Amnesty - China arms sales 'fuel conflicts'

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


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.
Click to expand...

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.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
E

Ender Wiggin

Junior Member
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.
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
Ender Wiggin said:
Quite frankly China isnt doing anything that other countries arent already doing to other even more irresponsible countries.
Click to expand...

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

isthvan

Tailgunner
VIP Professional
FuManChu said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

FuManChu said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
isthvan said:
As human right organization Amnesty International is one of few international organizations whit some credibility.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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

Roger604

Senior Member
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.]
 
O

ordinary dude

New Member
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!
 
D

Deleted member 675

Guest
ordinary dude said:
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"
Click to expand...

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!
Click to expand...

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

Kampfwagen

Junior Member
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top