Chinese fixated on winning war against US via "assassin's mace."

U.S.-China Commission ^ | 7/15/2002 | Richard D'Amato

[sam_paine]

		Statement by Chairman Richard D’Amato U.S. Capitol, July 15, 2002 Thank you for coming this morning. I will make brief remarks, as will Vice Chairman Michael Ledeen, then answer your questions. This is the Commission’s first annual report to the Congress. Congress directed us to look at the wide scope of the U.S.-China bilateral economic and trade relationship, with a focus on its national security implications. We spent the last year holding hearings, engaging in original research and conducting meetings to serve as the eyes and ears of Congress. We have tried to augment Senators’ and members’ understanding of this complicated, big and growing relationship between the US and China, its dangers, trends, opportunities, and particularly its unknowns. This is a bipartisan product, the results of a broad agreement among nearly all of the Commissioners, a highly varied group of people who put fresh eyes on this subject, and approved the Report by a vote of 11-1. I want to commend Vice Chairman Ledeen for his work and support in this effort, and thank all Commissioners, most of whom are in this room, for their hard work and creative diligence. This is an educational report and an action document. Each chapter highlights findings and makes recommendations which flow from those findings. The Executive summary gives the key 21 recommendations, but you will find many others at the end of each chapter. We have copies available of our entire hearing record, and a two volume set of our documentary annex -- original research and original translations of Chinese materials. We also have released an original survey research study done at the University of Maryland, which documents Chinese media treatment of the U.S. from various perspectives. We found that U.S. policy toward China has been and is fragmented, lacking consistency and depth. It has often been driven solely by commercial interests, or by specific human rights issues, or by a particular military crisis – rather than by a comprehensive examination of all the issues which impact this relationship. Furthermore, over the last 30 years it has been dominated by strong Executive branch personalities and compulsive secrecy. We lack a sustainable consensus on the fundamental national interests of the U.S. among our elected leadership, particularly between the President and Congress. We think the nation is poorly served by this shortcoming, and it needs to be corrected, particularly as China grows in economic and military power, and the U.S. plays a substantial role in propelling that rise in power. We are also very concerned over the serious differences in the perceptions held by each country of the other, lacking agreed-upon goals, core values and shared agendas. The potential for miscommunications and serious misunderstandings is apparent. It is compounded by a dismal failure, despite long American efforts, to establish bilateral institutions for confidence building, threat reduction, and crisis management. Let me call your attention to several unique aspects of our report: Chapter 1 on conflicting national perspectives opens the report because we think it sets the framework which needs understanding and attention by the Congress. We think that Chinese strategic thinking that we have documented in this chapter is cause for concern. The Chinese leadership appears to be fixated on so-called asymmetrical warfare, or silver bullets, surprise weaponry and tactics they call assassin’s mace. We worry that they may be mesmerized by a self-deception that they can prevail in military scenarios with the U.S. on the cheap through such surprise strategies. These perceptions problems are accompanied, in our view, by the steadfast refusal of the Chinese leadership to engage us constructively on the matter of building effective bilateral confidence building institutions and procedures. We are encouraging the Administration to make renewed attempts to build such institutions. We go to some lengths to make numerous recommendations designed to enhance U.S. better understanding and knowledge of China and Chinese materials in the U.S. We recommend rebuilding the Library of Congress China collection, new national education language and area studies grants programs similar to the NDEA programs of the past, new efforts at open source collection by the intelligence community and an upgrading of the FBIS, Federal Broadcast Information Service. We know too little about China’s intentions, what they are communicating to their own people, and to us, and we need a far better level of effort. In Chapters 2, 3, 6 and 7 we document the growing, and very unbalanced economic relationship. We have a huge $80+ billion trade deficit, large flows of investment, R&D, private and public technology to China, as well as substantial funding from U.S. capital markets. U.S. exports of goods to China remain stagnant, while China’s exports to the U.S. are exploding. Our primary exports to China are our manufacturing capacity, R&D, and investment capital, not goods – and we differ in important ways with Europe in this area. The Chinese are dependent in substantial ways on U.S. economic flows. The impacts of this flow of resources on our national industrial base and national security is poorly documented. It needs careful monitoring. Our report calls for increased scrutiny of corporate activities in China, and a new corporate reporting system as to what investment, R&D and technology is being sent to China. We are also concerned over China’s impact on other Asian economies, particularly the Japanese, but also ASEAN and Taiwan, and call for fuller consultations between the U.S. and our Asian friends and allies on the consequences of this phenomenon for our mutual relations. Also there is a unique presentation in the Capital markets area (Chapter 6); a renewed call for more effective consultations and consensus building between the President and Congress on Taiwan policy (Chap 8). We are recommending refashioning the American toolbox of incentives and disincentives to enhance American leverage and encourage the Chinese to comply with their commitments -- in proliferation practices, prison labor agreement enforcement, IPR enforcement, and most importantly, with their far-reaching obligations under the WTO. We have proposed new American assistance programs to help China come into compliance in the WTO and build a working rule of law system in China – the success or failure of this I believe is the most important benchmark of progress as this commission’s work proceeds. The final chapter includes a series of recommendations for future Commission work, and those recommendations have now been incorporated in next years legislative appropriations bill. As you will see, they focus on proliferation, the full range and impacts of economic transfers to China, use of U.S. capital markets, corporate reporting, WTO compliance, and Asian regional impacts. A number of our recommendations have already been communicated to Congress, and several of them have already been acted upon or are being seriously considered as we speak. In concluding, one might ask our position on the policy we call "constructive engagement." My view is that if constructive engagement is to have any meaning or content beyond a superficial catchphrase, and be a sound basis for the refashioning of U.S. policy on a more coherent basis, it will have to become a real two-way street, not the sound of one hand clapping. In sum, we are looking for Chinese willingness to take steps to develop relations not susceptible to constant surprise, where the common ground is expanded and understood, open and transparent, and where cooperation and a positive atmosphere is nurtured. As yet, we do not see these things happening. Vice Chairman Ledeen.
	Home | USCC Charter | Hearing Schedule | Transcripts | Commission Members

