BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
China can’t be ignored

Europe has a developing strategic partnership with China. China is Europe’s largest trading partner with EU exports in goods of €113.1billiion and imports of €281.9billion and in services of €20.2billion and €16.3billion respectively,[1] and as China's rapid growth continues it is playing an increasingly important part in the global economy and in international affairs. Clearly it is in the EU's interests to work together with this emerging superpower. Ma Zhaoxu a Foreign Ministry spokesman called it ‘the obstacle to the sound growth of the China-EU relationship,’[2] after more than fifteen years, it is time to lift it. China has repeatedly said that it will never enjoy a normal trading relationship with the EU until the ban is lifted. Europe’s first responsibility is to its own citizens economic wellbeing which would benefit from greater trade ties between China and the European Union. [1] European Commission, ‘China’, 2011 http://ec.europa.eu/trade/creating-opportunities/bilateral-relations/countries/china/ [2] Xinhua, ‘China calls for end to “prejudiced” EU arms embargo’, 2010 http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/6881999.html
China will simply get similar products elsewhere

In a global marketplace, if EU states don't sell China arms, others will. Russia and Israel[1] already sell China much high-tech military material, between 2001 and 2010 Russia sold over $16billion of arms to China.[2] As Israel is a key American ally, US criticism of Europe over lifting this ban is particularly unfair. It is in Europe's economic interest to gain part of the huge Chinese market and so safeguard European jobs. And if European arms industries cannot find export markets, their production for domestic military forces is simply not enough to support the cost of research and development,[3] so our indigenous arms sector may collapse. [1] BBC News, ‘US ‘anger’ at Israel weapons sale’, 2004.  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4101961.stm [2] Ottens, Nick, ‘Russian Arms Sales to China Drying Up’, 2010. http://atlanticsentinel.com/2010/05/russian-arms-sales-to-china-drying-up/ [3] Ashbourne, Alex, ‘Opening the US Defence Market’, 2011, p1. http://www.cer.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/attachments/pdf/2011/cerwp8-2792.pdf
A code of conduct is needed not a ban

The current arms ban is purely symbolic. China is already able to buy a range of military items from Europe ($555 million worth in 2003)[1] and the USA, which has a similar "ban" on weapons sales to China. This is because the EU’s current ban is not legally binding and it is up to each EU member to define and implement the embargo meaning the embargo is not effective.[2] An arms ban is therefore a blunt instrument that does not work. Instead future sales should be regulated by a tough EU code of conduct which prevents military equipment being sold to any state which might use it for external aggression or internal repression. Such a code of conduct for all arms exports has already existed since 1998.[3] Such a code of conduct will be a much better guarantee that China is not sold arms unless EU states are sure they will not be misused. [1] Tkacik, ‘E.U. Leadership Finds Little Public Support for Lifting China Arms Ban’, 2005. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/03/eu-leadership-finds-little-public-support-for-lifting-china-arms-ban [2] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p5. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32870.pdf [3] Ibid, p21
Prevents a competitor from building a high tech military

The arms ban is very effective in preventing the Chinese military gaining access to the best modern technologies. A convincing code of conduct has yet to be drawn up, but even if it looks very tight, it has a major flaw. Individual EU member states will be able to judge for themselves whether a proposed arms sale breaks the code. Past experience suggests that when exports are at stake, perhaps with the risk of job losses in an election year, then politicians interpret codes like this very loosely, so for example despite this code UK arms exports may have been used in the conflict against the Tamils in Sri Lanka.[1] This will be made worse by the thought of an EU state that if it refuses a particular military sale to China, then another member state will be more flexible. This means that each individual member will make decisions based upon what is best for it individually and not think of what is best for the Union as a whole – such as providing high tech weapons that bring in export dollars but helps undermine security. [1] Prince, Rosa, ‘UK arms used against civilians in Sri Lanka and Gaza’, 2009. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/6049670/UK-arms-used-against-civilians-in-Sri-Lanka-and-Gaza.html
There is no reason to strengthen China militarily

Lifting the arms ban will strengthen China militarily. The US fears less the Chinese purchase of EU weaponry and armour, than that the regime will get hold of advanced communications and control systems, as well as high-technology guidance systems, night-vision equipment, etc.[1] - all of which would make its existing military far more effective. Even if the EU is reluctant to sell such material to China, the possibility will give the Chinese leverage in negotiations with existing suppliers like Israel and Russia, who will feel under more pressure to sell China their most modern technology. In time, China's ability to "reverse engineer" high-technology equipment will also boost their own military research and development programmes.[2] [1] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p16. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32870.pdf [2] Page, Jeremy, ‘China Clones, Sells Russian Fighter Jets’, 2010. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704679204575646472655698844.html
China has changed a lot since Tiananmen

