[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 125 (Tuesday, October 10, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10129-S10133]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CHINA'S THREAT TO U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY
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.'' (Emphasis added) According to the Washington Post in
July, that same Chinese official warned that the sale of U.S.
technology to Taiwan for a smaller scope theater missile defense system
would ``lead to serious confrontation'' because it would be tantamount
to restoring a military alliance between Taipei and Washington. He
stated, ``This is of supreme national interest. It will be defended at
any cost.'' (Emphasis added)
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.
(See Exhibit 1.)
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
[[Page S10130]]
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.
Threatening or Bellicose Statements by Chinese Officials or Drawn From
Official State-Run Media
MISSILE THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES
The PLA 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.''--Remark by an officer in the People's
Liberation Army (PLA) to former Assistant Secretary of
Defense, Chas Freeman, Jr., ``As China Threatens Taiwan, It
Makes Sure U.S. Listens,'' New York Times, January 24, 1996.
``On the Taiwan issue, it is very likely that the United
States will walk to the point where it injures others while
ruining itself. As is known to all, if the `Taiwan
independence' elements openly and brazenly advocate
separatism, the PRC government will be forced to resort to
the use of force ultimately to resolve the Taiwan issue. Once
the cross-strait war breaks out, the U.S. government will
face a dilemma: If it chooses not to intervene, the United
States has to consider the `Taiwan Relations Act;' besides,
U.S. allies will doubt whether the promises made by the
United States will hold. If the United States chooses to
engage in substantial interventions, U.S. policymakers will
be left with no choice but to consider the possible enormous
pressure to endure and the possible exorbitant price to pay.
China is neither Iraq or Yugoslavia, but a very special
country: on one hand, China is a permanent member of the U.N.
Security Council; on the other hand, 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.--
``Safeguarding the One-China Policy is the Cornerstone of
Peace in the Taiwan Strait--Splitting the Motherland by
`Taiwan Independence' Elements is Bound to provoke a War,''
People's Liberation Army Daily, February 28, 2000. (Emphasis
added.)
``The United States will not sacrifice 200 million
Americans for 20 million Taiwanese.''--Excerpt from article
in Chinese state-owned Haowangjiao Weekly, ``Chinese Military
Paper Warns Taiwan and U.S.,'' as reported by Philadelphia
Inquirer, March 21, 2000.
``China is a country that has certain abilities of
launching a strategic counterattack and the capacity of
launching a long-distance strike. [If the United States
intervenes in Taiwan it would lose the conflict and] even be
forced to have a complete withdrawal from the East Asian
region as they were forced to withdrawal from southern
Vietnam.''--Commentary in the People's Liberation Army Daily,
``Threat By China Downplayed,'' Philadelphia Inquirer, March
1, 2000.
``Entitled, `The United States Will Suffer Disastrous
Blows,' the signed article [in a Chinese military journal]
quotes an expert as saying that if the United States dares to
obstruct China's reunification, China is bound to employ its
nuclear weapons, and that for the sake of its national
interests, China has made full preparations to fight a
nuclear war with the United States.''--``Beijing Military
Journal: Nuclear War Will Certainly Break Out If United
States Gets Involved,'' Hong Kong Sing Tao Jih Pao, April 11,
2000.
MISSILE DEFENSE
In reference to provisions in the Fiscal Year (FY) 1999
Defense Authorization Act regarding theater missile defense
cooperation with allies in East Asia: ``The US Congress has
gravely violated the fundamental norms of international
relations, interfered in China's internal affairs and
seriously hurt the feelings of the Chinese people.''--Chinese
Foreign Ministry Spokesman Tang Guiqiang, ``Beijing Rains
fury on Defense Umbrella,'' South China Morning Post, October
30, 1998
When asked if U.S. insistence on theater missile defense
for Japan, South Korea and possibly Taiwan could cause
irreparable damage to US-Sino ties, he replied, ``If the
[[Page S10131]]
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 the TMD 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.''--Ambassador Sha
Zukang, Director-General of the Chinese Foreign Ministry's
Department of Arms Control and Disarmament, Interview with
Defense News staff writer Barbara Opall-Rome, February 1,
1999.
