|
|
|
|
|
|
Why China Should Not Be Granted Permanent Normal Trade Relations Senator James M. Inhofe, September 11, 2000 National security must take precedence over trade. Granting permanent trade favors to China in the face of its openly threatening actions of recent years is unconscionable. We cannot allow the pursuit of dollars to blind us to certain realities about the ruling communist regime in China, including: repeated threats against the United States and Taiwan; massive military modernization and buildup; its proliferation of dangerous weapons to rogue states; theft of U.S. nuclear secrets; demonstrated strategy to exploit commercial relationships to acquire advanced military technology; attempts to corrupt the U.S. political system; violation of international agreements; and brutal repression of dissidents. To ignore these actions in the belief they can be separated from what we do in our trading relationship is dangerously misguided. China's trade surpluses are helping to finance the regime's military buildup and aggressive foreign policy, while strengthening its hold on economic and political power. Similarly, to suggest that increased trade is by itself going to reverse China's negative behavior is belied by recent history. Trade with China has been steadily increasing for the past decade while its behavior in these security areas has grown substantially worse. America should require from China some measure of permanent normalized international behavior as a prerequisite to permanent normalized trade relations. Otherwise, it is predictable that the favors we grant to China will be exploited to enhance its military buildup, while the market-opening favors and prosperity we expect from China will be much less than many in our country anticipate. I want to emphasize that I am not philosophically opposed to free trade. I voted for the recent Africa-Caribbean trade bill and I am a strong supporter of a measure to end the use of agricultural trade sanctions as a means to achieve policy goals. I am very skeptical about the extent to which China will actually open its markets to U.S. products. Despite tariff-lowering measures in trade agreements, China has--in the past--sought to erect other complicated trade barriers to block imports. Especially with regard to agricultural products, China is unlikely to offer the wide-open market some in the U.S. are anticipating. China will go to great lengths to protect its own huge labor-intensive agricultural sector, because of the difficulty of absorbing displaced agriculture workers in scarcer city jobs. Permanently opening the U.S. market to China now--in the face of its bullying at home and abroad--would be viewed by Chinese leaders less as an act of friendship than as an act of weakness. It would signal to them that there is going to be no meaningful consequence to their bad behavior and that America is content to put the pursuit of dollars ahead of any obligation to protect its own values and security. The following are examples of the major national security issues that must be considered in the debate over PNTR for China: Threats to the United States: In recent years, China has issued direct military threats against the United States of a kind that even the Soviet Union largely avoided in the darkest days of the Cold War. These included a threat to destroy Los Angeles with nuclear weapons; other threats to launch missile strikes on the United States and neutron bomb strikes on U.S. aircraft carriers if we should intervene to defend Taiwan. In 1998, the CIA confirmed that at least 13 of China's 18 land-based ICBMs were targeted on American cities. In Dec. 1999, China's defense minister, reflecting well-documented military thinking in China, stated, `War (with the U.S.) is inevitable. We cannot avoid it.' Threats to Taiwan: China has openly threatened military action against democratic Taiwan. In 1996, China fired M-9 missiles off the coasts of Taiwan in an attempt to intimidate voters during its presidential election. In Feb. 2000, it issued a `white paper' openly threatening `all drastic measures, including the use of force' if Taiwan delayed reunification talks, a threat previously reserved only for a Taiwanese declaration of independence. In 1995, China had 40 M-9 missiles targeted on Taiwan. By 1999, it had deployed at least 200 such missiles and the number is increasing at a rate of 50 per year. The Pentagon estimates that by 2005, China could have 800 missiles targeted on Taiwan. Military buildup: China is engaged in a massive long-term military modernization largely designed to counter U.S. power projection capabilities. In March 2000, China announced a 13 percent increase in military spending, which U.S. analysts believe is probably a lot less than the true number. China's new JL-2 submarine-launched ICBM will be able to hit the United States from Chinese territorial waters. China's new DF-31 truck-mounted mobile ICBM was test-fired in August 1999 and described by U.S. Air Force analysts as `a significant threat not only to U.S. forces . . . in the Pacific theater, but to the continental U.S. and many of our allies.' In January 2000, China signed a multibillion dollar deal to purchase weapons from Russia, adding to what it has already purchased, including: 4 heavy destroyers armed with SS-N-22 `Sunburn' nuclear-capable cruise missiles designed specifically to attack U.S. aircraft carriers; 200 SU-27 jet fighters, which are more capable than the U.S. F-15; 40 SU-30 jet fighters with precision guided weapons; 4 Kilo-class (quiet) attack submarines; 24 Mi-17 assault helicopters; and 50 T-72 tanks. In addition, China is employing all means--legal and illegal--to purchase improvements in a whole range of advanced military technologies, including: computers; lasers; space