# U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL32496 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** January 5, 2015 - **Citation:** RL32496 ## Text U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress (name redacted) Specialist in Asian Security Affairs January 5, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov RL32496 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress Summary This CRS Report, updated through the 113th Congress, discusses policy issues regarding militaryto-military (mil-to-mil) contacts with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and records major contacts and crises since 1993. The United States suspended military contacts with China and imposed sanctions on arms sales in response to the Tiananmen Crackdown in 1989. In 1993, President Clinton reengaged with the top PRC leadership, including China’s military, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Renewed military exchanges with the PLA have not regained the closeness reached in the 1980s, when U.S.-PRC strategic alignment against the Soviet Union included U.S. arms sales to China. Improvements and deteriorations in overall bilateral engagement have affected military contacts, which were close in 1997-1998 and 2000, but marred by the 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait crisis, mistaken NATO bombing of a PRC embassy in 1999, the EP-3 aircraft collision crisis in 2001, and the PLA’s aggressive maritime and air confrontations. Issues for Congress include whether the Administration complies with legislation overseeing dealings with the PLA and pursues contacts with the PLA that advance a prioritized set of U.S. security interests, especially the operational safety of U.S. military personnel. Oversight legislation includes the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY1990-FY1991 (P.L. 101-246) and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2000 (P.L. 106-65). A particular issue is whether the President is required to issue waivers of sanctions. Skeptics and proponents of military exchanges with the PRC have debated whether the contacts achieve results in U.S. objectives and whether the contacts contribute to the PLA’s warfighting capability that might harm U.S. and allied security interests. Some have argued about whether the value that U.S. officials place on the contacts overly extends leverage to the PLA. Some believe talks can serve U.S. interests that include risk-reduction or conflict-avoidance; military-civilian coordination; transparency and reciprocity; tension reduction over Taiwan; weapons nonproliferation; talks on nuclear, missile, space, and/or cyber domains; counterterrorism; and POW/MIA accounting. Policy makers could review the approach to mil-to-mil contacts, given concerns about potential crises and conflicts. U.S. officials have faced challenges in gaining cooperation from the PLA. The PLA has tried to use its suspensions of exchanges while blaming U.S.-only “obstacles” (including arms sales to Taiwan, FY2000 NDAA, and air and naval reconnaissance operations). The PRC’s harassment of U.S. ships and increasing assertiveness in maritime disputes showed some limits to mil-to-mil engagement, similar views, and PLA restraint. The U.S. articulations in 2011-2012 of a strategic “rebalancing” to the Asia-Pacific raised an issue of how to deal with China’s challenges. The Administration’s “rebalance” entails not only expanded engagement with the PLA, but also increasing exercises. The PLA Navy’s invited participation for the first time in the U.S. Navy-led multinational exercise, RIMPAC, based at Hawaii in summer 2014 raised concerns in Congress and elsewhere. The U.S. Navy has increased some “interoperability” with the PLA Navy. The Defense Secretary issued the latest required annual report on June 5, 2014, concerning military and security developments involving the PRC, cooperation, and military-tomilitary contacts. The report noted that the PLA uses combined exercises to improve capabilities by learning from more advanced militaries and asserted that the Defense Department complies with the FY2000 NDAA in all military contacts with China. The U.S. Pacific Air Forces Commander sent a C-17 transport aircraft to China’s Zhuhai Air Show in November 2014. Legislation in the 113th Congress includes the FY2014 NDAA (P.L. 113-66); FY2014 Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 2397); Asia-Pacific Region Priority Act, H.R. 4495 (Forbes); FY2015 NDAA, H.R. 4435 (McKeon), S. 2410 (Levin), and H.R. 3979 (P.L. 113-291); and H.Res. 643 (Chabot). On December 10, 2014, Representative Randy Forbes wrote to the Defense Secretary with concerns about mil-to-mil contacts with China and to request a review of this policy. Congressional Research Service U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress Contents Overview of and Options for Policy ................................................................................................ 1 Cooperation in the Cold War in the 1980s................................................................................. 1 Suspensions After the Tiananmen Crackdown of 1989 ............................................................. 1 Reengagement and Recovery from Crises................................................................................. 2 Reevaluation .............................................................................................................................. 2 Resumption ................................................................................................................................ 3 Reappraisal ................................................................................................................................ 3 Rebalancing ............................................................................................................................... 4 Options ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Policy Issues for Congress ............................................................................................................... 8 Congressional Oversight ........................................................................................................... 9 Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 .............................. 10 Arms Export Control Act .................................................................................................. 11 Joint Defense Conversion Commission (JDCC) ............................................................... 11 Past Reporting Requirement.............................................................................................. 12 Programs of Exchanges ..................................................................................................... 12 Restrictions in the FY2000 NDAA ................................................................................... 13 RIMPAC 2014 ................................................................................................................... 14 Major Legislation: Required Reports and Classification .................................................. 15 Prohibitions on Defense Procurement ............................................................................... 18 Foreign Aid........................................................................................................................ 19 Leverage to Pursue U.S. Security Objectives .......................................................................... 19 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 19 Debate ............................................................................................................................... 20 Perspectives ....................................................................................................................... 24 U.S. Security Interests ............................................................................................................. 26 Communication, Conflict Avoidance, and Crisis Management ........................................ 26 Civilian Control over PLA and Civil-Military Coordination ............................................ 34 Transparency, Reciprocity, and Information-Exchange .................................................... 36 Tension Reduction over Taiwan ........................................................................................ 37 Weapons Nonproliferation ................................................................................................ 41 Strategic Nuclear, Missile, Space, and Cyber Talks .......................................................... 42 Counterterrorism ............................................................................................................... 47 Accounting for POW/MIAs .............................................................................................. 49 Tables Table 1. The PLA’s High Command ................................................................................................ 