Europe, China and the Arms Embargo:The Implications of European-Chinese Partnership

What concerns me here is what the position of the UK will be. With the turn over of Hong Kong, the Brits have taken a lump and to see their European brothers across the channel attempting to destabilize the region has to be of concern.

The Aussies? I think I already know how they feel about this one.

At some point in the next 10 years the UK will have to make a choice, they can't play the middle much longer...



Europe, China and the Arms Embargo:
The Implications of European-Chinese Partnership for American Interests
Remarks by Ellen Bork
Deputy Director, Project for the New American Century
American Enterprise Institute
February 1, 2005

I appreciate the invitation to be here today to talk about the EU arms embargo on China and why it shouldn't be lifted.

There are major differences in American and European experiences and responsibilities in Asia generally, and toward China specifically. This is not just an American viewpoint. European experts say the same thing. For example, Frank Umbach of the German Council on Foreign Relations has written that despite assertions to the contrary, EU policies are "guided primarily or even exclusively by its trade and economic interest, thus neglecting and overlooking many strategic security challenges."

Umbach has also traced Germany's decision to push for lifting the EU arms embargo to "a rather unilateral ad-hoc decision within its own government … without consulting its own Foreign Ministry in advance and without the Chancellor's office itself having sufficient expertise on the many Asian and global security issues." (By the way, Umbach argues that this weakness indicates that German policy is not motivated by a drive to provide a counterweight to U.S. policy in Asia but is the product of a trade-driven foreign policy uninformed by security concerns.)

The United States, on the other hand, has obviously had long experience in Asia, one that goes well beyond trade interests and is so well known to this audience that I won't go into it in detail. But as you all know, the result is that the U.S., among other things, plays the leading role as the guarantor of regional security, has longstanding alliances in the region, as well as maintaining a deep commitment to Taiwan.

It is against this backdrop that the EU embargo has become a point of contention.



link

Are you trying again to get every one on americas side apart from the countries you dont like or your country doesnt like?

Not really , I am just pointing out how short term memories some nations have.

How some European nations do not mind twisting a knife in the back of that ol bully the United States.

The US isnt really the jewel at short memories ethier , is it?

I dont see how it is bad to supply tech and weapons to a country on the other side of theb world, america would do the same if it suited them.

Originally posted by devilwasp
The US isnt really the jewel at short memories ethier , is it?

I dont see how it is bad to supply tech and weapons to a country on the other side of theb world, america would do the same if it suited them.

I really can't argue with that, but we didn't sell to the Nazi's in 1940 did we?

or better yet, to the Argentines in 1982?

[edit on 18-2-2005 by edsinger]

Originally posted by edsinger
I really can't argue with that, but we didn't sell to the Nazi's in 1940 did we?

No, just give them money to buy them...

or better yet, to the Argentines in 1982?
[edit on 18-2-2005 by edsinger]

No, but that didnt "suite" america did it?

Originally posted by devilwasp
or better yet, to the Argentines in 1982?
[edit on 18-2-2005 by edsinger]

No, but that didnt "suite" america did it?


I guess not, the AWACS info we gave and the Sidewinders we sent were correct? Yes they were, we valued the UK more as an ally than Argentina, so I guess selling to China is for the same reason no?

Originally posted by edsinger
I guess not, the AWACS info we gave and the Sidewinders we sent were correct? Yes they were, we valued the UK more as an ally than Argentina, so I guess selling to China is for the same reason no?

AWACS info?
I think you'll find it was sat recon more than anything and you gave us a missile....WOW!
You did nothing to stop argentina , who was a dictatorship at the time, and let our soldiers and sailors die....nice ally.
Selling to china isnt really a "british push" more a whole EU push, we have no quarrel with the chinese and they none with us, whats the problem?
We sell to china cause its good for us, mabye not for you on a whole but hey thats what happens.

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by edsinger
I guess not, the AWACS info we gave and the Sidewinders we sent were correct? Yes they were, we valued the UK more as an ally than Argentina, so I guess selling to China is for the same reason no?

AWACS info?
I think you'll find it was sat recon more than anything and you gave us a missile....WOW!
You did nothing to stop argentina , who was a dictatorship at the time, and let our soldiers and sailors die....nice ally.
Selling to china isnt really a "british push" more a whole EU push, we have no quarrel with the chinese and they none with us, whats the problem?
We sell to china cause its good for us, mabye not for you on a whole but hey thats what happens.

I had forgotten the SAT images good call!

Ok when Argentina invaded British soil do you really think that Thatcher would have the Americans come to the rescue? Hell no, she knew you could handle it yourselves and with ease I might add, we just lended a hand when and where asked.......

EU yes - I hope the UK doesn't join completely but I am afraid it is only a matter of time...

