Posted on 08/23/2003 6:26:47 PM PDT by maui_hawaii
Dear Senator XXXX,
I recently received your correspondence in regards to the Buy America provisions of the 2004 Defense Authorization Bill. Despite the tardiness I appreciate your response.
As I cannot quite remember the specific wording of what I wrote, (if I am not mistaken I responded via the Internet after one of the initial reports on television from a specific Senator) I do however wish to further discuss this matter.
I have heard (from various sources) the arguments you have contained in your letter. There are others that your letter didn’t mention, such as ‘if Singapore designs part of the plane, they are most likely to buy the end product.’ As a bit of clarification, I am not ‘ideologically’ opposed to trade nor ‘working with allies’ in this fashion. I am fully aware of the fact that the defense industry exports a great deal of their products. Of this I am not opposed either. If we are not careful though, we will be faced with the reality of a US company building smart bombs in China, and selling them to the France, the US, or others. That is not an export from the US and also has huge implications for our foreign policies.
In your letter you cited the Joint Strike Fighter, and specifically nations such as the UK, Spain, Italy, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Israel, and Singapore. You specifically used the term “working with our allies”. The real question is how do you define the terms “alllies” and “working with”?
In your letter you also mentioned that the 50% rule was an existing law. As it was presented by one of your colleagues, the one I responded to, it was presented exactly opposite with 65% being the standing rule, and 50% being the proposal. It was made to appear by that Senator (and other news reports) that the US government was merely seeking to outsource an increased amount of production to third countries as the likes of Wal Mart have done. It might be wise to clarify this because I am not alone in my concerns.
Without such a definition, by law, of “what constitutes an ally”, anyone can paint any country they want with this label. Who decides who gets to participate? What is the procedure for that?
Would many complain about partnership with the UK? Probably not. When is the last time Canada or Australia invaded anyone? On the other hand, would anyone complain about partnerships with China? Our “partnership” with them is problematic as it stands. For one it is not even worthy of being called “trade” because there is very little “trade” really going on only the cheapening of the expense side of the corporate balance sheet. Secondly I can cite many security concerns with them in specific that would be most applicable to the outsourcing of military manufacturing.
What if we started manufacturing missile parts in India, Pakistan, China, or Vietnam merely out of economic or political concerns? Quite simply it sounds like an ignorant idea, no matter what the economic consequences be. No matter what, we are still us, and they are still them. As one famous politician once said, “Nations don’t have friends, only interests”. First off, if America really is competitive, why outsource to someone else on a general across the board sense? Secondly there are serious security problems with such a Wal Mart type plan for everything from uniforms to bomb parts.
When China is launching missiles at Taiwan, proliferating deadly technology, or India launching missiles at Pakistan, what would be said about the policy then? If this is not really an “outsourcing” venture treated the same as other types of rampant “global trade”, please inform me of such. If there are rules about who and which countries can participate, please clear up this bit of confusion. What about those who refuse to deliver when we need them?
Currently we cannot by law sell military hardware to China, and nor should we. Specifically we should not procure military equipment, of any type, from China or any other country of that same nature either. In fact, our civilian trade policies with China should be re-examined. If those types of countries warrant enough concern to restrict sales of various items to, they are good enough to restrict procurement of various items from. I have heard nothing that addresses this issue. We don’t want them to build up militarily towards Japan, the US, or Taiwan, but we on the other hand are on the edge of encourage their military economy to build things for us. It sounds much like a double speak policy to me.
Pure, unrestrained ideological “globalism” won’t cut it for our military and national security. If we in the end procure military hardware from a country such as China, that is absolutely unacceptable. There should be no political expedience and especially no special interest that changes the facts. Lifting the restrictions is not the answer because the nature of the beast has not changed despite what a few Senators think or are bought off to say.
Specifically in regards to weapons development, without such restrictions the door is wide open ‘to develop the next generation of…with our partners’, but no one knows who our partners really are. “Partner” in global speak means lowest bidder. There is an absolute concern with this method of procurement or development, especially for sensitive military technology.
Trade itself is good, but the brand of unimpeded ‘globalism’ being pushed by many is not. If a tax rebate being pumped into the economy will help, so will locating factories, services, or R&D here, and you as a Senator should do your part to ensure this happens. Unless we are selling to the people we buy from, it is a very troubling development. I fear than many Senators say with one public voice that American companies are the best, and American workers are competitive, but as soon as they go to closed door meetings, they change their minds seek to undermine both merely out of special interests. Retraining is not the problem. An unleveled playing field is. What is good for short-term gains is not always good for long term profitability.
