11 September 2000 Senator Helms Backs Thompson Amendment to China PNTR Bill Senator Jesse Helms (Republican of North Carolina) called on the Senate September 11 to back an amendment to H.R. 4444, the bill that would grant China Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status, offered by Senator Fred Thompson (Republican of Tennessee). Thompson offered the measure on China's weapons proliferation activities, titled the China Nonproliferation Act, as an amendment to the PNTR bill after several unsuccessful efforts to have it considered separately. Senator Robert Torricelli (Democrat of New Jersey) co-authored the measure. Helms, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, observed that "virtually every argument the pro-Communist China industrial lobby makes regarding this amendment misses one crucial point: Chinese proliferation of weapons of mass annihilation poses a grave threat to U.S. national security." "I, for one, find China's trade in these commodities abhorrent and intolerable," he added. "The world today is a very dangerous place populated with tyrants and despots hostile to the United States," Helms said. "At every turn in the road," Helms continued, "we discover that Communist China is supplying such countries with technology which ultimately can be used in the future to kill Americans again." Further, he noted, no matter "how many times the United States raises the matter of China's military exports, the Communist leadership in Beijing refuses to cease and desist." The Thompson-Torricelli amendment, Helms said, "underscores the Senate's concern over Red China's ongoing trade in the deadliest types of weapons technology with terrorist nations." "Under no circumstance ... should the Senate let this moment pass without deploring China's behavior and raising the stakes for China's continued assistance to the likes of North Korea, Iran, and Libya," he said. Following is the text of the September 11 statement from the office of Senator Helms: Floor Statement by Senator Helms On China's Exports of Deadly Weapons Technology to Rogue States September 11, 2000 Mr. Helms: Mr. President, for the past two months there has been a deluge of claims regarding the "Thompson-Torricelli" amendment. While the able Senator from Tennessee has leaned over backwards to accommodate all concerns raised in good faith, there is clearly no satisfying that particular crowd of "beltway lobbyists" who will stop at nothing to secure corporate profits. Virtually every argument the pro-Communist China industrial lobby makes regarding this amendment misses one crucial point: Chinese proliferation of weapons of mass annihilation poses a grave threat to U.S. national security. Mr. President, if there cannot be agreement on this basic premise, then there is no common ground to be found on the Thompson-Torricelli amendment. But I, for one, find China's trade in these commodities abhorrent and intolerable. It is especially unconscionable for China to continue supplying the Islamic radicals in Iran with chemical weapons precursors and missile technology. (Lest we forget, Iran is that country whose interests are antithetical to the United States). For the past twenty years the fanatics in Teheran have poured money, weaponry, and technology into terrorist groups worldwide. The mullahs have orchestrated dozens of bombings and the cold-blooded murder of hundreds of U.S. servicemen and citizens, including the bombing of Khobar Towers, in Saudi Arabia -- killing 19 U.S. troops and wounded 240 others -- and the Hizbollah bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon, which killed 241 Americans. So all this talk about reformists in Iran is hogwash -- pure and simple. As the saying once went: "Read my lips" -- Iran is ruled by an Islamic fundamentalist regime that calls the United States the "Great Satan" and continues to spew anti-Semitic, anti-Israeli venom between each and every flight test of its new "Shahab" medium-range missiles (supplied, by the way, by Russia and China). Mr. President, Iran is the last country on earth that the United States should want to possess deadly chemical nerve agents, nuclear weapons, or medium-range ballistic missiles. Why on earth would the United States not do everything possible to stop China's supply of nerve agent precursors and specialized glass-lined production equipment to Iran? Why on earth would the Senate look the other way as China continues to build a research reactor and other nuclear facilities in Iran, or supplies missile testing equipment, guidance systems, telemetry technology, and specialized materials to Iran's missile program? And, surely, Iran is the last country on earth that the United States would want to gain possession of advanced cruise missiles capable of sinking U.S. warships. (According to Secretary of State Albright, China's C-802 missile is "roughly the equivalent of the French