launch and space control systems; cyber-warfare; stealth; and chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Proliferation: China is doing more than any other country to spread dangerous weapons and military technology to rogue states around the world. In recent years, China has transferred technology on such items as missiles, nuclear weapons, and chemical and biological weapons to North Korea, Iran, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, and Syria, among others--often in direct violation of commitments to refrain from such behavior. Thefts and compromises of nuclear secrets: In 1999, the Cox Report revealed that China had stolen or otherwise acquired advanced U.S. technology on ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, reentry vehicles, high performance computers, anti-submarine warfare techniques and much more. It confirmed that China had acquired information on our most advanced miniaturized nuclear warhead, the W-88, helping to give China MIRV capability--multiple warheads on a single rocket. As I reported in a major speech on the Senate floor on June 23, 1999, what we learned is that 16 of the 17 most significant major technology breaches to China revealed in the Cox Report were first discovered after 1994--during the Clinton-Gore administration. And that at least 8 of these actually occurred during the Clinton-Gore administration. I have compiled this important information in a chart that clearly illustrates what the Clinton-Gore administration has been trying to cover up for over 5 years. It helps reveal the fact that Clinton and Gore have not protected national security in our relations with China; that their appeasement of China has extended to selling, transferring, and overlooking the theft of some of our most sensitive nuclear and missile-related secrets. Coupled with their receipt--in the 1996 campaign--of hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal campaign contributions from China, this is a scandal of huge proportions. The American people need to know the truth, but they are not going to get it by listening to the self-serving spin being spewed by this President and his equally culpable and subservient Vice President. Exploitation of commercial arrangements to acquire technology: The Cox Report also revealed the massive efforts China is making to acquire advanced military technology through its dealings with U.S. companies in the commercial sphere. For example, it confirmed that through its arrangements to launch satellites for U.S. companies such as Loral and Hughes, China acquired technology which improved the accuracy and reliability of its long-range military rockets which are targeted at the United States. Attempts to corrupt U.S. political process: During the 1996 election cycle, people with close ties to the Chinese government funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in illegal campaign contributions in an attempt to influence U.S. elections. The full extent of this scandal is not yet known. But we do know that the FBI director, Louis Freeh, and the hand-picked Justice Department investigator, Charles LaBella, believed it was serious enough to require the appointment of an independent counsel to fully investigate. Serious questions remain about the activities of John Huang, Charlie Trie, James Riady and a host of others who were involved. One of the important critical questions is whether national security was compromised in return for campaign cash. Neither China not the Clinton Administration has cooperated in these investigations. Violations of agreements: China has failed to abide by international agreements it has made in the past. For example, despite promises to abide by the norms of the multilateral Missile Technology Control Regime, China has repeatedly engaged in weapons proliferation activities. Human rights--repression of dissidents: The U.S. State Department confirms that China's record on human rights has deteriorated in recent years, that it has engaged in such activities as arrests and repression of political dissidents, persecution of religious expression, exploitation of slave labor, and forced abortions. China has never repudiated its actions in brutally crushing China's democracy movement at Tiananmen Square in 1989 or its ethnic cleansing in Tibet. These issues cannot be ignored or swept under the rug in an exclusive pursuit of trade. Our first obligation is protecting national security. We will not do it by evading the truth. Granting China permanent normal trade status without any progress on these issues is appeasement. Granting it in the naive hope that it is going to bring about such progress is a delusion. As I have said, I think national security must take precedence over trade. Granting permanent normal trade status to China in the face of its openly threatened action in recent years is, I believe, unconscionable. While Senator Thompson is correct when he talks about the problems with proliferation, there are many other problems, too, which include China's repeated threats against the United States and Taiwan; China's massive military modernization buildup; China's proliferation of dangerous weapons to rogue states; China's theft of U.S. nuclear secrets; China's demonstrated strategy to exploit commercial relationships to acquire advanced military technology; China's attempts to corrupt the U.S. political system; China's violation of international agreements, and China's brutal repression of dissidents. I think to ignore these actions in the belief that they can be separated from what we do in our trade relationship is dangerously misguided. China's trade surpluses are helping finance the regime's military buildup, while strengthening its hold on economic and political power. Similarly, to