Amnesty - China arms sales 'fuel conflicts'

[FuManChu]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5070220.stm

The human rights organisation Amnesty International has accused China of being of the world's most secretive and irresponsible arms exporters. In a report, it says Chinese weapons have helped to fuel conflicts such as those in Sudan, Nepal and Burma. Amnesty is urging China to publish information on its arms exports.

The authorities in Beijing have long insisted that they have strict safeguards in place to prevent any unethical arms sales. Amnesty International challenges this idea in the report.

"China describes its approach to arms export licensing as 'cautious and responsible', yet the reality couldn't be further from the truth," the author's report, Helen Hughes, said in a statement. "China is the only major arms exporting power that has not signed up to any multilateral agreements with criteria to prevent arms exports likely to be used for serious human rights violations," she added.

The report alleges that Beijing shipped 200 Chinese military trucks to Sudan and supplying the ruling junta in Burma with weapons. It also accuses China of selling rifles and grenades to the Nepalese security forces at a time when there was a mass uprising against the monarchy by civilians. The report says China exports more than $1bn worth of weapons a year, often exchanging arms for raw materials needed to fuel its economy.

Amnesty urges China to change its current practices to be more transparent and to support the international initiative for an arms trade treaty. "We're calling for China to enact into law and uphold commitments ... banning all arms transfers where they are likely to be used for human rights violations," Ms Hughes said.

China has yet to respond to the report, but has long said it had a careful approach to weapons sales, only issuing licences after examining each application individually.

Thoughts? Comments? Should China be more discerning in who it exports arms to or not? This isn't just about human rights, it's also potentially a matter of regional/international security.

(I'm assuming this is valid discussion material, as the US report's still live on this sub-forum.)

[Ender Wiggin]

is it just me or do i spell donkey pooh? Think about, weren't the Soviets and the Americans selling massive amount of weapons to other countries? Sure the Soviets probly got a lot of heat being the "evil empire" back then but what about the states and the crushing of democratic governments and selling massive amounts of arms to those who oppress them? What about the fac that Saddam was a CIA agent and that the Americans sold weapons to him to kill Iranians and whoops they goit caught so had to sell weapons to Iran to kill Iraqi's...

Quite frankly China isnt doing anything that other countries arent already doing to other even more irresponsible countries.

[FuManChu]

Quite frankly China isnt doing anything that other countries arent already doing to other even more irresponsible countries.

Well I think the point is that Amnesty International criticises all those governments already. Plus it's no defence to say "oh, well, everyone else is doing it". Try that in a court if you go before a judge/jury and see how long you last.

In any case, why can't China set an example, take the moral high-ground, etc? It's not as if it's adverse to criticising other countries for what they do. And if China's arms sales do add to instability then surely that is a matter for concern.

[isthvan]

Well I think the point is that Amnesty International criticises all those governments already. Plus it's no defence to say "oh, well, everyone else is doing it". Try that in a court if you go before a judge/jury and see how long you last.

You are totally right. Selling weapons to government that supports killing of there one citizens is damn wrong. As human right organization Amnesty International is one of few international organizations whit some credibility.

In any case, why can't China set an example, take the moral high-ground, etc? It's not as if it's adverse to criticising other countries for what they do. And if China's arms sales do add to instability then surely that is a matter for concern.

Well China does that for same reason like all other countries;politics and economics. One billion $ is good reason all by itself not to mention other deals that come whit weapon sales and bring more money then weapons... It is not morally correct but what country in the world cares for trivial things like morality?

[FuManChu]

As human right organization Amnesty International is one of few international organizations whit some credibility.

Yeah, this isn't the DoD having a rant against the PRC. Even if the US sometimes has a point, its credibility is always somewhat uncertain. But Amnesty doesn't have an agenda against anyone in particular, merely desiring to highlight human rights issues. But of course arms sales also have an affect on security, which is why I pasted the article in at all.

Though of course some apologists always try to claim AI is a stooge. (Evidence? The fact it criticises the PRC of course!)

It is not morally correct but what country in the world cares for trivial things like morality?

Those that don't have much invested in morally-questionable activities?

Hmm, is it too much to ask the leading nations of the world to develop some standards? :(

[Roger604]

You know, FuManChu, "Guns don't commit genocide. People commit genocide."

All kidding aside. I think Amnesty International has a good point.