[sam_paine]

Great news. The "Bill" is coming due.

(in Breaking News as it was just reported on FNC...)

[headsonpikes]

How can they get that assassin's mace through airport security? It's gotta look a little lumpy.

I don't think the Chinese have thought this through thoroughly.

[ecomcon]

Bump

[FreedomPoster]

I like the summary. I am afraid that all of the FedGov's eyes are on the Muslims, and the China represents a greater medium-term threat. And may be allied with some of our enemies in the Muslim world, on the sly (Iraqi weapons transfers, etc.).

Bump!

[vannrox]

Oh, personally, I believe that their individual interests are not that different from ours.

[sheik yerbouty]

They will lose.

[staytrue]

We know too little about China’s intentions, what they are communicating to their own people, and to us, and we need a far better level of effort.

You convieniently left this quote out of the title.

[sam_paine]

In the same vein, bank robbers are similar to folks with interest earning checking accounts....they both just want to make a little money.

There is a serious difference between the interests of a communist military dictatorship, and an open (as measured by whistleblowers and leaks to a free press), if not democratic society that at least still tolerates private property.

I'm doing more and more business with Chinese semiconductor companies...business we used to do with Japan and Taiwan.

It is a noticeable difference for new business opptys when we are told upfront that nothing can be covered under a Non Disclosure Agreement because any trade secret or product becomes property of the "Chinese People" when it hits their shore. It's not even that bad in Taiwan.

[Carry_Okie]

I don't think the Chinese have thought this through thoroughly.

On the contrary. Their efforts are careful, consistent, patient, inexpensive, and effective. You should note the breadth and depth of their efforts in Latin America, from the Panama Canal through Chavez in Venezuela to the Bahamas. Their alliances with Mexico are longstanding while Mexican contact with Taiwan is nil. Their ability to supply and augment military transport to our Southeast is increasing rapidly. It is clear that they intend to use strife both internally and all across our southern perimeter to prevent us from responding to their agressions across the Pacific. You will note growing distaste in Mexico for US policy in the Middle East and their willingness to abet trans-shipment of Arab terrorists into this country.

[sam_paine]

Left what out of the title? Should I just paste the entire article in the "title" field, or just paste the part -you- want to discuss, or just paste the part that -I- want to discuss?

I suggest you start your own thread and focus it on what -you- want to discuss.