7 Table 2. Summary of Senior-Level Military Visits Since 1994 ....................................................... 8 Appendixes Appendix. Major Military Contacts and Incidents Since 1993...................................................... 52 Congressional Research Service U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress Contacts Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 82 Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 82 Congressional Research Service U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress Overview of and Options for Policy U.S. leaders have applied military contacts as one tool and point of leverage in the broader policy toward the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The first part of this CRS Report discusses policy issues regarding such military-to-military (mil-to-mil) contacts. The second part provides a record of such contacts since 1993, when the United States resumed exchanges after suspending them in response to the Tiananmen Crackdown in 1989. Congress has exercised important oversight. Cooperation in the Cold War in the 1980s Since the mid-1970s, even before the normalization of relations with Beijing, the debate over policy toward the PRC has examined how military ties might advance U.S. security interests, beginning with the imperatives of the Cold War.1 In January 1980, Secretary of Defense Harold Brown visited China and laid the groundwork for a relationship with the PRC’s military, collectively called the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), intended to consist of strategic dialogue, reciprocal exchanges in functional areas, and arms sales. Furthermore, President Ronald Reagan changed policy in 1981 to remove the ban on arms sales to China. Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger visited Beijing in September 1983. In 1984, U.S. policy makers worked to advance discussions on military technological cooperation with China.2 There were direct commercial sales to the PLA that included Sikorsky Aircraft’s sale of 24 S-70C transport helicopters (an unarmed version of the Black Hawk helicopter) and General Electric’s sale of five gas turbine engines for two naval destroyers.3 Between 1985 and 1987, the United States also agreed to four programs of government-to-government foreign military sales (FMS): modernization of artillery ammunition production facilities; modernization of avionics in F-8 fighters; sale of four Mark-46 anti-submarine torpedoes; and sale of four AN/TPQ-37 artillery-locating radars.4 Suspensions After the Tiananmen Crackdown of 1989 The United States suspended mil-to-mil contacts and arms sales in response to the Tiananmen Crackdown in June 1989. (Although the killing of peaceful demonstrators took place beyond just Tiananmen Square in the capital of Beijing on June 4, 1989, the crackdown is commonly called the Tiananmen Crackdown in reference to the square that was the focal point of the nationwide pro-democracy movement.) Approved in February 1990, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY1990-FY1991 (P.L. 101-246) enacted into law the sanctions imposed on arms sales and other cooperation, while allowing for waivers in the general U.S. national interest. In April 1990, China canceled the program (called “Peace Pearl”) to upgrade the avionics of the F-8 fighters.5 In 1 Michael Pillsbury, “U.S.-Chinese Military Ties?,” Foreign Policy, Fall 1975; Leslie Gelb, “Arms Sales,” Foreign Policy, Winter 1976-77; Michael Pillsbury, “Future Sino-American Security Ties: The View from Tokyo, Moscow, and Peking,” International Security, Spring 1977; and Philip Taubman, “U.S. and China Forging Close Ties; Critics Fear That Pace is Too Swift,” New York Times, December 8, 1980. 2 Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly, “Defense Relations With the People’s Republic of China,” testimony at a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittees on Asian and Pacific Affairs, and International Economic Policy and Trade on “United States-China Relations,” June 5, 1984. 3 Wall Street Journal, August 6, 1984, and August 2, 1985. The helicopters lacked capability to fly low and fast. 4 Department of State and DSCA, “Congressional Presentation for Security Assistance, Fiscal Year 1992.” 5 Jane’s Defence Weekly, May 26, 1990. Congressional Research Service 1 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress December 1992, President George H.W. Bush closed the four cases of suspended FMS programs, returning PRC equipment, reimbursing unused funds, and delivering sold items without support.6 Reengagement and Recovery from Crises In the fall of 1993, President Bill Clinton began to reengage the PRC leadership up to the highest level and across the board, including the PLA, after suspensions over the crisis in 1989. However, results were limited and the military relationship did not regain the closeness reached in the 1980s, when the United States and China cooperated strategically against the Soviet Union and such cooperation included arms sales to the PLA. Improvements and deteriorations in overall bilateral relations affected mil-to-mil contacts, which had close ties in 1997-1998 and 2000, but were marred by the 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis, mistaken NATO bombing of the PRC embassy in Yugoslavia in 1999, and the EP-3 aircraft collision crisis in 2001. Reevaluation In 2001, President George W. Bush continued the policy of engagement with the PRC, while the Pentagon skeptically reviewed and cautiously resumed a program of mil-to-mil exchanges. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reviewed the mil-to-mil contacts to assess the effectiveness of the exchanges in meeting U.S. objectives of reciprocity and transparency. Soon after the review began, on April 1, 2001, a PLA Navy F-8 fighter collided with a U.S. Navy EP-3 reconnaissance plane over the South China Sea.7 Upon surviving the collision, the EP-3’s crew made an emergency landing on China’s Hainan Island. The PLA detained the 24 U.S. Navy personnel for 11 days. Instead of acknowledging that the PLA had started aggressive interceptions of U.S. reconnaissance flights in December 2000 and apologizing for the accident, top PRC ruler Jiang Zemin demanded an apology and compensation from the United States. Rumsfeld limited mil-to-mil contacts after the crisis, subject to case-by-case approval, after the White House objected to a suspension of contacts with the PLA as outlined in an April 30 Defense Department memo. Rumsfeld told reporters on May 8, 2001, that he decided against visits to China by U.S. ships or aircraft and against social contacts, because “it really wasn’t business as usual.” Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz reported to Congress on June 8, 2001, that mil-to-mil exchanges for 2001 remained under review by Secretary Rumsfeld and exchanges with the PLA would be conducted “selectively and on a case-by-case basis.” The United States did not transport the damaged EP-3 out of China until July 3, 2001. The Bush Administration hosted PRC Vice President Hu Jintao in Washington in the spring of 2002 (with an honor cordon at the Pentagon) and President Jiang Zemin in Crawford, TX, in October 2002. Afterwards, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, in late 2002, resumed the Defense Consultative Talks (DCT) with the PLA (first held in 1997) and, in 2003, hosted General Cao Gangchuan, a Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC) and Defense Minister. General Richard Myers (USAF), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, visited China in January 2004, as the highest ranking U.S. military officer to do so since November 2000. 6 President George H.W. Bush, news conference (announced suspensions of arms sales, senior military visits, and other actions), June 5, 1989; Department of State, “Presidential Decision on Military Sales to China,” December 22, 1992. 