Does Israel supply Red China with Patriot Missile Defense Technology?
"Competition in export markets is not the only source of arms trade friction between the U.S. and Israel. There are two other significant points of conflict, both stemming from how Israel uses what it gets from America.
The first major concern is the legality of how Israel uses American weaponry. The 1952 Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement and subsequent bilateral arms agreements limit the use of American military equipment to defensive purposes only, and the U.S. Arms Export Control Act states that the U.S. may stop aid to countries that use U.S. military assistance for purposes other than "legitimate self-defense." In light of these stipulations, Israel's record is troubling. A 2002 Congressional report states that, "on four different occasions the Secretary of State has stated in writing to Congress that Israel 'may have violated' the provisions of the Arms Export Control Act and the Mutual Defense Assistance Agreement: on April 5th, 1978, after Israel invaded Lebanon, on August 6th, 1979, after a series of Israeli raids into south Lebanon, on June 10th, 1981, after Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor, and in a 'secret' letter to Congress in July 1982, after the Israeli invasion of Lebanon".
Most recently, the U.S. has investigated Israeli misuse of U.S. equipment during the 2000-2001 "Intifada", specifically the use of Apache helicopters (manufactured by Boeing) to assassinate suspected Palestinian terrorists, and use of F-16 aircraft (Lockheed Martin) in attacks on Palestinian facilities.(12) The United States is chiefly concerned about this issue because of public perceptions. Essentially, it looks bad for the U.S. government to be arming an aggressive Israel that preys on weaker states who do not have the benefit of advanced American military technology and hardware. Instead, the U.S. government promotes the notion that it is arming Israel for self-defense, since the country remains under constant threat from hostile neighbors.
The second major American concern is Israeli transfers of arms and technologies to third parties that may be hostile to the U.S. and its allies. This is a concern with respect to all advanced military systems and technologies, but particularly for those that originate in the U.S. and are transferred to Israel. U.S. law requires that any recipient of American military technology - including Israel - obtain a license permitting it to transfer that technology to a third party. However, despite being the beneficiary of massive U.S. aid, and its designation as a major non-NATO ally, Israel is still "by far the principal offender and foremost concern of U.S. officials responsible for implementing the laws on re-export of U.S. defense products".(13)
The fact that the U.S. is committed to ensuring Israel's "qualitative edge" over potential adversaries in the region means that Israel has access to very sophisticated and sensitive American military technology, making its profligacy in re-exporting such technologies all the more worrying for the U.S. There have been numerous instances of Israel transferring technologies in contravention of U.S. law, the most troubling of which concern transfers to China.
The People's Republic of China (PRC) has aggressively sought out cutting edge military technology, and Israel has been its most willing provider. Indeed, former CIA director James Woosley testified to Congress that "the Chinese seek from Israel advanced military technologies that the U.S. and Western firms are unwilling to provide".(14)
Recent controversies have centred around Israeli transfer to China of military technology and hardware that will qualitatively alter the military balance of power in East Asia. Perhaps the most serious Israeli transgression was the alleged transfer of U.S. Patriot missile technology to the PRC. During the Gulf War the United States provided Israel with free Patriot air defense systems to counter the threat of Iraqi SCUD missiles. In 1992 the Bush administration disclosed that intelligence reports indicated that Israel had transferred Patriot technology to the Chinese, a charge that Israel denied. Chinese possession of such technology would allow modification of China's M-9 and M-11 missiles to prevent U.S. systems intercepting them, a crucial strategic issue in a potential future confrontation over Taiwan. Israel agreed to a joint State-Defense Department investigation to examine the Patriots in its inventory.
The investigation team found no evidence of an illicit transfer, and the State Department, but not the Defense Department, subsequently cleared Israel of all charges. In 1993 CIA Director Gates testified that China had obtained Patriot technology, but that U.S. officials had not found hard evidence that Israel was the source. Many U.S. officials, however, discount the findings of the investigation, contending that Israel provided China with technical documents on the Patriot system, rather than the actual hardware, something the physical on-site inspection could not have revealed, thereby rendering its conclusions meaningless.
Many highly placed officials in the defense and intelligence communities remain convinced that Israel was the source of China's Patriot technology, and it is important to note that DoD officials, unlike their counterparts in the State Department and Congress, have few incentives to overlook such transgressions by Israel, whose strategic importance, in their concerted opinion, has always been overblown.(15)
The Patriot episode is far from an isolated incident. However, it does not illustrate what has become a significant problem in the American-Israeli arms trade relationship, which is reverse engineering and re-export. Due to "the sophistication of Israeli engineers, transfer of these [American weapon] systems is equivalent to transfer of the [weapons] technology itself".(16) When advanced American weapons systems are sold to Israel, Israeli engineers often take apart the components to learn their design secrets, and then re-produce the design, often with minor modifications.(17) Israel then markets these systems for export without applying for a license to do so from the U.S. government.
The consequences are two-fold: Israel is freely selling weapons that should come under the purview of U.S. re-export statutes, and Israel is profiting from the costly research and development undertaken by U.S. firms, who are not properly compensated for the sale of their technologies.
A typical example is Israel's handling of the Sidewinder missile. The AIM-9 Sidewinder missile is a supersonic, heat-seeking, short-range air-to-air missile carried by fighter aircraft, and is produced by Raytheon Co.(18) Israel received Sidewinder missiles several decades ago, and used its design as a basis for its Shafrir missiles. Israel then sold Shafrir missiles to South Africa and Chile without U.S. authorization. Building on the Shafrir design, Israel then developed its Python air-to-air missile, and sold the Python-3 to China's People's Liberation Army (PLA). Ironically for Israel, China then reverse engineered the Python and sold its version, the PL-8, to Iraq, one of Israel's most threatening neighbors in the Gulf. Needless to say, Raytheon Co. was not compensated for its contribution to any of the sales.
Other examples of this trend include the transfer of aerial refueling technology to South American countries, the marketing of the Popeye air-to-ground missile and STAR cruise missiles to China, the sale of thermal imaging tank sights to China and others, and the alleged transfer to China of Lavi technology. The Lavi was an Israeli prototype of a state-of-the-art fighter aircraft. Its development was heavily dependent upon American technology and approximately $1.5 billion in American aid (on top of the $3 billion annual aid package). The program was ultimately cancelled due to huge cost overruns, but Israel was left with cutting edge American fighter aircraft technology, some of which (it is unclear how much) it then sold to China, and which China then used in its new generation of fighter aircraft, the F-10.(19)
The central problem is that Israel has powerful economic and strategic incentives to reverse engineer and then re-export American defense technology. Israel's defense export industry is extremely important to the Israeli economy, and as a result Israel aggressively tries to export its high-end systems, generally without regard to American technological content, which Israel maintains is usually low. Doing so, of course, boosts Israel's defense industry with all its benefits (hard currency, employment), but it also, crucially, wins Israel friends abroad. Israel has in recent years been fostering closer relations with the PRC, as well as with a number of South American countries, and feels that these are ties that need strengthening. When the U.S. steps in with re-export concerns, it hampers Israel's efforts in this area. Furthermore, the Israelis say, the Americans are often depriving them of desperately needed funds, since if they can't export a given system, some other country inevitably will.
This problem is compounded by the fact that the political will to publicly confront Israel over illegal transfers is virtually nowhere to be found in Washington. The central reason for this lack of will is a ubiquitous fear of congressional reprisal. A Pentagon official has said that "an amber light is always flashing" because Congress will not "go after Israel". A Senate staff member added: "It is very difficult politically to even ask questions on this topic because of fear of firing up the pro-Israel lobby".
bits.de
James |
