Mr. President, today I will deliver my third speech in 2 weeks on the issue of China's increasing global influence. In these past speeches I addressed alarming trends such as China's proliferation problem, the distressing potential that…
Mr. President, today I will deliver my third speech in 2 weeks on the issue of China's increasing global influence. In these past speeches I addressed alarming trends such as China's proliferation problem, the distressing potential that the EU may drop their Arms embargo, and other events that have obvious impact on our national security.
In 2000, Congress established the bipartisan U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission to collect and provide Congress with authoritative information on how our relationship with China affects our economy and industrial base, the impact of China's military and weapons proliferation on our security, and the status of our national interests in Asia. I fear that the Commission's findings have largely been ignored. I will continue to draw America's attention to the issue until we address it.
As China becomes increasingly interdependent with its Asian neighbors, it is presenting its economic rise as a win-win situation for its trade and investment partners. According to political economist Francis Fukuyama:
Over the long run, [China] wants to organize East Asia in a
way that puts them in the center of regional politics.
The implications of this are disturbing. As the 2004 Commission report points out:
. . . the United States' influence and vital long-term
interests in Asia are being challenged by China's robust
regional economic engagement and diplomacy, and that greater
attention must be paid to U.S. relations in the region.
The Commission recommends that the U.S. increase visibility in Asia through initiatives that demonstrate our commitment to regional security. One avenue for this is the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum--APEC.
A careful look will show that China's regional outreach is at best inconsistent. It certainly has not offered win-win benefits to Taiwan or Hong Kong. As the tense situation in Taiwan continues to simmer, China's ongoing intimidation of this country seems to undermine the rosy picture they are trying to paint. A few weeks ago the Chinese Communist Party formalized a new stance on Taiwan. This is a total diversion from their old policy. The
following was approved by the National Peoples Congress:
If possibilities for a peaceful reunification should be
completely exhausted, the state shall employ nonpeaceful
means and other necessary measure to protect China's
sovereignty and territorial integrity.
This represents a change from earlier ambiguous language that would have allowed China flexibility to consider other options should conflict arise. As it is, China has taken away its own alternatives.
China has also backed itself into a troubling situation with its skyrocketing demand for oil; since my floor speeches in 1999 its oil imports have doubled, and last year alone surged upwards of 57 percent. Some analysts project China's oil needs will double again by 2010 and it will use up its reserves within 14 years. China's alarming need for oil has caused it to look around the world for new sources, sources that are often problematic states with security concerns for the United States.
In Venezuela, anti-American President Hugo Chavez announced a $3 billion trade strategy with China, including provisions for oil and gas. This came on the heels of his statement, ``We have invaded the United States, [not with guns] but with our oil.''
Beijing recently signed a $70 billion oil/gas deal with Iran, from whom it receives 11 percent of its oil imports. Naturally, China has come out firmly against the U.N. Security Council holding Iran economically accountable for its nuclear program.
Likewise, in Sudan, China seeks to defuse or delay any U.N. sanctions against Khartoum. It hardly seems coincidence that 4 percent of its oil imports come from that conflict stricken country, a supply that China seems ready to protect at all costs.
Keep in mind we are talking about the same area in northern Uganda and southern Sudan where they have the terrorist attacks that have consistently gone out, where they abduct these young children, train them to be soldiers, instruct them to kill their parents, and if they do not do it, they cut their arms off, their lips off, and their ears off. That makes no difference to China. If it means 4 percent of its oil imports potential in the future, they are willing to do it.
The United States and the European Union have sanctioned Zimbabwe, hoping to pressure its corrupt regime into reforms. China, on the other hand, has boosted aid and investment, working to blunt the sanctions.
