He said he had discussed with French and British leaders the prospect of the EU lifting an arms embargo on Beijing, and both had sought to assure him they had a plan to avoid such technology transfers.
Pointing up difficulties to come, Bush then said the Europeans would need to convince the U.S. Congress that such fears were unfounded. On this, it is very much Congress which is making the running. With the focus on the president, commentators often tend to forget this and, at the moment, neither House is in an accommodating mood.
Meanwhile, the state newspaper, China Daily is offering its own perspective on the “EU and US”, through the eyes of its commentator “Yapchongyee”.
Written in the first person, he (I assume) declares that President Bush has "LOST FACE" (all capitals in the original) on the issue of the EU wanting to lift the embargo on the export of arms to China.
"I have said before", he continues, "and it is now fact that the issue would have exposed the INDEPENDANCE OF THE EU FROM AMERICAN MEDDLING; and such exposure would have added to the diminishment of the STATUS AND PERCEPTION OF THE USA AS A SUPER-POWER OF THE WORLD."
Bush, we are told, "must have realised that the word of the USA does not have the same respect from the EU as they were used to," with "Yapchongyee" adding:
The USA is not the so called exceptional and virtueous AND BENEVOLENT nation that the USA sees as their heritage. The USA is today seen as the greatest PREDATOR IMPERIAL POWER IN THE MODERN WORLD. The USA aspires to be the WORLD GOVERNMENT and to achieve this the Bush Administeration (sic) sought to under mine the United Nations and to eventually destroy the United Nations; hence the GLOATING OF DON RUMSFELD'S DIVISIVE STATEMENT OF OLD EUROPE AND NEW EUROPE in his dispute with France and Germany.And so it goes on. “New Eu members like Poland and lithuania and Romania, thinking that they can gain by allying with the USA are now leaving in double quick time. The reality of today's geo-economic and political is fast shifting away from a dominant USA; and I believe that this reality is dawning on the 'OLD EUROPEANS'".
Yapchongyee also has some advice for the Europeans:
The fact of this reality is that the EU means to realise their own place in the world community; and contrary to the USA's thinking the EU does not mean to sub-ordinate their ambitions to promote their own-eminence. The rise of the European Union will logically DIMINISH THE IMPORTANCE AND THE USA; this is inevitable because the resources of the world is limited and fast diminishing. It therfore becomes a zero sum game. THE EU CAN CHOOSE ONLY ONE COURSE 'TAKE IT OR LOSE IT TO THE USA OR ASIA.'And then we get to his “analysis” which "clearly mark (sic) out the world as multipolar in fact; and it will be centered at BRUSSELS, BEIGIN AND WASHINGTON. Each for himself. There are no allies and no enemies, you pick a partner that will give you the best profit." He concludes that, having watched the TV appearance of President Jac Chirac and President Bush; while their appearance were openly cordial; he noticed: "THAT THE SMILE OF PRESIDENT JAC CHIRAC WAS NOT WARM, HE WAS ACCOMMODATING AND RESERVED."
"This tells me," writes Yapchongyee, "that the defferences (sic) between the two are more entrenched than the Western Media would have us believe."
And this is the country with which the EU wants a "strategic partnership".