You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
China-Japan-Koreas
US, not EU, defends Pacific region: Rice
2005-03-21
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested on Sunday that European governments are irresponsible if they sell sophisticated weaponry to China that might one day be used against US forces in the Pacific. "It is the United States, not Europe, that is defending the Pacific," Rice said. She spoke in Seoul, the penultimate stop on her weeklong tour of Asia. South Korea, Japan and the United States are all Pacific powers and all contribute resources to keep the Asia-Pacific region stable, Rice said.

The European Union may soon lift an arms embargo on China that was imposed after the deadly 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy protesters in Tiananmen Square. Lifting the embargo would allow sale of technology and weapons that China badly wants to modernise its creaky military. China has recently gone on a military spending spree that Rice said concerns the United States. "The European Union should do nothing to contribute," to the possibility that Chinese forces might turn European technology on Americans, Rice said after meetings with the South Korean president and foreign minister. Rice has earlier said that China's recent statements about a possible invasion of Taiwan should give the Europeans pause. China passed a law this month codifying its intention to use military force against Taiwan should the island declare formal independence.
Posted by:Fred

#21  Mrs. D, I agree that trying war crimes at the ICC goes well beyond farce. But immediately following WWII the Allies set up a special war crimes Court, which quickly tried, convicted and executed those who were guilty, and released those who weren't. As the U.S. isn't signatory to the ICC anyway, a special court is our only option. That's what I'd threaten: a real court that will have real trials and execute real sentences in real time :-) Where to hold it? Perhaps conquered Beijing? Europeans could be tried in absentia, if necessary, with the arrest warrants delivered to the EU in Brussels (as I understand yesterday's discussion, Brussels would then have to execute the warrants). And show trials are what I want; the trials of the Nazis put paid to the idea that following orders absolves an individual of responsibility for the unconscionable act, post-China trials would similarly wipe out the idea that those who sell weapons matériel to belligerents are in no way responsible for the fact that they are used.

I would seriously prefer not flattening swathes of Europe again. I do not want to leave the task of rebuilding that continent to Trailing Daughters #1 & 2 and their children.

But I like the US or China choice you present, as well. That decision takes effect now, vs. in the indefinite future when the war against China would be won.
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-03-21 4:06:43 PM  

#20  What do they mean by "weapons?" If they mean small arms then, frankly, no big deal. We can cope with that. If they mean warships, missiles, and near space high tech.... then that's a very big deal. That's almost a declaration of war.
Posted by: Secret Master   2005-03-21 3:40:03 PM  

#19  Euro Blaster only $16.95
Adjustable spray head with four different spray patterns to tackle all those dirty jobs!
Blast away Euroweinies grass and leaves, wash the scum from the earth windows without a ladder, clean the liberals and backstabbers gutters, and roof. Fill the detergent chamber and wash the UN car, van or boat in minutes! With the Euro Blaster, no cleaning job is too tough!
Euro Blaster
U.S. ORDERS ONLY
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2005-03-21 12:29:52 PM  

#18  Rice has earlier said that China’s recent statements about a possible invasion of Taiwan should give the Europeans pause.

It's not the Europeans that would actually assist in any defense of Taiwan; that's why they're so eager to sell China weapons. Nothing to lose, but money to gain.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-03-21 10:56:51 AM  

#17  We should be clear here that the best outcome would be for NATO to remain an active alliance. I am not eager to see China using Frennch weapons to kill Americans, Taiwanese, Indians or Russians. And that is the alternative.

China has probably already stolen all the designs they need. They certainly seem to have had the run of Los Alamos. But having the designs and being able to build them are two different things as the Russians proved for 70 years, and as the French proved with the de Gaulle.

With us giving buckets of money to the Chinese via Wal-Mart they will eventually get it right; but it will take a long time. Things might evolve internally for China by then. With access to European experience, the process could be accelerated to the point where they would have the systems efective before the evolution is complete.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-03-21 10:17:28 AM  

#16  TKAT - WTF? You on the MSM Kool Aid?

"without any great protest from our government"

Now how do you know this? Why do you think Dr Rice went to Europe immediately after confirmation to SecState? To have tea in London and bon-bons in Brussels? You don't think she was carrying Bush's, uh, message on this and other topics to our erstwhile allies?