suggest that increased trade by itself is going to reverse China's negative behavior is belied by recent history. Trade with China has been on the upswing. We are trading more with them: Yet their behavior in security areas has grown substantially worse. I believe America should require from China some measure of permanent normalized international behavior as a prerequisite to permanent normalized trade relations. Otherwise, it is predictable that the favors we grant to China will be exploited to enhance its military buildup, while the market-opening favors and prosperity we expect from China will be much less than many in our country anticipate. I emphasize that I am not philosophically opposed to free trade. I did oppose NAFTA in 1994. In fact, I did it for two reasons. One was that I knew what was going to happen to our infrastructure as a result of allowing trucks from Mexico to go through our corridors--being from Oklahoma, we are pretty close to it, and the occupant of the Chair being from Texas, she understands this--without having to comply with our environmental standards, wage and hour standards, and safety standards. The competition isn't open. It is not a level playing field. We know that. The other reason is, it seemed to me it would damage our trade deficit. If you will remember, in 1994, we had a trade surplus with Mexico of $1.3 billion. It is now a $22 billion trade deficit. On the other hand, I voted for the recent Africa-Caribbean trade bill. I am a strong supporter, along with Senator Ashcroft, of exempting agricultural products from the sanctions. I am very skeptical about the extent to which China will actually open its markets to U.S. products. Despite tariff-lowering measures in trade agreements, China has in the past sought to erect other complicated trade barriers to block imports--especially with regard to agricultural products. I think it is very unlikely that China is going to go to great lengths to protect its own huge labor-intensive agricultural sector because of the difficulty of absorbing displaced agricultural workers in scarcer city jobs. I had a chance to visit the other day with Wei Jing Sheng. He was a dissident who was imprisoned for some period of time in China. He is exiled now; he is here. He said it made perfectly good sense. Why would we expect China to import wheat grown in Oklahoma or someplace in the United States, when all that would do would be to take the very labor-intensive, antiquated technology that they use in their agricultural programs in China and then move those people to the cities where they can't absorb it? This individual was absolutely convinced that would be the end result. Permanently opening the U.S market to China now--in the face of its bullying at home and abroad--would be viewed by Chinese leaders less as an act of friendship than as an act of weakness. It would signal to them that there is going to be no meaningful consequence to their bad behavior and that America is content to put the pursuit of dollars ahead of any obligation to protect its own values and security. The following are some examples of the major national security issues that I think should be considered in the debate over PNTR to China. Of course, this amendment only deals with one of them. First of all, the threats to the United States. In recent years, China has issued direct military threats against the United States of a kind that even the Soviet Union in the midst of the cold war would never have made. These include a threat to destroy Los Angeles with nuclear weapons. Another threat was to launch missile strikes on the United States; neutron bomb strikes on U.S. aircraft carriers if we should intervene to defend Taiwan. In 1998, the CIA confirmed that at least 13 of China's 18 land-based ICBMs were targeted on American cities. We knew it a long time before that. But somehow there was a leak, and I believe the Washington Times was able to disclose that. In December of 1999, China's Defense Minister said war with America was inevitable. I hesitate to say this, but I remember so well when we were warned by Senator Bob Kerrey, a Democrat Senator from Nebraska. Some of you may not know it. In 1992, before the election of Bill Clinton to the White House, he said Bill Clinton is an awfully good liar. He was very prophetic. I think of all of the things this President has said that are untrue, probably the one that inflicted the most damage on the United States is the one he repeated 133 times. Keep in mind that at the time he said this, he knew the Chinese were targeting American cities. He said: For the first time in the history of the nuclear age, there is not one--I repeat, not one--missile aimed at an American child tonight. Everybody cheered. Yet we knew at that time that missiles from China were aimed at American cities. They still are today. We know that. It is not even classified. China is engaged in a massive, long-term military modernization largely designed to counter U.S. power projection capabilities. In March 2000, China announced it was going to have a 13-percent increase in military spending. Most of our U.S. analysts believe that is far from the true figure; it is really far greater than that. China's new JL-2 submarine-launched ICBM will be able to hit the United States from Chinese territorial waters. China's new DF-31 truck-mounted mobile ICBM was test-fired in August of 1999 and described by U.S. Air Force analysts as `a significant threat not only to U.S. . . . forces in the Pacific theater, but to the continental United States and many of our allies.' In January of 2000, China signed a multibillion-dollar deal to purchase weapons from Russia adding to what it already had purchased, including four heavy destroyers armed with SS-N-22 `Sunburn' nuclear-capable