While many things may have eased up for a few years in the 2000s China has since hardened its policies in many areas rolling back progress. On the one child policy for example Zhang Feng, director of the provincial population and family planning commission, has said there would be "no major adjustments to the family planning policy within five years."[1]Meanwhile village elections have never gone further than the villages and the odd trial in townships and are still one party affairs.[2] When it comes to international affairs China is not using the veto any more than previously but its rise is no longer considered so peaceful after a string of clashes with its neighbors, particularly on its sea borders such as the South China Sea where Vietnamese vessels have been harassed inside Vietnamese waters.[3] China is obviously not following a straight line towards peaceful coexistence and democracy. The EU should keep the arms ban to pressure China into continuing progress. [1] AFP, ‘China province cools hopes of ‘one-child’ policy easing’, 2011.  http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h4KWvHwNu7oh0V3Eq3idcYOmBGEA?docId=CNG.19ae3547087caa0fb533dff980e326b8.241 [2] Brown, Kerry, ‘Chinese democracy: the neglected story’, 2011.  http://www.opendemocracy.net/kerry-brown/chinese-democracy-neglected-story [3] Miks, Jason, ‘Vietnam Eyes Foreign Help’, 2011 . http://the-diplomat.com/china-power/2011/06/12/vietnam-eyes-foreign-help/
Cooperation is the best way to gain influence

Cooperation has very little to do with influence in international affairs, what matters is how aligned the national interests of the two powers are. This is the case with Russia and China where both want to blunt western power, prevent separatism, and endorse what Russia calls ‘sovereign democracy’ which means a rejection of notions of universal human rights.[1] The areas that the EU most wants progress on among the least likely for there to be Chinese action without any kind of incentive. Lifting the ban will likely help with trade, something that China sees as being in its interest, but will make little difference to China’s policies towards human rights and other areas where it considers any criticism to be outside interference. [1] Menon, Rajan, ‘The China-Russia Relationship’, 2009, pp.13-15. http://tcf.org/publications/pdfs/pb690/Menon.pdf
The arms ban is still necessary

The arms ban is an anachronism - only China, Myanmar and Zimbabwe are singled out by the EU in this way from all the regimes in the world.[1] China is therefore right to call this policy as showing a “political prejudice against China”[2] as many other nations have perpetrated similar human rights violations. This is pointlessly offensive to the Chinese government and people, who see it as political discrimination against them, and it should be lifted. The new code of conduct should be sufficient to prevent worries that European weaponry will be used to repress demonstrations as it prohibits exports where there is a “Risk that export would be used for internal repression or where the recipient country has engaged in serious violations of human rights”.[3] [1] BBC News, ‘EU China arms ban ’to be lifted’’, 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4167693.stm [2] Xinhua, ‘China calls for end to “prejudiced” EU arms embargo’, 2010. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/6881999.html [3] Archick, Kristin, et al., ‘European Union’s Arms Embargo on China’, 2005, p21. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL32870.pdf
China is a threat to regional stability

China is making progress towards resolving many of its territorial disputes. It has resolved it long disputed border with Russia and has also been resolving territorial disputes with its Central Asian neighbors on terms favorable to the Central Asian powers, for example Tajikistan ceded only 1,000km2 of the 28,000 that China claimed.[1] There are good reasons to believe that even if Beijing is pulling its weight on the regional and world stage it is not a threat to peace and stability. China’s booming economy relies on trade, both when importing the necessary raw materials and exporting the finished products around the world. China’s trade was 44.2% of GDP in 2009.[2] Any regional conflict even against a much weaker neighbor would prevent this trade as there are many choke points such as the straits of Malacca and cause immense damage to the Chinese economy. [1] Ramachandran, Sudha, ‘China plays long game on border disputes’, 2011. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/MA27Ad02.html [2] The World Bank, ‘Merchandise trade (% of GDP)’, 2011. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/TG.VAL.TOTL.GD.ZS
Government intervention runs too great a risk of building pro-government bias into the media; the very sector that should be independent of such bias