The sources China has used to meet its oil needs and increase its world standing are clearly questionable. The Commission makes an unpopular but straightforward observation:
. . . [China's] pursuit of oil diplomacy may support
objectives beyond just energy supply. Beijing's bilateral
arrangements with oil-rich Middle Eastern states also helped
create diplomatic and strategic alliances with countries that
were hostile to the United States. For example, with U.S.
interests precluded from entering Iran, China may hope to
achieve a long-term competitive advantage relative to the
United States. Over time, Beijing's relationship-building may
counter U.S. power and enhance Beijing's ability to influence
political and military outcomes. One of Beijing's stated
goals is to reduce what it considers U.S. superpower
dominance in favor of a multipolar global power structure in
which China attains superpower status on par with the United
States.
And while the search for energy is not yet a zero-sum game, the way the U.S. and China acquire oil is strikingly different. James Caverly, of the U.S. Department of Energy states, ``The U.S. strategic framework makes certain that plenty of oil is available in the world market so that the price will remain low and the economy will benefit.'' China, in contrast, seeks to ``gain control of the oil at the source. Geopolitically, this could soon bring the United States and Chinese energy interests into conflict.'' I have a chart that shows the countries that China has been buying oil from. This is the most up-to date information available. What I would like to point out is how China is using whatever leverage it can to find new energy sources, particularly in Africa. If you add up these amounts, China is acquiring about one third of its oil from African countries like Angola, Sudan, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria and Libya. Other countries China has begun seeking oil from are Algeria, Cameroon, Chad, Gabon, and Guinea.
I have had occasion to go there. And any of these countries that you go to, you see that China is giving them everything they want.
I have been traveling to Africa for many years. I just got back from a trip through Tanzania, Ethiopia and Uganda. Chinese influence is everywhere. I see conference centers and sports stadiums being constructed, donated by the Chinese. China has been expanding its influence throughout Africa with projects like this. The one thing I keep hearing is, ``The U.S. tells you what you need, but China gives you what you want.'' Has China suddenly become compassionate and generous? No. One thing consistent with all of these countries where they are building these stadiums, sports complexes, and arenas, if you go to them, is they are places that the Chinese are depending on for their oil in the future. I think the fact these countries have large oil and mineral deposits is the reason for their generosity.
Last year, China spent nearly $10 billion on African oil. As I said, this is nearly one third of its total crude oil imports. To gain access to these resources, China shows no qualms about catering to some of the worst governments. The fact is that China is ignoring western sanctions and redrawing the usual geopolitical map to help it level whatever advantages the U.S. may have.
The U.S.-China Comission--again, talking about the Commission that spent 4 years looking at this--has been doing an outstanding job in translating how recent these events affect our national security. Their observations in the 2004 U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission report demand our attention.
The Commission outlines how China's energy search has both economic and security concerns for the United States:
China's rising energy demand has put added pressure on
global petroleum supplies and prices. Indeed, the recent
escalation in gasoline prices in the United States has been
attributed, in part, to the impact of China's growing
pressure on world oil supplies and the absence of any
mechanism in place to counter this pressure and maintain
stable prices for consumers . . . China's growing energy
needs, linked to its rapidly expanding economy, are creating
economic and security concerns for the United States. China's
energy security policies are driving it into bilateral
arrangements that undermine multilateral efforts to stabilize
oil supplies and prices, and in some cases may involve
dangerous weapons transfers.
I plan on giving another speech highlighting the significance of these illegal weapons transfers, followed by a resolution to effect the Commission's recommendations. This is a critical issue and will become a greater threat as we continue to ignore it; I hope America is listening.
I would like to say it goes far beyond that. When you have people like Chavez making statements that they would defeat America not with guns but with the economy, or with oil, we have a very serious problem.
I was disturbed over the last few years with not just the nuclear capabilities that China has and is trading with other countries, such as North Korea and Iran, but also with their conventional weapons. It took a lot of courage back in 1998 for General John Jumper to stand up and say publicly that now the Russians have a better strike vehicle than we have in the United States--better than our F-15s and F-16s, speaking of the SU-30 and SU-31 series. Yet China purchased about 240 of these vehicles. It is not just their nuclear and economic capability in trading with countries that are potentially dangerous to the United States but also their nuclear and conventional base.
I will look forward to delivering a floor speech on China.