cruise missiles designed specifically to attack U.S. aircraft carriers; 200 SU-27 jet fighters--this is a jet fighter that we know now is better than any air-to-air combat vehicle we have, including the F-15--40 SU-30 jet fighters with precision-guided missiles; 4 Kilo class, quiet class, attack submarines; 24 MI-17 assault helicopters; and 50 T-72 tanks. China is also purchasing up to four airborne warning and control systems--AWACS systems--that they are purchasing from Israel. In addition, China is employing all means legal and illegal to pursue improvements in a whole range of advanced military technologies, including computers, lasers, space launch and space control systems; cyberwarfare; stealth, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. Let me repeat: On the SU-27 and SU-30, I was very proud of Gen. John Jumper a few months ago when he had the courage to stand up and tell the American people the truth. There is this myth floating around, particularly among people who are anti-defense to start with, that there is no threat out there--that America has the best of everything. We don't have the best of everything. Gen. John Jumper, the air commander at that time, made the statement that Russia, in the position of manufacturing their SU-27s, SU-30s, and SU-35s and selling them on the open market to countries such as Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, and North Korea--this is something they have. The proliferation is going on and on. They already have more modern equipment and better equipment in some areas of combat than the United States has. China is doing more than any other country to spread dangerous weapons and military technology to rogue states around the world. In recent years, China has transferred technology and such items as missiles, nuclear weapons, and chemical and biological weapons to all the countries I just mentioned--North Korea, Pakistan, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and other countries, which is a direct violation of commitments to refrain from such behavior. I guess what I am saying is China has been working. It is not a matter of what they have and how you trust China. It is the same with Russia. They are trading technologies and trading systems with these other countries. That is compromising nuclear secret s.The 1999 Cox report revealed that China had stolen or otherwise acquired advanced U.S. technology on ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons reentry vehicles, high-performance computers, anti-submarine-warfare systems, and much more. It confirmed that China had acquired information on our most advanced miniaturized nuclear warhead, the W-88, helping to give China a MIRV capability--a multiple warhead on one single rocket. In fairness to China, I have to say that they have had a lot of help. The administration has been very helpful to China. By the way, I have frequently said things about the President that other people do not say. I would suggest to you, Mr. President, that Teddy Roosevelt said `patriotism means to stand by your country.' It doesn't mean to stand by the President or any other elected officials to the exact degree that he himself stands by his country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose a President to the same degree that he, by inefficiency or otherwise, fails to stand by his country. I believe President Clinton has failed to stand by his country. As reported in a major speech on the Senate floor in March and again on June 23rd, what we learned, as revealed in the Cox report, is that if you take away these other 17 compromises of our nuclear secrets--the first one, the W-70 warhead, you can forget about that. It happened in the Carter administration. It is obsolete. So it doesn't matter. These 16 do--at least 16, including the W-88 warhead I just referred to, which is our crown jewel. The first of these happened perhaps in a previous administration. The second eight all happened during the Clinton administration. These happened on Bill Clinton's watch. As far the first ones are concerned, the W-88 warhead technology, W-87 warhead, W-78 warhead, W-76 and W-62 warheads--all of these happened perhaps in a previous administration. But we found out in the Cox report that there was a Chinese `walk' into a CIA office where they said that in 1994 they informed the administration the Chinese had all of these secrets. These are from perhaps other administrations. But the President knew about it. The President covered it up. Berger and the rest of them covered it up until the Cox report, through their investigation in January of 1999, discovered that in fact these were discovered 5 years before. It was a coverup until 1999. I think it is an appropriate place to bring this up again just for the purpose of discussing this because we have got to remind the American people exactly what happened. All of this talk about what has happened in our energy lab, all the talk about passing laws that something such as this cannot happen again--I can tell you right now, if you have a President of the United States such as President Clinton who willfully goes out and stops the security at these laboratories--one of his first acts after becoming President--of course there is going to be a problem. This is what this President did. In 1993, when he first got into office, he removed the color-coded security badges that had been used for years by the Department of Energy's weapons labs. They were removed as being discriminatory. We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, so we can't have color-coded badges. Second, he stopped the FBI background checks. In 1993, the FBI background checks for workers and visitors of the weapons labs were put on hold, dramatically increasing the number of people