As for the specific 2004 Defense Authorization Bill, a retroactive change, after the fact for that specific project of that nature may not be in order. As for this conversation though, lets talk about everything else except for that particular Joint Strike Fighter project. The spirit of the House version should be followed only granting exceptions for specific projects as needed.
Thank You,
XXXX
Please read and critique my letter.
I read your letter a couple of times, but still didn't find a main "point". In general, the writing is a bit fuzzy. Note - this is a critique of a letter, not you - these are not personal attacks or flames. Just my feedback, just imho.
I recently received your correspondence in regards to the Buy America provisions of the 2004 Defense Authorization Bill. Despite the tardiness I appreciate your response.
I got your response to my letter about 2004 dab, here is my reply.
As I cannot quite remember the specific wording of what I wrote, (if I am not mistaken I responded via the Internet after one of the initial reports on television from a specific Senator) I do however wish to further discuss this matter.
First, probably good to keep copies of your letters. Second, if you don't know it don't mention it.
I have heard (from various sources) the arguments you have contained in your letter.
Actually list the arguments. Actually list your sources (gains cred).
If we are not careful though, we will be faced with the reality of a US company building smart bombs in China, and selling them to the France, the US, or others.
This is the main part of your paragraph (and probably the letter). Shouldn't be buried.
The real question is how do you define the terms “alllies” and “working with”?
He just kind of defined a representative sample of who he considers our allies.
I can't go on - too tired. It comes across as a rambling screed. Big advice - get to the point. For example:
Thanks for your response about 2004 dab. I would like to reply. First, I believe all goods used by the American military should have at least a ??% content of Made-In-America products. Why? First, we have more control - American companies would never threaten to stop the flow of parts (like was the case in the iraq war). This is a basic national security issue. Second, using Made-In-America parts provides employment to Americans with American TAX DOLLARS - this is good for our economy.
I have heard (from various sources) the arguments you have contained in your letter. There are others that your letter didn’t mention, such as ‘if Singapore designs part of the plane, they are most likely to buy the end product.’ As a bit of clarification, I am not ‘ideologically’ opposed to trade nor ‘working with allies’ in this fashion. I am fully aware of the fact that the defense industry exports a great deal of their products. Of this I am not opposed either. If we are not careful though, we will be faced with the reality of a US company building smart bombs in China, and selling them to the France, the US, or others. That is not an export from the US and also has huge implications for our foreign policies.
Well stated. However, the instead of France you could have useds the example of Chinese manufactured military equipment being sent to Iran.
In your letter you cited the Joint Strike Fighter, and specifically nations such as the UK, Spain, Italy, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Israel, and Singapore. You specifically used the term “working with our allies”. The real question is how do you define the terms “alllies” and “working with”?
This of course is the key issue. The UK and Australia are clearly allies that the USA can rely upon at present, likewise Canada. 40 years ago one could have included France in that list. At present Pakistan is an ally but there are many questions about how strong an ally and how muvch longer an ally. The problem witth allies is as follows in 1976 Iran was our ally by 1979 anything but an ally.
In your letter you also mentioned that the 50% rule was an existing law. As it was presented by one of your colleagues, the one I responded to, it was presented exactly opposite with 65% being the standing rule, and 50% being the proposal. It was made to appear by that Senator (and other news reports) that the US government was merely seeking to outsource an increased amount of production to third countries as the likes of Wal Mart have done. It might be wise to clarify this because I am not alone in my concerns.
This certainly needs to be clarified.
Without such a definition, by law, of “what constitutes an ally”, anyone can paint any country they want with this label. Who decides who gets to participate? What is the procedure for that?
Again to the crux of the matter.
Would many complain about partnership with the UK? Probably not. When is the last time Canada or Australia invaded anyone? On the other hand, would anyone complain about partnerships with China? Our “partnership” with them is problematic as it stands. For one it is not even worthy of being called “trade” because there is very little “trade” really going on only the cheapening of the expense side of the corporate balance sheet. Secondly I can cite many security concerns with them in specific that would be most applicable to the outsourcing of military manufacturing.
Perhaps a mention of the EP3 incident and some of thr4eats Chinese leaders have made would have been helpful in getting the point accross China is not our partner and anyone who tries to paint it as such can not be seen as having the interests of the USA at heart.