``The US global strategy in Europe is to contain Russia's
revival and in Asia to contain China's growth, and is to
preserve US hegemony in the world . . . [NMD is a] hangover
from the Cold War . . . [the political cost of its deployment
will be] tremendous for the United States.''
``The rest of the world is wondering if the United States
could break the treaty it signed, shouldn't other countries
do the same? In other words, the United States will set an
example for others to dump other arms-reduction agreements if
it presses forward with NMD.''--Remarks by Luo Yuan, Director
of the Second Office of Strategy Studies, Chinese Academy of
Military Science, ``Experts: US plan could start new arms
race,'' China Daily, August 16, 2000.
In reference to a national missile defense system: ``We
believe this idea of the United States will inevitably
support a new round of arms race and will compromise
international peace and stability. This issue is by no means
a dispute between China and the United States, but between
the United States and the international community.''--Remark
from Chinese Foreign Minister Tang Jiaxuan, ``Asian Forum
Ends in Chorus of Criticism of U.S. Missile Defense Plan,''
Washington Post, July 30, 2000.
``China's government is standing up to U.S. attempts to set
up both a national anti-ballistic missile system and a
theater of war anti-ballistic missile system. Attempts [by
the U.S.] to make Taiwan join the creation and unveiling of a
theater of war anti-ballistic missile system are a serious
interference into China's internal affairs and will
necessarily be seriously repulsed by the Chinese people.''--
Remark by Chinese Defense Minister Chi Haotian, press
conference, January 17, 2000.
``For its own defense needs, if the United States wants to
develop a [theater missile defense] system, that's its own
business. What we don't want to see is TMD covering Taiwan.
That would . . . damage U.S.-China . . . relations.''--
Remarks by an unidentified senior Chinese official quoted in
the Washington Post, January 27, 2000.
Placing TMD in Taiwan ``seriously infringes on China's
sovereignty and territorial integrity and will certainly meet
with strong opposition from the Chinese people.''--Remark
from Chinese Embassy spokesman Cui Jianjun, ``Chinese Warn
U.S. on Defense; Missile Umbrella Would Aid Taiwan,'' The
Washington Times, March 6, 1999.
``The inclusion of Taiwan into the theater-missile defense
system will severely harm the stability of the region, and
finally threaten bilateral relations.''--``Chinese Warn U.S.
on Defense; Missile Umbrella Would Aid Taiwan,'' Washington
Times, March 6, 1999.
arms control
``Any amendment, or abolishing of the [ABM] treaty, will
lead to disastrous consequences. This will bring a halt to
nuclear disarmament now between the Russians and Americans,
and in the future will halt multilateral disarmament as
well.''
``We are not rejecting the concept of missile defense
completely, such as air defense to protect troops. But it is
the advanced systems, in space and elsewhere, that are the
problem. These are a violation of the ABM Treaty. These may
disturb or destroy the strategic balance.''
``[The] United States . . . has been teaching the
international community that the ABM Treaty, though
bilateral, is a cornerstone for strategic stability, that
it's a precondition for further nuclear disarmament. Now
suddenly they are attempting to amend it and threaten to
abolish it. We have no words for this. Should we assume that
the United States monopolizes all the truth in the world?
This cannot be the case, I believe. So this will erode U.S.
authority and credibility.''--Excerpts of Remarks by Sha
Zukang, Chinese Director-General of the Arms Control and
Disarmament of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, press
interview, November 10, 1999.
``This decision by the United States [deployment of an NMD
system] goes against the trend of the times and is
detrimental to international arms control and disarmament
efforts. It will have an extensive and profound negative
impact on the global and regional strategic balance and
stability in the 21st Century. The Chinese side expresses
serious concern.''