Good sell them weapons... you know damn good and well if they get the technology then war will happen, now it can not....so go ahead bring major war closer....the EU will be involved also....upon what side is the question.

Originally posted by edsinger
I had forgotten the SAT images good call!

Ok when Argentina invaded British soil do you really think that Thatcher would have the Americans come to the rescue? Hell no, she knew you could handle it yourselves and with ease I might add, we just lended a hand when and where asked.......

No you didnt, thatcher wouldnt have minded help.
Hell even just cutting off weapons to argentina would have been apreciated.
You gave us a missile and some sat pictures....

EU yes - I hope the UK doesn't join completely but I am afraid it is only a matter of time...
[/qutoe]
I hope we do, if we do then we will still be friendly with both europe and the USA.
The UK would also be a good ally to have in the EU, I mean, one of the major powers.

Good sell them weapons... you know damn good and well if they get the technology then war will happen, now it can not....so go ahead bring major war closer....the EU will be involved also....upon what side is the question.

And what exsactly is this "massive threat" going to do?
Launch a nuke on paris or london?
HA!
Come on get real the chinese are simply a threat that will outgrow itself and frankly the US and the EU would have no trouble beating the liveing shizen out of china.
Think about it, if the chinese started a war with the US or vice versa most of NATO which is most of the EU would come in so the EU with the US.
Also tell me how the PLAN is going to cross 4 oceans to get here?

Well you miss the point, the EU selling China technology that will have to be confronted at some times not good, if the 'free' up some than what the heck....but the EU is not an ally of the US as Iraq well showed.....Bosnia, Somalia, should I go on?

Originally posted by edsinger
Well you miss the point, the EU selling China technology that will have to be confronted at some times not good, if the 'free' up some than what the heck....but the EU is not an ally of the US as Iraq well showed.....Bosnia, Somalia, should I go on?

Why is it not good?
EU didnt want to go into somalia, or iraq.
The EU isnt a military force though is it?
If you mean european forces going in, then what about us? The germans there? Oh yeah and not to mention the whole fact that it didnt affect us and we didnt want to go into ANOTHER war.
Yet again ed you have to see how we think, we are old seasoned nations.
We dont want to go to war and if it doesnt directly affect us we wont.

Originally posted by devilwasp
Yet again ed you have to see how we think, we are old seasoned nations.
We dont want to go to war and if it doesnt directly affect us we wont.

Ah you have finally said it, "Whats in it for me?"........


figures....



Never because it is the right thing to do......

Originally posted by devilwasp
Hell even just cutting off weapons to argentina would have been apreciated.
You gave us a missile and some sat pictures....

what? france was the one selling weapons to them, not us.

we tried to help settle the situation then we put sanctions on argentina when it didnt work.

we gave you our most advanced missiles for your aircraft, not one but hundreds, sat images, intel and sent a carrier to assist you, dont be so arrogant, we helped you more than enough.

Originally posted by namehere
what? france was the one selling weapons to them, not us.

we tried to help settle the situation then we put sanctions on argentina when it didnt work.

we gave you our most advanced missiles for your aircraft, not one but hundreds, sat images, intel and sent a carrier to assist you, dont be so arrogant, we helped you more than enough.

he wasn't alive during those days so he doesn't remember, heck I even remember the aerial refueling we did and the Argentinians crying foul!

Originally posted by namehere
what? france was the one selling weapons to them, not us.

Yeah, and how difficult is it to use one of your 12 battle groups to stop 1 ship?

we tried to help settle the situation then we put sanctions on argentina when it didnt work.

Some sanctions....

we gave you our most advanced missiles for your aircraft, not one but hundreds, sat images, intel and sent a carrier to assist you, dont be so arrogant, we helped you more than enough.

You sent one carrier to act like a refueling ship, nothing else i dont see that as being "more than enough help".
You gave us one missile as in one type.
Your intel was sat images thats it.
You asked us for help before in bagdad and we sent our soldiers to do your marines job.
Where was the US service men on the falkland islands?

Ah you have finally said it, "Whats in it for me?"........

Same with every country I am afriad.

Never because it is the right thing to do......

Who's to say whats right and wrong?
Some times doing the right thing isnt the right thing to do.

Originally posted by devilwasp
You asked us for help before in bagdad and we sent our soldiers to do your marines job.Where was the US service men on the falkland islands?

You seem to miss the jist here m8, the UK did not want US troops to help, we gave everything we were asked to do, Thatcher wanted the UK ONLY to do it as it was UK property.

One thing you must realize, we were bound by the NATO treaty to help IF asked......You must take a look at your own history, you mean to tell me the UK needed help with Argentina? Get real.

One thing, all Thatcher would have had to do was ask ol Ronnie and the Hermes would have never had to set sail.......Heck he probably volunteered but this was to be a UK operation by the UK's own choice.

