-Caveat Lector-
Begin forwarded message:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: June 14, 2007 2:04:06 PM PDT
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Bush's Two-Faced Foreign Policy: "Fear America's Enemies --
and Arm Them Well"
"Good Intentions" vs "Unintended Consequences," or Exactly by the
Playbook?
"President Bush has come out in favor of Congressional
authorization for Westinghouse Electric's sale of advanced [U.S.]
nuclear technology to mainland China, explaining that this deal
'could mean 5000 <!> more jobs for Americans.' Critics of the $5+
billion sale, on the other hand, worry that China, instead of using
the technology for peaceful purposes, can easily 'reverse engineer'
parts of it for military use, enhancing Red Chinese nuclear
capability in any war against the U.S."
US military preparing for 'worst' with China: official
Wed Jun 13, 8:43 PM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070614/wl_asia_afp/uschinamilitary
WASHINGTON (AFP) - China's secretive transformation of its military
power leaves the United States preparing for the worst
eventualities, including [a war] over Taiwan, a Pentagon official
said Wednesday.
About 900 Chinese missiles are in place opposite Taiwan, while
China is also rolling out far more sophisticated long-range nuclear
missiles, combat planes, warships and submarines, the Department of
Defense official said.
Richard Lawless, the Pentagon's deputy undersecretary for Asia-
Pacific affairs, said the US government urgently wanted to launch a
strategic dialogue to discuss China's military intentions,
especially in regard to nuclear arms.
"I think if we had a true dialogue of depth... we might be able to
constrain and put some of those issues of (Chinese) intent to bed,"
he told a hearing of the House of Representatives armed services
committee.
"Not being able to, we must plan and prepare for the worst," he
said. "It is an area of intense concern and we're giving it due
attention from the highest levels of the Department of Defense and
the inter-agency discussion."
The United States and China have long been at loggerheads over
Beijing's military build-up, although US Defense Secretary Robert
Gates expressed optimism about future relations at a Singapore
security conference this month.
Gates called for a more detailed military dialogue with China to
avoid future miscalculations, while a top Chinese general said
Beijing was prepared to open a "hotline" with Washington.
Lawless alleged "a deliberate effort on the part of China's leaders
to mask the nature of Chinese military capabilities," which he said
could only ring precautionary alarm bells for the US and other
governments.
China's successful test of an anti-satellite weapon in January
could "disrupt, delay and frustrate our ability to operate" in
space, he also said.
And its growing sophistication in "cyber-warfare" has given China
the capacity "to attack and degrade our computer systems," he
cautioned.
Lawless was briefing US lawmakers on an annual Pentagon report
issued last month that questioned China's lack of transparency in
its defense budgeting and suggested that [China] could be "planning
for pre-emptive military options in advance of regional crises."
Although Beijing announced an official defense budget figure of 45
billion dollars for 2007, the US Defense Intelligence Agency
estimates China's total military-related spending for this year
could be up to 125 billion dollars.
The lack of transparency in China's military activities "will
naturally and understandably prompt international responses that
hedge against the unknown," the report said.
The upgrading of Chinese offensive systems "is tilting the military
balance in the mainland's favor" against Taiwan, but also risks
upsetting the balance of power in Asia and beyond, Lawless said.
---------------
China, nuclear technology, and a US sale
By Mark Clayton
The Christian Science Monitor, Wed May 30, 4:00 AM ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070530/ts_csm/areactors_1
China has its heart set on buying a cutting-edge US design for a
nuclear-power reactor, and the Bush administration has said it is
willing to sell because the transaction will mean jobs for
Americans and pave the way for a "nuclear [power] renaissance in
the US."
But critics of the mammoth $5 billion-plus sale are raising
concerns that China might not use the advanced technology strictly
for peaceful purposes, perhaps intending to "reverse engineer"
pieces of it for military purposes.
That worry surfaced this month in a letter four members of Congress
sent to Defense Secretary Robert Gates. The May 18 letter asked
whether the sale of four nuclear-power reactors to China, approved
by the administration in December, could end up enhancing Beijing's
military, including its ability to produce nuclear fuel for bombs
and increase the stealthiness of its submarines.
"This transaction presents potential security concerns that
Congress will have to consider," wrote Reps. Jeff Fortenberry
(news, bio, voting record) (R) of Nebraska, Ed Royce (news, bio,
voting record) (R) of California, Christopher Smith (news, bio,
voting record) (R) of New Jersey, and Diane Watson (news, bio,
voting record) (D) of California. All serve on foreign or
international relations committees of the House of Representatives.
