{
  "id": "RL32870",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL32870",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 311906,
      "date": "2006-01-26",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:17:10.040029",
      "title": "European Union's Arms Embargo on China: Implications and Options for U.S. Policy",
      "summary": "The European Union (EU) has been considering lifting its arms embargo on China, which was\nimposed in response to the June 1989 Tiananmen Crackdown. France, Germany, and other EU\nmembers claim that the embargo hinders the development of a \"strategic partnership\" with China. \nThe Bush Administration and Members of Congress strongly oppose an end to the EU's arms\nembargo and urge stronger arms export controls. The United States contends that engagement with\nChina need not send the wrong signals on China's human rights record and military buildup that\nthreatens a peaceful resolution of Taiwan and other Asian issues.\n The EU argues that the arms embargo -- which is not legally binding -- is weak and largely\nsymbolic. Indeed, some EU members reportedly have allowed defense-related exports to China\nunder the arms embargo. While such sales have raised questions about the effectiveness of the EU's\narms embargo on China, they also point to the potential for future sales of military equipment or\ntechnology to China, particularly without the political restraint of the embargo. EU governments,\nled by the United Kingdom, stress that if and when the embargo is overturned, its end would be\naccompanied by a stronger EU arms export control regime -- including an enhanced EU Code of\nConduct on Arms Exports -- that will improve accountability and better control arms sales to China\nand elsewhere. U.S. critics, however, remain skeptical that even a tighter EU Code will contain\nsufficient enforcement and transparency mechanisms to dissuade EU countries from exporting\nadvanced defense technologies that could enhance China's military buildup and ultimately threaten\ncommon U.S., European, and Asian interests in peace and stability.\n All 25 EU member states must agree before the embargo can be overturned. Although many\nobservers had expected that the EU would lift the embargo in the spring of 2005, some members\ngrew hesitant amid vocal and high-level U.S. opposition, especially since early 2005. Those arguing\nagainst lifting the embargo have cited persistent human rights problems in China, including a refusal\nto reexamine the Tiananmen Crackdown, and China's adoption in March 2005 of its \"Anti-Secession\nLaw\" warning of a possible use of force against Taiwan. At present, ending the arms embargo on\nChina does not appear to be high on the EU's agenda. Still, the EU is politically committed to\noverturning the embargo, and many observers believe that its end is ultimately only a matter of time. \nIn the meantime, U.S. diplomacy could be effective, and the disagreement presents a chance for\ncloser coordination of U.S.-European policies, including those dealing with arms export controls and\na rising China.\n Overall, there are two sets of questions for Congress in examining U.S. policy toward the fate\nof the EU's arms embargo on China. What are the implications for U.S. interests in trans-Atlantic\nrelations and China? If U.S. interests are adversely affected, what are some options for Congress\nto discourage the EU from lifting its arms embargo on China and, if it is lifted, to protect U.S.\nnational security interests in both Asia and Europe? Issues raised by these questions are the subject\nof this CRS Report. This report will be updated as warranted.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32870",
          "sha1": "067fb6fa747e88c929493119183459c91afdd1f4",
          "filename": "files/20060126_RL32870_067fb6fa747e88c929493119183459c91afdd1f4.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32870",
          "sha1": "38435fb1217d4580f1f40947d9a5fe809931f76a",
          "filename": "files/20060126_RL32870_38435fb1217d4580f1f40947d9a5fe809931f76a.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs7442/",
      "id": "RL32870 2005-05-27",
      "date": "2005-05-27",
      "retrieved": "2005-10-18T14:21:41",
      "title": "European Union\u2019s Arms Embargo on China: Implications and Options for U.S. Policy",
      "summary": "Overall, there are two sets of questions for Congress in examining U.S. policy toward the fate of the EU\u2019s arms embargo on China. What are the implications for U.S. interests in trans-Atlantic relations and China? If U.S. interests are adversely affected, what are some options for Congress to discourage the EU from lifting its arms embargo on China and, if it is lifted, to protect U.S. national security interests in both Asia and Europe? Issues raised by these questions are the subject of this CRS Report.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20050527_RL32870_6a3e95ae712748cb459de7fb4c6d5ebc7da04e63.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20050527_RL32870_6a3e95ae712748cb459de7fb4c6d5ebc7da04e63.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": [
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Weapons systems",
          "name": "Weapons systems"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Foreign relations - China - U.S.",
          "name": "Foreign relations - China - U.S."
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Foreign relations - U.S. - China",
          "name": "Foreign relations - U.S. - China"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Arms control agreements - European Union",
          "name": "Arms control agreements - European Union"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Arms sales - European Union - China",
          "name": "Arms sales - European Union - China"
        },
        {
          "source": "LIV",
          "id": "Trade",
          "name": "Trade"
        },
        {
          "source": "KWD",
          "id": "European Union",
          "name": "European Union"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department",
      "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc818868/",
      "id": "RL32870_2005Apr15",
      "date": "2005-04-15",
      "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26",
      "title": "European Union\u2019s Arms Embargo on China: Implications and Options for U.S. Policy",
      "summary": null,
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORT",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "filename": "files/20050415_RL32870_91cfea05d1076d12c778cd91a6c080bcbf9c3e25.pdf"
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20050415_RL32870_91cfea05d1076d12c778cd91a6c080bcbf9c3e25.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Foreign Affairs",
    "Intelligence and National Security",
    "National Defense"
  ]
}