7 CRS Report RL30946, China-U.S. Aircraft Collision Incident of April 2001: Assessments and Policy Implications, by (name redacted) et al. Congressional Research Service 2 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress Resumption Still, mil-to-mil interactions remained “exceedingly limited,” according to the Commander of the Pacific Command (PACOM), Admiral William Fallon, who visited China to advance mil-to-mil contacts in September 2005. He discussed building relationships at higher and lower ranks, cooperation in responding to natural disasters and controlling avian flu, and reducing tensions. Fallon also said that he would seek to enhance military-to-military contacts with China and invite PLA observers to U.S. military exercises, an issue of dispute in Washington.8 In October 2005, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited China, the first visit by a defense secretary since William Cohen’s visit in 2000. After Rumsfeld’s visit, which was long sought by the PLA for the perceived full resumption of the military relationship, General Guo Boxiong, a CMC Vice Chairman and the PLA’s highest ranking officer visited the United States in July 2006, the first such visit since General Zhang Wannian’s visit in 1998. Reappraisal China’s rising power with greater assertiveness and aggressiveness (particularly in maritime areas), refusal to discuss nuclear weapons, cyber threats, and repeated suspensions of visits showed limitations of the results of mil-to-mil exchanges. Also, a need arose for a review of the U.S. approach of a greater stress on cooperative contacts than the PLA’s antagonistic attitude and leveraging of military contacts to influence U.S. policies. The PLA has repeatedly suspended milto-mil contacts while blaming U.S. “obstacles” (including U.S. reconnaissance, arms sales to Taiwan, legislated restrictions on contacts with the PLA, and the Pentagon’s annual report to Congress on PRC Military Power). At a news conference on March 7, 2007, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that he did not see China as a “strategic adversary” of the United States, but “a partner in some respects” and a “competitor in other respects.” Gates stressed the importance of engaging the PRC “on all facets of our relationship as a way of building mutual confidence.” Nonetheless, U.S. officials expressed concern about inadequate “transparency” from the PLA, notably when it tested an anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon in January 2007. At a news conference in China on March 23, 2007, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Peter Pace, said the primary concern for the bilateral relationship is “miscalculation and misunderstanding based on misinformation.” Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Richard Lawless testified to the House Armed Services Committee on June 13, 2007, that “in the absence of adequate explanation for capabilities which are growing dynamically, both in terms of pace and scope, we are put in the position of having to assume the most dangerous intent a capability offers.” He noted a lack of response from the PLA to an agreement at the U.S.-PRC summit in 2006 to discuss nuclear arms. In November 2007, despite various unresolved issues, Secretary Gates visited China, and the PLA agreed to a long-sought U.S. goal of a “hotline.” Later in the month, despite a number of senior U.S. visits to China (particularly by U.S. Navy Admirals and Secretary Gates) to promote the milto-mil relationship, the PRC denied port calls at Hong Kong for U.S. Navy minesweepers in distress and for the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk for the Thanksgiving holiday and family reunions, according to the PACOM Commander and Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Admirals Timothy Keating and Gary Roughead. The Pentagon protested to the PLA.9 Again after the President notified Congress about arms sales to Taiwan in October 2008 and January 2010, the 8 PACOM, William Fallon, press conference, Hong Kong, September 11, 2005; author’s consultation with Pentagon. “Navy: China ‘Not Helpful’ on Thanksgiving,” Associated Press, November 28, 2007; White House press briefing, November 28, 2007; Washington Post, November 29, 2007. 9 Congressional Research Service 3 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress PLA repeated cycles of suspensions of military exchanges in what the Pentagon called “continued politicization” of such contacts. In spite of its goal of cooperative engagement, the U.S. Navy faced the PRC’s dangerous harassment of U.S. surveillance ships in March and May 2009. At the U.S.-PRC Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) in July 2009 in Washington, President Barack Obama stressed military contacts to diminish disputes with China. Later in 2009, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2010 (P.L. 111-84) amended the requirement in P.L. 106-65 for the report to Congress on PRC military power to expand the focus to security developments, add cooperative elements, and fold in another requirement to report on mil-to-mil contacts, including a new strategy on such contacts. Meanwhile, Admiral Robert Willard, PACOM Commander, initiated in January 2010 reviews of approaches toward the PRC and toward Taiwan (among other concerns like North Korea) by Strategic Focus Groups (SFGs). Rebalancing The announcements in 2011-2012 of a U.S. strategic “rebalancing” of priorities to the AsiaPacific prompted a debate in China on how to counter what some portrayed as Cold War-like antiChina “containment” (not used by U.S. officials) and whether U.S. attention to Asia (including allies) would be sustainable given budget constraints. At the start of 2012, President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta issued new Defense Strategic Guidance on how to maintain U.S. military superiority in the face of budget cuts and to “rebalance” priorities, posture, and presence to stress attention to Asia as well as the Mideast. The Administration added adjustments to its messages about the strategy, including in National Security Advisor Tom Donilon’s speeches in November 2012 and March 2013. He explained that the strategy is more a comprehensive (diplomatic, defense, and economic) “whole of government” approach than a defense-dominated initiative and that the strategy includes a constructive relationship with China (partly through expanded engagement with the PLA). The PRC Foreign Ministry welcomed those remarks. Still, the PLA’s Defense White Paper of April 2013 negatively assessed that “some countries” have strengthened Asian alliances, expanded the military presence, and “frequently created” regional tensions (an apparent reference to maritime disputes in the East and South China Seas especially involving the PRC, Vietnam, Japan, and the Philippines—with the latter two being U.S. allies). However, the Obama Administration expanded engagement with the PLA that involves exercises and equipment, a sensitive step raising concerns about showing U.S. military technology, tactics, and techniques. Other issues concern whether there is adherence to U.S. laws, including the FY2000 NDAA, and consistency with U.S. concerns about allies showing U.S.-origin equipment. Defense Secretary Panetta visited China in September 2012 and invited the PLA Navy to participate for the first time in the U.S.-led multilateral, maritime Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise in 2014 near Hawaii. At a press conference on July 19, 2013, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Admiral Jonathan Greenert, called for “interoperability” with the PLA Navy. The Commander of Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) also said he hoped to bring a C-17 to China’s air show in November 2014 (in General Hawk Carlisle’s interview with Defense News, February 10, 2014). PACAF sent a C-17 transport plane to the Zhuhai Air Show at a cost of $350,000, despite some concerns in the Defense and State Departments, and U.S. objections to the Republic of Korea’s proposal to send its T-50 trainers (with U.S. technology developed by Lockheed Martin). The C-17’s presence at the air show was limited to a static display.10 10 Author’s consultations; “South Korea Cancels ‘Black Eagle’ Aerobatic Show in China,” Yonhap, November 2; “Why the U.S. Sent a C-17 to a Chinese Air Show Despite Concerns Inside the Pentagon,” DefenseOne.com, November 11; “China Getting a Look at Hawaii-based C-17, Crew Capabilities,” Honolulu Star-Advertiser, November 15, 2014. Congressional Research Service 4 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress Options In a reassessment of the U.S. strategy toward and limitations of U.S. leverage in mil-to-mil contacts to resolve disputes, policy makers have a number of options. The PRC’s reduced appreciation for mil-to-mil exchanges at times has accompanied its rising assertiveness. Some say China’s rising influence has reduced U.S. influence in relative terms. Others say U.S. power and leadership remain dominant and valued by many countries to balance against China, with the potential for the United States to shape China’s rise as a peaceful, responsible, and rules-based power. In this context, one option is to stay the course in urging a more mature relationship to reduce miscalculations and misperceptions, while dealing with repeated cycles in which the PLA suspends contacts and then leverages the timing when it chooses to “resume” talks. A critical view questions whether the status quo can be sustainable for long without another confrontation or crisis with China and urges stepping up substantive talks about common concerns and relaxing restrictions on engagement with the PLA. Another critical view recognizes that over the longterm, the military relationship has remained rocky and has reflected realistically not only the antagonistic approach of the PLA but more broadly the PRC toward the United States. In this view, the crux of the challenge for the U.S. military is not misunderstanding or misperception but primarily competing (not common) interests. Alternatively, rather than either a major rise or retrenchment in reaching out to the PLA, the U.S. military could recalibrate by reducing eager requests and placing priority on the safety of U.S. military personnel in the air and at sea. More specific options include a shift to stress multilateral settings for engagement with the PLA, so that it has to engage with many countries amplifying their common concerns (e.g., about freedom of navigation). However, U.S.