AOH :: ISNQ5227.HTM

Commentary - Are we making it easy for China?




Commentary - Are we making it easy for China?
Commentary - Are we making it easy for China?



http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080212/COMMENTARY/556045574/1012 

By William Hawkins
The Washington Times
February 12, 2008

On Jan. 29, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and 
Homeland Security held a hearing on Chinese espionage.

One of the witnesses was Larry Wortzel, chairman of the congressionally 
chartered U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission. Mr. 
Wortzel spent 25 of his 32 years in the U.S. Army working in military 
intelligence, then ran the Heritage Foundation's Asian Studies Center. 
He told the subcommittee that "The commission concluded in 2007 that 
China's defense industry is producing new generations of weapon 
platforms with impressive speed and quality. We believe that some of 
these advancements are due to the highly effective manner in which 
Chinese defense companies are integrating commercial technologies into 
military systems. ... There is a long record in China going back over 
two centuries of sending government-directed missions overseas to buy or 
shamelessly steal the best civil and military technology available, 
reverse engineer it, and build an industrial complex that supports the 
growth of China as a commercial and military power."

His testimony raises the questions of whether any real line can be drawn 
between military and civilian sectors in a Chinese economy dominated by 
state-owned and state-controlled firms under a communist regime that 
still draws up five-year plans and tightly manages all interaction 
between Chinese and foreign enterprises.

The question is not academic. The Commerce Department recently 
designated five Chinese corporations as "vetted end-users" who can now 
buy restricted technology with military applications without obtaining 
export licenses from the U.S. government.

The notion is that these firms are civilian enterprises that can be 
trusted not to pass along information to other Chinese firms or agencies 
in the military sector. This notion is insane. It is the result of heavy 
lobbying by American firms who want to sell Beijing whatever it wants, 
wishing only to make a profit as China expands.

The highly regarded Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control has 
reported on the ties two of the vetted Chinese firms have with the 
Beijing regime and military. Shanghai Hua Hong NEC Electronics Co. is 
majority owned through a corporate chain by state-owned China 
Electronics Corporation, which produces military equipment as well as 
consumer electronics. BHA Aerocomposite Parts Co. is partly owned by 
AVIC I, a state-owned aerospace conglomerate that produces fighters, 
nuclear-capable bombers, and many other weapon systems used by the 
People's Liberation Army. Anyone concerned about U.S. security in a 
turbulent world should go to the Wisconsin Project Web site and read the 
full report.

Commerce claims it will monitor the vetted firms, but reports by the 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) have questioned the department's 
ability to do so, especially in the face of uncooperative Chinese.

A 2006 GAO report designated "identification and protection of critical 
technologies as a government-wide high-risk area" and concluded, "Given 
its lack of systematic evaluations, Commerce cannot readily identify 
weaknesses in the dual-use export control system or implement needed 
corrective measures." GAO earlier reported that Commerce lacks the 
personnel to police end-users in China.

The illusion of separation between military and civilian in China has 
also come up in the ongoing security review of Huawei Technologies bid 
for a 16.5 percent share of 3Comm, an American firm that produces 
network security software for the Pentagon. Bain Capital is buying 3Comm 
with Chinese minority participation. The fear is that Huawei will not 
only be able to get access to the firm's technology, but may expand its 
control over time, since Bain only buys firms to sell them later for a 
profit.

Bain has argued that Huawei is a civilian firm. However, when the 
prestigious Rand Corp. published a report on the Chinese defense 
industry at the end of 2005, it described Huawei as representing "the 
new digital-triangle model, whereby the military, other state actors, 
and their numbered research institutes help fund and staff commercially 
oriented firms that are designated 'national champions,' receive lines 
of credit from state banks, supplement their R&D funding with directed 
money, and actively seek to build global market share. The military, for 
its part, benefits as a favored customer and research partner." Anything 
Huawei gets from 3Comm will go straight to the PLA for use against 
American targets.

Yet, 3Comm seems confident the deal will go through. It has called a 
Feb. 29 shareholder meeting to approve the buyout by Bain and Huawei. 
The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which 
is conducting the review, is chaired by the Treasury Department, whose 
naive view of China rivals that of the Commerce Department.

Republicans pride themselves on being strong on national security, and 
believe this is their trump suit against the Democrats. Certainly, Sen. 
John McCain hopes so, as he bids to carry the party's banner into the 
fall elections.

Unfortunately, Republicans also think of themselves as the "party of 
business," making them vulnerable to the "anything for a buck" pleadings 
of foreign traders and lobbyists. China is the test case as to which 
trait will prevail in the waning days of the Bush administration.

-=-

William Hawkins is senior fellow for national security studies at the 
U.S. Business and Industry Council.


___________________________________________________      
Subscribe to InfoSec News
http://www.infosecnews.org/mailman/listinfo/isn 

Site design & layout copyright © 1986-2014 CodeGods