10 October 2000 Senator Kyl Says China Threatens U.S. Security China continues to issue threats in its relationship with the United States, complained Senator Jon Kyl (Republican of Arizona) in a speech to the Senate October 10. Kyl, who supported granting China Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) status, nevertheless warned that Beijing aggressively challenges the United States. He warned that the United States had better begin to consider what it means for U.S. security if China is sincere in the threats it makes. "Time and time again, Chinese officials and state-sponsored media have made bellicose and threatening statements aimed at the United States and our long-standing, democratic ally, Taiwan," Kyl told fellow senators. Beijing, he added, has "even gone so far as to issue implied threats to use nuclear weapons against the United States." The question, Kyl said, is "will we take them at their word on these defense matters as we did when they made trade commitments." Following are excerpts of Senator Kyl's October 10 speech from the Congressional Record: China's Threat to U.S. National SecuritY (Senate - October 10, 2000) Mr. Kyl: Mr. President, I would like to talk about something this afternoon that I think is of great importance to this country and one of the biggest challenges we are going to face in the coming years; that is, the challenge of how the United States manages our relationships with countries that potentially present threats to our national security. While few would like to admit it, I think China cannot be omitted from this scrutiny, and I, therefore, would like to discuss that question with respect to China today. As my colleagues know, it was not long ago that the bill to grant permanent normal trade status to China passed through the Senate without amendment. I voted for this bill because I recognize the economic benefits it will have for many American workers, businesses, and consumers. That said, it is of utmost importance that we not lose sight of the fact that trade alone does not define our relationship with China. The actions and the heated rhetoric of China's communist leaders should be of great concern. So now, in the aftermath of our recent decision to grant PNTR to China, we are obligated to face the other challenges presented by the communist Chinese government. Time and time again, Chinese officials and state-sponsored media have made bellicose and threatening statements aimed at the United States and our long-standing, democratic ally, Taiwan. They have even gone so far as to issue implied threats to use nuclear weapons against the United States. The question is, will we take them at their word on these defense matters as we did when they made trade commitments. For example, in 1995, General Xiong Guangkai warned a visiting U.S. official that China could use military force to prevent Taiwan's gaining independence without fear of U.S. intervention because American leaders `care more about Los Angeles than they do about Taiwan.' An editorial in a military-owned newspaper this March was more blunt, warning that, `The United States will not sacrifice 200 million Americans for 20 million Taiwanese.' In February of this year, a state-owned paper again warned the United States against becoming involved in a conflict with China over Taiwan. The People's Liberation Army Daily carried an article which stated, `On the Taiwan issue, it is very likely that the United States will walk to the point where it injures others while ruining itself.' The article went on to issue a veiled threat to attack the U.S. with long-range missiles, stating, `China is neither Iraq or Yugoslavia . . . it is a country that has certain abilities of launching a strategic counterattack and the capacity of launching a long-distance strike. Probably it is not a wise move to be at war with a country such as China, a point which U.S. policymakers know fairly well also.' Not only has China warned against U.S. military intervention in the event that Taiwan declares its independence, Chinese officials have also issued threats against U.S. sale of theater missile defenses (TMD) to Taiwan. In February 1999, China's top arms control official, Sha Zukang, was interviewed by a reporter for the publication Defense News. When asked if U.S. assistance on theater missile defense for Japan, South Korea and possibly Taiwan could cause damage to U.S.-China relations, he replied, `If the U.S. is bent on its own way on this issue, it will not, to put it lightly, be conducive to the development of legitimate self-defense needs of relevant countries.' When further questioned about theater missile defense for Taiwan, he stated, `In the case of Taiwan, my God, that's really the limit. It constitutes a serious infringement of China's sovereignty and territorial integrity. It also represents a deliberate move on the part of the United States to provoke the entire Chinese people. Such a move will bring severe consequences.' . . . These are not examples of isolated threats. They are a small sample of the bellicose statements that China's government has made recently. I have compiled dozens of such statements and am disappointed at the sparse attention they have received. Mr. President, I have compiled a document containing 14 pages of threats issued by communist Chinese officials. It is by no means a comprehensive compendium of such statements, and is merely a sample. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. The President Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. Kyl: Mr. President, the rhetoric from Beijing has also been accompanied by troubling actions. China has long-range nuclear-tipped missiles targeted at American cities, and is already increasing its arsenal of such weapons. It is greatly increasing the number of short-range missiles aimed at Taiwan, and has taken steps to improve its ability to invade or blockade the island. China has also been the world's worst proliferator of missiles and weapons of mass destruction. It has sold ballistic missile technology to Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, and Pakistan, despite promising to adhere to the Missile Technology Control Regime. It has sold nuclear technology to Iran and Pakistan. It has aided Iran's chemical weapons program and sold that nation advanced cruise missiles. Because of China's assistance to rogue nations and its military advances, the American people, and our forces and friends abroad, face a much greater threat. Mr. President, as we craft effective national security policies for the United States, it's important that we look for warning signs of problems. As Winston Churchill said, in his `Iron Curtain' speech in 1946, less than one year after the end of World War II, `Last time, I saw it all coming and I cried aloud to my own fellow-countrymen and to the world, but no one paid any attention. Up till the year 1933 or even 1935, Germany might have been saved from the awful fate which has overtaken her . . . There never was a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe . . . but no one would listen . . . We surely must not let that happen again.' Now, more than 50 years later, we live in a very different world. The collapse of the Soviet empire, the spread of democracy and civil society in Eastern Europe and the Baltics, and the emergence of the United States as the sole-surviving superpower could lead some to mistakenly assume that the world is no longer a dangerous place. To the contrary, the threats we face today are even more complex and harder to predict than those we faced during and before the Cold War. We must now be more clear than ever in our own minds about our strategic intentions, and just as clear in signaling these to our potential aggressors. Obviously, China is not Nazi Germany, and it presents different challenges, yet the message delivered by Churchill about the need to heed warning signs is timeless. Many are quick to dismiss the rhetoric from Beijing as empty threats. This could be true, but I believe we must be prepared for another possibility--what if China's leaders mean what they say? China's proliferation of the technology for ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction has increased the threat faced by the United States and our allies. China is increasing the size and capabilities of its strategic nuclear force targeted on the United States. And furthermore, China has tried to use the threat of missile attack to coerce the United States into staying out of any future conflict in the Taiwan Strait. These are but three of the many compelling reasons why we need a national missile defense system to protect the United States and to guarantee our freedom of action. I disagree with those who claim China's objection to our proposed national missile defense, NMD, system will lead to an arms race with that country. As Secretary of Defense William Cohen testified to the Senate in July of this year, `I think it's fair to say that China, irrespective of what we do on NMD, will in fact, modernize and increase its ICBM capability.' Of course, that is precisely what China has done. Left with this reality, we have no option but to deploy a national missile defense system that will protect the United States. Frankly, I am disappointed that for the last eight years, the Clinton-Gore Administration has failed to pursue the most promising forms of missile defense and has underfunded the limited programs it has authorized due to loyalty to the ABM Treaty. For example, one of the Administration's first decisions in early 1993 was to return unopened proposals the Defense Department had requested from three teams of companies that had bid to develop a ground-based national missile defense interceptor. In 1993, the Clinton Administration also cut the budget for missile defense for fiscal year 1994 by $2.5 billion over the amount requested in President Bush's final budget, and has continued to underfund missile defense programs every year. I believe that the ABM Treaty is obsolete. It was made with an entity that no longer exists. In the words of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, this treaty `constrains the nation's missile defense programs to an intolerable degree in the day and age when ballistic missiles are so attractive to so many countries.' Dr. Kissinger has also stated that, `Deliberate vulnerability when the technologies are available to avoid it cannot be a strategic objective, cannot be a political objective, and cannot be a moral objective of any American President.' We must not allow loyalty to an outdated piece of paper called the ABM Treaty to stand in the way of a sound defense given the threats we face. In addition to the deployment of a national missile defense system, it is important for the United States to use the full range of economic and diplomatic tools to halt China's proliferation of the technology for missiles and weapons of mass destruction. I believe the Senate missed an opportunity when we failed to pass an amendment offered by Senator Thompson to combat this problem. I hope this legislation will be considered and passed next year. In addition, we need to ensure that strong export controls on U.S.-made products are in place so we don't inadvertently help China modernize its military. It remains to be seen whether the rhetoric from Beijing will become reality, but in light of China's troubling actions, prudence demands that we take steps to address China's behavior. We ignored warnings in the past and paid a high price. We surely must not let it happen again. . . . (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov) Return to the Washington File