-PRC disputes could remain unaddressed and affect any effective cooperation in international contexts. In its first long-distance operation, the PLA Navy has cooperated with the U.S. Navy and others to fight piracy in the Gulf of Aden since December 2008. Such contact could include expanded engagement in Europe between NATO and the PLA, perhaps with coordination between the Defense Department and allied defense ministries. Partly to address concerns of China’s neighbors, the U.S. military could engage the PLA along with the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)11 and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). The International Institute for Strategic Studies has held the annual “Shangri-la Dialogue” of defense ministers in Singapore since 2002. China’s absence from the forum until 2007 and refusals until 2011 to send the defense minister raised questions about China’s willingness to engage with others on military matters and at an appropriately senior level. Indeed, Defense Secretary Gates attended the Shangri-la Dialogue in June 2010 and critically declared that the United States will remain a power in the Pacific and that the South China Sea became an area of growing concern regarding the use of force, challenges to freedom of navigation, and intimidation of U.S. and other companies. Gates chastised the PLA for not following up with the top-level commitment by President Obama and Hu Jintao in 2009 to advance the mil-to-mil relationship. (Hu was the CPC General-Secretary, CMC Chairman, and PRC President.) Gates defended arms sales to Taiwan as part of U.S. policy since 1979 in part because of China’s accelerating military buildup that largely has focused on Taiwan. He reiterated that his department sought sustained and reliable military contacts to reduce miscommunication, misunderstanding, and miscalculation. Such contacts would support regional security and a U.S.PRC relationship that is positive in tone, cooperative in nature, and comprehensive in scope, Gates emphasized.12 (President Obama has pursued a “positive, cooperative, and comprehensive” 11 12 Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, speech at Shangri-la Hotel, Singapore, June 5, 2010. Congressional Research Service 5 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress relationship with the PRC, but the PRC has translated “positive” with a Chinese word meaning “proactive.”) The PLA sent a lower-level official (PLA Deputy Chief of General Staff and Air Force General Ma Xiaotian) to the meeting and declined to host Gates for a visit in China. By early September 2010, PRC media reported General Ma as saying positive remarks about the U.S.-PRC military relationship, but the Defense Department spokesman cautioned on September 9 that Secretary Gates was not interested in merely “engagement for the sake of engagement.” Gates again visited Asia in attending in Hanoi on October 11-12 the first ASEAN Defense Ministers’ Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus) between ASEAN and its partners (Australia, China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Russia, and the United States). This time, the PLA sent a CMC Member and the Defense Minister, General Liang Guanglie, who spoke in a moderate tone even as several countries raised concerns about China’s maritime claims. Further, Minister Liang invited Secretary Gates to visit in January 2011. On June 3-5, 2011, the PLA finally dispatched for the first time the Defense Minister to the Shangri-la Dialogue. Defense Secretary Gates held a meeting with General Liang Guanglie. However, the PLA did not send the Defense Minister to attend the Shangri-la Dialogue in 2012, 2013, and 2014. In Hawaii in April 2014, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel held the first U.S.-hosted meeting with ASEAN defense ministers. Another option is for mil-to-mil to be integrated further into the overall bilateral relationship, pursued by the Obama Administration to shape China’s rise as a peaceful, responsible, and rulesbased power. As Gates implied a civil-military divide, there could be useful reminders to the PLA to respect the top PRC leadership’s commitment to U.S.-PRC military engagement, other aspects of PRC external policies, and international laws and norms. (Also see section below on “Civilian Control over PLA and Civil-Military Coordination.”) Before Gates’ visit in January 2011, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Schiffer said in a speech on January 6 that mil-to-mil should be a critical component of bilateral engagement. However, any setbacks to the military contacts could result in costs to the overall security, economic, and political relationship. There also could be a risk that military mistrust could drive the bilateral relationship. At the S&ED in Washington in July 2009, President Obama stressed that increased ties between our militaries could diminish causes for disputes while providing a framework for cooperation. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the PACOM Commander attended that meeting, but the PLA reluctantly sent a lower-level official. For the next S&ED in Beijing in May 2010, the Pentagon sent the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs and the PACOM Commander, even while the PLA suspended some exchanges in claimed objection to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell asserted an “innovation” to include a PLA officer (a Deputy Chief of General Staff) at the 3rd S&ED in Washington on May 9-10, 2011. Still, the Chief of General Staff planned his visit on May 15-22, days after the S&ED. Specifically regarding the PLA’s objection to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, U.S. options include reconsidering the policy under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of 1979, P.L. 96-8, to make available arms for Taiwan’s self-defense. Others have called for breaking the cycles since 2008 in which Presidents Bush and Obama waited on pending arms sales to notify them to Congress all on one day, cycles that could have raised expectations in Beijing of changes in U.S. policy leading to escalations in Beijing’s demands for compromises. Another option would discuss with the PLA how the United States has responded to the PLA’s threat posture against Taiwan. Congressional Research Service 6 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress Select Abbreviations AMS Academy of Military Science CMC Central Military Commission COSTIND Commission of Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense CPC Communist Party of China DCT Defense Consultative Talks DPCT Defense Policy Coordination Talks DPMO Defense POW/Missing Personnel Office GAD General Armament Department GLD General Logistics Department GPD General Political Department GSD General Staff Department MR Military Region MMCA Military Maritime Consultative Agreement NDU National Defense University PACOM Pacific Command PLAAF People’s Liberation Army Air Force PLAN People’s Liberation Army Navy PLANAF PLAN Air Force Table 1. The PLA’s High Command Central Military Commission (CMC) of the CPC Chairman Vice Chm Vice Chm Member Member Member Member Member Member Member Member General General, PLAAF General General General General General Admiral, PLAN General, PLAAF General Xi Jinping Fan Changlong Xu Qiliang Chang Wanquan Fang Fenghui Zhang Yang Zhao Keshi Zhang Youxia Wu Shengli Ma Xiaotian Wei Fenghe CPC General Secretary; PRC President CPC Politburo Member CPC Politburo Member Defense Minister, PRC State Councilor Chief of General Staff (GSD) Director of GPD Director of GLD Director of GAD Commander of the Navy Commander of the Air Force Commander of the 2nd Artillery Notes: Jiang Zemin was installed as the previous chairman of the CPC’s CMC in November 1989 and remained in this position after handing other positions as CPC General Secretary and PRC President to Hu Jintao. Jiang had ruled as the General Secretary of the CPC from June 1989 until November 2002, when he stepped down at the 16th CPC Congress in favor of Hu Jintao. Jiang concurrently represented the PRC as president from March 1993 until March 2003, when he stepped down at the 10th National People’s Congress (NPC). At the 4th plenum of the 16th Central Committee in September 2004, Jiang resigned as CMC Chairman, allowing Hu to complete the transition of power. At the same time, General Xu Caihou rose from a CMC Member to a Vice Chairman, and the Commanders of the PLA Air Force, Navy, and 2nd Artillery rose to be CMC Members for the first time in the PLA’s history, reflecting