Illustration: Liu Rui/GT

British Prime Minister David Cameron announced his resignation after the British people voted 51.9 percent to 48.1 percent to leave the EU last month. Among a slew of consequences brought by Brexit, will it set off discussions within the EU on lifting the arms embargo on China?

Since then European Community operated the embargo in 1989, the symbolic ban has become the last obstacle in deepening the comprehensive development of Sino-EU relations.

The EU considered removing the embargo during 2003-05 when it interacted well with China and the two sides established the comprehensive strategic partnership. But it ended up with no-decision over the subject given the divided opinions within the EU and firm opposition from the US.

In this process, the UK played a major role. The UK had been ambivalent on whether to lift the ban and failed to stand together with France and Germany, the three dominant countries in the bloc, to push through a lift of the ban.

The failed attempt is related to the US stance. Washington worried that lifting the ban would enable China to grow stronger militarily and threaten the US dominance in the Asia-Pacific region or even the world, so it threatened to impose sanctions on EU countries and companies that imported weapons to China. The UK military industry would bear the brunt as it relied on the US more than any other EU country and it was granted priority for obtaining US military technologies in September, 2004.

If the UK supported lifting the arms embargo on China, it would lose the special treatment by the US and its military industry would be hit hardest by US sanctions. So UK defense industry pressured the government into persuading other EU members to take no decision on the embargo.    

After the Brexit, there is still little possibility of an end to the embargo. The EU, baffled by multiple concerns, can hardly put the embargo issue on the agenda any time soon. It is now confronted with the crises of European debt, the war in Ukraine and migration as well as intensified terror threat, which jeopardize the immediate interests of European people. It has a series of urgent issues to handle so as to ensure the cohesion of its members and retain the achievements of European integration.

Back then, the EU's no-decision on the embargo was partly because it didn't want to further erode the cohesion of its members after French and Dutch voters rejected the EU Constitution in 2005. As the EU desperately needs to safeguard internal solidarity and consistency now, it will hardly talk about the lifting of the embargo at this point.

Yet if the EU now ends the arms ban on China, the UK and the US would intensify their cooperation on military technologies and the arms market of Europe would be marginalized. Insistent on retaining EU arms embargo on China, the US threatened that it would sanction companies and countries that violated the ban, and would reduce US arms sales to these countries, while the Pentagon would not have any trade with the countries and companies for five years after the ban was lifted.

Hence if the arms embargo is terminated now, the UK will benefit most as it may have closer military cooperation with the US and take over the portion of military trade previously held by the EU.

Moreover, the US rebalance to Asia-Pacific and regional tensions like the South China Sea disputes are not facilitating the ban-lifting. Over a decade ago, Washington was concerned that lifting the embargo on the Chinese mainland would break the balance across the Straits. Eventually the EU kept the ban, citing that the Anti-Secession Law by the Chinese government didn't give up on military means to address the Taiwan question. As tensions are simmering over the South China Sea, bringing up the embargo issue would invite strong objection from the US.

Under these circumstances, Brexit is unlikely to prompt the EU to lift its arms embargo on China. If anything, it may make support for the ban stronger.

The author is a lecturer at the School of Political Science and Public Administration, Shandong University. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn