K
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Guest
Remember the stink raised by the rightwankers and the rightwing lie
machine when they charged Bill Clinton with taking campaign
contributions from China in exchange for sensitive military
technology? Remember when then-Senator Freddie Thompson held
investigations and hearings and found ABSOLUTELY NO TRUTH TO THE
CLAIMS in spite of the fact that Thompson, in his opening statement to
the committee, said that Clinton was guilty as charged?
Well, folks, now the shoe is on the other foot and the rightwankers
are amazingly quiet. The Bush junta has approved the transfer of
sensitive military technology to China as a reward to their corporate
donors who need the business. Read on.
-----
WASHINGTON -- Six months ago, the Bush administration quietly eased
some restrictions on the export of sensitive technologies to China.
The new approach was intended to help American companies increase
sales of high-tech equipment to China despite tight curbs on sharing
technology that might have military applications.
But today the administration is facing questions from weapons experts
about whether some equipment -- newly authorized for export to Chinese
companies deemed trustworthy by Washington -- could instead end up
helping China modernize its military. Equally worrisome, the weapons
experts say, is the possibility that China could share the technology
with Iran or Syria.
The technologies include advanced aircraft engine parts, navigation
systems, telecommunications equipment and sophisticated composite
materials.
The questions raised about the new policy are in a report to be
released this week by the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control,
an independent research foundation that opposes the spread of arms
technologies.
The administration's new approach is part of an overall drive to
require licenses for the export of an expanded list of technologies in
aircraft engines, lasers, telecommunications, aircraft materials and
other fields of interest to China's military.
But while imposing license requirements for the transfer of these
technologies, the administration is also validating certain Chinese
companies that may import these technologies without licenses.
Five such companies were designated in October, but as many as a dozen
others are in the pipeline for possible future designation.
Mario Mancuso, Under Secretary of Commerce for industry and security,
said the new system of broadening the list of technologies that
require licenses, but exempting some trustworthy companies from the
license requirement, results in more effective protections.
"We believe that the system we have set up ensures that we are
protecting our national security consistent with our goal of promoting
legitimate exports for civilian use," he said in an interview. "We
have adopted a consistent, broad-based approach to hedging against
helping China's military modernization."
But the Wisconsin Project report, made available to The New York
Times, asserts that two non-military Chinese companies designated as
trustworthy are in fact high-risk because of links to the Chinese
government, the People's Liberation Army and other Chinese entities
accused in the past of ties to Syria and Iran.
One of the Chinese companies, the BHA Aero Composites Company, is
partly owned by two American companies -- 40 percent by the American
aircraft manufacturer Boeing and 40 percent by the aerospace materials
maker Hexcel. The remaining 20 percent is owned by a Chinese
government-owned company, AVIC I, or the China Aviation Industry
Corporation I.
"In principle, you could find companies that would be above suspicion,
but in this case they haven't done it," said Gary Milhollin,
Washington director of the Wisconsin Project. "If you just look at the
relations these companies have, rather than be above suspicion, they
are highly suspicious."
The Wisconsin Project report also charges that both Boeing and Hexcel
have been cited for past lapses in obtaining proper licenses for
exports.
Spokesmen for both Boeing and Hexcel said in interviews that they are
fully confident that BHA has no ties to the Chinese military and that
its use of aircraft parts and materials were strictly for commercial
and civilian ends.
"Boeing is not involved in any defense activities in China," said
Douglas Kennett, a company spokesman. "All our activities in China are
in compliance with U.S. export laws and regulations."
Both companies also say that the past failure to get proper licenses
has led to tighter controls and, in any case, was the result of
improper paperwork affecting products that continue to be exported as
licensed.
Mr. Milhollin said that research by his staff had uncovered several
links with the Chinese military establishment involving both BHA and
another of the five companies, the Shanghai Hua Hong NEC Electronics
Company.
AVIC I, the Chinese government entity that owns a minority share of
BHA, also produces fighters, nuclear-capable bombers and aviation
weapons systems for the People's Liberation Army, the report says. The
State Department has cited another AVIC subsidiary, the China National
Aero-Technology Import & Export Corporation, for links to arms sales
to Iran and Syria.
The report also says that Shanghai Hua Hong NEC Electronics is
majority owned "through a corporate chain" by the China Electronics
Corporation, which the report says is a government conglomerate that
produces military equipment along with consumer electronics. It has a
subsidiary, the report says, that procures arms for the military.
Mr. Milhollin said that the new administration policy granting
companies the right to import some technologies without prior licenses
was adopted quietly as "a stealth attack on export controls."
But Mr. Mancuso, the Commerce Department official who oversees the
program, noted that the department proposed it publicly in mid-2006
and adopted it a year later after lengthy public comment by interested
parties and members of Congress.
