Date: 7 October 2004
 
Speakers: Gregory Suchan, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs;
Dick Oosting, Director, Amnesty International EU Office
Colonel Michael Ryan, Defense Advisor, US Mission to the EU
 
Dick Oosting opened the discussion by noting that for once the United States and Amnesty International were in accord on an issue. Both share strong concerns about the possible lifting by the European Union of the arms embargo imposed on China following the crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Beijing’s Tiananmen Square in 1989. The Director of the EU Office of Amnesty International (AI) pointed out that 15 years later, there are still people imprisoned for their involvement in the demonstrations and that China continues to flagrantly violate human rights by conducting unfair trials and practicing ‘re-education’ via forced labour and torture.
 
Oosting also expressed fundamental reservations about the European dialogue with China, which he feels has not brought about any improvement in the human rights situation. And while Amnesty International generally does not take a position on such issues as trade policy, he stressed that in combination with the current human rights issues, AI’s position is that lifting the arms embargo at this point would send the wrong signal towards the Chinese government, its victims and their relatives. He added that although the EU Code of Conduct, which is currently under review, could play an important role, it is not adequate in practice. Oosting concluded by stating that the arms embargo on China was a symbolic measure, and the lifting of it now would be even a bigger one.
 
Gregory Suchan prefaced his remarks by stating that there is no single EU position or consensus on whether to lift the arms embargo on China. Rather, there are some European governments, most notably France, that are attempting to persuade other EU member states to end the embargo. He then noted the difference between the EU’s embargo and the one adopted by the United States. The latter has been enacted into US law and it bans the sale of all items on the US munitions list to China. In contrast, the EU embargo does not have this legal precision and the individual member states are responsible for interpreting and implementing it.
 
Suchan cited three main reasons for US opposition to the lifting of the arms embargo: China’s continued violation of human rights, US interests in the Pacific and the situation of regional stability. On the latter point, he spoke about the instability that could be created by the export of Western technology. European governments often react by saying that the lifting of the embargo would be a purely symbolic step and that arms export would still be subject to strict controls. Nevertheless, the United States has found evidence of the export of €210 million worth of arms to China by certain EU member states, which Suchan subsequently identified as the UK, France and Italy.
 
Concerning the EU Code of Conduct, Mr. Suchan noted that none of the improvements concern the issue of what might be exported to China, and that he doesn’t think that it could be a substitute for the arms embargo. His message to the European Union was that you can have an improved relationship with China, and yet still impose an arms embargo.
 
The third speaker, Col. Michael Ryan, warned that EU arms sales to China could lead to increased intimidation by China of Taiwan, greater instability in the Pacific and could even threaten US troops in the region, forcing the US to shift troops from Europe to strengthen forces in Asia. He added that “US troops could find themselves targeted by weapons that were built by NATO countries”. As a result, Ryan said that it was likely that the US Congress would halt recent moves to free up the flow of defence technology across the Atlantic.
 
Watch the video recording of the event