[genefromjersey]

" Constructive Engagement " is shorthand for " Ai-ee ! Stupid American Running Dog Capitalists and Their Lackeys Dig Their Own Economic Graves ! "

[thatsnotnice]

The Chinese view the U.S. as a hegemon in decline and have told everyone that will listen that they will fill the void as the U.S. vacates an area or press us when we stagnate in an area. They have been doing so. It’s no secret.

[sam_paine]

Their alliances with Mexico are longstanding while Mexican contact with Taiwan is nil.

Are you suggesting a Taiwan-China conflict where Mexico and the "Reconquistas" would be allied with China and we would be fighting for the "1848 borders."

Seems far fetched, but stranger things happen.

[Map Kernow]

We think that Chinese strategic thinking that we have documented in this chapter is cause for concern. The Chinese leadership appears to be fixated on so-called asymmetrical warfare, or silver bullets, surprise weaponry and tactics they call assassin’s mace. We worry that they may be mesmerized by a self-deception that they can prevail in military scenarios with the U.S. on the cheap through such surprise strategies.

Think "Pearl Harbor." The Japanese thought that that surprise attack would take out essentially all our capability to counter their thrust south into the Philippines, Malaya, and Indonesia, and force us to negotiate a peace that would concede Japan hegemony over Asia and the Western Pacific. Their "magic bullet" strategy didn't ultimately work, but it did work long enough to cost us considerable lives and treasure. Let's not let it happen again, no matter how much profit Wal-Mart and other US companies make by business dealings with China.

[spetznaz]

I personally believe that the threat of assymetrical warfare posed by the Chinese is a threat that should be taken quite seriously. And this is for a number of reasons.

First of all assymetrical warfare (AW from now on) has been proven to be a viable mode of war when you need to negate or threaten superior military assets. It worked perfectly in Afghanistan during the 1980s when the CIA helped Usama bin Laden and his fellow mujahadeens (then they were called 'Freedom fighters') fend off Soviet attacks. There they used stinger (and in smaller measures redeye) handhel SAMs to neutralize Soviet helicopter gunships and fighter-bombers. In Vietnam too the Soviets gave 'aid' to the Vietcong by providing sophisticated (for then) SAM systems that wrought havoc on our WildWeasels and other US fighters.

Yet compared to what China is developing today that type of AW was very rudimentary!

There are reports that China has been 'acquring' sophisticated Western and Russian military tech (when i say acquired i mean through direct purchase, indirect purchase, and theft). The following are several examples.

First thing first they have SunBurn missiles! The sunburn is a supersonic missile developed by Russia for one purpose and one purpose only .....destroying American aircraft carriers! They are quite fast, extremely maneuvrable, and able to use a 'ripple effect' where a line of missiles attack at different flight paths, different angles and different speeds, all in a bid to beat the anti-missile defenses of the carrier. China has them.

China also has the J-10 fighter jet, which it developed thanks to the US and Israel! How? The US and Israel were working ona fighter concept called the Lavi which got cancelled in 1987, but somehow some Israeli general decided it was prudent (perhaps financially) to send the prototype details to China. Thus the J-10 was developed.

China also has the J-11 ....which in Russia is known as the Sukhoi-27 Flanker. This is a very advanced jet fighter, ranked better or equal to any western jet (apart from the upcomign F-22 Raptor and possibly the Eurofighter). This Russian jet's specifics were bought by China, and they can now make it indigenously as the J-11. Luckily most Chinese pilots do not seem to be very good pilots and thus have been crashing this very capable jet quite often (LOL) but should they learn how to use it as the Russians do let me just say any American pilot in a F-18 Hornet/SuperHornet will find himself in dire straits!

Plus they got have some Israeli made Python-3 air to air missiles, which are quite advanced (the Python-4 is the best in the world) as well as the Russian R-73 (which by the way is ranked as second best in the ASRAAM category inthe world). Nothing we have can match these missiles that can even be fired laterally from the fighter jet. Some say the also have the R-77 (an extremely advanced AMRAAM) but i personally do not believe the Russians would have sold them such a missile.

China has also been trying to acquire the Shvkal 2 Hypercavitating Rocket torpedo, which travels underwater in an 'envelop' of gases at speeds 4-5 times faster than anything we have. Some say china may have obtained either one of the prototypes of the former Shvkal-1, or working plans of the Shvkal-2.