On one hand, it's true that nobody is more guilty of making money off of armed conflicts than the Anglo-American world. China is just a bit player in this regard. The righteous indignation should be pointed at the other side of the Pacific. Any report that doesn't take that into account just smacks of anti-Chinese bias.

But at the same time. I think China should take the moral high ground. All superpowers need a "vision". Laws and social mores (including controls on arms sales) are part of the vision. China currently lacks any global vision -- it's concern is strictly inward looking (improving Chinese standard of living, etc.). This has become constraining as China becomes more influential.

China should soon start to propagate a global vision of the world, according to it. I think we'll see "socialism with Chinese characteristics" slowly taking on the same characteristics as western European style socialism. [I also think when this occurs, it will marginalize the more aggressive, class-divided, Anglo-American style of capitalism.]

[ahho]

but i am just wondering, how did chinese made pistols fall into the arms of thiefs????

[ordinary dude]

I see, so here is the problem:

Chinese arms "fuel conflicts"

maybe AI should also point out
US arms "spread democracy" and
European arms "peacekeep"

nations sell weapons to each other all for the same reason MONEY!

[FuManChu]

I see, so here is the problem:

Chinese arms "fuel conflicts"

maybe AI should also point out
US arms "spread democracy" and
European arms "peacekeep"

As I said, it's no defence to say "other people do it too". AI criticises many countries for their foreign policy, including the US and European ones.

nations sell weapons to each other all for the same reason MONEY!

In that case why doesn't everyone flog nuclear weapons? If money was all that mattered, they would. But they don't because they're worried about the result on global stability. Similarly if nations realised that arms sales lead to instability and thus damage the global economy, they might change their tune.

[Kampfwagen]

Nations have been selling each other weapons for hundreds of years. Most of the reasons I can see are for Money, to sway an armed conflict or to improve relations. Europeans would lend suppourt and weaponry to favored tribes of Native Americans in the pre-revolution years, France sold weapons to the U.S during the Revolution, European's like the Brits and Dutch gave weapons to favored tribes of Africans to get their blessings when they took teritories (similar to what the U.S is doing in Somalia right now) or the Cold-War era Puppet Wars (What I call these wars in nations where the superpowers assisted to gain territory) like conflicts in Egypt and other places in the Middle East and Asia. Not to mention the infamous Iran Contra incident and the well known suplying of Stingers to Muhadjeen forces in Afghanistan.

My question is this: Where as Amnesty international been for the last...well...all of human history? Organizations like Amnesty are nice ideas, but in many instances, their naiveity is something that can be incredibly annoying and unfortunate. The world will never be the bright, shiny peaceful place they want. As long as we are human beings, there will always be gritty, nasty things that happen between each other, and weapons trades are only the tip of a muddy iceberg.

[FreeAsia2000]

My question is this: Where as Amnesty international been for the last...well...all of human history? Organizations like Amnesty are nice ideas, but in many instances, their naiveity is something that can be incredibly annoying and unfortunate. The world will never be the bright, shiny peaceful place they want. As long as we are human beings, there will always be gritty, nasty things that happen between each other, and weapons trades are only the tip of a muddy iceberg.

Amnesty and the other organisations hold out an ideal that we should ALL
be striving for...the world would be a far nastier place if some humans
were not willing to set aside their own selfish wishes.

Ok they are idealists but they are promoting the best in humanity.

[FuManChu]

Amnesty and the other organisations hold out an ideal that we should ALL
be striving for...the world would be a far nastier place if some humans
were not willing to set aside their own selfish wishes.

Ok they are idealists but they are promoting the best in humanity.

As I said before, this isn't airy-fairy "let's be nice to each other" stuff. It is also about money. Wars and conflict has a destabilising effect that costs the global economy big-time.

[Kampfwagen]

Don't get me wrong, I dont advocate the practice, but it seems kinda wrong to single out a nation for something that almost all lead nations have been doing for years. (I would say industrial, but this practice has been going on before industry)

Of course war takes a big chunk out of the global economy. Costs of conflict (such as buying bombs and the like) and a halt of trade. But what we are talking about would not have too much of an effect on the global economy, only money for China from weapons sales and territory/information or some other end. Most of these sorts of things happen in the third world, less economicaly important nations, unless a major world power (such as the U.S) decides to intervine. Or one nation decides not to trade for whatever reason with another because they dont suppourt a war. Usualy this is not so bad unless it is something really important like Oil or if other nations decide to buddy up with the country protesting.

