Excerpts of Testimony by Dr. Sven F. Kraemer, Former Director of Arms Control, National Security Council Staff before Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

CHINA, MFN AND THE SECURITY DIMENSION⁽¹⁾

Within the next decade or two, China will be a great power,
one of the world’s two or three most powerful nations. This is
inevitable given the number and vitality of its people, China’s
national assertiveness, its already third ranking economy on the
globe and its regional and strategic military might. What is not
inevitable, and what American policy can significantly influence,
is whether or not China’s great power status and
assertiveness will turn to aggression and [whether] China can
turn from its reactionary Communist ideology and the temptations
of militant nationalism to the path of democracy and
peace.

U.S. leadership will be essential for reformers and reform in
China in setting high standards in human rights, trade and
security issues. A new generation of reform-minded Chinese needs
our witness and our help against an authoritarian tide, just as
the Helsinki accords and international security standards gave
critical legitimacy and support to the voices of freedom behind
the Soviet empire’s Iron Curtain.

Trade Arguments Against MFN

This is where U.S. debate on the Most Favored Nation status
for China fits into the long-term perspective. The debate comes
at a strategic cross-roads and deserves [the] most serious
deliberation, in contrast with the Clinton
Administration’s confused policy patchwork.

….In terms of trade issues, I believe the United
States should not conduct business as usual by extending MFN to
China this year, but should step up the pressure in support of
reform. China has broken a number of agreements and its
trading behavior has not met proper international trade
standards, much less standards deserving of a “most
favored” characterization or the “free trade” or
“normal trade rules” — titles with which some would
rename MFN….We should precondition MFN on implementation of
proper economic standards to replace those of piracy, corruption
tariffs and closed markets. We, not China, have the real
grievance and the stronger hand. Why kow-tow with further
concessions? Why not stick to tough standards and build
credibility and performance for the future?

The Security Dimensions — Reality Checks

….Yesterday’s Tiananmen anniversary should remind us that
even more than trade, issues of human rights and security are
likely to determine China’s adoption or rejection of the paths of
democracy and peace and the ultimate success or failure of
America’s relationship with China.

….I will focus on security issues neglected by officials and
media who prefer the post-Cold War illusion that
strategic threats have disappeared, that democracies and
dictators are not really all that different, that America is
unassailable and invincible and that we and our allies
need to do little or nothing to provide for the common defense,
other than [to] have reasonably acceptable trade relations.

The Clinton Administration expected that its stepped up
“engagement” policy would inevitably make China an
increasingly democratic and peaceful strategic partner of the
United States. But that is not what has happened, and matters
went wrong early. After his first trip to China, in March 1994,
Secretary of State Christopher worried that “China
is going in the wrong direction.” A proper policy
shift would then have encouraged reform and reformers by vigorous
and consistent U.S. leadership in pressing for high standards in
China’s behavior and in the U.S.-China relationship.
Regrettably, however, the Clinton policy became even more than
before one of ambiguous signals, lost opportunities and
appeasement. Responsibilities have been neglected and
opportunities lost, the cause of reform has been set back and new
dangers are on the horizon for [America’s] people and her
democratic allies in the Pacific.

It is time for reality checks. It is time for
bottom-up reviews and in-depth hearings. It is time to take the
blinders off about dangerous strategic realities about China
compounded by Clinton Administration policy gambles.

Communist China is Not Democratic and
China’s Military is Not Under Democratic Control

The overall strategic reality about China is that neither
China’s political and military leaders nor their programs are
under democratic control and that China’s imperial drive
to be a regional and world power in economic and military terms
continues, unchecked by democratic limits and too often
appeased by foreign powers including the United
States….[O]fficial Chinese claims that China is spending only
$5 billion a year on defense are patently untrue. A U.S.
Department of Defense (DoD) study published in 1994 provides DoD
estimates of over $30 billion and the U.S. Arms Control and
Disarmament Agency estimates about $50 billion annually.
Expenditures have risen since then and are supplemented by
high-technology acquisition through priority trade and
intelligence operations…. Regrettably, the Clinton
Administration has accepted China’s behavior and has even
augmented China’s emerging strategic threat.

China’s Military Modernization — Conventional and
Strategic Strike Forces

China is building up modern strike forces designed for
regional and internal military roles and its strategic
missiles, which can reach the United States, are being
substantially augmented in their mobility and their offensive
capability….Launches of advanced Chinese missiles in the
vicinity of Taiwan [occurred] in the summer of 1995 and in March
of 1996….Chinese cruise missiles [which began to be sold to]
Iran…in the 1980s…were reported upgraded in April
1996….[These] modern cruise missile capabilities [are just one
of the ways in] which China is showing its muscle. These
capabilities are reportedly greatly enhanced by the acquisition
of Western technology including advanced computers and engines.