They will do what they choose, I suggest that we not assume that Bush is lax and fucking up without proof -- that's the MSM's job.
Posted by: .com   2005-03-21 10:11:47 AM  

#15  And China needs weapons from the EU why? Who do the Chinese fear and why? I agree with Mrs. D. Let the EU understand that weapons sales to make a buck are fine but they do have consequences that will cost them economically. Tell em that it's nothing personal but we'll pull out our people and cash from the EU to respond to the problems those sales potentially create. On second thought, I suppose in the end the Chinese will reverse engineer what they get or obtain the technology otherwise. They'll have their weapons if they really want them, though the fact that our so-called allies are helping speed up the process without any great protest from our government is telling.
Posted by: Tkat   2005-03-21 9:50:01 AM  

#14  On the other hand, thanks to the Clintons, wouldn't .com's idea mean bombing ourselves?
Posted by: someone   2005-03-21 9:33:22 AM  

#13  Why can't we end this farce? Europe can't even defend it's self. Kill NATO. Screw them. The game is over. The open hostility of the German media and government towards the US seems pretty clear. The French don't even count anymore. We can have a defense treaty with thet UK or anyone else if they decide they are not going to be part of the EU. The EU has decided it will be a competitor with us not a partner. The EU can fund it's own protection.

Our future lies in the Pacific and Asia not Europe and the Atlantic. Thats is where we need friends and partners. Persons and countries that arm China are not helpful and need to feel pain when they work against the intrests of peace in the Pacific and Asia.
Posted by: Sock Puppet O’ Doom   2005-03-21 8:29:53 AM  

#12  It's one thing to not support us in Iraq, but it's quite another to deliberately help arm our adversaries over our objections. If the EU or any member states take steps to help arm China, then they are in a European-Chinese military axis. If Europe can afford that, then NATO is done. Europe is behaving like a three-year-old and needs some swift consequences for behavior correction. Swift consequences like the end of military cooperation with Old Europe and requiring a much larger share of U.N. budget and U.N. military support from Old Europe.
Posted by: Tom   2005-03-21 8:23:02 AM  

#11  I'm with 3dc - wetworks against the heads of the corps that supply our enemies
Posted by: Frank G   2005-03-21 8:22:18 AM  

#10  Ditto, Mrs. d.
Posted by: Glereper Thigum7229   2005-03-21 7:59:27 AM  

#9  I could care less whether they value it. But I do value my word and my country's word. Right now, we're committed to treat an attack on France or Belgium as an attack on us. If they want to ship arms to China, I'd like them to get that assurance from China instead of us. Let them be explicit about all the implications of their decision. Right now we're letting them have theri cake and eat it too.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-03-21 7:58:00 AM  

#8  Mrs. D., you think NATO is valued at all by France, Germany or Britain?
Posted by: Glereper Thigum7229   2005-03-21 7:54:11 AM  

#7  Mrs D. -
You are right, but OTOH - following a US/China conflict - if just one EU arms billionaire, or better yet, one bureaucrat found themselves in a US court facing those charges, I doubt it would happen again.

Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski   2005-03-21 7:46:15 AM  

#6  TW, Look at the trial of Milosovic. It is the international equivalent of the OJ trial. Do you really think we would ever try a European non-combatant civilian for War Crimes? Where? The Hague? Geneva? Boston? War Crimes trials are and always were show trials. If you win a war, you get to kill whomever you wish. Trials are a cover for murder. By 1960 it was history. That's why Eichmann was tried in Israel. He would never have been executed by Europeans.

No, if we have a real problem with this, what we should do is tell the Euros they have a choice, us or China. If they choose China, kiss NATO good-bye. Those who do not sell to China get bi-lateral mutual defnece, non-agresion pacts. Those who sell get to coordinate defence policy with Beijing.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis   2005-03-21 7:31:51 AM  

#5  It was early when I posted -- no meds, no caffeine yet. Please read would certainly be effective as might well have an effect

One of the things I really like about this administration is that they are very clear about positions, causes and effects. The fact is, those who sell China advanced arms and technology are increasing the probability that China, feeling confident in her abilities, will pick a fight that will end in a real war, and sooner rather than later. The French, German and Russian manufacturers of the weapons and chemicals found in Iraq have gotten off this time, but they mustn't in the future. The time to establish that is now; by the time we have to actually fight the war is too late.
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-03-21 7:11:36 AM  

#4  40 years ago some wetworks would have solved the problem.
Posted by: 3dc   2005-03-21 4:26:36 AM  

#3  That's a little harsh, .com. But a threat of war crimes trials for those involved in the weapons sales, along the lines of those who produced the gas used in Nazi concentration camps, might well not be out of line. A quiet word from Secty. Rice in the shell-like ears of the appropriate politicians and CEOs would certainly be effective, and the loud outcry thereafter from those spoken to would serve to publicize the U.S. position.
Posted by: trailing wife   2005-03-21 4:22:34 AM  

#2  Yeah. thats better than the wood chipper.
Posted by: Qusay   2005-03-21 2:47:16 AM  

#1  The day that hostilities start with China, after assistance from those Europeans who value money more than their citizens, I suggest that we, the US, fires in both directions. Every country that helps to arm them, directly or indirectly. should lose their top 5 cities in the first salvo.

Call it a signing bonus.

Assholes.
Posted by: .com   2005-03-21 12:31:35 AM  

00:00