The Rueda Report on the ‘European Union Code of Conduct on Arms Exports’

My post below mentions a Code of Conduct that needs to be implemented to make a lifting of the EU’s arms embargo somewhat more palatable for the United States. The EU will have to work very hard at creating and enforcing a Code that is worth more than the paper it is written on, though, for the existing Code simply doesn’t work:

Although officially the European Parliament’s hands are tied regarding armaments questions, parliamentarians increasingly see it as their duty to comment on controversial developments. This criticism has now been made into a 26-page report by Spanish Parliamentarian Raul Romeva Rueda.

Rueda’s report took issue with the EU’s code of conduct for weapons sales, which is supposed to provide a set of ethical guidelines for countries to follow. However, the document, which was created in 1998, is not legally binding. The European Parliament is overwhelmingly in favor of changing that.

“The main problem with the code of conduct is that it is a very weak instrument,” Rueda said.

The code of conduct sets a series of minimum standards for arms exports. Those include stipulations that no weapons should be sold to countries that might use them to abuse human rights. Weapons are also not to go to countries where regional conflicts are taking place, or where weapons purchases will further poverty in the population.

“Some of the equipment being sent to countries is torture equipment, or equipment that is being used to apply the death penalty,” he said. “You have electric sticks, for instance, that is sometimes used by some police to force confessions.”

(Emphasis mine)

Read more

The EU arms embargo on China: An overview

This is not good:

The European Union announced on Tuesday that it intends to bring its 16-year arms embargo against China to an end, much to the regret of visiting US President George W. Bush.

US President George W. Bush expressed “deep concern” on Tuesday about European Union plans to lift an arms embargo on China, saying that it might upset relations between Beijing and Taiwan. His concerns alone are unlikely to be enough to stop the EU from pursuing its goal of ending its ban on arms sales to the People’s Republic.

“With regard to China, Europe intends to remove the last obstacles to its relations with this important country,” French President Jacques Chirac announced after talks with President Bush.

Chirac maintained that the embargo, imposed in 1989 after the brutal suppression of the Tiananmen Square democracy movement, was no longer justified but the EU would ensure its abolition did not change the strategic balance in Asia. He noted that US allies Canada and Australia did not have such restrictions on arms sales to Beijing.

I agree with Lex that it would be a very bad idea to lift the EU’s arms embargo on China, but I disagree that Europe would be acting as an enemy of America if it did so. For if the EU really were an enemy it wouldn’t have imposed the embargo after the massacre in Tiananem place in the first place. The motive is greed, not hostility, and also some serious political considerations. The point is, Britain supports the lifting of the embargo, too:

UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has defended plans to end the European Union’s arms embargo on China, despite opposition from the US and Japan.

China has in the past said it sees the weapons ban as politically driven, and does not want it lifted in order to buy more weapons.
Mr Straw, speaking at a joint news conference with Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing, stressed this point.
“The result of any decision [to lift the arms embargo] should not be an increase in arms exports from European Union member states to China, either in quantitative or qualitative terms,” Mr Straw said.
Earlier this week he said he expected the embargo to be lifted within six months.

Read more

Do Not Watch the Hand that Appears to be Moving

Bush goes to Europe. He makes nice. Why not? Mark Steyn puts it well. When the stakes are low, the rhetoric is most soaring. This gets lots of media coverage. The media say, Bush is trying to “mend fences”. No. Bush is there for American domestic political consumption. It is all gesture.

Nothing concrete will happen. The Europeans will continue to do everything they were going to do — most importantly, sell arms to China. In other words, say nice words, and act as our enemies when it comes to action. OK, fine. Be like that.

Meanwhile, getting almost no coverage, huge and important changes are afoot on the other side of Eurasia.

Read more

Dr. Hunter S. Thompson, Writer, 1939 (?) – 2005

James and Captain Mojo both weighed in on Hunter Thompson. I started to leave a comment and it got real long, so I’m putting it here.

Rather than celebrating or excoriating the hippies, I think I can at least make a few excuses for them. I’m a very late Boomer, b. 1963. The older brothers of kids on my street, a few of them, were hippies. I remember a van across the street with a lot of psychedelic paint on it.

The rebellion was mostly against “the system”, which at that time was basically big government liberalism allied with big business, it was managerialism, not conservatism, which was being rebelled against. This dread of a gray, boring, managed, planned system gave rise to all kinds of rebelliousness. I think the basic impetus to rebel against this Orwellian vision was healthy at its base. Hunter Thompson and Abbie Hoffman, Timothy Leary, and certainly Jimi Hendrix and many other iconic figures of that age were much more anarchical individualists than coherent socialists of any kind. They didn’t have policy proposals, they had an attitude. I can’t really hate such people, or not much.

Don’t forget that the Conservative movement got its start as a mass movement at the same time, and was pretty much rebelling against the same thing, though based on a different understanding of freedom. Barry Goldwater’s movement was in large measure a youth movement, too, after all. In those days, the middle was to the left, and the rebellion came from the right and the far left. Ayn Rand was ragingly popular around this time for similar reasons. People felt their freedom was in danger, in one way or another. And not just their freedom, their lives.

Read more