U.S. and E.U. at Odds over Arms Embargo on China

The U.S. and the E.U., frequently conflicting with each other since the Iraqi war, are waging psychological warfare again over lifting the arms embargo on China.

The Korean government is also paying careful attention, saying, “If China begins to buy up-to-date arms, it is imposing a burden on Korea as China began a quiet war with Korea over the distortion of Goguryo history” on August 10.

Does China Equip Itself with Up-to-date Arms?-

The measure of the arms embargo on China dates back the Tienanmen Square uprising in 1989. At that time, the U.S. and the E.U. declared, “We cannot sell arms unless the Chinese government takes epoch-making measures to improve human rights.”

Fifteen years later, the E.U. is showing its intention to resuming exports. French President Jaques Chirac, who began to arouse public opinion, clearly showed his will to resume exports by saying some time ago, “The arms embargo upon China does not fit in with the reality of the international order.”

Presently, Chinese unofficial national defense annual expenditures are around $70 billion, ranking third in the world. However, Russian arms that can hardly be called “the spearhead” make up the bulk of China’s major military capacity. This is a market in which defense companies in the E.U. could be covetous as they have been hit hard due to reduced war expenditures of the E.U. members.

But U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell clarified the lifting of the embargo as premature by saying, “Has there been any improvement in Chinese human rights?”

The E.U. and China are going to come to a conclusion after discussing this matter in the seventh annual summit held in Hague of the Netherlands, the E.U.’s chair, on December 8 this year. However, considering the E.U. constitution that major policy decisions should be adopted unanimously, some say it is not predictable whether it could be achieved in a situation where at least four nations object to any lifting of the embargo now.

The Korean government is watching this case carefully from a viewpoint of reorganizing the U.S. Forces in Korea. It is because the U.S. army in both Korea and Japan will be committed when China comes into conflict into Taiwan if this force takes the role of regional stability after being reorganized as a rapid-reaction force. And in this case, the Korean army also could intervene indirectly.

Different Views between the U.S. and the E.U.-

The U.S. and the E.U. have shown discord, unlike the Cold War era, ever since the George W. Bush administration came into power in the U.S. While the U.S. has pursued a foreign policy stressing power, the E.U. has opposed the sole superpower system of the U.S.

A representative neocon (neo-conservatives) theorist and the former Assistant Secretary of State Robert Kagan insisted, “Abandon the idea that the U.S. and Europe will have one voice.” According to his explanation, the U.S. intervened because it has an ability to do so in international issues whereas Europe remained a spectator because it lost its ability to solve international conflicts.

In relation to the controversy over lifting the arms embargo on China, a former policy aide in the Unification Ministry, Jeon Bong-keun, analyzed, “The U.S. considers China as an object to restrain, but in Europe, both the view that cooperation with China can keep the international order and economic utilitarianism are appearing in a complex way.”

Seung-Ryun Kim srkim@donga.com