Posted on 05/26/2004 4:14:37 PM PDT by Willie Green
For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.
The Aerospace Industries Association policy statement on the possible lifting of the China arms embargo that Americans had a right to expect:
“Several European Union (EU) member states are seeking termination of sanctions that prohibit defense equipment sales to China The measure were imposed following the Tiananmen Square killings in 1989. The United States, which administers similar sanctions on China defense sales, has urged the Europeans to keep theirs.
“The Aerospace Industries Association strongly believes that militarily strengthening a country with a vast potential power, a dictatorial regime, and a highly uncertain geopolitical future, would gravely endanger global security and, eventually, our own commercial success. Consequently, AIA urges Washington to exert maximum pressure on the EU to maintain its sanctions, and pledges to use the considerable influence it possesses in Europe as a major employer of EU workers to support the U.S. government´s efforts.”
The Aerospace Industries Association policy statement on the possible lifting of the China arms embargo that we got:
“Several European Union (EU) member states are seeking termination of sanctions that prohibit defense equipment sales to China. The measures were imposed following the Tiananmen Square demonstrations in 1989. The United States, which maintains similar sanctions on China defense sales, has urged the Europeans to maintain theirs.
“AIA believes that if the European Union alters its policy and the United States doesn´t, there could be a significant negative impact on the U.S. defense industrial base....If the EU refuses to maintain an absolute ban on sales to China, AIA will urge the U.S. government to lift its ban....”
(Source: “U.S. and Europe Eye Action on China Defense Trade Sanctions,” AIA Update, May 2004, p. 4. Courtesy of William R. Hawkins, USBIC)
Alan Tonelson is a Research Fellow at the U.S. Business & Industry Educational Foundation and the author of The Race to the Bottom: Why a Worldwide Worker Surplus and Uncontrolled Free Trade are Sinking American Living Standards (Westview Press).
ping
It is understandable that the U.S. aerospace industry would take this position. As usual, the weak link is the absence of scruples on the part of the Eurinpeein aerospace industry.
IMHO, you should take a closer look for a "weak link" and "absence of scruples".
At one time this country had the intellect to stay ahead of this kinda crap by the greedy Europeans and Japan, but I question whether that's the case anymore. The Second Cold War with China is "on" in earnest and we may be on our own if we can't hold the line on sales of export-controlled technology from our so-called "allies."
All the scruples and principles of Boeing are concentrated in the southeast corner of its balance sheet. Ask anybody in Seattle.
"...and they will sell us the rope with which we will HANG them..."
Seattle is the COMMERCIAL side of Boeing.
St Louis is the military side, though some of the F-22 (Training) is run out of Seattle.
Seattle is where Boeing has dumped its ex-employee factory workers.
Boeing is getting out of the aircraft manufacturing business, so, deserves none of our military business.
Oh, and making C-17's and pushing to sell many more of those too.
11 - As I said, Boeing is getting out of the aircraft manufacturing business. It has not been widely publicized, but it has been publicized.
Boeing will no longer manufacture aircraft or parts. They are selling off all their manufacturing capabilities, and offshoring them too.
Boeing is going to become an 'integrator', and will only 'assemble' parts made by other manufacturers.
As an example, you say "The commercial side in Seattle is pushing hard for the 7E7 "Dreamliner." "
Sort of true, except that boeing will only assemble the parts for it, and will only use about 700 Boeing personnel for a whole new generation of passenger aircraft.
Many of the new Boeing parts which they will 'assemble' are now being made in China, so I am adamantly against giving Boeing any new military contracts.
Of course, you meant to say "Chicago," which merely goes to prove your point....
I'm a bit more hopeful now that Phil Condom is gone, though.
Chicago is HQ--but Seattle is where the massive layoffs are occurring.
Condit was a creep. Not quite as bad as Lay of Enron, nor as bad as the Arthur Andersen crowd, ---but there are a LOT of good questions McCain has raised about Boeing's lease-deal for refueling aircraft (which apparently is now dead.)
Ike was right: be very skeptical of the military-industrial complex.
Well, yes.... it was an oblique reference to your "bottom line" comment.
As for McCain's questions -- some are valid, but I can't help but wonder whose pocket he's in.
I don't trust McCain at all, but in the case at hand, the facts spoke for themselves pretty clearly. I suspect that the deal had some influence on Condit's resignation.
BTW, this AM I saw a news story involving Boeing. Apparently an ex(?)-Boeing employee and Ernst & Young are running around the country offering seminars on "how to clean the pockets of your State and Local Governments"...
Whatta country, eh?
Which parts?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.