Then there is the J-12 fighter project that is due for completion a decade from now. The J-12 is a stealth program that utilizes Russian stealth tech (from the Russian stealth prototypes Mig-Mapo 1.42 and the other Russian stealth S-37 Berkerut ...not to be confused with the Su-37 'terminator' which is not stealth). The J-12 is said to be in the same league with the F-22 Raptor and is meant to match it in performance and abilities (although the J-12 will have more gorund attack capabilities).

China has also invested in both the Czech 'Tamara' anti-stealth radar (a relatively rudimentary passive radar suite that can detect stealth aircraft) as well as much more advanced Russian anit-stealth detection devices.

Anyway the purpose of AW for China is not to make them win any wars with the US! Nope, that would never happen because the US is just too strong for China to stop directly. What AW is for is to cause sufficient casualties on the American side to cause the American population back home to reconsider the fight and call back the soldiers. After all China is banking that Americans back here will not let there people die in the protection of Taiwan. Imagine what the populace would do if two aircraft carriers were sunk with all hands on board. There would be many calling for the immediate destruction of China, even using nukes .....but many more would start questioning what American soldiers are doing defending Taiwan and a Vietnam situation would develop where they are calling for immediate withdrawal.

That is why AW by the Chinese should be looked at carefully.

[headsonpikes]

I guess I just keep assuming that when push comes to shove, we'll unleash Hell on them.

I know no-one interested in a Chinese-run world; so long as the U.S. maintains strategic supremacy, and elects a President with a pair, China is just another Asian despotism.

Despotism has never travelled well.

[Carry_Okie]

Look at the long progress of history where nations have come and gone? What is "far fetched" about it?

[LibWhacker]

It appears to me that America's hyper-power status -- while comforting to us -- is totally unacceptable to any number of major countries and loose alliances around the world (China, Russia, all of the muslim countries, and even some of our so-called friends in Europe). For our own safety we should be prudent about this and regard them collectively as perfectly capable and treacherous enough to do ANYTHING they think is necessary to do to prevent us from holding onto that distinction much longer.

Each knows he cannot defeat us alone and yet appears fully committed to defanging us somehow, someway, sometime -- but soon. That implies they'll necessarily come around to a secret mega-alliance. And it may already be forming. The EU has has come right out and stated as much: they are determined to dethrone us as the leading economic power in the world. China is working like crazy to build up its military. Russia is unhappy with us. And the unity of muslim opinion amongst countries that normally have little use for one another is another indicator.

I just hope it's only the background static in my tinfoil hat that's causing me to interpret much of the rest of the world's convergence of opinion about us and their increasing hatred for us as a sure prelude to a coordinated surprise attack by the whole lot of them. But I fear it isn't. And that's the real assassin's mace we should be worrying about, imo -- not a blow from one country like a China, but a simultaneous blow from many.

So it makes no sense to me for us to be disposing of our "surplus" nukes at this time. Indeed, this is the worst possible time to do such a thing . . . Just my opinion.

[Red Jones]

thanks for that run-down.

Many have underestimated the americans in the past.

[Map Kernow]

Their efforts are careful, consistent, patient, inexpensive, and effective. You should note the breadth and depth of their efforts in Latin America, from the Panama Canal through Chavez in Venezuela to the Bahamas. Their alliances with Mexico are longstanding while Mexican contact with Taiwan is nil. Their ability to supply and augment military transport to our Southeast is increasing rapidly. It is clear that they intend to use strife both internally and all across our southern perimeter to prevent us from responding to their agressions across the Pacific. You will note growing distaste in Mexico for US policy in the Middle East and their willingness to abet trans-shipment of Arab terrorists into this country.

At least since World War I (remember the "Zimmermann telegram"?), the enemies of the United States have tried to gain Mexico's cooperation in a joint strategy against the United States. The incentive offered has always been the "restoration" of lands in the American Southwest that many, if not most, Mexicans still consider legitimately part of Mexico. The Chinese are very much aware of this, especially the continuing historical enmity between the US and Mexico over the 1846-48 war. Let's not kid ourselves: our border with Mexico is now, and will increasingly be in the future, a source of threats to our national security, aided and abetted by deep rooted Mexican popular hostility towards the US, and China has exploited and will increasingly exploit our vulnerability on our southern border. Depend on it.