new appreciation and action to integrate the PLA as a joint force. Xi Jinping was named as a CMC Vice Chairman on October 18, 2010, further indicating that he would succeed Hu Jintao as the next CPC General Secretary in 2012. Congressional Research Service 7 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress In November 2012, the 7th plenum of the 17th Central Committee announced the appointments of Fan Changlong (though not a CMC Member) and Xu Qiliang to be Vice Chairmen, promoted respectively from positions as the Commanders of the Jinan MR and PLAAF. PLA officers outside of the ground forces increased from three to four on the CMC, further expanding joint representation. Contrary to Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao transferred to Xi Jinping both positions as CPC General Secretary and CMC Chairman at the leadership transition during the 18th Party Congress, allowing Xi to consolidate the CPC General Secretary’s top control over the PLA and represent the PLA on the seven-man Politburo Standing Committee. In March 2013, the 12th National People’s Congress announced the new government positions of Xi Jinping as PRC President and General Chang Wanquan as Defense Minister. The CMC under the Communist Party of China (CPC) commands the PLA. The PRC Ministry of Defense and its titles are used for foreign contacts. The PRC Defense Minister is not equivalent to the U.S. Secretary of Defense in terms of authority or functions. The Defense Minister has no operational command of forces and primarily performs roles in foreign contacts. The Minister oversees defense mobilization in peacetime and wartime. The Minister also has a government position under the State Council (like a Cabinet) and is concurrently a State Councilor. Also, he may direct the Xinjiang Production and Construction Corps (PCC), a paramilitary force for internal security in Xinjiang. Table 2. Summary of Senior-Level Military Visits Since 1994 Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Defense Secretary/Minister Highest Ranking Officer Defense Consultative Talks William Perry Chi Haotian William Cohen John Shalikashvili Zhang Wannian 1st DCT 2nd DCT William Cohen Henry Shelton 3rd DCT; 4th DCT 5th DCT Cao Gangchuan Richard Myers Donald Rumsfeld Robert Gates Robert Gates Liang Guanglie, Leon Panetta Chang Wanquan Chuck Hagel Guo Boxiong Peter Pace Michael Mullen Martin Dempsey 6th DCT 7th DCT 8th DCT 9th DCT 10th DCT 11th DCT 12th DCT 13th DCT 14th DCT 15th DCT Policy Issues for Congress Skepticism in the United States about the value of military exchanges with China has increased with the experiences in the 1990s; crises like the PLA’s missile exercises targeting Taiwan in 1995-1996, mistaken bombing of the PRC embassy in Belgrade in 1999, and the F-8/EP-3 collision crisis of 2001; and China’s confrontations over maritime areas. Still, Presidents and some in Congress have striven to increase collaboration with the PLA. One long-standing issue has concerned whether travel to Asia includes visits only to China or visits also to allies. Congressional Research Service 8 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress In 2002, President George W. Bush decided to pursue a closer relationship with the PRC. As the Defense Department gradually resumed the mil-to-mil relationship in that context, policy issues for Congress included whether the Administration complied with legislation and used leverage effectively in its contacts with the PLA to advance a prioritized list of U.S. security interests, while balancing security concerns about the PLA’s warfighting capabilities. President Barack Obama met with Hu Jintao at the G-20 summit in London on April 1, 2009, and they agreed to improve the mil-to-mil relationship and set up the S&ED. The S&ED combined the Bush Administration’s Strategic Economic Dialogue chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury with the Senior Dialogue chaired by the Deputy Secretary of State, used the PRC’s preferred term of “strategic” instead of “senior” dialogue, and elevated the Secretary of State to a co-chair. Speaking at the 1st S&ED in Washington in July 2009, President Obama stressed military contacts to diminish disputes with China, starting the integration of military talks in the S&ED and mil-tomil in the overall relationship. The Administration also has raised attention to a need for the PLA to coordinate with the top leaders or civilian diplomats. Moreover, the Obama Administration expanded engagement with the PLA, including increasing combined exercises. On December 10, 2014, Representative Randy Forbes wrote to the Defense Secretary with concerns about the trajectory of mil-to-mil contacts with China and to request a review of this policy.13 Congressional Oversight Congress has exercised oversight of various aspects of military exchanges with China. Issues for Congress include whether the Administration has complied with legislation overseeing dealings with the PLA and has determined a program of contacts with the PLA that advances, and does not harm, U.S. security interests. The Defense Department has asserted that it conducts all militaryto-military contacts with China in a manner consistent with the provisions of the FY2000 NDAA. Section 902 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY1990-FY1991 (P.L. 101-246) prohibits arms sales to China, among other stipulations, in response to the Tiananmen Crackdown in 1989. Section 1201 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2000 (P.L. 106-65) restricts “inappropriate exposure” of the PLA to certain operational areas and requires annual reports on contacts with the PLA. Section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006 (P.L. 109-163) prohibits procurement from any “Communist Chinese military company” for goods and services on the Munitions List, with exceptions for U.S. military ship or aircraft visits to the PRC, testing, and intelligence-collection; as well as waiver authority for the Secretary of Defense. The NDAA for FY2010 (P.L. 111-84) amended the requirement in P.L. 106-65 for the annual report on PRC military power to expand the focus to security developments involving the PRC, add cooperative elements, and fold in another requirement to report on mil-to-mil contacts, including a new strategy for such contacts. One issue for Congress in examining military engagement with the PRC is the role of Congress, including the extent of congressional oversight of the Administration’s policy. Congress could, as it has in the past, consider the following options: • • • 13 Host PLA delegations on Capitol Hill or meet them at other venues Engage with the PLA as an aspect of visits by Codels to China Receive briefings by the Administration before and/or after military visits Randy Forbes, Letter to Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Deputy Secretary Robert Work, December 10, 2014. Congressional Research Service 9 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress • • • • • • • • • • Investigate or oversee investigations of prisoner-of-war/missing-in-action (POW/MIA) cases Require reports or briefings from the Pentagon, particularly in unclassified form Review exchanges at PACOM’s Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (APCSS) in Hawaii Fund or prohibit funding for certain commissions or activities Pass legislation on sanctions and exchanges with the PLA Assess the Administration’s adherence to laws on sanctions, contacts, and reports Obtain and review the Department of Defense (DOD)’s plan for upcoming milto-mil contacts, particularly proposed programs already discussed with the PLA Require binding reviews of mil-to-mil contacts by the Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA) and counter-intelligence authorities Examine whether to negotiate any agreements with the PLA, such as an Acquisition and Cross-Service Agreement (ACSA) for logistics support Require periodic (e.g., monthly, quarterly) reports to appropriations and defense committees on the costs of travel and other elements of mil-to-mil exchanges. Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991 Congress has oversight of sanctions imposed after the PLA’s role in the use of force in the Tiananmen Square Crackdown of 1989. Commonly called the “Tiananmen Sanctions,” they were enacted in Section 902 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY1990 and FY1991 (P.L. 101-246). The sanctions continue to prohibit the issuance of licenses to export U.S. Munitions List (USML) defense articles and defense services to China, including helicopters and helicopter parts, as well as crime control equipment. Successive Presidents have used the waiver authority, occasionally and on a case-by-case basis. In October 2010, President Obama issued a waiver for temporary export licenses under the USML for the contingency of a landing by a civilianoperated C-130 transport plane in operations for an oil spill at sea, though it was not an export. An issue is whether President Obama is required to issue waivers and consult with Congress concerning the increased exposures of the PLA to U.S. equipment in military exchanges. The U.S. ban on arms sales also shores up U.S. credibility and leadership, including opposition to an end to the European Union (EU)’s arms embargo against China similarly imposed for the Tiananmen Crackdown as well as in opposing Israel’s certain arms transfers to the PLA. In January 2004, the EU decided to reconsider whether to lift its embargo on arms sales to China. On January 28, 2004, a State Department spokesman acknowledged that the United States held “senior-level” discussions with France and other countries in the EU about the issue of whether to lift the embargo on arms sales to China. He said, “certainly for the United States, our statutes and regulations prohibit sales of defense items to China. We believe that others should maintain their current arms embargoes as well. We believe that the U.S. and European prohibitions on arms sales are complementary, were imposed for the same reasons, specifically serious human rights abuses, and that those reasons remain valid today.”14 At a hearing of the House International Relations Committee on February 11, 2004, Representative Steve Chabot asked Secretary of State Colin Powell about the EU’s reconsideration of the arms embargo against China, as supported by France. Powell responded that he raised this issue with the foreign ministers of France, Ireland, 14 Department of State, press briefing by Richard Boucher, spokesman, January 28, 2004. Congressional Research Service 10 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress United Kingdom, and Germany, and expressed opposition to a change in the EU’s policy at that time in light of the PLA’s missiles arrayed against Taiwan, the referendums on sensitive political issues then planned in Taiwan, and China’s human rights conditions.15 In prominent cases concerning Israel, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak on July 10, 2000, responded to objections from President Clinton and Congress and told PRC ruler Jiang Zemin in a letter that Israel canceled the nearly completed sale of the Phalcon airborne early warning system to the PLA. Moreover, the PLA procured from Israel some Harpy anti-radiation drones in 2002.16 In 2004, the United States demanded that Israel not return to China some upgraded Harpy attack drones. Arms Export Control Act In addition, the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (P.L. 90-629) governs U.S. transfers of defense articles (weapons, etc.) and defense services (training, information, etc.), plus any subsequent third-party transfers without U.S. consent. Section 6 of the AECA prohibits arms sales (through letters of offer, credits, guarantees, or export licenses) governed by the act to any country that is determined by the President to be engaged in a consistent pattern of intimidation or harassment directed against individuals in the United States. The President is required to report any such determination to the House Speaker and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (For example, as discussed elsewhere, in 2010, PRC diplomats harassed U.S. executives over arms sales to Taiwan, and Defense Secretary Gates objected to PRC intimidation of U.S. firms.) In April 2013, the PRC’s Defense White Paper, “Diversified Employment of China’s Armed Forces,” acknowledged the use of combined exercises with foreign militaries to “accelerate” the PLA’s modernization. In “Military and Security Developments Involving the PRC,” the Defense Secretary reported to Congress in May 2013 that PLA participation or observer status in military training exercises of nations in possession of U.S. military equipment, systems, and weapons could have unintended consequences that result in the unauthorized disclosure of defense articles, technical data, or defense services to China. The report cited the “Tiananmen Sanctions” and the AECA for denial of transfers of defense articles (including technical data) and defense services. Joint Defense Conversion Commission (JDCC) In China in 1994, Secretary of Defense William Perry and PLA General Ding Henggao, Director of the Commission of Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense (COSTIND),17 set up the U.S.-China Joint Defense Conversion Commission (JDCC). Its stated goal was to facilitate economic cooperation and technical exchanges and cooperation in the area of defense conversion. However, on June 1, 1995, the House National Security Committee issued H.Rept. 104-131 (for the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1996) and expressed concerns that this commission led to U.S. assistance to PRC firms with direct ties to the PLA and possible subsidies to the PLA. The committee inserted a section to prohibit the use of DOD funds for activities associated with the commission. The Senate’s bill had no similar language. On January 22, 1996, conferees reported in H.Rept. 104-450 that they agreed to a provision (§1343 in P.L. 104-106) to require the Secretary of Defense to submit semi-annual reports on the commission. They also 15 See CRS Report RL32870, European Union's Arms Embargo on China: Implications and Options for U.S. Policy, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted). 16 Washington Times, July 2, 2002; Guangzhou Daily, July 4, 2002; Ha’aretz, Tel Aviv, July 25, 2002; Flight International, November 5-11, 2002; and Defense Secretary’s report on “PRC Military Power,” submitted in July 2003. 17 CRS Report 96-889, China: Commission of Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense (COSTIND) and Defense Industries, by (name redacted). Congressional Research Service 11 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress noted that continued U.S.-PRC security dialogue “can promote stability in the region and help protect American interests and the interests of America’s Asian allies.” Nonetheless, they warned that Congress intends to examine whether that dialogue has produced “tangible results” in human rights, transparency in military spending and doctrine, missile and nuclear nonproliferation, and other important U.S. security interests. Then, in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY1997 (P.L. 104-201), enacted in September 23, 1996, Congress banned DOD from using any funds for any activity associated with the commission until 15 days after the first semi-annual report is received by Congress. In light of this controversy, Secretary Perry terminated the JDCC and informed Congress in a letter dated July 18, 1996. Chairman Floyd Spence of the House Committee on National Security had the General Accounting Office (GAO) audit the activities of the JDCC, as reported in GAO/NSIAD-96-230R of September 30, 1996. Past Reporting Requirement Also in 1996, the House National Security Committee issued H.Rept. 104-563 (for the NDAA of FY1997) that sought a “full accounting and detailed presentation” of all DOD interaction with the PRC government and PLA, including technology-sharing, conducted during 1994-1996 and proposed for 1997-1998, and required a classified and unclassified report by February 1, 1997. DOD submitted the unclassified report on February 21, 1997, and did not submit a classified version, saying that the unclassified report was comprehensive and that no contacts covered in the report included the release of classified material or technology sharing. Programs of Exchanges Certain Members of Congress have written to the Secretary of Defense to express concerns that mil-to-mil exchanges have not adequately benefitted U.S. interests. In early 1999, under the Clinton Administration, the Washington Times disclosed the existence of a “Gameplan for 1999 U.S.-Sino Defense Exchanges,” and Pentagon spokesperson Kenneth Bacon confirmed that an exchange program had been under way for years.18 Representative Dana Rohrabacher wrote a letter to Secretary of Defense William Cohen, saying that “after reviewing the ‘Game Plan,’ it appears evident that a number of events involving PLA logistics, acquisitions, quartermaster and chemical corps representatives may benefit PLA modernization to the detriment of our allies in the Pacific region and, ultimately, the lives of own service members.” He requested a detailed written description of various exchanges.19 In December 2001, under the Bush Administration, Senator Bob Smith and Representative Dana Rohrabacher wrote to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, expressing concerns about renewed military contacts with the PRC. They contended that military exchanges failed to reduce tensions (evident in the EP-3 crisis), lacked reciprocity, and provided militarily-useful information to the PLA. They charged that the Clinton Administration “largely ignored” the spirit and intent of legislation governing military exchanges with the PLA, including a “violation” of the law by allowing the PLA to visit the Joint Forces Command in August 2000, and, as initiators of the legislation, they “reminded” Rumsfeld of the congressional restrictions.20 18 Bill Gertz, “Military Exchanges with Beijing Raises Security Concerns,” Washington Times, February 19, 1999. Dana Rohrabacher, letters to William Cohen, March 1, 1999 and March 18, 1999. 