``The Chinese side expresses serious concern over this
[U.S. deployment of NMD]. China believes that the
development, deployment, and transfer of anti-missile systems
with strategic defense potential will not enhance security or
curb missile technology proliferation. On the contrary, it
will only undermine security, and spur missile technology
proliferation. Moreover, it violates the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty. The ABM Treaty is of great significance for
safeguarding the global strategic balance and stability and
for maintaining the momentum in the nuclear disarmament
process. It should be observed strictly.''
``This [the UN General Assembly resolution on the ABM
Treaty] demonstrates the international community's near-
unanimous opposition to or disapproval of the attempts by
relevant countries to revise the ABM Treaty or to develop
anti-missile systems. China urges relevant countries to take
a serious approach toward the strong appeal from the
international community, think carefully before making any
move, and abandon the aforementioned programs for developing
anti-missile systems.''--Excerpts of Remarks by Chinese
Foreign Ministry Spokesman Zhu Bangzao, press conference,
January 13, 2000.
``The creation of such a system is strictly prohibited by
the ABM. Russia and China have suggested that the United
States is motivated by the ambition to gain unilateral
superiority in the military sphere and in security issues.
The realization of such a plan would undermine the security
of not only Russia, China and other countries, but also the
security of the US itself and global strategic stability in
the world. That is why China and Russia resolutely oppose the
plan.''
``The collapse of the ABM would lead to a resumption of the
arms race. Such a situation is not in the interests of any
country. Those countries, which support the US' proposal to
modify the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, would be held
responsible for undermining international stability and
security and for all the consequences of that decision.''--
Excerpts from the joint statement of Russian President,
Vladimir Putin, and Chinese President, Jiang Zemin, July 21,
2000.
When asked if China is setting the stage to recant on
commitments to the Chemical Weapons Convention, he replied,
``What we object to is the existence of the Australia Group,
a smaller, more stricter group of nations with its own legal
provisions that have created a de facto split among to the
Convention. This has caused confusion, has undermined the
Convention, and has affected the normal international trade
of chemicals. This problem is compounded by the seemingly
irresistible inclination of certain countries to impose their
own standards or even their own domestic legislation onto
other countries, thus giving rise to unnecessary
international disputes.''
``There are only two ways I see to rectify this situation:
One is to do away with the Australia Group and the other is
to do away with the Chemical Weapons Convention.''--
Ambassador Sha Zukang, Director-General of the Chinese
Foreign Ministry's Department of Arms Control and
Disarmament, Interview with Defense News staff writer Barbara
Opall-Rome, February 1, 1999.
``China will never be involved in any arms race at any
level. However, it has to consider necessary means to defend
its national security.''--Remark by Sha Zukang, Chinese
Director-General of the Arms Control and Disarmament
Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, reported by
Beijing China Daily, January 14, 2000.
``In pursuit of its own strategic interests and military
superiority and in disregard of the authority of the already
concluded international arms control legal instruments, a
certain country attempted to rectify the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty. In light of this dangerous tendency, China,
Russia and Belarus co-sponsored the draft resolution of
Preserving and Observing the ABM Treaty which was adopted by
an overwhelming majority in the Committee of Disarmament and
International Security and the UN General Assembly
respectively. China's efforts to safeguard world peace and
security garnered the extensive support of the international
community.''--Excerpt of article by Chinese Foreign Minister
Tang Jiaxuan, posted on the official home page of the Chinese
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, January 14, 2000.
``We have always maintained that, as a country with
powerful military strength, the United States' development of
missile defense systems in violation of the Anti-Ballistic
Missile Treaty does not benefit global and regional strategic
balance and stability. I would like to point out once again
that the 54th UN General Assembly has passed, by an
overwhelming majority, a resolution on preserving and abiding
by the ABM Treaty, which shows that the international
community almost unanimously opposes or does not approve of
attempts by relevant countries to amend the ABM Treaty and
develop anti-ballistic missiles. We urge relevant countries
to take seriously the strong call of the international
community, to think carefully before acting, and to abandon
the aforementioned anti-ballistic missile plan.''--Remark by
Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesman Zhu Bangzao, press
conference, January 20, 2000.
