Explaining The Dynamics Of European Union’s Arms Embargo On China

The arms embargo on the People’s Republic of China was introduced by theEuropean Union in1989. This embargo is symbolic in nature; it does not represent anobstacle to overall EU-China relations. Also, the embargo depends on two factors. One is theUnited States leverage on China, and the other is EU’s internal debate. The Sino-EU relationshave been significantly improved after the establishment of the2003comprehensive strategicpartnership between the EU and China. The comprehensive strategic partnership also broughtin new strength to the initiatives to lift the embargo on arms exports to China.An embargo can be defined in several ways, and they all imply the suspension ortermination of trade flows. An embargo is also a possible option for the European Union inits external relations. The scope of EU’s arms embargo on China is defined by the1998EUCode of Conduct on arms exports,2008Common EU Position on Arms exports and otherdocuments. The EU arms embargo on China is implemented through national interpretationsof individual EU member states; dual use technology concerns large portions of EU memberstates’ economies and is therefore a particularly important aspect of the embargo.In late2003, the Sino-EU relations have been elevated to comprehensive strategicpartnership status. European Parliament, as one of the most important EU institutions, hashad its say regarding the arms embargo on several occasions (although non-binding, itsresolutions were in support of the embargo). The positions of individual EU member stateswere influenced by internal developments and in accordance with their national interests;their perceptions of China determined their stance regarding the arms embargo. As a result,the2004-2005and2011initiatives to lift the embargo yielded no result. The arms embargoissue was referred to during the2013signing of UN Arms Trade Treaty-the right to sign thetreaty remained the exclusive privilege of members of the UN. Additional reason for the EU arms embargo to remain in place was the US support. The United States introduced in1989its own sanctions on arms sales to China, which were also codified. The US opposition tolifting had remained strong regardless of the incumbent administration for the past twodecades; as the initiatives within the EU to lift the embargo became more frequent andintense (after EU and China established comprehensive strategic partnership in2003), the USopposition to lifting the embargo became more intense, at times even forcing its EU partnersto choose between cooperation with China and further flourishing of trans-Atlantic ties.The EU’s arms embargo on China has left some impact on overall Sino-EU relations,mostly in the political sphere. The importance of the embargo is symbolic, and it wouldrequire political will among the EU member states to lift it. As soon as the arms embargo hadbeen removed, the Sino-EU relations would be allowed to experience a truly unrestraineddevelopment (even though as a consequence of1998EU Code of Conduct and2008EUCommon Position on arms exports, the Sino-European exchange of most advanced defencetechnologies would still be unlikely). Also, as reforms and modernisation in China ineconomic and social sphere proceed, as China increases soft power through cooperation andcommon viewpoints with all EU member states (on issues such as global warming, energysecurity or fight against terrorism) and nurtures ties with all EU member states, thefoundation for lifting of the arms embargo might be laid.