But, I ramble. I am sure you know this and probably more correctly than I do. World Economics mostly escape me, but I know for the most part (I hope) how the whole arms trade thing works.

[The_Zergling]

Don't get me wrong, I dont advocate the practice, but it seems kinda wrong to single out a nation for something that almost all lead nations have been doing for years. (I would say industrial, but this practice has been going on before industry)


Well, it's not like AI has been playing favorites, it's just that China's arms trade activity has been more significant (or at least more noticeable) recently.

I posted something similiar to this some time ago, and since it's related to the topic I decided to share it.

Currently there appears to be a semi-official code of conduct, common themes including :

--Not selling weapons to non-democratic regimes, or human rights violators
--Not selling weapons that might help fuel an internal or external conflict
--Not selling weapons that would impede nation-development; increasing poverty

These seem to be relatively positive and simple guidelines. However, the world's major arms dealers have continued to sell arms to human rights violators. Why is this? Some reasons include:

--No common set of accepted global standards
--Different interpretation of the codes of conduct
--Corruption and pressure

So who has profited the most from the arms trade? Interestingly enough, the big winners are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, France, Russia, China, UK, and the USA. The 5 countries combined are responsible for nearly 90 percent of known and reported conventional arms exports.

This quote by former President Jimmy Carter sums up this paradoxical situation,
“We can’t have it both ways. We can’t be both the world’s leading champion of peace and the world’s leading supplier of arms.”

So what has the Arms Control Campaign found out? First of all, there are legal loopholes that arms dealers can easily bypass, such as end-use limitations. Other ways including manufacturing arms in another country that does not have a ban. This is so easy because of the relative lack of accountability (and financial transparency)

Here are the basic rules. (I'll explain how they are demolished latter on.) To ensure that Arms authorized for export are delivered to the stated end user, as opposed to a human rights violator, most governments demand to see an end use certificate confirming this (by identifying where the weapons are going and for what purpose).

How to arms dealers bypass this and get weapons to most [read : any] client they want? For one thing, the licensing body doesn't have much power or ability at all. It is increasingly hard to verify an end-use certificate. What's more certificates are often obtained through corrupt channels. Either that or the information that the certificates state are simply false, or else the final destination stated is in fact merely a transit stop.

The final way to bypass (and probably one of the bigger operations) is simply to shift arms production to another country, to avoid national laws. For instance, the US government permits arms manufacturers to license the production of their arms and ammunition to other countries. Some of these countries have even weaker arms export regulations, greatly increasing the possibility of the arms being used to carry out atrocities, destroy livelihoods, etc.

Indeed, the Arms Trade Code of Conduct seems positive. After all, it prohibits military assistance and arms transfers to countries that do not respect human rights, engage in acts of armed aggresion, don't promote democracy, and do not participate in the UN Register of Conventional Arms.

However, there are loopholes. For instance, the code allows presidential exemptions based on either US national security interests or an external situation that requires the US to provide military assistance, or transfer arms. Congress does have the option to vote down any presidential waiver, provided there is a 2/3 majority vote against it.

Oftentimes arms contractors will maintain that in order to foster good relations with other countries and create more jobs at home, arms sales are essential to the well-being of a country.

However... when developing new weapons, the rationale used is that other countries have sophisticated weapons, and those weapons are often the same ones that these arms manufactors sold to them. This makes for a very convenient circular argument supporting the devopment and manufacturing of newer and more technologically advanced weapons.

And in addition, here's another hard fact of life. Painting other countries in an unfavorable light so you can sell even more arms to others does not (contrary to the opinions of the arms industry) foster good relations.

Oftentimes, manufacturing operations required for the weapons are actually moved abroad, and manufacturers will often point out that sales help create jobs. Obviously true, just in another nation.


Yeah, arms trade has been going on for centuries. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that China must follow the footsteps of the previous superpowers before who basically helped make the world the fucked up (political) way it is today.

[adeptitus]

I think it's a bit BS for them to complain about truck sales...

In terms of global arms trade, the most expensive items are usually the least threatening to people's lives. What kills more people than tanks and airplanes is cheap small arms. Assault rifles and pistols (not even heavy machineguns) are the #1 tool in killing people in conflicts around the world today.