EXOCET missile that Iraq used in 1987 to attack the frigate USS Stark in the Gulf, killing 37 Americans.") Why would the United States not do everything in its power, up to -- and including -- the imposition of sanctions, to prevent China from supplying hundreds of these missiles to the Iranian military? Mr. President, Iran is by no means the only dangerous country to which Communist China continues to ship deadly weaponry. There is the regime in Libya, which today is on trial in The Hague for its cowardly terrorist bombing of a plane over Lockerbie, Scotland. That cruel, beastly attack killed 270 people, 189 of whom were Americans. Libya is getting from the Chinese all sorts of missile testing equipment and training. Bear in mind, Mr. President, this is a regime which once drew a "line of death" across the Gulf of Sidra and launched warplanes to attack the U.S. Navy, so under no circumstance would the United States want Libya to possess a ballistic missile capable of dropping chemical or biological weapons on U.S. troops stationed in Italy. But that is precisely the capability that the PRC is supplying to Libya today. Then, of course, there is North Korea -- that communist dictatorship that engaged in a massive, surprise attack against the United States and South Korea in 1950 that ultimately killed more than 35,000 Americans. North Korea still maintains a million man army with thousands of tanks and artillery pieces deployed within just a few miles of Seoul. It is a country which recently launched that ballistic missile over Japan, a missile capable of reaching the United States with a small chemical or biological warhead. North Korean boats still periodically engage in shooting matches with South Korean, ships. North Korea has deployed assassination squads on mini-submarines to infiltrate its neighbor to the south, continues to harbor vicious terrorists wanted in Japan for a variety of murders, and is working overtime on the development of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. This is not a country that the United States would want to possess long-range ICBMs -- but Communist China insists on supplying Pyongyang with missile technology and specialized steel. Mr. President, I haven't even touched on the subject of Chinese missile and nuclear assistance to Pakistan, its supply relationship with the dictatorship in Syria, or the help it was giving to Saddam Hussein's horrible programs. Mr. President, the world today is a very dangerous place, populated with tyrants and despots hostile to the United States. These are countries which have killed Americans. At every turn in the road, we discover that Communist China is supplying such countries with technology which ultimately can be used in the future to kill Americans again. No matter how many times the United States raises the matter of China's military exports, the Communist leadership in Beijing refuses to cease and desist. Indeed, the history of U.S.-Chinese relations on nonproliferation matters is one littered with broken promises. It is a tale of deceit and trickery by Communist China. As this chart shows, to date, China has made at least fourteen major nonproliferation commitments since 1984. Seven of these have been related to the proliferation of nuclear technology. The PRC also has made five separate pledges regarding the transfer of missile technology, and two pledges on chemical and biological transfers. During the past two decades, the PRC has repeatedly violated every one of these promises. Immediately following Communist China's 1984 pledge not to help other countries develop nuclear weapons, what do you think happened? That's right: China signed a "secret" protocol with Iran to supply nuclear materials. Beginning in the early 1980s, China helped Pakistan ''get the bomb", sharing weapons design information. In 1996, China was caught having shipped a large number of specialized ring magnets for weapons-grade enrichment of uranium to Pakistan. In 1998, even while telling Congress that China had quit assisting Pakistan in (in order to secure Congressional support for commercial nuclear cooperation), the Clinton administration knew about ongoing PRC contacts with Pakistan's nuclear weapons program. It is abundantly clear, two years later, that China has never adhered even once to its nuclear nonproliferation pledges. In fact, according to the latest unclassified intelligence assessment, issued this past month: "Chinese entities have provided extensive support in the past to Pakistan's nuclear programs. In May 1996, Beijing promised to stop assistance to unsafeguarded nuclear facilities, but we cannot preclude ongoing contacts." It is the same old song, second verse same as the first, in the case of missile transfers. Again, China has repeatedly broken its pledges. A claim in 1989 that it had no "plans" to sell medium-range missiles to the Middle East was almost