``A certain country . . . practices expediency and double
standards toward arms control and disarmament agreements,
even trying to weaken or abolish relevant treaties.''
``The CTBT has been trampled on and faces an uncertain
future.''
``People cannot but ask: Do we prefer the common security
for all or the absolute security enjoyed by a single state at
the expense of all others?''--Excerpts of Remarks by Chinese
Ambassador Hu Xiaodi, speech to the 66-nation Conference on
Disarmament, January 27, 2000.
``In an attempt to seek absolute security for itself, a
certain country is stepping up its
[[Page S10132]]
research, development and deployment of sophisticated anti-
missile systems, even at the expense of violating the
international legal obligations to which it has committed
itself.''
``This move [U.S. violation of the ABM Treaty] will
undoubtedly inflict severe damages on global strategic
balance and stability, undermine the international security
environment, make it difficult to carry on the international
non-proliferation regime and may even trigger a new . . .
arms race.''
``For this, the international community cannot but express
deep apprehension.''
``China will never be a superpower or seek hegemony.''
``I hope that others will not overestimate Chinese
influence on North Korea.''--Remarks by Chinese Deputy
Foreign Minister Wang Guangya, Speech to the 36th Munich
Conference on Security Policy, February 6, 2000
``All these facts have demonstrated that China adopts a
clear-cut policy against the proliferation of WMD. This
policy will remain unchanged in the future.''
``[The U.S.] takes advantage of its economic and scientific
strength to develop a national missile defense system, in an
attempt to disrupt the global strategic balance, and to seek
absolute security and hegemony for itself.''
``It is a widely known fact that during the Cold War years,
the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty constituted a cornerstone
of global strategic stability, paving the way for the
limitation and reduction of offensive strategic weapons
between the United States and the former Soviet Union.
Despite the drastic changes in the international situation
following the end of the Cold War, the crucial role of the
ABM Treaty to international security remains unchanged.
Pending the elimination of nuclear weapons, any substantive
amendment to this treaty will undermine global strategic
stability.''
``It is true that what the ABM Treaty maintains is `the
balance of terror' and can only offer relative security--not
an ideal situation.'' ``[A]ny violation of this treaty is
bound to give rise to strong opposition from other countries,
and will inevitably have severe negative impacts on
international cooperation in arms control and non-
proliferation.''
``Everyone is equal before the law. And treaty obligations
should be honored.''
``Yet one country takes a cynical view on arms control and
nonproliferation treaties and their legal obligations
undertaken therein.''
``The fundamental way to prevent the WMD proliferation lies
in the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of such
weapons.''--Excerpts of Remarks by Chinese Director General
of the Department of Arms Control and Disarmament of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs Sha Zukang, interview with
Beijing Review, February 21, 2000
TAIWAN
``Our policy on Taiwan is a consistent one. That is, one,
peaceful unification, one country-two systems. However, if
there were to be any foreign intervention, or if there were
to be Taiwan independence, then we would not undertake to
renounce the use of force.''--Remark by Chinese President
Jiang Zemin, exchange with reporters prior to discussions
with President Clinton, September 11, 1999
This threat, reportedly on the front page of almost every
newspaper in Asia, was aimed at turning Taiwanese voters away
from opposition candidate Chen Shui-bian: ``Do not just act
on impulse. Otherwise you will regret it very much and it
will be too late to repent.''--Chinese Prime Minister Zhu
Rongji, ``Bully in a China Shop,'' The Wall Street Journal,
March 17, 2000
. . . the sale of U.S. technology to Taiwan for a smaller-
scope theater missile defense system would ``lead to serious
confrontation'' because it would be tantamount to restoring a
military alliance between Taipei and Washington. ``This is of
supreme national interest. It will be defended at any cost.''
