SOME BACKGROUND TO CLAUSE 9 OF THE JOINT POLICY "In January 2000 the Chinese Defence Minister came out of the Ministry Of Defence off Whitehall and smirked at a few pro-Tibet protesters. What that smirk said was "You stupid fools ! i'm here as the guest of the UK gov, and they see me, not you, as their friend" .[ And the UK and Chinese defence ministries do have things in common such as the fact that they both sold arms to both sides in the Iran/ Iraq wars] . So who was this friend of the MOD? He was General Chi Haotian , known as the butcher of Beijing for his role in commanding the troops during the Tiananmen Square massacre. Here he was , the guest of the Ministry Of Defence [and also meeting John Prescott ] at a time when the Foreign Secretary Robin Cook had announced that we had 'ethical foreign policy' , the same Robin Cook who had earlier said in 1993 "If we betray these basic principles, the values of human rights, civil liberties, and democracy, for the sake of a fast buck, we deserve not to be forgiven". And no, the UK gov should not be forgiven, for under Labour exports of arms to China have increased to £42,000,000 in 1999 ; This in spite of an arms embargo. And this of course gives a much clearer message of support to China in its policy of repression than if there had been no embargo at all, as Mark Pythian says in his book The Politics Of British Arms Sales since 1964 'Arms sales are politically significant because they serve as an expression of approval of the recipient country. While a supplier may not regard the supply of arms as conferring approval, recipients clearly do . In 1971 Julius Nyerere offered what should have served as a warning to supplier states in this respect, when he offered the view that: ' the selling of arms is something which a country does only when it wants to support and strengthen the regime or the group to whom the sale is made. Whatever restrictions or limits are placed on that sale, the sale of any arms is a declaration of support -- an implied alliance of a kind. You can trade with people you dislike; you can have diplomatic relations with governments you disapprove of; you can sit in conference with those nations whose policies you abhor. But you do not sell arms without saying, in effect; 'In the light of the receiving country's known policies , friends, and enemies, we anticipate that , in the last resort, we will be on their side in the case of any conflict. We shall want them to defeat their enemies.' . Tony Blair has promoted the dialogue with China rather than condemnation , but when was arms dealing part of a dialogue that was supposed to improve human rights ? To quote Mark Pythian again 'Once arms deals are concluded, they leave the supplier government vulnerable to cancellation or delays in the order until it is complete.This restricts the suppler government's room for manoeuvre in terms of criticising the activities of the recipient state.The supplier government is, whatever the private misgivings of those involved, obliged to support the recipient in its actions lest its military contracts, and any civil contracts that have developed alongside, should be jeopardised.Hence the the threshold for diplomatic expressions of displeasure and reaction is raised, generally dictating low-level responses to any excesses perpetrated by purchasers.' China would be right to think that the UK was involved in tokenism, for of course has not Tony Blair said he understands the people, so he knows that there is great sympathy for Tibet in this country. Its therefore necessary to say as letters from the Foreign Office do that "we are deeply concerned about the situation in Tibet, " and continue to call for the release of the Panchen Lama, and for talks between China and the Dalai Lama . That done the UK can get on with the main business of arms dealing undisturbed, in the tradition of expanding the arms industry embraced so successfully by Mother Thatcher. Now the UK has moved up to number two arms dealer in the world with exports worth £5billion and a quarter share of the world market Clause 9 of the joint policy calls on the UK government to stop selling arms to China in contravention of the arms embargo. The EU introduced a ban on arms sales to China on 26 June 1989 but the scope of that ban has ,in the absence of agreement on a common interpretation , been left for national interpretation.At the time the UK banned all arms sales to China but by the autumn of that year Marconi had been cleared to sell radar systems to China , on the grounds that they were defensive equipment. A trade mission to China in October 1989 included a UK government travel subsidy for UK firms that included the likes of Racal. [ There was a tiny demo against this at the time] . However it has been under the present government that the large increase in arms sales has been seen. For example 37 export licences were granted between May 1997 and May 1998 and these included "bombs , torpedoes, rockets, mines, mortars, flame throwers, tanks, armoured vehicles, and howitzers."