China under The Wassenaar Arrangement Restriction. Options

[antimatter]

This is the about dual use technology restrictions formed by group of countries. The members are
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

================================================== ===

Take a look at the list, and think, CHina, soon to be number 2 biggest and one of the most impoertant economies in the world has to subject to this type of restriction. What's Estonia, Malta, Romania, Slovakia ..et doing there?? And I see communist countries inside too.

I only see asian countries there, Korea and Japan the two supposedly well behaved Asian model citizens according to the west.

Is this some kind of exclusive club??

http://www.wassenaar.org/introduction/index.html

Do you think it's comical and a farce? Something serious wrong with the picture?

If you take a look at that list, with exceptions of few exceptional minority model countries that follow the west... I tempting to use the word racist.

obviously, with Russia being a member, one of hard core dictatorship communist country.. So, this tells me it has nothing to do with ideologies.
Communist and Democratic. Race is a much bigger factor.

[sinraptor]

When ever the west has ever tried to exclde China, China always finds a way to compensate. For example when the US did not allow China into the international space station, China is now working on its own space station, when US did not want to share GPS, China builds COMPASS and has a stake in Galileo

[antimatter]

Obviously race plays an important card to the club's membership.
I think this type of exclusive club exposed the white power stucture that needed to be exposed and condemned.

With the exception of UncleToms of korea and japan, majority of the asian countries are excluded from the club too.

This post has been edited by antimatter: Jun 20 2009, 12:34 PM

[sinraptor]

Obviously race plays an important card to the club's membership.
I think this type of exclusive club exposed the white power stucture that needed to be exposed and condemned,

i say who cares, not that we need to join their club anyways. China is a superpower and as a superpower China should not be affected by such

[antimatter]

i say who cares, not that we need to join their club anyways. China is a superpower and as a superpower China should not be affected by such

CHina is not a superpower yet. Can you name one Chinese powerhouse company that's strong in the semiconductor field?

anyway, that's besides the point. Such club is not political correct, CHina should call up and organize other excluded members to fight for it.

[Eidolon]

This is the about dual use technology restrictions formed by group of countries. The members are
Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

================================================== ===

Take a look at the list, and think, CHina, soon to be number 2 biggest and one of the most impoertant economies in the world has to subject to this type of restriction. What's Estonia, Malta, Romania, Slovakia ..et doing there?? And I see communist countries inside too.

I only see asian countries there, Korea and Japan the two supposedly well behaved Asian model citizens according to the west.

Is this some kind of exclusive club??

http://www.wassenaar.org/introduction/index.html

Do you think it's comical and a farce? Something serious wrong with the picture?

If you take a look at that list, with exceptions of few exceptional minority model countries that follow the west... I tempting to use the word racist.

obviously, with Russia being a member, one of hard core dictatorship communist country.. So, this tells me it has nothing to do with ideologies.
Communist and Democratic. Race is a much bigger factor.

It is a strategic multi-lateral agreement to keep non-member countries from receiving technology that might upset the current geo-strategic environment. Whether it is racist or not is really irrelevant - it is designed to maintain the technological lead of the countries in question in terms of military advantage and is therefore nationalistic, above all. Japan and South Korea are on there for obvious reasons - they are direct recipients of US and EU military/dual-use technology.

Crying about how unfair it is shows that you do not understand the nature of the real world, in which the fundamental process is the competition between nations for their own interests. The countries on that list likely perceive that they have something to lose if China emerges as a military superpower; consequently, China is not part of the club. If China doesn't like this fact, it can start its own club - provided that it has the technological lead necessary to attract member nations.

R&D is an area where China is currently weak, relatively speaking, compared to its rivals. It is naive to believe that competitors would not exploit this weakness.