What if we started manufacturing missile parts in India, Pakistan, China, or Vietnam merely out of economic or political concerns? Quite simply it sounds like an ignorant idea, no matter what the economic consequences be. No matter what, we are still us, and they are still them. As one famous politician once said, “Nations don’t have friends, only interests”. First off, if America really is competitive, why outsource to someone else on a general across the board sense? Secondly there are serious security problems with such a Wal Mart type plan for everything from uniforms to bomb parts.
Clearly I agree here and I might add it is well stated.
When China is launching missiles at Taiwan, proliferating deadly technology, or India launching missiles at Pakistan, what would be said about the policy then? If this is not really an “outsourcing” venture treated the same as other types of rampant “global trade”, please inform me of such. If there are rules about who and which countries can participate, please clear up this bit of confusion. What about those who refuse to deliver when we need them?
I might have added a line about what about so called allies who then turn on us and use our own technology against our own troops but that is merely my focus and this an effective statement of the problem.
Currently we cannot by law sell military hardware to China, and nor should we. Specifically we should not procure military equipment, of any type, from China or any other country of that same nature either. In fact, our civilian trade policies with China should be re-examined. If those types of countries warrant enough concern to restrict sales of various items to, they are good enough to restrict procurement of various items from. I have heard nothing that addresses this issue. We don’t want them to build up militarily towards Japan, the US, or Taiwan, but we on the other hand are on the edge of encourage their military economy to build things for us. It sounds much like a double speak policy to me.
Very well stated.
Pure, unrestrained ideological “globalism” won’t cut it for our military and national security. If we in the end procure military hardware from a country such as China, that is absolutely unacceptable. There should be no political expedience and especially no special interest that changes the facts. Lifting the restrictions is not the answer because the nature of the beast has not changed despite what a few Senators think or are bought off to say.
Well said
Specifically in regards to weapons development, without such restrictions the door is wide open ‘to develop the next generation of…with our partners’, but no one knows who our partners really are. “Partner” in global speak means lowest bidder. There is an absolute concern with this method of procurement or development, especially for sensitive military technology.
Agree and well said.
Trade itself is good, but the brand of unimpeded ‘globalism’ being pushed by many is not. If a tax rebate being pumped into the economy will help, so will locating factories, services, or R&D here, and you as a Senator should do your part to ensure this happens. Unless we are selling to the people we buy from, it is a very troubling development. I fear than many Senators say with one public voice that American companies are the best, and American workers are competitive, but as soon as they go to closed door meetings, they change their minds seek to undermine both merely out of special interests. Retraining is not the problem. An unleveled playing field is. What is good for short-term gains is not always good for long term profitability.
Here I have a disagreement becuase the key issues in trade are the terms of exchange. Trade per se is neither good nor bad IMHO but may be either based on the overall terms. Other than this minor disagreement I like this paragraph
As for the specific 2004 Defense Authorization Bill, a retroactive change, after the fact for that specific project of that nature may not be in order. As for this conversation though, lets talk about everything else except for that particular Joint Strike Fighter project. The spirit of the House version should be followed only granting exceptions for specific projects as needed
Agree totally and with an emphasis on the "as needed."
Well you asked for a critique which in my world means going over it to see where it can be more effective among other things. I left off the spelling and grammar check as many would laugh at my even attempting same. I am very impressed with this letter and heartily endorse it. It is dealing with specific legislation before teh House and Senate. Please keep up the good work.
This was a reply to a specific letter. It was aimed at that. With the letter in hand it would be much more 'clear' as it is a 'response'. None the less, yeah, it doesn't have a single point.
I tried on purpose to tie as many relevant things together for a big picture look. I tried to touch on content of military products (not a specific amount, just the idea of buying more and more from overseas). I wanted to be vague on that as it is not always the point.
I also touched on trade and security concerns.
I didn't want to just bicker about a single number because it would sound like a price negotiations for a souviner on a Hong Kong street. It really would miss the point(s) of what I am trying to say. To be narrow wouldn't even come close to examining the issues.
Basically I did not have one point, I had several points. Otherwise I would have had to write the guy a book instead of an email..."Chapter 1..."
Note - this is a critique of a letter, not you - these are not personal attacks or flames. Just my feedback, just imho.
No problem.
Like I said though, I am going for getting my several points across, not nessesarily winning an award for grammar in an email. I wanted it to be a brief 'executive summary' that he can read in a few minutes.
I tried on purpose to tie as many relevant things together for a big picture look.
The more I read about these issues, the more complicated they seem to get.
I didn't want to just bicker about a single number because it would sound like a price negotiations for a souviner on a Hong Kong street.
Funny. I like the analogy.
I agree with what you're saying in the letter. Good luck!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.