by Erika Mann

By Erika Mann

is a member of the European Parliament from Germany. Together with tree other German collegues from the EP, she recently sent a public letter to the Bundeskanzler Gerhard Schröder asking him to change his position on lifting the embargo.

Those European governments that are apparently bent on lifting the European Union’s embargo on selling arms to China would be well-advised to take notice of the gathering tide of opposition among legislators on both sides of the Atlantic. In Europe, there is precious little popular support for this move which would flout all of the values the European Union stands for, while also striking a blow against those working for more democratic change in China.

In the last three years, the European Parliament has expressed many concerns in its resolutions on China. Last November, it argued for keeping the embargo in place until the Union had adopted a legally binding code of conduct on arms exports and China had taken concrete steps towards improving respect for human rights. Specific reference was made to the need for China to ratify the 1966 UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

So why are so many European governments so committed to the idea? The rationale is baked of a mix of pragmatism and realpolitik that should never have been served up as a responsible policy. Pragmatists say that China is rebuilding its military capability and it makes no sense for European firms to be cut off from the possibility of winning large contracts. Besides, they say, China is slowly joining the comity of nations and it should be rewarded for coming into the WTO and attaining the status of a “normal” member of the international community.

Leading advocates of ending the embargo also seek to reassure that its lifting would not mean a sudden flood of weaponry towards Beijing. They claim that the new code of conduct will be sufficiently restrictive to prevent transfers military goods and sensitive technologies, and that lifting the embargo will not encourage an attack on Taiwan because China already has all the capabilities it needs to do so. Moreover, it is said countries like Germany will continue to be restricted by tight national legislation. The message is: “nothing very serious will change, but lifting the embargo will be symbolically important”.

And symbolism is the very reason why, in my view and that of many of my colleagues, we must maintain the embargo. The citizens of the European Union, in many ways so diverse in their 25 nations, share one set of rather fervent beliefs: democracy, the rule of law, civil rights and peaceful relationships between nations. This family of values has been the foundation upon which the Union has grown and prospered. The eight countries of central and eastern Europe who joined the EU last year, first began to nurture ambitions for membership almost immediately after the Berlin Wall had fallen. Sure, they wanted to share in the economic opportunities that would be available. But as important was the possibility of placing themselves within a unique political framework dedicated to preserving and enhancing those democratic and human values that had been denied them with the fall of the Iron Curtain.

Greece back in 1981 and then Spain and Portugal in 1987 were among the first to reveal the Union’s enormous power of attraction to countries that had emerged from the darkness of dictatorships and wished to build civil society and other bulwarks against their return. The same allure is now working in the Ukraine and Georgia and it is very likely that someday they too will fulfill their destiny within the Union. And Turkey is given real hope in entering the Union on the basis of accepting our human right standards.

The Union’s values of democracy, the rule of law, human rights and peace are the components of its “soft” power in the world. Europe is not driven by any ambition to control countries or regions, nor to evade responsibilities to help others become politically and economically stable societies. Robert Cooper argues in his book "The Breaking Of Nations" that "Foreign policy is not only about interests" it is "not simply a tactical question: it is also about the kind of world you want to live in and the kind of country you want to be. "The Union mostly succeeds in avoiding laying itself open to charges of hypocrisy by not supporting regimes in open conflict with its values. Which is precisely what we shall be doing if we abandon the arms embargo.

Equally meretricious would be any realpolitik justification of the kind being advanced in some capitals. Their notion is that the world is settling down into three “poles” of power: the United States, Europe and Asia. By lifting the embargo, it is argued that Europe will be strengthening its relations with Asia and making a necessary alteration in the balance between the poles. According to this view, Europe will have more influence if it puts some distance between itself and the US and, since the US is opposed to the embargo being lifted, it is wise diplomacy for Europeans to go against American wishes.

For the realpolitik school of thought, this is the intention behind the “comprehensive strategic partnership” referred to as the goal for EU-China relations at last December’s summit meeting of the two “poles”.

I doubt if our citizens will understand this and I am certain that they do not wish to see Europe’s relationship with the US suffer in order to make a “symbolic” gesture to China.

A month ago President Bush came to Brussels in reaching out to Europe. Since then, he has made important movement towards the European position on Iran and the Europeans have wisely responded. The US is now visibly working for a peace settlement between the Palestinians and Israelis, a renewed commitment to diplomacy in the region that we have long called for.

Let the European Union continue to do what it does so well: proclaim its values and act on them. That is a much sounder basis for encouraging a process of political transformation in China that could eventually be rewarded by the sale of arms. To hand over the prize now would be a disreputable act that we will be brought to regret.