The Center for Defense Information
Center for Defense Information
1779 Massachusetts Ave., NW * Washington, DC 20036
(202)332-0600 * Fax (202)462-4559 * www.cdi.org
| November 23, 1999 |
| November 23, 1999 |
Some Strategic Implications of the WTO Agreement with China
Dr. Nicholas Berry
The WTO trade negotiations in Beijing were multi-dimensional. While U.S. officials were negotiating with their Chinese counterparts, the Chinese were embroiled in their own internal power struggle about the destiny of their country.
The winners were reformist Premier Zhu Rongji, backed by President Jiang Zemin, the political and economic reformers in industry, trade, and the Communist Party, and the intelligentsia. This coalition favors modernization and Chinese integration into the global economy via the WTO. This outcome was welcomed in Washington because it will facilitate closer political and military, as well as economic, ties with Beijing. A more reformist China will also mute voices in the U.S. that have advocated policies of confrontation with China over political and military disagreements.
The losers are legislative-head and number-two Communist Party leader, Li Peng, who was supported by hard-line members of the Party, heads of state enterprises, and large segments of the leadership of the Peoples Liberation Army (PLA). This group opposes greater domestic change and China's opening to outside forces. If this side had won, it would have signaled the hardening of U.S.-Chinese political relations over issues of Taiwan, arms control, and human rights.
The Chinese winners got what they wanted with the WTO agreement -- the momentum to re-arrange Chinese society under their control.
First, inefficient state-run firms, many controlled by the PLA and Party bureaucrats, will face intense competition from foreign and private Chinese firms. While it will not be easy, the private sector will prevail.
Second, Party hardliners will increasingly lose control over communications as foreign investment expands the Internet, telephone service, and the distribution of foreign films and specialized publications. This will also shrink the economic base of the PLA and further constrain the old-line Party propagandists.
Third, more laws and pressures for law enforcement will grow to accommodate WTO rules and general international law that a more engaged China must observe. Again, hard-line non-integrationists lose. The tortuous advance to the rule of law will open society wider.
Fourth, and perhaps the most significant long-term political effect of the internal Chinese struggle over WTO, is the erosion of the Mainland-Taiwan confrontation. As John Pomfret reported in the Washington Post: "The deal will force China and Taiwan a step closer to economic integration, which could lead to reduced tensions across the Taiwan Strait. Upon China's accession to the world trade body, Taiwan, which already indirectly trades more than $30 billion a year with China, also will become a WTO member as a separate customs territory. This will oblige Taiwanese authorities to lift most, if not all, bans on direct trade with the mainland." It will be vastly more difficult for those favoring confrontation on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to maintain bellicose policies as the two political entities become increasingly engaged.
Thus, what for the U.S. was a major trade agreement was for the Chinese a contest that will determine the forces shaping China's future. The winning group is more in touch with the aspirations of the Chinese people, who want peaceful change, economic prosperity, and more freedom. This bodes well for creating a popular base for the modernizers.
One can speculate that U.S. negotiators -- Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky and White House advisor Gene Sperling -- were instructed by Washington to stay the course (three times they packed their bags to leave, then unpacked) in order to promote two national interests. The obvious one was signing the WTO agreement, but a less advertised one was the opportunity to bolster the hold on Chinese political power by a more engaging, reasonable, and internationalist set of leaders.
The Cold War in Space
Jeffrey Mason, Research Analyst/Librarian, jmason@cdi.org
This is the first of a four part series on "Space: Battleground or Frontier of the 21st Century." The remaining parts of the series will be in the Weekly Defense Monitors for December 2 (The Military's Plans to Dominate Space), December 9 (The Use of Nuclear Power in Space), and December 16 (Our Nation's Future in Space).
Overview: Mankind's exploration and use of space has occurred thus far primarily in a climate of international cooperation. Although some militaries have used space to augment their earthbound capabilities, there has been no large-scale militarization of space. However, this could change in the next century unless Americans and other peoples remain vigilant and work to prevent space from becoming an extension of the combat arena.