Ignoring the fact, as already mentioned, that the government already subsidizes the media, it is routine for media outlets to report bad news on advertisers.  Admittedly in the case of minor stories it might have some impact but in the case of a major story the associated increase in circulation and the effect that can have on rates charged to other advertisers in future more than compensates. Additionally, as all liberal democratic states contain multiple media outlets, the likelihood of all of them agreeing to supress a story- in what is a fantastically competitive market- is essentially nil. Indeed, letting the editor of a newspaper know that all of his rivals had decided not to run a story would seem to be a sure fire way of guaranteeing that he would put it on the front page. Competition between advertisers and outlets solves this problem neatly.
Journalism has failed to move with the times, there are plenty of people doing the job on blogs and other interactive media sites

There is clearly some truth in the idea that people will always want a physical paper and no doubt many people will. In much the same way the death of the book has been predicted with virtually every improvement in communications for the last two centuries speaks, quite literally, volumes. However there are undeniably changes brought about by the Internet but that is only one factor. Through in the deepest recession in a century – an event which was bound to freeze up advertising spending as well as massive increases in production costs in recent years and newspapers are simply facing the kind of blow that no industry could realistically be expected to survive easily. It is all too easy to think of the media as a thing in its own right rather than considering it to be another industry. But in the end that’s what it is. In 2008 more than 15,500 journalists lost their jobs in the US, a seventy percent increase on the previous year. In any other industry an increase of that order would be an immediate signal for government intervention.[i] [i] Sara Catania. “Hey President Obama, Spare Any Change?” Huffington Post. 1 January 2009
Journalism is a huge business and, like other sectors should take the rough with the smooth

The same could be said of a number of industries, most noticeably banking. However, governments still intervened when there was a crisis there. Indeed there would be a lot to be said for getting the moguls out of newspapers altogether, their involvement has had mostly a negative impact and it seems unlikely that they are likely to discover a sudden sympathy for their employees when there are Asian sports channels to be bought and milked some more. However, for governments that refused to cap boardroom pay following the taxpayer bailout of the banking sector to suddenly decide that the rich should pay their share in this regard would seem hugely inconsistent. As with banking the government needs to acknowledge that an active and able media sector is simply too important to fail.
Journalism is a vital part of a healthy, democratic society

A great deal of modern journalism has become a fairly disreputable commentary on whichever celebrity non-event happens to be in vogue at the moment. Quite rightly nobody would really miss this if it vanished tomorrow. However, journalism at its best remains one of the strongest defenses against tyranny, corruption and hypocrisy in public life that there is. It is only through the determination, skill and knowledge of the best journalists that other sectors of society, not just the political class, are held to account in the full view of the public. For example the Guardian helped expose the phone hacking scandal in the British press.[i] If it were left to directors of big business and political insiders to regulate themselves then most corruption would be dealt with behind closed doors, if it were dealt with at all[ii]. [i] The Telegraph, ‘Leveson Inquiry: Guardian editor acknowledges ‘damaging impact of phone hacking scandal’, 16 November 2011. [ii] John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney. “The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers.” The Nation. 6 April 2009.
The State already subsidizes the press in many ways and a bailout would simply be an extension of what already happens

The State already invests large amounts of money into the media, both directly and indirectly. Firstly the state directly funds organisations like PBS and indirectly funds the likes of the BBC. In addition all governments are major media buyers in their own right, responsible for huge amounts of advertising and this applies to local government more than the national government. In addition there are softer subsidies such as government funding for journalism courses at universities. All an additional bailout provides is a furtherance of an existing activity. The fact that these relationships and subsidies exist demonstrates that the state acknowledges the value of the media. The fact that the people tolerate it suggests that they do too[i]. [i] Rosa Brooks. “Bail Out Journalism” LA Times. 9 April 2009.
An established press fulfills a role that cannot be filled by other media such as the internet

A healthy print media guarantees a level of factual accuracy in a way that the internet simply cannot. The press also- when it works at its best- inculcates skills of research and quality writing that are sadly lacking from many major websites. If nothing else the media is a major industry, when the automobile or other industries face threats to their survival from technological change the government bails them out to give them time to adapt, such as the United States did with its $17.4 billion bailout of General Motors and Chrysler.[i] Here is an industry that is being hurt for a number of reason but delivers a proven good not available from another source – notably that of its primary rival. Government intervention should be the default position. [i] BBC News, ‘Bush unveils $17.4bn car bail-out’, 19 December 2008
Government intervention runs too great a risk of building pro-government bias into the media; the very sector that should be independent of such bias