In addition, he said, no Chinese company can receive sensitive
technologies -- as part of a category known as "validated end-users" --
without a vetting of its record by the State, Energy and Defense
Departments and by relevant intelligence agencies. The five companies
designated in October, he said, were approved without dissent by these
units of the government.
In general, the Commerce Department tries to make it easier for
American companies to export to markets overseas, and there has been a
particular emphasis on selling to China. The United States is expected
to show a trade deficit with China of nearly $300 billion in 2007.
At the same time, at least since the 1990s, Democratic and Republican
Congressional leaders have called on the Bush administration, and the
prior administration of President Bill Clinton, to exercise more
vigilance toward China as it seeks to modernize its aerospace defense
network.
"China is a huge market for our commercial technology exports," said
Mr. Mancuso. "Yet there are real security risks we are mindful of. We
take that concern very, very seriously." Only those companies that
have "a demonstrable record of using sensitive technologies
responsibly" are approved, he said.
Beyond that, he said that companies for which licensing requirements
have been lifted are subject to additional disclosure obligations,
including on-site visits by American government personnel.
Business groups that advocate greater technology-sharing with China in
civilian aeronautics and other areas say that the administration has
been cautious in its new policy, in particular choosing Chinese
companies with American partners or owners.
The three other Chinese companies announced as "validated end-users"
in October are Applied Materials China, a subsidiary of Applied
Materials, a maker of semiconductors based in California; Chinese
facilities operated by the National Semiconductor Corporation, another
American company; and the Semiconductor Manufacturing International
Corporation, based in Shanghai.
William A. Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council,
which promotes international trade, said that the Bush administration
overall had tightened controls on China and that lifting license
requirements on only five companies was "a spoonful of sugar to make
the medicine go down."
Mr. Reinsch administered export controls as an official with the
Commerce Department in the Clinton administration.
A House Republican staff member expressed a similar view. "We were
told by Commerce that they were going to make some very safe choices,"
he said, speaking anonymously because of the sensitive nature of the
subject.
The Commerce Department says that, out of $55 billion in American
exports to China in 2006, only $308 million involved items that
require licenses to make sure the Chinese military could not use them.
The five companies named by the department as "validated" users free
of licensing requirements accounted for $54 million of those goods.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/technology/02cnd-tech.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
machine when they charged Bill Clinton with taking campaign
contributions from China in exchange for sensitive military
technology? Remember when then-Senator Freddie Thompson held
investigations and hearings and found ABSOLUTELY NO TRUTH TO THE
CLAIMS in spite of the fact that Thompson, in his opening statement to
the committee, said that Clinton was guilty as charged?
Well, folks, now the shoe is on the other foot and the rightwankers
are amazingly quiet. The Bush junta has approved the transfer of
sensitive military technology to China as a reward to their corporate
donors who need the business. Read on.
-----
WASHINGTON -- Six months ago, the Bush administration quietly eased
some restrictions on the export of sensitive technologies to China.
The new approach was intended to help American companies increase
sales of high-tech equipment to China despite tight curbs on sharing
technology that might have military applications.
But today the administration is facing questions from weapons experts
about whether some equipment -- newly authorized for export to Chinese
companies deemed trustworthy by Washington -- could instead end up
helping China modernize its military. Equally worrisome, the weapons
experts say, is the possibility that China could share the technology
with Iran or Syria.
The technologies include advanced aircraft engine parts, navigation
systems, telecommunications equipment and sophisticated composite
materials.
The questions raised about the new policy are in a report to be
released this week by the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control,
an independent research foundation that opposes the spread of arms
technologies.
The administration's new approach is part of an overall drive to
require licenses for the export of an expanded list of technologies in
aircraft engines, lasers, telecommunications, aircraft materials and
other fields of interest to China's military.
But while imposing license requirements for the transfer of these
technologies, the administration is also validating certain Chinese
companies that may import these technologies without licenses.
Five such companies were designated in October, but as many as a dozen
others are in the pipeline for possible future designation.
Mario Mancuso, Under Secretary of Commerce for industry and security,
said the new system of broadening the list of technologies that
require licenses, but exempting some trustworthy companies from the
license requirement, results in more effective protections.
"We believe that the system we have set up ensures that we are
protecting our national security consistent with our goal of promoting
legitimate exports for civilian use," he said in an interview. "We
have adopted a consistent, broad-based approach to hedging against
helping China's military modernization."
But the Wisconsin Project report, made available to The New York
Times, asserts that two non-military Chinese companies designated as
trustworthy are in fact high-risk because of links to the Chinese
government, the People's Liberation Army and other Chinese entities
accused in the past of ties to Syria and Iran.
