China's Threat to U.S. National Security
Sen. John Kyl (R-Ariz.)
Congressional Record
10 October 2000
CHINA'S THREAT TO U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY (Senate - October 10, 2000)
[Page: S10129]
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I would like to talk about something this afternoon that I think is of great
importance to this country and one of the biggest challenges we are going to face in the coming years; that
is, the challenge of how the United States manages our relationships with countries that potentially present
threats to our national security.
While few would like to admit it, I think China cannot be omitted from this scrutiny, and I, therefore, would
like to discuss that question with respect to China today.
As my colleagues know, it was not long ago that the bill to grant permanent normal trade status to China
passed through the Senate without amendment. I voted for this bill because I recognize the economic
benefits it will have for many American workers, businesses, and consumers. That said, it is of utmost
importance that we not lose sight of the fact that trade alone does not define our relationship with China.
The actions and the heated rhetoric of China's communist leaders should be of great concern. So now, in
the aftermath of our recent decision to grant PNTR to China, we are obligated to face the other challenges
presented by the communist Chinese government.
Time and time again, Chinese officials and state-sponsored media have made bellicose and threatening
statements aimed at the United States and our long-standing, democratic ally, Taiwan. They have even
gone so far as to issue implied threats to use nuclear weapons against the United States. The question is,
will we take them at their word on these defense matters as we did when they made trade commitments.
For example, in 1995, General Xiong Guangkai warned a visiting U.S. official that China could use military
force to prevent Taiwan's gaining independence without fear of U.S. intervention because American leaders
`care more about Los Angeles than they do about Taiwan.' An editorial in a military-owned newspaper this
March was more blunt, warning that, `The United States will not sacrifice 200 million Americans for 20
million Taiwanese.'
In February of this year, a state-owned paper again warned the United States against becoming involved in
a conflict with China over Taiwan. The People's Liberation Army Daily carried an article which stated, `On
the Taiwan issue, it is very likely that the United States will walk to the point where it injures others while
ruining itself.' The article went on to issue a veiled threat to attack the U.S. with long-range missiles,
stating, `China is neither Iraq or Yugoslavia it is a country that has certain abilities of launching a strategic
counterattack and the capacity of launching a long-distance strike. Probably it is not a wise move to be at
war with a country such as China, a point which U.S. policymakers know fairly well also.'
Not only has China warned against U.S. military intervention in the event that Taiwan declares its
independence, Chinese officials have also issued threats against U.S. sale of theater missile defenses
(TMD) to Taiwan. In February 1999, China's top arms control official, Sha Zukang, was interviewed by a
reporter for the publication Defense News. When asked if U.S. assistance on theater missile defense for
Japan, South Korea and possibly Taiwan could cause damage to U.S.-China relations, he replied, `If the
U.S. is bent on its own way on this issue, it will not, to put it lightly, be conducive to the development of
legitimate self-defense needs of relevant countries.' When further questioned about theater missile defense
for Taiwan, he stated, `In the case of Taiwan, my God, that's really the limit. It constitutes a serious
infringement of China's sovereignty and territorial integrity. It also represents a deliberate move on the part
of the United States to provoke the entire Chinese people. Such a move will bring severe consequences.'
(Emphasis added) According to the Washington Post in July, that same Chineseofficial warned that the
sale of U.S. technology to Taiwan for a smaller scope theater missile defense system would `lead to
serious confrontation' because it would be tantamount to restoring a military alliance between Taipei and
Washington. He stated, `This is of supreme national interest. It will be defended at any cost.' (Emphasis
added)
These are not examples of isolated threats. They are a small sample of the bellicose statements that
China's government has made recently. I have compiled dozens of such statements and am disappointed at
the sparse attention they have received. Mr. President, I have compiled a document containing 14 pages of
threats issued by communist Chinese officials. It is by no means a comprehensive compendium of such
statements, and is merely a sample. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the
conclusion of my statement.
The PRESIDENT OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, the rhetoric from Beijing has also been accompanied by troubling actions. China
has long-range nuclear-tipped missiles targeted at American cities, and is already increasing its arsenal of
such weapons. It is greatly increasing the number of short-range missiles aimed at Taiwan, and has taken
steps to improve its ability to invade or blockade the island.