``Instead of enhancing your security, your security policy
will be further compromised. The United States will play the
role of a fire brigade. Rushing from one place to another to
extinguish fires.''
Asked if China would reconsider its commitment to nuclear
disarmament and a halt in sensitive weapons sales, Sha
responded, ``To say the least, our enthusiasm and our
participation in all of those regimes, particularly in
cooperating with the United States, our mood, let me say,
would be severely dampened.''
When asked if a decision to deploy missile defenses would
also affect China's existing arms control treaties, Sha
responded, ``To say the least, it would seriously dampen our
interest . . . We have not yet reached a stage to say we will
forget our commitments . . . yet.''--Remarks by Chinese
Director General of the Foreign Ministry's Department of Arms
Control and Disarmament Sha Zukang, ``China: Missile Shield
Threatens Arms Control,'' Washington Post, July 13, 2000
A U.S. shield against ballistic missiles would ``aim to
absorb Taiwan into the American sphere of protection, which
we consider a gross interference into China's domestic
affairs.''--Remark by Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji in Rome,
``US Ready to Discuss Objections to its Missile Defense
Shield,'' Agence France Presse, July 6, 2000
In reference to TMD: ``The system would aim to put Taiwan
in a sphere of protection. This would be blatant interference
in Chinese affairs.''--Remark by Chinese Prime Minister Zhu
Rongji, ``Taiwan May Get Antimissile Technology,'' Washington
Post, July 9, 2000
``If a grave turn of events occurs leading to the
separation of Taiwan from China in any name, or if there is
foreign invasion and occupation of Taiwan, or if Taiwan
authorities indefinitely refuse to peacefully resolve the
cross-strait unification problem through negotiations, then
the PRC government will only be forced to adopt all possible
drastic measures, including the use of force, to safeguard
China's sovereignty and territorial integrity, and fulfill
the great cause of China's unification.''--``The One China
Principle and the Taiwan Issue,'' English version published
by Xinhua, February 21, 2000
Washington ``bears unshakeable responsibility for the
tension in the Taiwan Straits'' and it was vital the US
stopped arms sales to Taiwan.--Chinese Foreign Minister Tang
Jiaxuan, Agence France Presse, March 16, 2000
The Chinese military made the statement that it would
``spare no effort in a blood-soaked battle'' to protect
China's territorial integrity and that China would not be
tricked into negotiations with Taiwan leaders who secretly
apposed rejoining the motherland.
Prime Minister Zhu Rongji stated that China ``will not sit
idly by and watch and serious separatist activity.''
General Zhang Wannian, a top military leader, echoed this
thought stating, ``The two sides of the strait cannot remain
perpetually divided,'' and ``Taiwanese independence means
war.''--``China Army Renews Threat Against Taiwan,'' New York
Times, March 7, 2000.
``Taiwan Independence means war and splitting (with the
mainland) means no peace.''
``Anyone who pays no heed to this important information
from us and insists on Taiwan independence will push Taiwan
into the abyss of war and bring disaster to the Taiwan
people.''
It warned those who ``underestimate the strong
determination of China's government and the People's
Liberation Army to safeguard national territorial integrity
and put at stake the happiness of 23 million Taiwanese people
that the great strength of the PLA will solve the Taiwan
problem.''
``The consequence will be worse than anything imaginable.
We are not willing to see that.''--Editorial in People's
Liberation Army Daily, Agence France Presse, ``China keeps up
war-rhetoric as Taiwan prepares changing of guard,'' April
15, 2000.
``If the Taiwan authorities indefinitely refuse to
peacefully settle the reunification issue through dialogue,
the Chinese government will be forced to adopt all possible
drastic measures, including military force.''
Proposals to extend a theater missile defense system to
Taiwan are ``a gross interference in China's internal affairs
and a grave threat to China's security . . . no country
maintaining diplomatic relations with China should provide
arms to Taiwan or enter into military alliance of any form
with Taiwan.''--``White Paper issued by China's State
Council, as reported in Chicago Tribune, February 22, 2000.
