On Eve of House PNTR Vote, Influential Chairman Floyd Spence Warns of ‘Growing Threat to U.S. Security’ from China

(Washington, D.C.): The Clinton-Gore Administration asserts that U.S. national
security will
not only be enhanced by granting China Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) but that it
requires an affirmative vote by the Congress. In a pointed and timely rebuff to such
claims, the
respected chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Rep. Floyd Spence
(R-SC), has
just issued a “National Security Report” describing the myriad ways in which the PRC is
already acting at odds with American security and interests, even though the U.S. retains the
leverage inherent in annual reviews of trade ties with Beijing.

In an accompanying message “From the Chairman” entitled “U.S.-China Relations:
On a
Collision Course?” Rep. Spence observes:

The Administration has…elevated trade and economic relations with China above the need to
protect U.S. national security interests. Although increased trade was intended to “Westernize”
China, the trade relationships fostered by the Administration’s policies appear to have
had
little appreciable effect on China’s political evolution. Instead, U.S. policy has become
hostage to the fear of losing a large emerging commercial market. In a policy that was crafted to
shape China’s behavior has become a tool that China has used to shape ours instead. (Emphasis
added.)

The following highlights of Chairman Spence’s report should be considered to be
required
reading for his colleagues and their constituents prior to action on the question of whether
further to abet China’s ability to engage in ominous activities thanks to the additional wealth the
PRC will accrue with PNTR and membership in the World Trade Organization.

Excerpts of

China in the Ascendency: A Growing Threat to U.S.
Security?

National Security Report, Volume 4, Issue 2

Rep. Floyd Spence, Chairman

House Armed Services Committee

The Administration’s China policy, as reiterated by President Clinton in a recent speech, is
based
on the “Russia model ” — the theory that growing trade and economic prosperity will gradually
undermine the authoritarian order and eventually lead to democracy. Unfortunately, the
“Russia
model “has not worked according to theory in Russia, and its applicability to China, which
remains a tightly controlled totalitarian state, is also questionable.

* * *

On March 6, 2000, China’s main army newspaper Liberation Army Daily, said that U.S.
intervention in any conflict between China and Taiwan would result in “serious damage” to U.S.
security interests, with the U.S. military complete withdrawal from the East Asian region.”
The
paper again raised the prospect of a nuclear confrontation with the United States, noting
that China “is a country that has certain abilities of launching strategic counterattack and the
capacity of launching a long-distance strike….It is not a wise move to be at war with a country
such as China, a point which the U.S. policy-makers know fairly well also.”

* * *

China’s view of U.S. resolve over Taiwan has been conditioned by how it perceives
U.S.
behavior elsewhere in the world. Chinese political and military leaders, as reflected in
statements and writings, are well aware of the Administration’s decision to grant North Korea
diplomatic, economic, and technological incentives in an effort to encourage that country to
suspend its nuclear and missile programs. Chinese military writings have also noted
that the
leaders of countries that have challenged the Western alliance militarily — for example,
Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia — are still in power.

* * *

The Dragon’s Teeth

China has embarked on an ambitious program to improve its conventional and nuclear
forces.
On March 6, 2000, Chinese Finance Minister Xiang Huaicheng announced that China’s military
budget for 2000 would increase by 12.7 percent over the 1999 level, at least the eighth straight
annual double-digit increase. Most Western analysts believe that China’s public military budget
significantly understates actual military spending because large expenses such as weapons
procurement and research and development costs are hidden in other allocations. As such,
analysts estimate that actual military spending is three to ten times higher than the published
figures. One analyst recently pointed out to the Hong Kong Standard that
the cost to China of
recent weapons purchases from Russia likely exceeded China’s total publicly projected
military budget for 2000.

* * *

In recent years, the People’s Republic of China has laid the foundations for
expanding its
influence over regional events through political and military means. China’s military
has
undergone significant modernization — enhancing both conventional and strategic forces in ways
that may pose additional threats to the United States, U.S. interests, and U.S. military forces in
the region — with significant implications for future U.S. national security.

The resulting combination of China’s military modernization campaign, its apparent
unwillingness to stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, its growing ties with Russia, its
opposition to the U.S. national missile defense program, its criticism of NATO, and its
threatening posture toward Taiwan have led many in Congress to wonder if China’s path
is one
that will lead it to become an adversary, rather than a “strategic partner.”