China has also been the world's worst proliferator of missiles and weapons of mass destruction. It has sold
ballistic missile technology to Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, and Pakistan, despite promising to adhere to
the Missile Technology Control Regime. It has sold nuclear technology to Iran and Pakistan. It has aided
Iran's chemical weapons program and sold that nation advanced cruise missiles.
Because of China's assistance to rogue nations and its military advances, the American people, and our
forces and friends abroad, face a much greater threat.
Mr. President, as we craft effective national security policies for the United States, it's important that we
look for warning signs of problems. As Winston Churchill said, in his `Iron Curtain' speech in 1946, less
than one year after the end of World War II, `Last time, I saw it all coming and I cried aloud to my own
fellow-countrymen and to the world, but no one paid any attention. Up till the year 1933 or even 1935,
Germany might have been saved from the awful fate which has overtaken her. There never was a war in all
history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the
globe but no one would listen. We surely must not let that happen again.'
Now, more than 50 years later, we live in a very different world. The collapse of the Soviet empire, the
spread of democracy and civil society in Eastern Europe and the Baltics, and the emergence of the United
States as the sole-surviving superpower could lead some to mistakenly assume that the world is no longer
a dangerous place.
To the contrary, the threats we face today are even more complex and harder to predict than those we
faced during and before the Cold War. We must now be more clear than ever in our own minds about our
strategic intentions, and just as clear in signaling these to our potential aggressors.
Obviously, China is not Nazi Germany, and it presents different challenges, yet the message delivered by
Churchill about the need to heed warning signs is timeless. Many are quick to dismiss the rhetoric from
Beijing as empty threats. This could be true, but I believe we must be prepared for another possibility--what
if China's leaders mean what they say?
China's proliferation of the technology for ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction has increased
the threat faced by the United States and our allies. China is increasing the size and capabilities of its
strategic nuclear force targeted on the United States. And furthermore, China has tried to use the threat of
missile attack to coerce the United States into staying out of any future conflict in the Taiwan Strait.
These are but three of the many compelling reasons why we need a national missile defense system to
protect the United States and to guarantee our freedom of action. I disagree with those who claim China's
objection to our proposed national missile defense, NMD, system will lead to an arms race with that
country. As Secretary of Defense William Cohen testified to the Senate in July of this year, `I think it's fair
to say that China, irrespective of what we do on NMD, will in fact, modernize and increase its ICBM
capability.' Of course, that is precisely what China has done. Left with this reality, we have no option but to
deploy a national missile defense system that will protect the United States.
Frankly, I am disappointed that for the last eight years, the Clinton-Gore Administration has failed to pursue
the most promising forms of missile defense and has underfunded the limited programs it has authorized
due to loyalty to the ABM Treaty. For example, one of the Administration's first decisions in early 1993 was
to return unopened proposals the Defense Department had requested from three teams of companies that
had bid to develop a ground-based national missile defense interceptor. In 1993, the Clinton Administration
also cut the budget for missile defense for fiscal year 1994 by $2.5 billion over the amount requested in
President Bush's final budget, and has continued to underfund missile defense programs every year.
I believe that the ABM Treaty is obsolete. It was made with an entity that no longer exists. In the words of
former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, this treaty `constrains the nation's missile defense programs to
an intolerable degree in the day and age when ballistic missiles are so attractive to so many countries.' Dr.
Kissinger has also stated that, `Deliberate vulnerability when the technologies are available to avoid it
cannot be a strategic objective, cannot be a political objective, and cannot be a moral objective of any
American President.' We must not allow loyalty to an outdated piece of paper called the ABM Treaty to
stand in the way of a sound defense given the threats we face.
In addition to the deployment of a national missile defense system, it is important for the United States to
use the full range of economic and diplomatic tools to halt China's proliferation of the technology for
missiles and weapons of mass destruction. I believe the Senate missed an opportunity when we failed to
pass an amendment offered by Senator Thompson to combat this problem. I hope this legislation will be
considered and passed next year. In addition, we need to ensure that strong export controls on U.S.-made
products are in place so we don't inadvertently help China modernize its military.
It remains to be seen whether the rhetoric from Beijing will become reality, but in light of China's troubling
actions, prudence demands that we take steps to address China's behavior. We ignored warnings in the
past and paid a high price. We surely must not let it happen again. |