``Beat them till they hurt, beat them till they obey, beat
them until they're scared! Beat them until the Taiwan
separatists admit total defeat''--An article carried on the
state-run Yangcheng Evening News' web site said this to
describe China's option of striking Taiwan with missiles and
warplanes, ``China Goes to War with Words Against Taiwan,''
AP, July 26, 1999.
``We must make it crystal clear. No matter who comes to
power in Taiwan, Taiwan will never be allowed to be
independent. This is our bottom line. This is also the will
of the 1.25 billion Chinese people.''
Dismissing widely held views by foreign military analysts
that China lacks enough aircraft, missiles and ships to
attack Taiwan, Zhu said, ``By such calculations, Hitler would
long ago have conquered the whole world. The Chinese people
will use all their blood and even sacrifice their lives to
defend the unity of our motherland and the dignity of the
Chinese nation.'' Zhu accused U.S. political leadership of
delaying China's unification with Taiwan, declaring, ``They
always have taken China as their imaginary or potential enemy
and have always wanted to use Taiwan, which in their view is
an unsinkable aircraft carrier, to oppose China.''--Remarks
from Chinese Premier Zhu Rongji, ``Chinese Premier Warns U.S.
Over Taiwan, PNTR Vote,'' National Journal's Congress Daily,
March 15, 2000.
``A handful of American politicians, who are holding a Cold
War mentality, have pushed the House to pass the act in an
attempt to provide a legal basis for the buildup and
expansion of military contacts and exchanges between the
United States and Taiwan.''
The Taiwan Security Enhancement Act is ``a complete
violation of the three Sino-U.S. joint communiques, a serious
encroachment on China's sovereignty, a gross interference in
China's internal affairs, and an attempt to make `two
Chinas'.''--Remarks by Chinese Ambassador to the United
States Li Zhaoxing, ChinaOnline, February 3, 2000.
``Although a handful of U.S. legislators claim that the
Taiwan Security Enhancement Act was aimed at `protecting'
Taiwan's `security,' their real motive is to split China, and
prevent China from becoming stronger . . . some U.S.
lawmakers have ignored International Law and tried to make
legislation on the `security' of another country's
[[Page S10133]]
territory, and this has fully exposed the arrogance of the
U.S. hegemonists.''--Editorial in the People's Daily, as
reported by ChinaOnline, February 3, 2000.
``The move [Taiwan's effort to join the United Nations]
constitutes a flagrant violation of the purposes and
principles of the U.N. Charter, a distortion of the nature of
the U.N. and a gross interference in China's internal
affairs.''--Remark by Zhu Bangzao, Spokesman for the Chinese
Foreign Ministry, ``China Objects to Taiwan Leader's U.S.
Visa,'' New York Times, August 5, 2000.
``If we were to take military action, it should be sooner
rather than later.''--Jiang Zemin, ``Act soon if force is
needed, says Jiang,'' South China Morning Post, March 28,
2000.
``At the special Politburo meeting called on the evening of
the election, what the senior cadres were debating was not
whether some degree of force would be used against Taiwan,
but when.''--``Military pressure builds over Taiwan,'' South
China Morning Post, March 29, 2000.
``The [recently-acquired] Sovremenny destroyer is equipped
with eight SS-N-22 missiles, which can carry nuclear
missiles.''--Beijing Jiefangjun Bao, March 22, 2000 (Emphasis
added).
``The new Chinese-made super Kilo-class diesel attack
submarine was quietly put into service recently with the
South China Sea Fleet for the mission of combat readiness
against Taiwan.''--``Chinese-made Kilo-class attack submarine
goes into service, starts undertaking combat readiness
task,'' Hong Kong Sing Tao Jih Pao, April 4, 2000.