This post has been edited by Eidolon: Jun 20 2009, 02:37 PM

[bigbomb]

you guys really misunderstand this. please spend at least five minutes reading their site before making your comments.

they are not just directed towards china. they have guidelines against terrorism and sale of small arms too. the actual export controls are implemented by each individual country. the inclusion of Russia tells you it's not a geopolitical "club" that shares among themselves but restricts others. It's just like one of those many "philanthropic" "feel good" organizations western countries love and J and K love to emulate.

the real teeth against china are the US arms embargo and EU arms embargo. these are specifically controlling exports to china citing the tiananmen incident. Wassenaar has nothing to do with those.

[Eidolon]

you guys really misunderstand this. please spend at least five minutes reading their site before making your comments.

they are not just directed towards china. they have guidelines against terrorism and sale of small arms too. the actual export controls are implemented by each individual country. the inclusion of Russia tells you it's not a geopolitical "club" that shares among themselves but restricts others. It's just like one of those many "philanthropic" "feel good" organizations western countries love and J and K love to emulate.

the real teeth against china are the US arms embargo and EU arms embargo. these are specifically controlling exports to china citing the tiananmen incident. Wassenaar has nothing to do with those.

Of course it's not just directed towards China. It's also directed towards the Middle-East, Africa, Latin America, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and so on. I'm simply talking about how it applies to China.

It's mostly a "we have the technology and you don't" club, and is so by design - after all, you don't need to include states that aren't capable of distributing high technology in the first place. But its purpose is clear: don't spread military or dual-use technology around "irresponsibly." Since the members don't all see eye to eye, they can only implement relatively "loose" restrictions, which maintain each country's arms industries, but establishes some guidelines so as to not spread too much technology to where it might hurt their collective interests.

Military technology is one area that doesn't quite follow market rules. Certain countries maintain strategic monopolies, and other countries just have to deal with it.

This post has been edited by Eidolon: Jun 20 2009, 03:37 PM

[bigbomb]

^ China has far more military technology than most nations on that list. It's a feel good, "philanthropic" thing that other countries don't care about. I bet they'd love to expand the club to the whole world, but people outside the west and western emulators don't understand the appeal of this noble masturbation.

The Arrangement is open on a global and non-discriminatory basis to prospective adherents that comply with the agreed criteria. To be admitted, a state must: be a producer/exporter of arms or industrial equipment respectively; maintain non-proliferation policies and appropriate national policies, including adherence to relevant non-proliferation regimes and treaties; and maintain fully effective export controls. Although the Arrangement does not have an observer category, a diverse outreach policy is envisaged in order to inform non-member countries about the WA objectives and activities and to encourage non-members to adopt national policies consistent with the objectives of greater transparency and responsibility in transfers of conventional arms and dual-use goods and technologies, maintain fully effective export controls and adhere to relevant non-proliferation treaties and regimes.

guys, please use some intelligence and try to understand westerners better.

This post has been edited by bigbomb: Jun 20 2009, 03:52 PM

[Eidolon]

^ China has far more military technology than most nations on that list. It's a feel good, "philanthropic" thing that other countries don't care about. I bet they'd love to expand the club to the whole world, but people outside the west and western emulators don't understand the appeal of this noble masturbation.

guys, please use some intelligence and try to understand westerners better.

If it was about noble masturbation, why would Russia be on the list? Does Russia seem like that sort of country to you?

Don't take something at face value. Just like technology, treaties can be "dual-use" - meaning while there is some moral reasoning behind them, there are also geostrategic considerations. Treaties that restrict technology trade are seldom simply "feel good" doctrines. China isn't part of this treaty for obvious reasons - China sells technology to countries that the members of this treaty would not approve of - but China is also, itself, a target of the restrictions. That is what I mean by "the club" - the set of high-technology nations that are ultimately threatened by the diminishing of their technological advantage through trade, and who are often the primary backers of restrictions.

