 million contract to build 14 Galileo satellites, is claimed to have said: "I think Galileo is a stupid idea that primarily serves French interests." That's in reference to this latest news that Galileo will cost at a minimum of E10 billion from an initial promist of E3.9 billion with only E1.9 billion coming from public tax monies. Until all the private investors pulled out and left a gaggle of bureaucrats trying to keep their jobs and dignity

Pat Patterson on :

And then after ruffling more than a few feathers Smutny was fired when more documents revealed that he "... also revealed to have called France 'an evil empire in stealing technology,' and that Germany suffered more from French intellectual property rights espionage than it did from China or Russia." http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14772691,00.html

Marie Claude on :

JFK's father was a pro nazi, that passed in his son's genum ! and you're stoopid to revendique the same cliché ! Good, the German aren't supporting your neoconnerie !

Pat Patterson on :

joseph Kennedy, like many of his generation, was still bitter at the treatment of the US by its allies during WWI. He was not pro-German but rather anti-British and anti-French as he reasoned that neither would be able to stand up to Germany for long. Obviously he was wrong about Britain and out of the loop of the machinations of FDR. Plus I mistakenly attribtuted the paraphrase to JFK when it actually was FDR from his Inaugural Address in 1933.

Marie Claude on :

"Obviously he was wrong about Britain and out of the loop of the machinations of FDR" except that they retreated at Dunkirk first and that UK wasn't invaded, that doesn't escuse your bashing ! "Plus I mistakenly attribtuted the paraphrase to JFK when it actually was FDR from his Inaugural Address in 1933." if you did once, then why not twice ? sources !!!

Joe Noory on :

I find it charming that with no specific knowledge of something, you still have an opinion on it. For example: where did you come to the firm and certain conclusion that JFK was pro-Nazi? Do you really think that everyone other than yourself is so inferior that you think that their attitudes are genetic? You find some thing hostile that makes sense to you, and you insist that it must always be true. You find someone admitting to a flaw, and you take that honesty to mean that they will never tell the truth. You have the reasoning an impetuous child.

Marie Claude on :

This book was a good. It exposes Joseph Kennedy for the disgusting womanizing crook he was but that isn't the surprise. What was surprising in this book was how PRO-NAZI Joe Kennedy was and the iron-fisted control he had on his children even when they were adults. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/524673.The_Sins_of_the_Father As fiercely anti-Communist as they were anti-Semitic, Kennedy and Astor looked upon Adolf Hitler as a welcome solution to both of these "world problems http://hnn.us/articles/697.html jonouri, nothing that comes from America is evil OMG

Pat Patterson on :

Well, HNN is certainly a reliable sort for low brow entertainment. Joseph Kennedy was anti-British and anti-French because he had observed the collapse of the latter and had no hopes the the former would prevail. He did not advocate any rapproachment with Germany but fully expected to have to deal with a German Europe soon. As to Kessler's book it broke absolutely no new ground except it also made mention several times that he distrusted the French government-in-exile because of its ineptitude and connection to Vichy France. Plus the correspondence between Lady Astor and Joseph Kennedy showed clearly that she was in favor of some kind of accomodation with Hitler while Kennedy wanted nothing to do with getting involved in the war. That is hardly any justification for charging him with being pro-Nazi. But then are the sons always responsible for the sins of the father? But some have no problem breathing the air of some of the anti-semitic and anti-Zionist websites and repeating the most fantastic of gossip. JFK hated Jews so Mossad did on the orders of the Jewish Agency, Ben Gurion ordered him killed because JFK wanted to close Dimona,etc. The latter being especially funny as Dimona's nuclear facilities hadn't even been authorized until years after JFK's death.

Marie Claude on :

I love how you turn the discussion into what justify your french bashing you're a cheater and a liar doubled of a racist

Pat Patterson on :

What lie?

Marie Claude on :

because it's a objective truth

Pat Patterson on :

What specific lie?