``A-Category Group Armies in Nanjing and Guangzhou War
Theaters Have Been Equipped With Naval Vessels To Enhance
Sea-Crossing and Landing Operations Capability''--Hong Kong
Ming Pao, April 10, 2000.
``In order to deal with the military crisis that might
occur in the Taiwan Strait, the Central Military Commission
has decided to set up a Fujian Joint Operational
Headquarters. On 11 February the headquarters for the first
time directed the ``routine military exercise'' of using
submarines to block the Taiwan Strait.''--Hong Kong Sing Tao
Jih Pao, February 17, 2000.
``The Taiwan authorities actually have only two roads to
take: The first is to identify with the one China principle,
peaceful reunification, and one country, two systems; the
second is to force Beijing to resolve the Taiwan issue by
military means. There is no third road, nor is it possible
for the confrontation to go on for a long time.''--Zhang
Wannian, Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission,
July 6, 2000.
``In the process of settling the Taiwan issue, we will do
whatever we can to bring about peaceful reunification. But,
in the event that any serious incidents to split Taiwan from
China under any pretext occur, that a foreign country invades
Taiwan, or that the Taiwan authorities refuse for an
indefinite time to settle the issue of cross-strait peaceful
reunification through talks, then we will be forced to take
all possible drastic measures to accomplish the great cause
of the motherland's reunification.''--General Zhang Wannian,
the PLA's highest-ranking officer, a vice chairman of the
Central Military Commission, and a Politburo member, ``The
One China Principle and the Taiwan Issue,'' February 21, 2000
(English version published by Xinhua).
``A possible interference by the United States has already
been taken into account in our military preparations; in
fact, we have taken into account all possibilities in our
preparations. If the United States really interferes in the
matter, the question is how far the United States can go in
its interference. The Taiwan side should also get a clear
idea of this issue. Making a big country like China as its
opponent, the United States will surely lose more than it
gains. The United States suffered losses in every war it
fought in Asia in the past, and I believe it will surely
learn from all its bitter lessons. Even if the Untied States
or U.S.-led U.N. troops are involved in the matter, in no way
will the United States afford a loss in the war; putting all
other things aside, a slight increase in its casualties will
lead to domestic pressure that will prove too much for it to
bear. What is more, we also have other strategies to use in
such a war, for example, a China-Russia alliance is also a
move that can touch the United States on its sore spot.
Therefore, we are not afraid of the involvement of the United
States or any other foreign forces, for we are assured that
we can win the war in the end.''--Unnamed PLA general,
``Discussing Taiwan Strait Crisis with a General,'' Ta Kung
Pao, May 15, 2000.
ANTI-U.S. STATEMENTS
In reference to the relationship between Russia and China:
``The partnership is an effort to oppose hegemony and
supremacy, and one single country dominating the world.''--
Remark by Zhao Huasheng, Director of the Russian Studies
Department at the Shanghai Institute for International
Studies, ``Putin Visits China in Hope of Strengthening a
Strategic Axis,'' New York Times, July 17, 2000.
``U.S. a Threat to World Peace.''--``China Demonizes,''
title of editorial from PRC state-owned China Daily, as
reported by Washington Post, July 17, 2000.
``On June 22, 1999, the People's Daily fed a general anti-
American campaign related to the accidental bombing of the
Chinese Embassy in Belgrade with a long, hysterical piece
accusing the United States of `acting like Nazi Germany' by
leading the NATO campaign to stop the ethnic cleansing of
Kosovo.''--``China Demonizes,'' Washington Post, July 17,
2000 (article excerpt).
In reference to the relationship between Russia and China:
``The partnership is an effort to oppose hegemony and
supremacy, and one single country dominating the world.''--
Remark by Zhao Huasheng, Director of the Russian Studies
Department at the Shanghai Institute for International
Studies, ``Putin Visits China in Hope of Strengthening a
Strategic Axis,'' New York Times, July 17, 2000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Chair recognizes the Senator
from Wyoming.
Mr. THOMAS. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming.
____________________