[figures qouted from the Campaign Against The Arms Trade leaflet ' The supply of UK Military Equipment To China ']Currently "UK arms exports are considered on a case by case basis against the consolidated UK and EU arms export licencing criteria " [from a letter from Michael Murtagh of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office ] If these criteria , dated 26 October 2000, were abided by in relation to Tibet [and for that matter Taiwan], its difficult to see how any arms could be exported to China. The criteria don't start off on a promising note stating that "the Government is committed to the maintenance of a strong defence industry as part of our industrial base as well as of our defence effort, and recognises that defence exports can also contribute to international stability by strengthening collective defence relationships. " This of course is just a dressed up variation on the theme of 'if we don't sell them someone else will", the true meaning being 'profit before ethics at all cost'. . After the preamble comes the intro "An export licence will not be issued if the arguments for doing so are outweighed by the need to comply with the UK's international obligations and commitments, by concern that the goods might be used for internal repression or international aggression, by the risks to regional stability or by other considerations as described in these criteria". Tibet, East Turkestan [Xinjiang ] Taiwan, and Falun Gong seem to rule out China immediately, as do several of the criteria. For example Criterion 2 "The respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country of final destination " states that the Government a] will not issue an export licence if there is a clear risk that the proposed export might be used for internal repression b] exercise special caution and vigilance in issuing licences to countries where serious violations of human rights have been established by the competent bodies of the UN, the Council of Europe or by the EU." Criterion 3 "The Government will not issue licences for exports which would provoke or prolong armed conflicts or aggravate existing tensions or conflicts in the country of final destination" Criterion 4 "Preservation of regional peace security and stability" "c] whether the equipment would be lokely to be used other than for the legitimate national security and defence of the recipient" Criterion 6 "The behaviour of of the buyer country with regard to the international community, as regards in particular to its attitude to terrorism ,the nature of its alliances and respect for international law" "a] its support or encouragement of terrorism c] its commitment to non-proliferation and other areas of arms control and disarmament...." Well of course the UK can't talk, having failed along with the other nuclear powers to disarm, which was the intention of the non-proliferation treaty. But given that the UK government does not recognise Chinese sovereignty over Tibet [It does not recognese Tibet as independent either] it follows that China in siting more than 100 nuclear missiles in Tibet is breaking article one of the non-proliferation treaty which states that a nuclear state shall not site its nuclear missiles in another country. Yes, I agree I don't really need to go that far into these criteria when it is obvious that the UK is breaking the spirit of the arms embargo. From May 1997 -2000 112 licences for arms exports have been issued. Now Campaign Against the Arms Trade report in their leaflet 'China: arms trading under an embargo' -- "The Italian helicoptor manufacturer Agusta [now merging with UK company Westland] announced a licensed production deal with Chinese company AVIC at Farnborough International 2000. Reports allege that AVIC will produce the A109K2 helicoptor for civil and military use and for use by the Chinese police. The helicoptor will be produced in China but the deal seems bound to benefit the new company Agusta Westland ,50% of which is owned by UK firm GKN. The helicoptor's facility for high altitude operation raises the question of where the Chinese will deploy it since the key high altitude area is the nation of Tibet." Now that the war against terrorism is with us the whole debate will hopefully go onto a different level. Clearly the terrorist in Tibet is China. But more than that ,arms dealing is itself terrorism as without it many conflicts would not be possible. The main arms dealing nations are the same few who threaten the world with nuclear weapons. So the fact that these countries are now standing shoulder to shoulder against terrorism gives the US , UK, Russia, France,Germany[ not a nuclear state] China and Israel the chance to put their own houses in order by nuclear disarming and reaching a mutual agreement to end all arms dealing. At the same time Tibet Vigil supports the CAAT conclusions that 1] The 1989 EU embargo should be reconfirmed. 2] The UK should extend its interpretation of the embargo to cover all military goods and equiment including components. 3] Delegations from China should not be invited to UK arms exhibitions or to visit UK military companies or Ministry of Defence establishments. 4] The UK should take a lead on getting a common interpretation of the EU embargo among EU member states to cover all military goods. To do otherwise is to collaborate in China's occupation of Tibet. --simon