Kevin Sampson on :

MC might have a point this time. William Stevenson’s ‘A Man Called Intrepid’ doesn’t actually accuse Kennedy of being a closet Nazi, but makes a real case that his almost pathological hatred of the British, and his generally dismissive attitude toward everybody else in Europe except the Germans, amounted to almost the same thing. As for FDR leaving him out of his ‘machinations’, he was fully justified in doing so. In May, 1940 Tyler G. Kent, a code clerk in the US embassy in London, was arrested for, and confessed to, passing British Enigma decrypts to Anna Wolkoff, a German agent in Britain. Nothing tied this directly to Kennedy, but it happened in his embassy on his watch.

Joe Noory on :

Ghandi, in spirit, supported Hitler for the same reasons of blinding hatred. Like Kennedy, he didn't act on it that we know of.

Kevin Sampson on :

Oh, Kennedy acted on it alright. He gave plenty of political support to Chamberlain and the appeasement faction in Britain and made any number of statements in the US and overseas that could easily be considered giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Pat Patterson on :

That is undoutedly true but since the US had not entered the war and was still officially neutral that indicates a tone deafness and rashess more closer to Lindbergh than Laval. And since the US was supporting the UK in secret hardly his public utterance were not likely to endear himself to the FDR administration. But on his replacement he encouraged all his eligible sons to enlist and kept his mouth shut for the duration. Unlike Lindbergh who enlisted as a volunteer, participated in all kinds of war bond drives, etc. But by no stretch of the imagination was JFK anti-Semitic any more than any other Boston Catholic of the middle of the century.

Marie Claude on :

"that indicates a tone deafness and rashess more closer to Lindbergh than Laval." that just sorted out of your bizarre mind of course

Pat Patterson on :

Spoken as gospel but one who has made a serious charge of lying and then cannot cite or prove that argument.

Marie Claude on :

"one who has made a serious charge of lying" glad you finally ackowledge you were lying

Pat Patterson on :

Obviously still a little shakey on English and as I suspect you knew perfectly well that I was referring to your claim that I lied. And as yet you have not shown one iota of proof to back that defamation. Either you can prove the charge or you can't. An apology would be in order but considering the source of the charge I realize not likely.

Marie Claude on :

just reread your smoky litterature ! you're such a pinochio

Pat Patterson on :

What lie? At this point I realize that you have taken on the aspect of a troll and have no serious response to make. But I'll keep trying...what lie?

Marie Claude on :

zzzzz you're such a bad faith

Pat Patterson on :

You made the charge provide the example and proof. Normal conversation between adults does not consist of one saying the other is a liar and when challenged say its up to the offended party to try to figure out what the charge of lying is referring to. But the I'm nost that familiar with the Napoleonic Code to know for sure if such defamation is normal.

Marie Claude on :

"But the I'm nost that familiar with the Napoleonic Code to know for sure if such defamation is normal" blah blah, when will finish your bias ! I maintain what I said, you're a cheater, a liar, doubled of a racist and I'm for free speech, unlike you in that matter

Pat Patterson on :

Free speech is different from defamation. Only the truth is a defense and since you have not offered any I suspect we know who is the actual liar.

Marie Claude on :

yeah, and you're a truth worshipper? don't make me laugh

Pat Patterson on :

Ok, I'll try one more time. Please do me the courtesy of pointing to the comment or argument I made that justifies calling me a liar. Without any snark on my part I'm simply asking you to point out where you think I lied.

Kevin Sampson on :

he encouraged all his eligible sons to enlist and kept his mouth shut for the duration. Unlike Lindbergh who enlisted as a volunteer, participated in all kinds of war bond drives, etc. How is that unlike Lindbergh? Agree that JFK was not particularly anti-Semitic.

Kevin Sampson on :

Hey, Joerg, where are the invective police?

Pat Patterson on :

Kennedy withdrew from the public sphere and essentially did nothing during the war. While Lindbergh, tarred with the same pro-German label, did as much as possible for the war effort.

Add Comment

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.


Form options