The sale of US civilian nuclear technology to China has long been a
matter of contention. The debate is intensifying now because
Westinghouse Electric Co. is expected within weeks to apply for up
to $5 billion in loans from the US Export-Import Bank to finance
the sale of the reactors to China. When it comes, the application
will trigger a review by Congress, where critics of the deal hope
to raise enough questions about it to hold it up, perhaps for good.
If approved, the deal would be the largest by far in the history of
the bank, a taxpayer-supported entity charged with creating and
sustaining jobs by financing sales of US goods to international
buyers.
Besides security, an array of concernsThough security concerns are
paramount, any congressional hearings on the deal are likely to
address the following sensitive topics, as well:
•Financing of the sale. Should US taxpayers be financing a
multibillion-dollar loan to China at a time when China is running a
massive trade surplus with the US? What do the taxpayers, who by
some estimates contributed at least $300 million to Westinghouse
Electric's advanced reactor design, get out of the deal –
especially considering that a Japanese firm now owns 77 percent of
Westinghouse?
•Technology transfer. China reportedly will get most of the new
AP1000 technology, the latest US reactor design, as part of the
sale. Some nonproliferation experts say the design of the reactor's
coolant pump is of particular concern, and that China might be able
to reverse-engineer it for use on its nuclear submarines.
Westinghouse spokesman Vaugn Gilbert, though, says the company is
bound by a federal technology transfer agreement "that precludes
certain elements of that pump technology from being provided to
China – therefore we will not be providing it."
Experts are concerned about the technology transfer issue and
whether the sale will compromise America's technological lead on
nuclear-power systems for subs.
"You're building an infrastructure that can be used and retooled to
help out in [China's] naval reactor sector – and they do want this
for nuclear subs," says Henry Sokolski, executive director of the
Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a think tank on nuclear-
policy issues.
Because China is already a nuclear-weapon nation, others don't see
a problem with sharing US light-water power-reactor technology, a
design considered less useful for making bomb fuel. But they do
have other worries.
"Our concern is more about whether the US should be supporting
building a commercial nuclear infrastructure when there are serious
questions about whether the Chinese regulatory system [for nuclear-
waste disposal] can do this safely," says Edwin Lyman, a
nonproliferation expert at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an
environmental group.
A boon to US industry? Westinghouse and administration officials
say the sale is economically justified and concerns about
technology transfer unwarranted.
"This deal ... would affirm that the US remains a leader in the
design and construction of civilian nuclear-power plants," said
David Pumphrey, a deputy assistant secretary at the Department of
Energy (DOE) in February testimony before the US-China Economic and
Security Review Commission. It would also create "some 5,500 new
jobs in the US," he said. He echoed DOE Secretary Samuel Bodman,
who spoke in December of the deal's potential to "spur development
of a nuclear renaissance in the US."
Westinghouse's Mr. Gilbert says a key benefit is simply getting the
new design working the first time in China, thereby working out any
glitches and lowering costs for at least 10 new plants in the US
that would use the same design.
To some, however, it's unclear how much the US benefits or whether
the technology will help China's military. Others question whether
the deal will create enough US jobs to merit billions in public
financing.
"You've got the Japanese making most of the big parts, [and] the
Chinese doing at least half the construction and absorbing all the
technology to do it themselves later on," Mr. Sokolski says. "I
fail to see any boon to US industry."
"We don't think these economic impact and jobs estimates are done
very well," says Thea Lee, policy chief for the AFL-CIO, who sits
on the advisory board of Export-Import Bank. "It's been our sense
that the bank's process of verifying such claims is very inadequate
and that there's a lot of phony job-padding going on."
Westinghouse officials say the deal will "load Westinghouse design
centers" in Pennsylvania and other states with work and create
positions in 20 states – to the tune of about 5,000 jobs.
Though the deal doesn't sit all that well with Lawrence Wortzel, a
commissioner with the US-China Economic and Security Review
Commission, he does not favor blocking it.
"While I have reservations about the financing and technology
transfer to third parties, I still wouldn't recommend taking action
to block the sale," he says, noting that China certainly has the
money to finance the deal itself and has a huge trade surplus with
the US.
See what's free at AOL.com.
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