20 Bob Smith and Dana Rohrabacher, letter to Donald Rumsfeld, December 17, 2001. 19 Congressional Research Service 12 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress Restrictions in the FY2000 NDAA Congress passed legislation concerning limits to helping the PLA’s warfighting capabilities. Enacted on October 5, 1999, and based on an amendment introduced by Representative Tom DeLay, the FY2000 NDAA set parameters to contacts with the PLA. Section 1201(a) of the NDAA for FY2000 (P.L. 106-65) prohibits the Secretary of Defense from authorizing any mil-tomil contact with the PLA if that contact would “create a national security risk due to an inappropriate exposure” of the PLA to any of the following 12 operational areas (with exceptions granted only to any search and rescue or humanitarian operation or exercise): • • • • • • • • • • • • Force projection operations Nuclear operations Advanced combined-arms and joint combat operations Advanced logistical operations Chemical and biological defense and other capabilities related to weapons of mass destruction Surveillance and reconnaissance operations Joint warfighting experiments and other activities related to transformations in warfare Military space operations Other advanced capabilities of the Armed Forces Arms sales or military-related technology transfers Release of classified or restricted information Access to a DOD laboratory. Section 1201(d) of the FY2000 NDAA required the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual written certification by December 31 of each year as to whether any military contact with China that the Secretary of Defense authorized in that year was a “violation” of the restrictions in the law. Options include an alternative determination by an objective observer outside or inside the Defense Department, such as the Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA). On May 26, 2011, the House passed H.R. 1540, the FY2012 NDAA, with Section 1071(s) to remove subsection (d) that required the certification. The final bill did not keep the section. The PLA has objected to the U.S. law as an “obstacle” to the mil-to-mil relationship, blaming the U.S. side. Under the Bush and Obama Administrations, the Pentagon cautioned that it would not be necessary to change or lift the law to enhance exchanges, while the law contains prudent parameters that do not ban all contacts. A third option would be for Congress or the Secretary of Defense to clarify what type of mil-to-mil contact with the PLA would “create a national security risk due to an inappropriate exposure.” At a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on March 9, 2006, Admiral William Fallon, the PACOM Commander, raised with Representative Victor Snyder the issue of whether to modify this law to relax restrictions on contacts with the PLA.21 At a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on June 13, 2007, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Richard Lawless contended that limitations in the law should not change. The PACOM Commander, Admiral Robert Willard, testified that he agreed with Secretary Gates 21 House Armed Services Committee, hearing on the FY2007 Budget for PACOM, March 9, 2006. Admiral Fallon also discussed a consideration of modifying the law in an interview: Tony Capaccio, “Fallon Wants to Jumpstart Military Contacts between U.S., China,” Bloomberg, March 13, 2006. Congressional Research Service 13 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress that “no exchanges today approach the point where the provisions would prohibit the activity,” at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on January 13, 2010. In 2014, however, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, suggested that Congress might relax the restrictions, depending on engagements with the PLA and its participation at RIMPAC.22 RIMPAC 2014 In June 2012, the PLA questioned the visiting PACOM Commander, Admiral Samuel Locklear, about why the PLA Navy was not invited to the U.S.-led RIMPAC 2012 maritime exercise based in Hawaii. The PLA’s idea seemed sensitive, partly because of U.S. laws. Moreover, at the time, General Dempsey pointed out that the PLA was not willing to participate at a senior level at the annual Shangri-la Dialogue of defense ministers, like other militaries. The Pacific Fleet Commander, Admiral Cecil Haney, indicated that looking for exchanges with the PLA could include its potential invitation to a humanitarian assistance/disaster relief (HA/DR) part of a future RIMPAC. Nevertheless, by September, Defense Secretary Panetta announced that the U.S. Navy will invite the PLAN to participate in (not just observe) RIMPAC 2014. The U.S. Navy invited the PLA Navy to join at least five warfare areas of RIMPAC 2014: drills on surface warfare (limited to surface gunnery); counter-piracy; HA/DR and military medicine; search and rescue; and dive and salvage involved in explosive ordnance disposal. From June 26 to August 1, RIMPAC 2014 included participation by four PLAN ships (destroyer, frigate, oiler, hospital ship). The PLAN joined a drill led by the U.S. Coast Guard. The PLAN asked for training in opposed boarding of a ship (dropping forces from a helicopter), which the U.S. Navy did not allow. Though invited, the PLAN sent an intelligence-collection ship outside Hawaii’s territorial sea.23 The PLAN’s participation raised some concerns in Congress and elsewhere about protecting U.S. and allied technology, tactics, techniques, and procedures; preventing disclosure of defense articles and services; complying with U.S. laws; and whether to invite Taiwan. Representatives Dana Rohrabacher and Steven Chabot raised objections. The House Armed Services Committee’s report of June 7, 2013, on the House-passed FY2014 NDAA, H.R. 1960, included Representative Randy Forbes’ amendment to require the Navy Secretary to brief Congress on the PLAN’s participation in RIMPAC 2014 and compliance with laws (including the FY2000 NDAA). On July 24, the House considered an amendment to H.R. 2397, Defense Department Appropriations Act for FY2014, sponsored by Representative Steve Stockman to ban the use of funds for U.S. military exercises that include PLA participation (including RIMPAC). Representatives Stockman and Rohrabacher spoke in favor. Representatives Visclosky and Frelinghuysen spoke in opposition. The amendment failed (137-286, 10 not voting). On October 21, Representative Forbes led eight Members to send a letter to Defense Secretary Hagel, urging him to invite Taiwan to participate in RIMPAC 2014. On June 2, 2014, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported S. 2410 (Levin), FY2015 NDAA, with Section 1212 to express the sense of the Senate that both the PRC and Taiwan should be afforded the opportunity to participate (not just observe) in the HA/DR parts of multilateral exercises, such as RIMPAC. On the eve of RIMPAC 2014, Representative Chabot introduced H.Res. 643 (concerning the Justice Department’s indictments of PLA hackers involved in the PRC’s cyber-enabled theft of U.S. trade secrets), which called for restrictions on contacts with the PLA in compliance with U.S. laws. Also, Representative Forbes opposed the PLAN’s participation in RIMPAC, saying that “given Beijing’s belligerent behavior towards its 22 23 Jeanette Steele, “Historic Moment for Naval War Games,” San Diego Union-Tribune, July 6, 2014. Wall Street Journal, July 16, 2014; Honolulu Star-Advertiser, July 18, 2014; Aviation Week, August 19, 2014. Congressional Research Service 14 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress neighbors across the Asia-Pacific in recent months, it gives me pause they would be rewarded with the opportunity to participate in such a prestigious exercise.”24 Later, in December, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees agreed on the language for the FY2015 NDAA (H.R. 3979; P.L. 113-291), with Section 1259A to express the sense of Congress that the United States should consider opportunities to help enhance the maritime capabilities and nautical skills of Taiwan’s navy to contribute to Taiwan’s self-defense and to regional peace and stability; and that the PRC and Taiwan should be afforded opportunities to participate in (not just observe) the HA/DR portions of future multilateral exercises, such as RIMPAC. Major Legislation: Required Reports and Classification Section 1201(f) of the NDAA for FY2000 (P.L. 106-65) required an unclassified report by March 31, 2000, on past military-to-military contacts with the PRC. The Office of the Secretary of Defense submitted this report in January 2001. Section 1201(e) required an annual report, by March 31 of each year starting in 2001, from the Secretary of Defense on the Secretary’s assessment of the state of mil-to-mil exchanges and contacts