One of the Chinese companies, the BHA Aero Composites Company, is
partly owned by two American companies -- 40 percent by the American
aircraft manufacturer Boeing and 40 percent by the aerospace materials
maker Hexcel. The remaining 20 percent is owned by a Chinese
government-owned company, AVIC I, or the China Aviation Industry
Corporation I.
"In principle, you could find companies that would be above suspicion,
but in this case they haven't done it," said Gary Milhollin,
Washington director of the Wisconsin Project. "If you just look at the
relations these companies have, rather than be above suspicion, they
are highly suspicious."
The Wisconsin Project report also charges that both Boeing and Hexcel
have been cited for past lapses in obtaining proper licenses for
exports.
Spokesmen for both Boeing and Hexcel said in interviews that they are
fully confident that BHA has no ties to the Chinese military and that
its use of aircraft parts and materials were strictly for commercial
and civilian ends.
"Boeing is not involved in any defense activities in China," said
Douglas Kennett, a company spokesman. "All our activities in China are
in compliance with U.S. export laws and regulations."
Both companies also say that the past failure to get proper licenses
has led to tighter controls and, in any case, was the result of
improper paperwork affecting products that continue to be exported as
licensed.
Mr. Milhollin said that research by his staff had uncovered several
links with the Chinese military establishment involving both BHA and
another of the five companies, the Shanghai Hua Hong NEC Electronics
Company.
AVIC I, the Chinese government entity that owns a minority share of
BHA, also produces fighters, nuclear-capable bombers and aviation
weapons systems for the People's Liberation Army, the report says. The
State Department has cited another AVIC subsidiary, the China National
Aero-Technology Import & Export Corporation, for links to arms sales
to Iran and Syria.
The report also says that Shanghai Hua Hong NEC Electronics is
majority owned "through a corporate chain" by the China Electronics
Corporation, which the report says is a government conglomerate that
produces military equipment along with consumer electronics. It has a
subsidiary, the report says, that procures arms for the military.
Mr. Milhollin said that the new administration policy granting
companies the right to import some technologies without prior licenses
was adopted quietly as "a stealth attack on export controls."
But Mr. Mancuso, the Commerce Department official who oversees the
program, noted that the department proposed it publicly in mid-2006
and adopted it a year later after lengthy public comment by interested
parties and members of Congress.
In addition, he said, no Chinese company can receive sensitive
technologies -- as part of a category known as "validated end-users" --
without a vetting of its record by the State, Energy and Defense
Departments and by relevant intelligence agencies. The five companies
designated in October, he said, were approved without dissent by these
units of the government.
In general, the Commerce Department tries to make it easier for
American companies to export to markets overseas, and there has been a
particular emphasis on selling to China. The United States is expected
to show a trade deficit with China of nearly $300 billion in 2007.
At the same time, at least since the 1990s, Democratic and Republican
Congressional leaders have called on the Bush administration, and the
prior administration of President Bill Clinton, to exercise more
vigilance toward China as it seeks to modernize its aerospace defense
network.
"China is a huge market for our commercial technology exports," said
Mr. Mancuso. "Yet there are real security risks we are mindful of. We
take that concern very, very seriously." Only those companies that
have "a demonstrable record of using sensitive technologies
responsibly" are approved, he said.
Beyond that, he said that companies for which licensing requirements
have been lifted are subject to additional disclosure obligations,
including on-site visits by American government personnel.
Business groups that advocate greater technology-sharing with China in
civilian aeronautics and other areas say that the administration has
been cautious in its new policy, in particular choosing Chinese
companies with American partners or owners.
The three other Chinese companies announced as "validated end-users"
in October are Applied Materials China, a subsidiary of Applied
Materials, a maker of semiconductors based in California; Chinese
facilities operated by the National Semiconductor Corporation, another
American company; and the Semiconductor Manufacturing International
Corporation, based in Shanghai.
William A. Reinsch, president of the National Foreign Trade Council,
which promotes international trade, said that the Bush administration
overall had tightened controls on China and that lifting license
requirements on only five companies was "a spoonful of sugar to make
the medicine go down."
Mr. Reinsch administered export controls as an official with the
Commerce Department in the Clinton administration.
A House Republican staff member expressed a similar view. "We were
told by Commerce that they were going to make some very safe choices,"
he said, speaking anonymously because of the sensitive nature of the
subject.
The Commerce Department says that, out of $55 billion in American
exports to China in 2006, only $308 million involved items that
require licenses to make sure the Chinese military could not use them.
The five companies named by the department as "validated" users free
of licensing requirements accounted for $54 million of those goods.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/technology/02cnd-tech.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