Germany's development of the V-2 rocket in World War Two was the opening salvo of space warfare. But until the launch of the first orbital satellite -- Sputnik -- in October 1957, most people were unaware of the secret testing of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) by the U.S. and Soviet Union. Clearly understated in the press accounts was American fears that the Soviet Union could drop a nuclear weapon on any U.S. city.
As the 1960s began, Americans embraced the civilian-led Mercury astronaut program to send the first human into outer space. In actuality, the Mercury astronauts (as well as their Soviet counterparts) were former military test pilots. The landing of Apollo 11 on the lunar surface in July 1969 culminated nearly a decade of effort to put an American on the moon, a goal set by President Kennedy in May, 1961. But the cost of the competition to be first on the moon was high in lives lost, dollars and rubles spent, and pressing domestic needs delayed.
Meanwhile, hidden from public was an equally significant U.S. space achievement. On August 18, 1960, the first photographs from an orbiting satellite -- the top secret "Corona" -- were successfully recovered. In a matter of days, the fears of a "missile gap" were allayed as U.S. experts verified that Soviet ICBMs numbered in the dozens, not hundreds or thousands.
In the early years of the Cold War both superpowers sensed that exploring and militarizing space could potentially bankrupt each nation's economy. As evident in the number of arms control treaties signed, an unstated pact seemed to evolve to limit military uses of space. The Limited Test Ban Treaty (1963) prohibited nuclear tests in the atmosphere, underwater, and in space. The ABM Treaty (1972) and the Protocol to the Treaty (1974) limited strategic defenses while the SALT I and II Treaties headed off a further runaway race in offensive ballistic missiles.
In the decade after man reached the moon, both superpowers continued their civilian space competition. Arms control considerations tended to minimize the military's participation in the exploratory missions of the Seventies. The Outer Space Treaty (1967) required that the new medium be used for "peaceful purposes" while the Moon Treaty (1979) prohibited militarization of celestial bodies such as the lunar surface.
But the Soviet military and the Pentagon were active in space. Both superpowers launched increasingly sophisticated military satellites tasked to perform communications functions, provide mapping and meteorological support, track enemy missile tests, assist in navigational support for naval forces, warn of possible nuclear attack by opposing forces as well as tactical warning and attack assessments, and spy on each other's military, leadership and strategic assets. Some significant military space "firsts" were:
The largest U.S. military buildup of the Cold War era occurred during the 1980s. Outer space became part of that buildup on March 23, 1983 when President Reagan gave his "Star Wars" speech, initiating the race to put nuclear pumped X-Ray lasers and other weapons into orbit. The goal was to build an impenetrable shield against Soviet ballistic missiles.
Since President Reagan's Star Wars speech, nearly $90 billion has been spent on ballistic missile defense, including spending "hidden" in the Air Force budget. Much of this money was wasted. Eventually, Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative was scaled back, becoming GPALS or Global Protection Against Accidental Launches. Then, in December 1991, America's only real competitor in exploiting outer space ceased to exist. The Cold War was over; a new world order was proclaimed.
Panel Urges NMD Deployment Delay
Christopher Hellman, Senior Analyst, chellman@cdi.org
A Pentagon-appointed panel of independent experts last week issued a report calling for the military to delay the decision on whether to deploy a limited national defense system, currently scheduled for June or July 2000. The Welch Commission, named for its Chairman, former Air Force Chief of Staff General Larry Welch, recommends that the deployment decision should not be made until key program elements are fully tested and proven.
This is the second report issued by the Welch Commission which, in February, 1998, called the current National Missile Defense (NMD) program "a rush to failure." Based largely on the 1998 report, the Clinton Administration earlier this year announced that it would delay operational deployment of an NMD system from 2003 to 2005 and revise the development program to reduce risk. The new Welsh report reviewed the revised testing and deployment schedule.
The new report states that although "the Administration and the Congress have determined that the urgency of the need justifies a high-risk schedule to be ready to deploy a limited NMD system" the current schedule is too compressed. "The restructured program...is still highly demanding, and any additional burdens for program management can seriously compromise it."