Originally posted by edsinger
You seem to miss the jist here m8, the UK did not want US troops to help, we gave everything we were asked to do, Thatcher wanted the UK ONLY to do it as it was UK property.

So she deliberately wanted UK service men to die?

One thing you must realize, we were bound by the NATO treaty to help IF asked......You must take a look at your own history, you mean to tell me the UK needed help with Argentina? Get real.

Yeah, we did ask for help.
Yeah we did since we lost 200 odd men, any loss of life is not good.
You lose men , you dont win you just beat the enemy.

One thing, all Thatcher would have had to do was ask ol Ronnie and the Hermes would have never had to set sail.......Heck he probably volunteered but this was to be a UK operation by the UK's own choice.

No, argentina was an ally of the US so thats why she didnt get involved to lethal force.

You are nuts! We were allied with Argentina BUT treaty bound with the UK, Thatcher wanted the UK to retake its terrirtory and as a matter of pride did not need the USA to do it for them......you really need to look into the situation in 1982 more.......

We helped all we were asked and then some......After reading a bit more it seems that the UK recieved everything it asked for and denied other offered help.

Legally, the United States had military treaty obligations to both parties in the war, bound to the UK by NATO and to Argentina by the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance. Alexander Haig, the United States Secretary of State, briefly (April 8–April 30) headed a "shuttle diplomacy" mission before President Ronald Reagan declared U.S. support for Britain and instituted sanctions against Argentina. Support of the USA was initially equivocal, and is reported to be the result of urging by Haig and Caspar Weinberger, who advised the President to support the UK. Reagan famously declared at the time that he could not understand why two allies were arguing over "That little ice-cold bunch of land down there". Reagan sympathized with Galtieri because of his anti-Communist position. He had received a reportedly warm reception when he visited the US. Galtieri likely didn't think that the UK would react; otherwise it is doubtful Argentina would have launched the attack. Of course, this would have been astounding to British people at the time, already familiar with Margaret Thatcher's controversial uncompromising style of government. In as many words, she declared that the Crown and the Empire had been assaulted, and would not surrender the Falkland Islands to the Argentinian jackboot. This stance was aided, at least domestically, by the staunchly conservative British press, especially The Sun, which ran such headlines as 'THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK' (when the British task force was dispatched) and 'GOTCHA' (following the sinking of the General Belgrano). A US preoccupation with the Soviet Union and communism and the thought Britain could handle the matter on her own may have factored into this view as well, although assessments of this theory vary. In the broader sense of the Cold War, with the performance of UK forces watched closely by the Soviet Union, it was worthwhile for the UK to handle without assistance a conflict minor in scale compared to an all-out NATO vs. Warsaw Pact war. Regardless, American non-interference was vital to the U.S.-British relationship. Ascension Island, a UK possession, was on lease to the Americans and the British needed to resume its use as a relay point and air base. The main and decisive American contribution was AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles of the latest L model (these missiles were much more deadly than older models of the Sidewinder), spy satellites and intelligence information. There were also rumours, later expanded upon by Weinberger, which spoke of lending an aircraft carrier, although this was not public knowledge at the time. It is worth noting that both Weinberger and Reagan would go on to receive honorary knighthoods, the honour of Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, from Queen Elizabeth II. American critics of the U.S. role claimed that, by failing to side with Argentina, the U.S. violated its own Monroe Doctrine.

Shuttle diplomacy and US involvement




As expected, the Argentine populace reacted favourably, with large crowds gathering at the Plaza de Mayo (in front of the presidential palace) to demonstrate support for the military initiative. In response to the invasion, the British government under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher declared a war zone for 200 miles (320 km) around the Falklands and assembled a naval task force with which to retake the islands. Most European powers voiced support for Great Britain, and European military advisers were withdrawn from Argentine bases; however, most Latin American governments sympathized with Argentina. A notable exception was Chile, which maintained a state of alert against its neighbour, owing to a dispute over islands in the Beagle Channel. The perceived threat from Chile prompted Argentina to keep most of its elite troops on the mainland, distant from the Falklands theatre. In addition, Argentine military planners had trusted that the United States would remain neutral in the conflict, but, following unsuccessful mediation attempts, the United States offered full support to Great Britain, allowing its NATO ally to use its air-to-air missiles, communications equipment, aviation fuel, and other military stockpiles on British-held Ascension Island, as well as cooperating with military intelligence.

