Free Tibet Campaign disappointed by Foreign Secretary’s comments on China’s human rights record and lack of firm opposition to imminent lifting of EU/China Arms Embargo.
Have the UK and Luxembourg Governments Capitulated to French and German Demands to lift the EU/China Arms Embargo?
London, January 12 – Tibet Campaigners are deeply disappointed at the UK Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw’s comments today to a House of Commons committee scrutinising arms control, that to “lump” China with Burma and Zimbabwe was “not appropriate” in the maintenance of an EU arms embargo. This comment signals the beginning of the end for the 15 year arms embargo on China, particularly as the UK was one of the EU countries which previously had had reservations. The EU Luxembourg Presidency also gave notice that it was committed to lifting the embargo with a senior official quoted as saying that “We have . an obligation to find a solution by the end of the presidency.”
“China’s human rights record remains appalling. The decision, in all likelihood, to lift the embargo is a gift for China’s new leadership, but a slap in the face for Tibetans and all those China oppresses” said Anne Callaghan of Free Tibet Campaign. “In recent years China has been awarded many of the attributes of membership of the international club of nations, whilst relinquishing very little in return. In six months, the EU Arms embargo may be lifted because China does not want to be treated as a human rights pariah similar to Burma and Zimbabwe (current EU arms embargoes ). Where is China’s incentive to end the occupation of Tibet, or decriminalise supporters of democracy now?” she asked.
The embargo was imposed in the aftermath of Tiananmen Square in 1989. At the EU China summit at the Hague on December 8 2004, the EU maintained the embargo following a concerted campaign by human rights groups and the US government. However, the outgoing Dutch EU Presidency gave notice that this decision would be re-examined in the course of the Luxembourg Presidency to allow for a tightening of the EU ‘Code of Conduct on arms exports’.
Earlier in 2003, Javier Solana suggested that China’s new leadership did not wish to be linked “to events that took place a long time ago in relation to Tiananmen.” (EU Business, 26 January 2004.) Free Tibet Campaign finds the comments from the UK and Luxembourg governments of the odds-on certainty of the embargo being lifted as impossible to justify given the new Chinese leadership’s refusal last year to review the events of June 1989. The Chinese authorities have made no effort to prevent the detention and harassment of its critics and relatives of those massacred.
The embargo had been under severe pressure since China’s publication of its first EU Strategy Paper in October 2003, which called for an early end to the embargo. France and Germany were amongst China’s strongest advocates within the EU. Although the United States was firmly opposed to the EU ending the embargo it appears the Europeans believe they may be able to do enough to satisfy American concerns over fueling an arms race and endangering Taiwan.
The EU has argued that its existing ‘Code of Conduct’ will prevent the sale of arms to China that could be used against its own citizens. However a coalition of 55 NGOs, including Amnesty International and Saferworld recently published evidence that the EU was helping to sell armoured vehicle parts to China and Burma.