Given this, the Welch panel recommends a delay in the deployment decision from next summer until 2003. Under the current schedule that is the earliest that the system's integrated Ground-Based Interceptor -- an operational version of the system's booster rocket and its "hit-to-kill" warhead -- can be tested. The panel recommends that next summer's Deployment Readiness Review (DDR) "should be regarded more as a feasibility decision...rather than a readiness decision" (emphasis in the original.)
While the report looks only at the technical and management aspects of developing and deploying a limited NMD system, the report does have potential arms control implications. For while the panel recommends that next summer's DDR not include a decision on NMD deployment, it will include "a site selection and award of the construction contract."
As currently envisioned, a limited NMD system would be deployed, at least initially, at a single location. However, there is growing support for basing the system in Alaska to provide protection against ballistic missile attack for the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii. Yet a 1974 protocol to the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty specifies that any U.S. NMD system be located at Grand Forks, ND. A decision next summer to deploy the system at another location without renegotiating the ABM Treaty with Russia would likely be viewed as the first step towards possible U.S. abrogation of the treaty. To date Russia has strongly resisted U.S. efforts to significantly alter the ABM treaty, while U.S. officials, including Defense Secretary William Cohen, have indicated a willingness to move forward with development of an NMD system even at the risk of violating the treaty.
The Commission's report, entitled "National Missile Defense Review," is available on the internet.
FAO Says Food Emergencies Caused by Man-Made Disasters -- A report issued by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) said "For the first time, human induced disasters such as civil strife and economic crises have more effect on food shortages than nature-induced crises." The report said that more than 50% of food emergencies were caused by man-made disasters. A supplemental FAO food commodities report also revealed that 52 million people are facing food shortages in 35 countries.
School of Americas Changing Mission -- Army Secretary Louis Caldera has announced that the School of the Americas will undergo curriculum changes, will now be under the authority of the Department of Defense, and will change its name to The Center for Inter-American Security Cooperation. The Center's structure will be similar to the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies in Germany. The Center will also drop some military courses, such as one in commando tactics. The School of the Americas has been strongly criticized for its role in training human rights violators. Critics of the School are not convinced the changes go far enough.
Poll Results Question Federal Spending Priorities -- A recent national bipartisan poll released by Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities shows that both women and men want a change in federal budget priorities. Key findings show that 69 percent of respondents (75 percent of women and 64 percent of men) said current federal budget priorities, which result in more than half the federal discretionary budget being allocated to military spending, are wrong. Results of the poll are available on-line.
DOD Approves Over $500 million in FMS Sales -- In the past two weeks the Department of Defense has approved over $500 million in Foreign Military Sales (FMS) to Colombia, Egypt, the Netherlands, South Korea, and Israel. Equipment included in the sales range from Blackhawk helicopters to radar systems. Congress has 30 days from the time a sale is announced to challenge the proposal.
Navy Squadron Gets Super Hornets -- The Navy's first squadron of F/A-18E/F "Super Hornet" fighters received its first seven aircraft on November 18. For the next eight months the squadron (VFA-122) will help develop the training program for the aircraft and certify the first group of pilot instructors, weapons officer instructors and maintenance personnel. First deployment of a Super Hornet squadron with the fleet is scheduled for the spring of 2002.
This Week on America's Defense Monitor: "The Thinning Threat"
Over the past ten years, the enemies of the United States have become poorer, weaker, and more isolated. With America's growing military advantage, and its eagerness to demonstrate its destructive power anywhere and anytime, today it is America's potential enemies who feel threatened.
Airs in Washington, DC on Sunday, November 28 at 10:30 am on Channel 32.
Airs in NYC on Friday, December 3 on Channel 25 at 7:30 p.m., and on
Saturday, December 4 at 7:00 a.m. on Channel 13.
Visit our website for transcripts, CDI resources, RealVideo, and related
links.
E-mail adminfo@cdi.org "subscribe" in the subject line for updates on new
videos.
Regular Price: $39 each
INTERNET PRICE: $29
Order at 800-CDI-3334, or on the web.