There are all kinds of international agreements on restricting sale of technology relating to missiles and "weapons of mass destruction". But the reality is that AK-47's kill more people in a day than all the deaths from ballistic missiles (i.e. SCUD) used in Gulf War I.

Instead of complaining about trucks, they should be looking for arms merchants supplying third world conflicts with cheap small arms and ammunition.

[pngwerume]

When I saw this thread the day it was posted, I had to hold back from replying, but I am glad the general opinion is in line with my thinking. I don't support wars as much as I get fascinated by the ingenuity of weaponry.

Close to my heart is the West arming and supporting the Apartheid South African government – with even nuclear weapons.

The conflict in the DRC, with the US backing Uganda and Rwanda to invade and pillage another country – killings millions and displacing even more millions since 1998. Even fact this goes back 20-30 years earlier.

THIS IS HYPOCRISY. China is not something that ALL OF THEM ARE NOT DOING. If we are to address the problem (IT IS A PROBLEM THAT GENUINLY EXISTS), let us be even handed.

[FuManChu]

THIS IS HYPOCRISY. China is not something that ALL OF THEM ARE NOT DOING. If we are to address the problem (IT IS A PROBLEM THAT GENUINLY EXISTS), let us be even handed.

How is it hypocritical of Amnesty International to complain? It complained about the UK selling hawk jets to Indonesia (if I remember correctly). No one gets let off.

Is this an interesting example of how some people associate all non-Chinese criticism of the PRC with Western governments?

[Finn McCool]

I think that it some cases arms sales are both a valueable tool of state policy and can prevent war. For example, the United States used arms sales as a component of its containment strategy during the Cold War. And I think we can all agree that the containment and eventual fall of the Soviet Union was a good thing. The US also used arms sales to protect Israel, a democratic country with a good human rights record. Those sales might have saved the Jews from a second Holocaust. Secondly, think about how many wars that could start today are only prevented by the balance of power between the possible combatants. India-Pakistan, Taiwan-China, Korea, Turkey-Greece, Iran-US the list goes on and on. All of those countries have militaries made up mostly of foreign equipment. Lastly, think about how many of those countries would have atomic weaponry by now if they weren't satisfied with the conventional arms th

Look, I don't think we should be selling guns to everyone in th world, just making the point that this is a controversial issue.

[pngwerume]

FuManChu >>> I stand corrected. Amnesty International is NOT a Western government. My bad.

Finn McCool >>> My problem with "preventing communism" is/was it was done AT ALL COSTS with disregard of what the natives (I am talking of Africa here) wanted. And the dictators who safe guarded the Western values are people the West cannot face to admit that they put them in power.

[Kampfwagen]

Finn McCool: It was not just Africa. The Middle East (Iran, Afghanistan), and in South America and Asia. It was all over the place. The Soviets did their share too. Although I am sure you knew all about this, I feel it is important to show the scope instead of focusing on one area.

Adeptious: A good idea, but the arms sale is massive. There arent just stores where you can buy this sort of thing. In some nations, you can buy an AK-47 off of a street corner. In America, a 16 year old person could buy a 9MM handgun from a homless man on the street. An RPG from the Iraqi army can easily fall into the hands of an Insurgent, and a criminal with a buddy in the army can sell a few stolen weapons. It is just impossible to track these sorts of sales. Saturday Night Specials can be sold to anyone at any time, and can be practicaly anything. I remember seeing something where a drug-trafficer in Miami was offered a Submarine from the Soviet navy. When he asked the price, he was told "Is that with, or without Cruise Missiles?"

The Illegal Arms market is getting crazy now days.

[FuManChu]

The Illegal Arms market is getting crazy now days.

All the more reason for China to do something about legal sales to dodgy regimes then. If it continues to spread stuff around, who's not to say that it won't be on the receiving end of some grief due to the illegal market sucking up the kind of stuff it sells in the first place?

[Roger604]

All the more reason for China to do something about legal sales to dodgy regimes then. If it continues to spread stuff around, who's not to say that it won't be on the receiving end of some grief due to the illegal market sucking up the kind of stuff it sells in the first place?

How can you criticize China and those "dodgy regimes" when these people were exploited under colonialism by the European powers and had their pride and traditional way of life taken from them?

