Third Way Perspectives

Subscribe via RSS

Posts Tagged ‘China’

3 Ways a Corrupt Chinese Military Hurts the U.S.

April 22nd, 2014

by

China’s military, the People’s Liberation Army, is currently engulfed in the worst corruption scandal in its history. Two of its top officials have been detained and accused of bribery, embezzlement and abuse of power, including a cash-for-promotion racket that benefited hundreds of officers. More heads will roll as dozens of senior personnel must have offered bribes — or had been bribed — to get ahead in the ranks, calling into question the very leadership of the 2.3 million-strong army.

It’s easy to look across the Pacific and feel a twinge of schadenfreude. But if Beijing can’t get this metastasizing scandal under control, it’s bad for America’s strategic interests for three basic reasons.

Read the rest of this entry »

Why China Isn’t Ready for Electric Vehicles

November 12th, 2013

by

By 2020, auto analysts expect more than 2 million electric vehicles to be sold every year. That’s a huge leap from the 113,000 electric vehicles that were sold in 2012. It’s also why China has set its sights on trying to win this “new energy vehicle” sector by 2020.

China’s track record is formidable. It launched successful bids to compete in wind turbines, solar panels and personal electronics. However, there are a number of structural problems in how the government and economy work that make it unlikely that a Chinese competitor to Tesla, the Chevy Volt or even the Toyota Prius will emerge any time soon.

Read the rest of this entry »

Is China Building a Trojan Horse into NATO Through Turkey?

November 4th, 2013

by and

The People’s Republic of China may be building a new Trojan horse in the modern lands of ancient Troy — but this time it seems the mission is to penetrate not a walled city, but NATO’s security architecture.

Turkey currently is negotiating a contract with China’s missile builders, the China Precision Machinery Import-Export Corporation (CPMIEC), which beat competing bids from Raytheon/Lockheed Martin and a few other foreign firms. While it seems Turkey is saving money on the deal — the Chinese bid to sell the FD-2000 surface-to-air missile system came in at $3.44 billion, while the other bids were around $4 billion — Ankara’s behavior suggests it believes it can have its security cake and eat it too.

It’s unclear what is the Turkish word for chutzpah, but Turkey already has a missile defense system defending it in NATO’s Raytheon-built Patriot system, courtesy of Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States. Ankara requested it last year. As part of the NATO Air Defense Ground Environment, other countries have already picked up half of the tab of Turkish missile defense needs. This is because Ankara took advantage of the interoperable missile defense systems among NATO’s 28-country alliance. The civil war in neighboring Syria legitimately threatened Turkey and its allies quickly answered the call.

The Turks know full well that if events ever go south — say, if Syria or Iran devolve into a shooting war that sucks them in– NATO will back them in a military conflict. If Turkey was serious about missile defense, it would have bought the American Patriot system that has a proven track record and avoided wasting money on an inferior Chinese program. It’s like buying a motorcycle when you really need an SUV. Instead, Turkey might be cutting itself off from the alliance if they now try to deploy the Chinese technology. And allowing Beijing spies into NATO’s backyard seems to be a secondary concern for the Turks.

Of course, the Turkish government has been well-informed of the many pitfalls of purchasing this Chinese system. For example, President Barack Obama twice told Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdo?an that there will be major interoperability issues between the Chinese and NATO systems. Despite a top Turkish Defense Ministry official brushing these problems aside,

China’s system is copied heavily from the Russian model, so its technical architecture is completely different than the Western model. And just as China’s cartridges won’t fit into NATO’s rifles, Turkey will have to perform major technical surgery to synchronize the NATO and Chinese systems, reconfiguring sensors and radars to be able to operate on both systems. This of course, will cost a lot of money and may not work in the end.

Even if it’s technically possible, other NATO countries will balk at having a highly-advanced, potentially adversarial structure integrated into their top-secret missile system. According to one defense analyst, “[NATO] member nations will refuse any cooperation with Turkey for the integration of the Chinese system into the alliance’s assets deployed in Turkey.”  As another British defense analyst told the Financial Times, “This type of arrangement, which requires the transfer of design information, is not feasible for American military firms.” And not just Chinese technology, but Chinese cyber, military and missile personnel will theoretically be working next to NATO resources, providing Beijing an intelligence foothold in these critical national security fields.

