Hearing on China Arms embargo - 09 March 2005

Speech by Graham Watson MEP on Wed 9th Mar 2005

The recent willingness of the People's Republic of China to engage with the rest of the world is a major geopolitical development which we should all welcome. The Chinese have traditionally been generous and peace-seeking in such periods of opening. Indeed, the export nearly 600 years ago of Chinese technology and knowledge gave a major boost to the development of European civilisation, even though Europe was the one continent they failed to reach in their travels of the early fifteenth century.

The participation now of the People's Republic in global efforts to tackle the challenges of population growth, climate change and internationally-organised crime is essential to their solution. China must be encouraged to assume her role as a full member of the global community.

I believe the time has come for China to put into practice what it has long stated in principle: Gai Genh, Kai Fang - Change the System and Open the Door.

Deng Xiaoping's rallying cry transformed China into an economic powerhouse. In my view 'Reform and Opening' should now evolve to embrace the ideals of human rights, democracy, and freedom that those words can, and should, entail. Only then should the EU consider lifting the arms embargo and fully welcome China into the community of nations.

Consider why this embargo was first put in place. It was no cynical political ploy but a humane response to an inhumane act. The Tiananmen Square massacre was witnessed by the global community and universally damned by it. Although China has changed beyond recognition in the last decade, no human rights group today would claim that it meets the standards of political and civil freedom that Europe expects of its allies. Indeed, many of the students who demonstrated are still in prison 16 years on.

Jacques Chirac would have Europe "remove the last obstacles to its relations with this important country." But these are not the last obstacles. Even the normally conservative UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office has observed that the human rights situation in China continues to be a matter of serious concern for European states.

China may have amended its Constitution to include the clause, "the State respects and protects human rights". It may have a reforming, outward-looking president. Yet it continues to persecute religious minorities and pro-democracy activists. It continues to torture and to execute dissidents. It continues to deny freedom of religion, association, and movement. It uses 09/11 and the "war on terrorism" as an excuse to crack down on unrest in Tibet and Xinjiang. The internet revolution, often viewed by the global community as a sign of a new, progressive China, has been used systematically by the state to entrap and prosecute dissidents.

Let us not forget that China terms itself a democratic republic.

Actions, not words, are required. The semblance of reform must not be allowed to mislead us.

It is high time the EU took the Convention of Human Rights in both hands and approached the Chinese Government with a series of specific conditions before it even considers lifting the ban.

I join with Amnesty International, China Human Rights Watch and other concerned bodies in calling on the Beijing Government to ratify the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which it signed six years ago. There should be an end to the use of military power against peaceful democratic action and acceptance of democracy in Hong Kong. No more slave labour camps, where people are sent without trial. And reconsideration of a justice system that carries out 70% of the world's capital penalties.

As President Clinton famously said "China is on the wrong side of history".

Just last Friday China has announced an increase of more than 12% in its defence budget on top of 11 ½% hike last year.

Yesterday they published an anti-secession bill which would allow the State Council to take military action against Taiwan without reference to wider bodies. Under such circumstances, pressure from within the EU to lift the ban reflects not political change in China, but a new willingness by some in Europe to ignore the lack of it.

Liberals and Democrats do not argue for maintenance of the embargo sine die. But nor do we wish to lift it with nothing to show in return. Ratification by China of the ICCPR recognition that the events of Tiananmen Square were wrong, progress towards the freedom of speech and assembly which are in any case essential to sustainable economic success - all these would be signs of a meeting of minds long overdue.

Until then, the embargo should stay. Javier Solana's code of conduct will have zero credibility while the distinguishing feature of codes of conduct everywhere is that they are honoured in the breach. A common position of the Council would at least be politically binding. But let us not be deflected by half-measures from the main issues. The Council's ambitions are dangerous in three respects.

First, Council's determination to ignore the clear and repeated opposition of the European Parliament and some national parliaments is a danger to democracy and the principle of parliamentary consent. Second, the U.S reaction in denying technology to Europe will endanger our economic prosperity. Why should the Americans give us weapons technology for use against their seventh fleet in the Taiwan straits? We underestimate congressional retaliation at our peril. Third, proliferation of weapons technology is a threat to world peace. The ballistic missile arsenals in Pakistan, Iran and North Korea are all China-provided. China has offered Saudi Arabia ICBMs with a range of five and a half thousand kilometres. And this is to say nothing of the fragile military balance in Asia where democracies such as Japan or Taiwan could be under threat. We risk arming to the teeth a series of unsympathetic and unpredictable autocrats. No wonder so many urge caution.

What surprises me most about the current debate is the way the Luxembourg Presidency is allowing itself to be used.

Italy wanted to lift the embargo eighteen months ago but did not have the courage. The Irish Presidency would not offend the Americans. The Netherlands deftly passed the exploding parcel on, unwrapping it a little bit but not enough to have it explode. And the British Presidency is hugely keen for the Council to take the decision now which it would lack the boldness to do later this year for fear of offending Blair's friend George W. Jean-Claude Juncker should look to whose tune he is dancing and recognise that Balkenende was nobody's fool.

We are pleased to bring here today Sharon Hom and Meg Davis of Human Rights Watch to be with us, and Dick Oostling of Amnesty International. And I welcome Helen Flautre, the highly esteemed President of Parliament's committee on human rights. I welcome you all.