[FuManChu]

How can you criticize China and those "dodgy regimes" when these people were exploited under colonialism by the European powers and had their pride and traditional way of life taken from them?

Well first of all I (nor my ancestors) didn't do any colonising in those places, so I can criticise as I wish.

Second your point is absolutely irrelevant as to why I would criticise them today.

Third you're off-topic, so I'm not going to play your little game. :off

EDIT: isthvan, I feel the same way - thanks for saying it, when I edited my comments out.

[isthvan]

How can you criticize China and those "dodgy regimes" when these people were exploited under colonialism by the European powers and had their pride and traditional way of life taken from them?

You must be kidding me? Yes blame does bloody Europeans for every fucked-up thing in World today…
Can you possibly tell me that Europe is guilty for every African war, for every African man, woman or childe that was killed or starving in last 50 years? That does not have any thing whit corrupt government, tribal or religious hatred, population expansion and non existent food production mixed whit f….. up economy?

Common you can’t blame Europe forever for every shit that happens in the World today. Yes Europe has done horrible things in the past but you can joust stop whit noble savage crap and look at world from more realistic point of view…

So please sell them all guns you can so they can kill they one citizens and then blame Europe.

Ps. I know that this is O.T. so mods sorry but I am pretty much sick of hearing about neo colonialism and bad west…

[Kampfwagen]

It is true that colonialisim and the cold war did harm alot of nations by playing favorites, but an AK-47 can not kill someone of it's own will, as it has none. It's centuries of tribal rivalry that causes one African to shoot another, as so blatantly illustrated by Idi Amin's Uganda and Rawanda.

But please, let us try and steer this thing back towards the topic. I just did not want to be accused of fermenting this sort of 'Anti-West Colonialisim' that some seem to beleve some of us have.

[Gollevainen]

Lets all keep our temperament down and focus on the issue. Next "opener" will receive a wanrning!

[akinkhoo]

selling weapons to questionable countries is indeed a problem.
but it is really part of china's much larger foreign relations policies...

---

china's policy has always been to not judge another country's internal affairs... this means they officially declares that they will be "closing an eye". this is the real conflicting point between sino-us foreign issues.

the US like other western power use their unwillingness to sell to "rogue state" to pressure those countries into either accepting western style governing or that they will not get military, economy, infrastructure or in short any kind of help. (at least from the government, NPO is free to help).

the above system fails when china is willing to assist...
why china does so and go against the west are for 2 reasons:

it does not want western style government to dominate the rest of the world as it will lead to the same kind of pressure to be applied on china.
it wants to improve international standing with the rest of the world as a credible and dependable supplier that does not use it's economic power politically.


and since those nation were able to gain assistance via china, they would be be pressured by western power, and therefore, western power feel that china is being uncooperative in promoting western ideas...

china cannot adopt democracy, the population distribution means that the one popular with farmers will win, and we will likely see a MORE communistic government in power... so unless the west adopt a more understanding view that "democracy is not a 1 fit all solution", china will continue to need to use the "close 1 eye" policy to maintain status quo.

it should be noted that china does not provide ONLY military sales. they also help build factories, railroad and infrastructure to help these countries grow. it also help china export some of it's labour force, lower china's unempolyment rate and improve chinese exposure to development project.

---

do i even make sense? i am just talking crap here... :rofl:

[FuManChu]

do i even make sense? i am just talking crap here...

You seem to be saying that China is exporting arms to dodgy regimes, to keep those undemocratic and repressive governments in power to halt the advance of democracy, lest the CCP be pressured to give up its monopoly on power as well.

Right or wrong?

[Roger604]

You seem to be saying that China is exporting arms to dodgy regimes, to keep those undemocratic and repressive governments in power to halt the advance of democracy, lest the CCP be pressured to give up its monopoly on power as well.

Right or wrong?

Only if "democracy" means a system that blatantly privileges countries with white people, keeps non-white countries poor by controlling their political and economic affairs, and finally seeks to smack down any potential non-white nation from being a superpower.

Yeah, non-whites really want your "democracy."

[FuManChu]

Roger, I would like to refer you to Golle's last red message. Please get back on topic or go take your prejudices elsewhere. :off

If its causing that much trouble then I think we close the thread. You can ask the Senior Mods to re-open if they think its worth it

Sampan