immediately contravened by several transactions. A subsequent pledge, in early 1991, to "refrain" from medium-range sales to the Middle East, also was "rubbish." So, in 1992, China made yet another promise -- written down this time -- that it would not transfer any Category I or Category II missile items to Syria, Pakistan, or Iran. The Chinese pledge specifically covered M-9 and M-11 missiles, and extended to existing contracts. This, of course, did not stop. China from selling M-11 missiles to Pakistan, or from selling missile technology to Iran and Syria. So the Clinton administration extracted a further pledge in 1994 from China that it really did intend to abide by the MTCR. However, the Chinese commitment to observe the MTCR Guidelines, which explicitly prohibits the transfer of missile production equipment, was observed no better than earlier pledges. Not only did M-11 sales continue, but the PRC was discovered supplying a production facility for such missiles to Pakistan. According to various press accounts, China recently completed work on this facility for Pakistan. Moreover, recent press accounts also indicate that the PRC has initiated significant new missile transactions with both North Korea and Libya. These, then, are the facts regarding China's military exports. As much as various business lobbies may wish to portray the Communist leadership in Beijing as a trustworthy, responsible actor, the truth is that the regime is neither. The PRC has not been responsible. It has given terrorist regimes deadly chemical capabilities, nuclear technology to vaporize entire cities, and missiles capable of raining terror on innocent people from above. Nor has Beijing proven trustworthy, having broken pledge after pledge. Certainly the Clinton-Gore administration is not the first to allow itself to be duped by the PRC in order to pursue this commercial objective or that. But the current administration has coupled its willingness to subordinate nonproliferation concerns to trade with an alarming disregard for the law. I deeply regret the appalling legal hijinks of the Clinton-Gore administration in trying to avoid sanctioning Communist China for its military trade. Some will recall that The New York Times once quoted President Clinton as having declared that U.S. sanctions laws put "enormous pressure sure on whoever is in the Executive Branch to fudge an evaluation of the facts of what is going on." The fact that the President would say such a thing comes as no surprise to many of us. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in particular, has been on the receiving end of this business of "fudging the facts" for the past eight years. While no administration has ever voluntarily imposed sanctions that it believed would be counterproductive, the Clinton-Gore administration's callous disregard of U.S. law is bouncing around at a new low. Because the administration has no stomach for nonproliferation sanctions, and because the Chinese know it, out nonproliferation dialogue with the PRC has become nothing little more than an opportunity for Beijing to uncover how the U.S. intelligence community knows things about China's weapons trade. At this point, it must be patently obvious to the PRC that this administration does not have "the right stuff" to impose missile sanctions and make them stick. The exponential growth in China's deadly exports, clearly shown on this chart, is occurring in the face of weakening U.S. resolve, and that is a dangerous combination. As I see it, the obvious benefit of the Thompson-Torricelli amendment is two-fold. First and foremost, the amendment underscores the Senate's concern over Red China's ongoing trade in the deadliest types of weapons technology with terrorist nations. Under no circumstance, Mr. President, should the Senate let this moment pass without deploring China's behavior and raising the stakes for China's continued assistance to the likes of North Korea, Iran, and Libya. It is impossible to overstate how critical this is, at a time when the commercial interests of the United States clearly predominate over national security. concerns. Second, it also "raises the ante" on an executive branch which has come to think of mandatory sanctions laws as optional things. Now, I recognize that it is nearly impossible to compel this administration to adhere to the supreme law of the land. But the Senate surely can make flagrant disregard for the law a little more uncomfortable for some in the administration by requiring expanded reporting on China's proliferation behavior based on a reasonable evidentiary standard. Mr. President, for all of these reasons, I strongly support the Thompson-Torricelli amendment and I do hope other Senators will join in sending a strong message to Beijing that its dangerous exports must stop. (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov) Return to the Washington File