China-Russia Strategic Collaboration, SS-18s and
Other New Threats

Collaboration and transfer of advanced weapons and
technologies, possibly including SS-18 strategic intercontinental
ballistic missiles (ICBMs), are increasing between Chinese and
Russian military leaders — including hardliners who may wish to
work against what some perceive as a common, democratic enemy,
the United States. Chinese and Russian military leaders
have recently described relations as the best in decades,
i.e., since the Stalin-Mao alliance. In September 1993, the two
countries agreed not to target or use force against each other,
an agreement China rejected for the United States when proposed
by the Clinton Administration….In January 1996, Ukraine
expelled three Chinese nationals for trying to obtain SS-18
[technology] at a missile-production facility in Dnipropetrovsk,
Ukraine. Presumably, [the Chinese did so in cooperation with] the
Russian military personnel at the site who oversee nuclear
weapons security and the planned movement of the weapons to
Russia. In May 1996, these efforts were boldly renewed.

Chinese Proliferation and Broken Treaties

….China, along with Russia, has the world’s worst
record on the proliferation of components and technologies of
weapons of mass destruction to rogue states….China has
accumulated an abysmal record of [violated] anti-proliferation
[agreements] and broken U.S. laws.

….China’s role in North Korea’s nuclear and missile
proliferation activities is highly suspect since North Korea’s
nuclear reactors and missiles closely resemble China’s… China
has supplied nuclear reactors to Algeria and Iran, chemical
weapons materials to Syria and Iran, and missiles to numerous
countries including Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
China’s most recent illegal proliferation activities reported
early in 1996 include sales to: 1) Pakistan (M-11 missiles and
5,000 ring magnets used in gas centrifuges that enrich uranium
for weapons) and 2) Iran (ballistic missile components, CSS-2
missiles, chemical weapons precursors and nuclear weapons-related
materials).

Chinese Colonialism

In its regional imperial drive, China has used
military forces not only against Taiwan, but also in pressing its
extensive territorial claims in territories of the South China
Sea, including the oil-rich Spratly and Pescadores islands,
in gun boat battles with Philippine and Vietnamese ships. China
is also building bases in Burma and the Indian Ocean….China
appears to view the 21 million people of Taiwan much like Saddam
Hussein viewed the people of Kuwait, which he called Iraq’s 19th
province and then proceeded to invade….Taiwan surely has no
desire or capability to attack the mainland and represents no
conceivable military threat whatsoever, yet Chinese acts of war
launched missiles at Taiwan and the international waters around
it. Isn’t it time that the people of Taiwan should feel
secure in their democracy and their self-determination without
fear of attack from China — and [know] that the United States
fully supports them in this process, as required by morality and
by U.S. law?

A Range of Potential Threats to America’s Security

U.S. intelligence and Defense Department officials have
recently noted that China’s military build-up, both strategic and
conventional, has increasingly serious implications for
United States security….In 1995, the Office of Net
Assessment in…Secretary of Defense [William Perry’s office]
concluded that the pace of China’s military modernization program
— which includes substantial conventional force improvements —
would enable China to defeat U.S. forces in a regional military
conflict in Asia by the year 2020. During the March 1996 Chinese
missile launches in and around Taiwan, a Chinese official
went so far as to threaten Los Angeles with nuclear attack if the
U.S. were to defend Taiwan against invasion from mainland China.

In Sum: The Fatal Consequences of Clinton
Administration Policy Incoherence

I have never seen anything like this administration’s
high-risk gambles and continuing confusion and weakness in U.S.
defense and foreign policy….Unless reversed, this
Administration’s policies will bring America major disasters, of
which a failed China policy will be just one….[U]nwilling to
punish China’s violations of numerous existing arms control
agreements, the administration has stepped up the flow of
advanced dual-purpose technology to China and pushed for new arms
control agreements which China is unlikely to heed in the areas
of nuclear testing, chemical weapons, retargeting, etc.

….Unless reversed, feckless current U.S.-China
policy is sure to set back the cause of reform, responsibility
and peace, and to increase potential Chinese threats not only to
key U.S. allies in Asia — but also to vital U.S. interests in
that region and to the United States homeland itself.

1. Emphasis added throughout.