It remains unclear whether Turkey’s strategy for missile defense buys extends to other parts of the defense acquisition process, for there are ramifications with working with a sanctioned Chinese company that, since 2006, has been banned from working with American firms. U.S. companies now might think twice about selling Turkey fighter aircraft like F-16s or F-35s, or advanced radar systems, because Chinese technology will compromise their systems. It might even be illegal for U.S. corporations to work with Turkish businesses once the deal is complete.

All in all, Turkey might be thinking they worked out a great arrangement because it saved money and forged a deal with a growing economic powerhouse. But this will affect U.S. national security almost as much as Turkey’s because we too have interests in the region and in the cohesiveness of the NATO alliance. Every American and allied policymaker who interacts with his or her Turkish counterparts should underscore this fact.

The contract isn’t signed in stone; Erdo?an hinted that the deal may still be in play. Let’s hope the Turkish president has a change of heart; recall the Trojan War ended rather poorly for King Priam and his people because of a fatal, stupid, self-inflicted wound. Let’s hope Turkey’s modern-day leaders reflect upon the folly of the ancient Anatolians and remember to beware Chinese defense corporations bearing gifts.

This piece was originally published via Defense One.

On Second Thought, Let’s Not Execute Corrupt Officials

July 10th, 2013

by

Would executing corrupt public officials be the most effective way to reduce dishonesty in public life? In the darkest recesses of our minds, we may harbor the idea that executing crooked public servants would foster a more virtuous government. But we’ve never taken this approach in America – take former Congressman Duke Cunningham, who served just seven years in prison for taking $2.5 million in bribes.

For an example of a nation that routinely kills its civil servants, though, look no further than the People’s Republic of China. The Chinese government executes people for all sorts of crimes, including economic ones. Although exact numbers are unknown, Amnesty International notes that China “continued to account for the majority of the world’s executions,” perhaps 3,000 annually. This is a country that in 2009 claimed a99.9 percent conviction rate for criminal trials.

There’s a Chinese saying that you should “kill the chicken to scare the monkey.” The Chinese Communist Party General Secretary (and Chinese President) Xi Jinping has taken this aphorism to heart, pursuing a tough anti-corruption campaign. The first head placed on the chopping block belonged to the former railway minister, who was convicted of “bribery and abuse of power.” The court sentenced him to death, but suspended the sentence.

But other corrupt Chinese officials have not been the beneficiaries of state mercy. In 2011, the vice mayorsof the picturesque cities of Hangzhou and Suzhou were found guilty of accepting almost $50 million in bribes and paid the ultimate price for their crimes. Likewise, in 2010, the director of the Chongqing Justice Bureau was executed for accepting bribes and supporting organized crime. The same fate befell China’s State Food and Drug Administration chief in 2007. Read the rest of this entry »

Trade: Boosting Exports to China

June 11th, 2013

by

Twenty years ago, American businesses flocked to China with vague but ambitious plans to sell its billion consumers everything from toasters to telephones. But in a market that had no meaningful middle class, they found few takers. In the years since, China has successfully tapped into foreign investment and know-how to build a powerful, export-oriented economy—and a rapidly expanding middle class—largely by selling to America’s middle class. Its success has stoked American concerns about trade deficits and the loss of middle-class jobs to low-cost foreign competition.

But China’s ongoing transformation points to a potentially different future: one in which America expands its exports, achieves fairer trade, creates good jobs, and strengthens the middle class—by increasingly selling to China’s burgeoning middle class.

Read the rest of this entry »

Ending China’s Cyberattacks

May 15th, 2013

by and

Last week, the Pentagon came out and said it: Cyberintrusions on Defense Department computer systems, as well as economic and defense industrial base sectors are “directly attributable to the Chinese government and military.” China’s cyberintrusions are a serious matter. But why does China’s hacking strike everyone as beyond the pale?

Of course China wants to steal our secrets – after all, espionage is considered the second oldest profession. It’s also hardly surprising that China is cyberspying on America’s defense industrial base to gain military advantage. Governments, no doubt including ours, do this all the time.

No, the real affront here is that the Chinese government is using all the cybertools of the state to break into private sector companies and steal information and ideas for purely commercial advantage. Given that half of China’s economy is owned or effectively controlled by the Chinese government, China has a particular incentive to share ill-gotten secrets with its extensive roster of state-owned enterprises and national champion companies. Beijing is providing them with significant – and highly unfair – advantages over their global commercial competitors.   Read the rest of this entry »