The fact that you would read this treaty and "automatically" think "feel good philanthropy" signals to me the effectiveness of Western liberal propaganda. The contrast is clear - on that thread about NK nukes people were quick to point out that China does not support nuclear proliferation because it wants to retain its nuclear advantage in Asia. Yet, when the West does it, it's "feel good philanthropy?" Less rose-tinted glasses, please. The West supports restrictions on military/dual-use technology transfers for similar reasons. It's all part of the game.

This post has been edited by Eidolon: Jun 20 2009, 04:17 PM

[bigbomb]

did you see a recent documentary by Russia Today about chinese peasants benefiting from their nuclear technology? you have to cry for what has become of the russians. they suck face towards europe as much as J and K.

I totally believe everyone restricts tech transfer to everyone else. it's just that wassenaar isn't the vehicle to do it. Russia is going to sell to China and India using their own geopolitical calculation. Wassenaar is directed at the third world, so its club can feel like they are responsible, noble people. If we get mad at Wassenaar, we're misdirectiing our rage and looking like fools.

This post has been edited by bigbomb: Jun 20 2009, 04:20 PM

[Eidolon]

did you see a recent documentary by Russia Today about chinese peasants benefiting from their nuclear technology? you have to cry for what has become of the russians. they suck face towards europe as much as J and K.

I totally believe everyone restricts tech transfer to everyone else. it's just that wassenaar isn't the vehicle to do it. Russia is going to sell to China and India using their own geopolitical calculation. Wassenaar is directed at the third world, so its club can feel like they are responsible, noble people. If we get mad at Wassenaar, we're misdirectiing our rage and looking like fools.

I do not think the Russians have pussified to that degree. Regarding your point about Wassenaar - of course it's no use raging about it. That's what I told antimatter. It's his surprise at the existence of such a treaty that prompted my post. The truth is, treaties like these only provide a name for what happens de facto on the ground. That much I agree with you. As to what the true purpose of something like Wassenaar is - that's something where I think you are missing the point. Wassenaar "justifies" and "legalizes" tech restrictions - it's what makes the de facto, de jure, and is also a vehicle for organizing a multi-lateral agreement, which is in some sense necessary if tech restriction is to be successful on the whole.

This post has been edited by Eidolon: Jun 20 2009, 04:34 PM

[bigbomb]

countries don't need legal justification to control arms sales. japan can just say they sell to nobody, period, and that's exactly what they do.
wassenaar is the club that gives them guidelines, consensus, and mutual admiration. that's what it is. In practice the members have too many conflicting interests. wassenaar can only be directed at the third world where everyone's interest is the same -- we shall feel good we are being considerate of desperate people. Chinese don't have this type of interest, Chinese interest is, we shall enter the markets where others are shunning them. This is why China is not in the club.

This post has been edited by bigbomb: Jun 20 2009, 04:40 PM

[mkfk1]

As some members have already mention...Russia have no problem selling weapons to China or even Iran.

This club is just a feel good club. Didnt mean much in the geo politic scene.

The most disruptive act from the west to China is indeed the US+ EU arms embargo. This club is no where near the comparison of that.

[Eidolon]

countries don't need legal justification to control arms sales. japan can just say they sell to nobody, period, and that's exactly what they do.
wassenaar is the club that gives them guidelines, consensus, and mutual admiration. that's what it is. In practice the members have too many conflicting interests. wassenaar can only be directed at the third world where everyone's interest is the same -- we shall feel good we are being considerate of desperate people. Chinese don't have this type of interest, Chinese interest is, we shall enter the markets where others are shunning them. This is why China is not in the club.

I still don't get why you people continue to think that it's some sort of "feel good" club. A "feel good" treaty would be publicized and oft-cited, such that the countries in question could point to it and say, "look, we're responsible countries who care about the third world." Treaties in this category often involve the UN ("we abide by international law"), or are "big names" like the NPT. I've almost never seen Wassenaar mentioned by any news media or PR organization, which makes me think that its purpose is not really image-boosting.

Btw, Wassenaar is generally thought of as a successor to COCOM, a Cold War-era treaty that was targeted at East Bloc countries. Was COCOM "feel good" too?