On April 25, while the British task force was steaming 8,000 miles (13,000 km) to the war zone via Ascension Island, a smaller British force retook South Georgia island, in the process capturing one of Argentina's vintage diesel-electric submarines. On May 2 the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano was sunk outside the war zone by a British submarine. Following this controversial event, most other Argentine ships were kept distant from the conflict, but Argentine submarine action continued to threaten the British fleet. Meanwhile, the British naval force and the land-based Argentine air force fought intensive battles, during which the Argentines sank the HMS Sheffield and the container ship Atlantic Conveyor with Exocet air-to-sea missiles. In addition, two frigates and another destroyer were sunk and several other vessels damaged, but the majority of Argentine bombs did not detonate. Argentina also failed to prevent the British from making an amphibious landing near Port San Carlos, on the northern coast of East Falkland, on May 21. From this beachhead the British infantry advanced southward to capture the settlements of Darwin and Goose Green, after which they turned eastward to surround Stanley on May 31. The large Argentine garrison there surrendered on June 14, effectively ending the conflict. British forces reoccupied the South Sandwich Islands on June 20.

The British captured some 11,400 Argentine prisoners during the war, all of whom were afterward released. Nearly 750 Argentine troops were killed--including 368 in the sinking of the General Belgrano--while Britain lost 256. Scores of Argentine aircraft of various types were destroyed, most while on the ground, and the British lost 10 Harrier jets and more than two dozen helicopters. Military strategists have debated key aspects of the conflict but have generally underscored the roles of submarines (both Britain's nuclear-powered vessels and Argentina's older, diesel-electric craft) and antiship missiles (both air-to-sea and land-to-sea types). The war also illustrated the importance of air superiority--which the British had been unable to establish--and of advanced surveillance. Logistic support was vital as well, because the armed forces of both nations had operated at their maximum ranges. (See also Naval warfare: The age of the guided missile.)

Argentina's ignominious defeat severely discredited the military government and led to the restoration of civilian rule there in 1983. Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher converted widespread patriotic support into a landslide victory for her Conservative Party in that year's parliamentary election.

Falkland Islands War 1982

Originally posted by edsinger
You are nuts! We were allied with Argentina BUT treaty bound with the UK, Thatcher wanted the UK to retake its terrirtory and as a matter of pride did not need the USA to do it for them......you really need to look into the situation in 1982 more.......

Thanks.
I have, you seen your oldest ally less important than a second world dictatorship? If you had given major help by sending a few jets even to take down thier mirages it would have been nice!

We helped all we were asked and then some......After reading a bit more it seems that the UK recieved everything it asked for and denied other offered help.

Really?
All the bits I have read have said that america provided what THEY wanted to give.

Legally, the United States had military treaty obligations to both parties in the war, bound to the UK by NATO and to Argentina by the Inter-American Treaty of Reciprocal Assistance. Alexander Haig, the United States Secretary of State, briefly (April 8–April 30) headed a "shuttle diplomacy" mission before President Ronald Reagan declared U.S. support for Britain and instituted sanctions against Argentina. Support of the USA was initially equivocal, and is reported to be the result of urging by Haig and Caspar Weinberger, who advised the President to support the UK. Reagan famously declared at the time that he could not understand why two allies were arguing over "That little ice-cold bunch of land down there". Reagan sympathized with Galtieri because of his anti-Communist position. He had received a reportedly warm reception when he visited the US. Galtieri likely didn't think that the UK would react; otherwise it is doubtful Argentina would have launched the attack. Of course, this would have been astounding to British people at the time, already familiar with Margaret Thatcher's controversial uncompromising style of government. In as many words, she declared that the Crown and the Empire had been assaulted, and would not surrender the Falkland Islands to the Argentinian jackboot. This stance was aided, at least domestically, by the staunchly conservative British press, especially The Sun, which ran such headlines as 'THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK' (when the British task force was dispatched) and 'GOTCHA' (following the sinking of the General Belgrano). A US preoccupation with the Soviet Union and communism and the thought Britain could handle the matter on her own may have factored into this view as well, although assessments of this theory vary. In the broader sense of the Cold War, with the performance of UK forces watched closely by the Soviet Union, it was worthwhile for the UK to handle without assistance a conflict minor in scale compared to an all-out NATO vs. Warsaw Pact war. Regardless, American non-interference was vital to the U.S.-British relationship. Ascension Island, a UK possession, was on lease to the Americans and the British needed to resume its use as a relay point and air base. The main and decisive American contribution was AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles of the latest L model (these missiles were much more deadly than older models of the Sidewinder), spy satellites and intelligence information. There were also rumours, later expanded upon by Weinberger, which spoke of lending an aircraft carrier, although this was not public knowledge at the time. It is worth noting that both Weinberger and Reagan would go on to receive honorary knighthoods, the honour of Knight Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, from Queen Elizabeth II. American critics of the U.S. role claimed that, by failing to side with Argentina, the U.S. violated its own Monroe Doctrine.

I have read this too,but remeber the carrier is just a rumor. No actual proof as of yet.
Also she would want us to take the island but america giveing us air support would have been appreciated.


Please dont just qoute large bits of a source.
I already know these facts, the fact is that thatcher didnt want men and women to die, if you think otherwise you call her a murderer.