going into the labs who had previously not had access. Third, he overturned the DOE's security decision. In 1995, the Department of Energy personnel action revoking the security clearance of an employee found to have compromised classified information was overturned, giving him back his classification after it was proven he compromised secrets. No. 5, he rejected the FBI request for wiretaps. Since 1996, four requests for wiretaps on the prime suspect in the investigation of the loss of information on the W-88 warhead technology were rejected. The suspect was allowed to keep his job before being fired in the wake of news reports in 1999, the Cox report. No. 6, he leaked classified information to the media. In 1995, a classified design drawing of the W-87 nuclear warhead was leaked to and represented in the U.S. News and World Report magazine. The leak investigation was stopped when it pointed directly to the Secretary of Energy and this administration. No. 7, President Clinton or the Clinton-Gore administration thwarted whistleblowers. Career Government employees, such as the Energy Department's former Director of Intelligence, Notra Trulock, and its former security and safeguards Chief, Ed McCollum, who tried to warn of security concerns, were thwarted for years by political appointees. We had hearings in the Intelligence Committee on this, and the Readiness Subcommittee, which I chair, of the Senate Armed Services Committee. No. 8, the administration switched export license authority. They did this in 1996, from the State Department to the Commerce Department. This was over the objection of both the State and the Defense Departments. No. 9, he granted waivers allowing missile technology transfers. You may remember the most notorious. President Clinton took a signed waiver to allow the Chinese to buy the guidance technology to put on their missiles that was made by the Loral Corporation; their CEO was the single largest contributor to the Clinton-Gore campaigns. No. 10, he ended COCOM. In 1994, the Coordinating Committee on Multinational Export Controls, called COCOM, the multinational agreement among U.S. allies to restrict technology sales to China, he dissolved that. The list goes on and on. China had a lot of help in getting virtually everything that we had. Exploitation of commerce, commercial arrangements to acquire technology. The Cox report revealed engagement of a massive effort by China in acquiring advanced military technology through its dealings with U.S. companies. We have talked about that. China has it all. In the first chart, there were 16 compromises. We don't know what they have done with this information. I don't think our intelligence knows. We now know that all 16 compromises took place and China has the technology. What they have built with this technology, we don't really know for sure. In the attempt to corrupt the 1996 election cycle, people with close ties to the Chinese Government funneled hundreds of thousands into illegal campaign contributions in an attempt to influence U.S. elections. Remember the pictures of Al Gore at the temple? This full extent of the scandal is not yet known, but Louis Freeh, the Director of the FBI, as well as the hand-picked Justice Department investigator, Charles LaBella, believed it was serious enough to require the appointment of an independent counsel to fully investigate the Clinton-Gore scandal. Serious questions remain about the activities of John Huang, Charlie Trie, James Riady, and the list goes on and on. Of course, Janet Reno has refused to appoint counsel. I don't think we will hear more from this administration. China has failed to abide by international agreements it has made in the past. For example, despite promises to abide by the norms of the multinational missile technology control regime, China has engaged in weapons proliferation. The distinguished Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, was talking about this a few minutes ago. Lastly, the U.S. State Department confirms that China's record on human rights has deteriorated in recent years. It has deteriorated, not gotten better. Trade has increased but the relationships have deteriorated. They have engaged in such activities as arrests, repression of political dissidents, persecution of religious expression, exploitation of slave labor, and forced abortions in China, and have never repudiated its actions in brutality curbing China's democracy movement in Tiananmen Square in 1989. These issues cannot be ignored or swept under the rug exclusively, pursuant of trade. Our first obligation is to protect our national security. We will not try to do it by evading the truth. Granting China permanent normal trade status without any progress in these areas is appeasement. An appeaser is a guy who feeds his friends to the alligators hoping they will eat him last. No man survives when freedom fails, the best men rot in filthy jails, and those who cry `appease' are hanged by those they try to appease. In October of 1995, when we were preparing to intervene when they were doing the missile tests to try to influence the elections in Taiwan, China's top official said: We are not concerned about the United States coming to the defense of Taiwan because they would rather defend Los Angeles than defend Taipei. That is, at the very least, an indirect threat at a missile coming to the United States of America. Just a few weeks ago, the Defense Minister of China said war with America is inevitable. When we are talking about giving a country such as this preferred status, we will not be doing it with my vote. Senator James M. Inhofe represents Oklahoma in the United States Senate. This article is adapted from a speech he gave in the Senate.
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
|
|
