Why an embargo in the first place ?

The EU initiated the arms embargo on China just over twenty years ago, as a reaction to the Tiananmen Square massacre in Spring 1989, in which Chinese troops cracked down on pro-democracy demonstrators. An estimated 3 000 people were killed for protesting against the regime. This event characterized a harsh Communist state with a disregard for human rights.

Why did Spain bring it up ?

When Spanish representatives, and thereby EU representatives, stated that the arms embargo on China would be addressed over the course of the Spanish presidency, what were they trying to achieve ? The initial mention of the issue has apparently been traced back to Spain’s current ambassador to China. But does Spain have a particular interest in the matter ? It is worth noting that Spain has a bilateral trade deficit with China, something that would certainly be improved if CASA, the Spanish subsidiary of EADS was given access to Chinese markets.

It should also be noted that the previous two presidencies, namely Sweden and the Czech Republic, were quite critical of China. Perhaps the mention of lifting the embargo is merely a symbolic gesture, demonstrating to the Chinese that the Spanish are indeed keen to cooperate and build a strategic partnership. It is no secret that eliminating the arms embargo is high on the agenda for the Chinese, when it comes to the China-EU members.

However, even the Spanish ambassador who first raised the issue must have known that despite holding the presidency, his state has no legal rights to make such decisions on its own. All member states must agree. On this note, however, one could even say that the Spanish were out of line in raising the issue, as such foreign policy matters are now meant to fall under the jurisdiction of High Representative to the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton. In other words, the amount of attention generated by these political statements could be unjustified.

What does China think ?

Chinese diplomats rarely miss an occasion to forcefully repeat their belief that the ban is outdated. They compare themselves to other states against which the EU has an arms embargo, such as Zimbabwe, Sudan, and North Korea, and take insult that they are grouped with such states. China also argues that the EU is applying double standards to its relationship with China. On one hand, the EU speaks extensively of its desire to forge a strategic partnership with the Asian state, but on the other hand limits trade to this state as a form of punishment for domestic affairs. China repeatedly insists that in order to make real progress in any kind of partnership, the EU must first do away with the arms embargo.

What are the practical implications ?

There should be no illusions about what will happen when the arms embargo is lifted. Weapons would not flow freely and plentifully across the border. Firstly, China manufactures many of its own weapons. Furthermore, the EU applies a code of conduct to all weapons trades. This would limit the quantity of arms that China could buy from EU states.

Some reports suggest that France has been selling weapons to China for years, despite the ban. France has also recently signed weapons deals with Russia, in spite of strong disapproval from fellow member states. With this in mind, we can consider France’s actions the regrettable behaviour of a deviant member state, rather than a characterization of how all EU member states regard the embargo.

What are the symbolic implications ?

For both the EU and China, the symbolism of the arms embargo holds more weight than the practical aspects. China resents being reprimanded for an overt crackdown on its own citizens more than two decades ago. It feels belittled by the continuing arms embargo. This is not to say that China’s progression as a trade power is severely restricted by this embargo. The EU and China are among each other’s most important trading partners in many other sectors.

The EU initiated the arms embargo as a reaction to grave human rights abuses in China, and one incident in particular. Though this incident has passed, significant human rights abuses persist. For the EU to lift the embargo now would imply that the original reason for introducing it no longer exists. One must only consider headlines over the past year to see that this is certainly not the case. US President Obama’s anti-censorship speeches in China were censored, a British national was recently executed, and officials have just ordered all schools to stop cooperating with Oxfam, one of the world’s most respected NGOs that fights poverty and injustice. Torture of prisoners, lack of judicial independence, and controls on freedom on expression and organization are just a few of the areas in which China still needs vast improvement.

The EU prides itself on being a force for good in the world, and boasts respect for human rights among its key values. Although one can certainly point to human rights abuses in EU member states, the frequency and intensity is not comparable to the situation in China. If the EU is to live by the values it established for itself, the arms embargo cannot yet be lifted. Symbolically, it would be most inappropriate and hypocritical to condemn the domestic situation in China, yet simultaneously remove the sanction that symbolizes EU disapproval.

Where does the EU stand ?

Obviously, there are those in Spain who favour lifting the embargo. During his time in office, former French President Chirac also expressed interest in abolishing the ban, though nowadays the French position is not so clear. Other states such as the UK would likely be opposed, though much of this opposition may come from fear of damaging the transatlantic relationship. Practically, it is difficult to imagine the British backing such a move when it was just recently having to condemn the execution of a British citizen by the Chinese state.

As for the democratic voice of the EU, the European Parliament passed a symbolic resolution in 2008 asserting that it will oppose lifting the arms embargo until China stops supporting regimes in Africa.

Earlier this month, HR Catherine Ashton noted with great concern the one year anniversary of the disappearance of prominent Chinese human rights lawyer Mr. Gao Zhiseng

Photo : Flickr, European Parliament

Without consensus among all member states, lifting the embargo is not possible. Going forward on such a move against strong disapproval from the EP would prove very difficult. Finally, such a move would generate huge protest among EU citizens and particularly from human rights organizations. This considered, it is highly unlikely that the Spanish will achieve their stated goal.

What must be done ?

Some argue that the EU-China relationship will not progress as long as the arms embargo is in place. It’s fair to suspect that the majority of people making this argument are Chinese. They may be correct in pointing out the complexity of the EU’s relationship with China. The truth is, most interstate relations are complex, but this does not justify ignoring domestic treatment of citizens nor passively accepting and even contributing to situations that we find deplorable.

The EU’s considerations must go beyond attempts to please China. Rather, it must consider what message it would be sending, were it to eliminate the embargo. The removal of the embargo would imply that the EU is satisfied with the human rights situation in China. This is certainly not the case. So why make any drastic moves to suggest otherwise ? The Chinese government may be embarrassed by the embargo, but they should really be embarrassed about the way they treat their citizens.

Many analysts say that China doesn’t actually need EU arms. Chinese PM Jiabao has offered to not even buy arms if the embargo is lifted. Nevertheless, it is obviously a very important issue to China, and one that the EU can use to its advantage. The EU is in a much better position to influence domestic improvements if it retains the embargo, and makes it clear that the ban will remain until the unapologetic human rights abuses cease, than if it lifts the ban and then asks for dramatic reforms.

As a united group, the EU member states must make clear to China that while they value its cooperation, it will not stand for such abuses, and that the progression of the relationship depends on improvements on their side, not on unwarranted concessions on the European side. In the interest of coherence and legitimacy, the EU must also punish France and other potential deviants for ignoring the ban, and halt any further sales.

Photo : Flickr, laihiu