It is simply a bad idea to have the media receive its funding from the very people it’s meant to be holding to account. Even if it did not lead to actual bias, it would certainly lead to the suspicion of it. It is important that readers and viewers can have some degree of confidence that there is not even the suspicion of collusion. It is in the nature of things that the government would be less interested in getting stories put in than in getting inconvenient ones pulled. As a result consumers of the media would have no way of knowing whether collusion had taken place.
Journalism has failed to move with the times, there are plenty of people doing the job on blogs and other interactive media sites

Throwing money at an industry that is failing due to technological change is simply foolish. This isn’t a minor technological shift, it’s the emergence of an entirely new delivery system. This isn’t a case of giving financial support to Detroit while they come up with more fuel efficient cars.  The modification to the status quo that proposition suggest would be more like supporting chimney sweeps following the introduction of cheap gas powered heating . There is a clear difference between a changing industry and a dying one and newspapers fall firmly into the latter category. The fact that they failed to adapt in time simply speaks to the arrogance of the industry and their ill-thought out belief that people would always want their daily paper.
Journalism is a huge business and, like other sectors should take the rough with the smooth

Just like any other industry, in fact, there are good times and bad times. The fantastically rich individuals who own the bulk of newspapers were more than happy to milk their cash cows during the good times, well now it’s payback time. The Murdochs, the Packers and others have no shortage of cash. If a bailout is genuinely needed it should come from them and not from the taxpayer. There is something distinctly unsightly about an industry that is typified by the presence of billionaires paying relatively low wages, the average wage for a journalist in the UK £24,500[i] is below the national median wage of £25,879,[ii] to have them then turn around to the government and ask for cash. [i] Reed, Tim, ‘Newspaper journalist Salary and conditions’, prospects [ii] Snowdon, Graham, ‘The UK’s best-paid jobs’, The Guardian, 18 December 2010
Journalism is a vital part of a healthy, democratic society

The fall in the circulation and revenue of traditional media industries can be tied exactly to the fall in journalistic standards. Of course the emergence of the Internet and a fall in advertising revenue due to the recession is in part to blame for the difficulties now facing the press but they must also accept their share of the blame. Owners more interested in profits than news and journalists more interested in buddying up with politicians than holding them to account have caused a large part of the decline of the traditional print media.[i] [i] Joseph Farrah. “Why Bail Out the Newspapers?” WorldNetDaily. 28 April 2009.
The State already subsidizes the press in many ways and a bailout would simply be an extension of what already happens

The suggestion that the people are ‘broadly’ happy with state media funding is a massive exaggeration. Every review of the BBC’s charter sees an argument over the license fee and the funding for public broadcasting is a constant point of contention in most countries where such arrangements take place. Furthermore it is a fact universally acknowledged that where the government is required to prop up a media outlet it is because virtually nobody is watch or reading it. If people are genuinely that keen to watch minority programming or read specialist journals they should pay for it in much the same way that people do with academic and technical journals.
An established press fulfills a role that cannot be filled by other media such as the internet

There is really nothing the print media industry produces that cannot be replicated more cheaply online. Websites live and die by their reputation in just the same way that newspapers do. Equally they provide a spectrum of quality and views and people select the perspective and intellectual level they enjoy most. The advantage of the Internet, however, is that potential readership figures are far greater and the possibilities are truly international. The traditional media itself has acknowledged this state of affairs. All major news sources are now more likely to lead from their rolling online editions rather than their daily print editions. The fact that the advertising revenue is more thinly spread simply means news outlets need to work harder to attract a larger share of the pie. If they’re failing to do that, it’s their own fault, not the taxpayers[i]. [i] Declan McCullough. “Should you be taxed to subsidize the New York Tines?” CNET 27 September 2007
Would prevent further atrocities

An international mechanism where Sharon would have been able to be tried would be likely to have been one which would have been able to hear cases dealing with the – serious – allegations of crimes against humanity and war crimes by various other groups such as the al-Qassam brigades (the paramilitary group attached to Hamas). This would have been able to prevent further atrocities by acting as a deterrent through punitive methods as well as showing that the law applies to Western nations and their allies too.
Historical record

Prosecutions by international criminal courts have a positive side-effect of creating a historical record of events. This creates an impartial record of events which takes in to account the evidence provided by all parties. By removing scope for denialism, a peace can be constructed on the foundations of an impartial truth. Many of the actions of Israel have been controversial, The Guardian says it is the issue that is most controversial and comes under most scrutiny,[1] such an impartial historical record would be particularly useful for a full understanding of atrocities committed by all sides. [1] Editorial, ‘Fairness: Israel – Palestine’, guardian.co.uk, accessed 16/1/2014, http://www.theguardian.com/values/socialaudit/story/0,,1931205,00.html