As some members have already mention...Russia have no problem selling weapons to China or even Iran.

Before the economic crisis, the Russians were considering a cessation to high-technology weapons sales to China. I believe the reasoning they gave at the time was that China reverse engineers too many of their military products.

The most disruptive act from the west to China is indeed the US+ EU arms embargo. This club is no where near the comparison of that.

Eh, this is simply another version of that, applied to a broader set of targets, and with some differences in the list of signatories. But you're right, Wassenaar doesn't have the same power that those embargoes do.

This post has been edited by Eidolon: Jun 20 2009, 05:08 PM

[bigbomb]

It does have a secretive sounding name, and if it's really the successor of COCOM.....

I'm not saying I like it. Now they have a collective way to say "China proliferates, China doesn't abide by norms, China so bad" That's a geopolitical weapon in a sense.

The thing is, when Chinese official come up with this kind of attack, they have no idea how to deal with it. They just go like kaixin, "don't bother me, I'm poor, leave me alone!"

[delgrodel]

you guys really misunderstand this. please spend at least five minutes reading their site before making your comments.

they are not just directed towards china. they have guidelines against terrorism and sale of small arms too. the actual export controls are implemented by each individual country. the inclusion of Russia tells you it's not a geopolitical "club" that shares among themselves but restricts others. It's just like one of those many "philanthropic" "feel good" organizations western countries love and J and K love to emulate.

the real teeth against china are the US arms embargo and EU arms embargo. these are specifically controlling exports to china citing the tiananmen incident. Wassenaar has nothing to do with those.

Russia was admitted in 1996, when Boris Yeltsin was president and the country seemed poised to join "the West" on its global march for domination and establishment of a world government akin to the former Soviet Union. Predictably, neither the UK nor the US meet the criteria required for admittance of new members. Not exactly sure what "feel good" global organizations you're talking about...I don't think they exist outside of your imagination. However, what is questionable is the effectiveness of the organization in arms export control. Although, in the past, advanced stealth technology has been kept out of Chinese hands, it is difficult to gauge what precise role Wassenaar played in this.

[bigbomb]

what do you mean UK and US don't meet the criteria? you have any facts to back that up?
during 1996 was the height of russian arms sales to china.
why does USA need Wassenaar to keep stealth out of China? they don't even need any excuse to keep it out of Japan

[Eidolon]

It does have a secretive sounding name, and if it's really the successor of COCOM.....

I'm not saying I like it. Now they have a collective way to say "China proliferates, China doesn't abide by norms, China so bad" That's a geopolitical weapon in a sense.

The thing is, when Chinese official come up with this kind of attack, they have no idea how to deal with it. They just go like kaixin, "don't bother me, I'm poor, leave me alone!"

Don't get me wrong. Wassenaar is not really new and it's not some sort of secret NWO conspiracy. In fact, there are questions about its effectiveness. You can read more about it here:

http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol06/62/lipson62.pdf

My disagreement is with your contention that it's a strictly "feel good" treaty. Rather, I think it's a forum between the nations in question for organizing their technology transfer restrictions. The end goal, ultimately, is multi-lateral control of military/dual-use technology exports, particularly to states that are considered "pariahs"; how you interpret that depends on how cynical you are. To me, the membership list of a treaty says a lot about the different "camps" in the world. To this end, it might be interesting to note that according to the above cited article, when the treaty was originally founded in the 1990s, the Japanese hoped that China might become a founding member, but the US had no such expectations, and have not included China formally in the discussions.

This post has been edited by Eidolon: Jun 20 2009, 05:43 PM

[delgrodel]

what do you mean UK and US don't meet the criteria? you have any facts to back that up?

Violations of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

during 1996 was the height of russian arms sales to china.

So?

why does USA need Wassenaar to keep stealth out of China? they don't even need any excuse to keep it out of Japan

I was actually thinking of Russia.