The lifting of the fifteen-year old EU arms embargo enforced on China in the wake of the Tiananmen Square incident during 1989 caught the attention of the world with opinions divided for and against the decision. The European Union imposed its arms embargo on China on 27 June 1989 following European Council Declaration on China in Madrid on 26-27 June 1989.  The United States too forced sanctions on arms sales to China in tandem with the European Union, and those reasons remain valid to this day. But, the EU's latest decision to relax its embargo has kicked off a major debate among the major countries, which may lead to a trans-Atlantic divide and may perhaps even widen the present gap between EU and US.

The decision came to center stage at the 7th annual EU-China Summit in the Netherlands last year. A joint EU-China statement declared that "the EU side confirmed its political will to continue to work towards lifting the embargo." Germany and France have politically invested so much in the lifting of the embargo that it is impossible to imagine their agreeing not to move forward. Other EU members, including Britain, have made clear they will not stand in the way. But the European Parliament did not support this move. Members of European Parliament called on the EU Council and member states to maintain the EU embargo on China and not to weaken the existing national sanctions on such arm sales. However, European leaders argue that China does not deserve to be grouped with the other embargoed nations like Zimbabwe and Myanmar, and that "Europe has no intention of increasing arms sales to China."

President Bush has voiced concerns that the end of the embargo "could skew the military balance between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan." Lawmakers in Washington also threatened to curtail defense cooperation with Europe if it proceeds ahead. The US House of Representatives  approved a resolution on 2 February this year calling on "the EU to maintain its arms embargo against China and urging Bush to make clear that concern during his recent meetings" by a vote of 411-3. European advocates of lifting the embargo have pointed to the EU Code of Conduct, which places some limits on sales of arms to China. The US is of the opinion that the EU Code of Conduct is not sufficient and is not legally binding, it cannot be considered a substitute to control arms sales to China. In general, Americans are not pleased with this change in EU policy. Already Australia and Japan have expressed their unhappiness with the EU's policy change. Israel, which has established itself as a major exporter of high-technology items to Beijing, said, "it was weighing how to reposition in the face of new competition." Russia has not formally opposed the EU's plans, but according to Andrei Zagorski, a Russian security expert, "Russia wants to be consulted if the embargo is lifted."

While the major Governments have opined on this issue, it is surprising to note the silence of India on the European Union's moves. Having established a 'strategic partnership' with the EU, India is entitled to speak up on an issue that expresses both its concern for democracy and its security. According to Brahma Chellaney, "while the US and Japan exert pressure on the EU, India quietly watches from the sidelines the outcome of an issue with significant implications for Indian security. If China gets state-of-the-art weapon systems, the balance of power across Asia would be undermined and India's security would come under greater pressure." Even though India has not decided on buying the US Patriot antimissile system, China was quick to react to reports of India-US discussions in this regard, warning that such a sale would not be favorable for the preservation of peace and stability in the region. But, when the EU contemplates selling sophisticated arms and technology to Beijing, Chellaney says, "India does not say a word on the move's potential impact on peace and stability, or about the need for China to come clean on its illicit nuclear transfers to Pakistan and missile sales to Islamabad and Tehran."

However, there are reasons for India's silence. India may not like to take a stand either for or against the EU, US and China because of its growing relations with all of them. It must be understood that India has started engaging EU in various developmental activities. India is trying to refurbish its relations with China. With Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao's visit to India on the cards next month, India may not want to upset China.