with the PLA, including past contacts, planned contacts, the benefits that the PLA expects to gain, the benefits that DOD expects to gain, and the role of such contacts for the larger security relationship with the PRC. The law did not specify whether the report shall be unclassified and/or classified. In the report submitted in January 2001 (on past mil-to-mil exchanges), the Pentagon stated that “as a matter of policy, all exchange activities are conducted at the unclassified level. Thus, there is no data included on the section addressing PLA access to classified data as a result of exchange activities.” On June 8, 2001, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz signed and submitted an unclassified report on the mil-to-mil exchanges in 2000 under the Clinton Administration and did not provide a schedule of activities for 2001, saying that the 2001 program was under review by the Secretary of Defense. However, concerning contacts with the PLA under the Bush Administration, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld submitted reports on military exchanges with China in May 2002, May 2003, and May 2005 (for 2003 and 2004) that were classified “Confidential” and not made public.25 In July 2006, Secretary Rumsfeld submitted an unclassified report on contacts in 2005.26 Secretary of Defense Robert Gates submitted an unclassified report in June 2007 for 2006.27 In March 2008, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England submitted an unclassified report to Congress for 2007.28 Under President Obama, Defense Secretary Gates submitted an unclassified report to Congress on March 31, 2009.29 On June 25, 2009, the House passed H.R. 2647, NDAA for FY2010, with Section 1233 to change the requirement in Section 1202(a) of P.L. 106-65 for an annual report (required by Congress by March 1 each year) on “PRC military power” to expand the focus to 24 Quoted in the Free Beacon, June 25, 2014. Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, “Inside the Ring,” Washington Times, May 17, 2002; author’s discussions with the Defense Department and Senate Armed Services Committee. 26 Secretary of Defense, “Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 1201(e) of the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 106-65),” July 19, 2006. 27 Secretary of Defense, “Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 1201(e) of the FY2000 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 106-65),” June 22, 2007. 28 Deputy Secretary of Defense, “Report to Congress Pursuant to Section 1201(e) of the FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 106-65),” March 31, 2008. 29 Robert Gates, “Annual Report on the Current State of U.S. Military-to-Military Exchanges and Contacts with the People’s Liberation Army, 2008,” March 31, 2009. 25 Congressional Research Service 15 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress security developments involving the PRC, add cooperative elements, fold in the separate requirement to report on mil-to-mil contacts (in §1201 of P.L. 106-65), and require a new comprehensive and coordinated strategy for such contacts. On July 23, the Senate passed its version that did not include such changes to the reporting requirements. Reconciling differences, the Senate receded. On October 7, 2009, Members issued the conference report that retained the House-passed section and encouraged the Defense Secretary to examine further the implications of China’s psychological, media, and legal warfare on U.S. military affairs. In this legislation, enacted as P.L. 111-84 on October 28, 2009, Congress changed the title of the report to “Annual Report on Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China.” However, the Defense Department was late in submitting the report in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, while at times citing “inter-agency coordination.”30 The Pentagon also contended that a report with the backing of the full Administration after coordination was a more authoritative U.S. report. Moreover, P.L. 111-84 required consultation with the Secretaries of Energy and State. Still, inter-agency coordination could start earlier for the process to meet the required deadline. In June 2010, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported (S.Rept. 111-201 on S. 3454) the NDAA for FY2011 that expressed its displeasure with the Defense Department for failing to submit the annual report by the deadline of March 1. In July, five Senators wrote to Defense Secretary Gates to express “serious concern” over the “failure” of the Department of Defense (DOD) to submit the 2010 report on PRC Military Power and to ask him to submit it to Congress immediately with an explanation as to the “significant delay.” They noted that the report was then almost five months overdue and that a draft report was already completed with the department several months ago. The Senators stressed that “since the responsibility for this report lies within the DoD alone, we ask for your assurance that White House political appointees at the National Security Council or other agencies have not been allowed to alter the substance of the report in an effort to avoid the prospect of angering China.”31 The Secretary submitted the unclassified report on August 16, 2010, incorporating reports on PRC military power and on military contacts.32 Assistant Secretary of Defense Wallace Gregson wrote to Congress on February 25, 2011, that the Pentagon needed additional time for inter-agency coordination of the annual report. On May 3, Representative Randy Forbes of the House Armed Services Committee and Congressional China Caucus wrote to Secretary Gates, expressing concern for the Defense Department’s “continued disregard” of the deadline for the annual report on China and that the department failed to inform Congress with timely reports on needs and threats in the Pacific. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy responded on May 23 and cited “inter-agency coordination” for the continued delay. On August 22, Representative Forbes wrote to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, suggesting that the continued delay was not caused by inter-agency or analytical challenges, but rather the Administration’s willingness to let its compliance with laws be superseded by the diplomatic calendar with the PRC. The Secretary finally submitted the report on August 24.33 30 In some other delays related to policy toward the PRC, President Obama did not notify Congress of major pending Foreign Military Sales to Taiwan in 2009, submitting his first notifications all on one day on January 29, 2010. In September 2009, President Obama sent his advisor, Valerie Jarrett, and Under Secretary of State Maria Otero to Dharamsala, India, to talk to the Dalai Lama about putting off his visit to the White House until after the President’s visit to the PRC in November 2009. President Obama met with the Dalai Lama in the White House on February 18, 2010. Into its second year, the Administration did not appoint commissioners to the Congressional-Executive Commission on China (CECC) until mid-December 2010, after an annual report of October 10, 2010. 31 John Cornyn, John McCain, James Risch, Pat Roberts, and James Inhofe, letter to Robert Gates, July 23, 2010. 32 Secretary of Defense, “Military and Security Developments Involving the PRC 2010,” August 16, 2010. 33 Secretary of Defense, “Military and Security Developments Involving the PRC 2011,” August 24, 2011. Congressional Research Service 16 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress On May 11, 2011, at the markup of H.R. 1540, the NDAA for FY2012, the House Armed Services Committee adopted Representative Forbes’ amendment to change the name of the report back to “Military Power of the People’s Republic of China” and require information on cyber threats to the Pentagon. On May 26, the House passed H.R. 1540 with the language, but on June 22, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported S. 1253 without such language. Enacted as P.L. 112-81 on December 31, 2011, the final legislation required reporting on cyber threats against the Defense Department but did not require the change back to the original title. In 2012, Defense Secretary Panetta submitted the report late again, on May 17, 2012, after a visit by PRC Defense Minister Liang Guanglie on May 4-10.34 On July 11, Chairman Howard McKeon of the House Armed Services Committee wrote to Secretary Panetta to express concerns that the annual report was submitted after the statutory deadline, was “wholly inadequate,” and “minimizes the uncertainty and challenges posed by China’s military build-up.” He also called for the Secretary to rescind a policy of limiting the length of all reports to Congress. That day, the Defense Department issued a statement denying an intent to restrict information to Congress. The next day, a spokesman said the department rescinded the guidance to restrict the page limit on reports to Congress. The NDAA for FY2013 (enacted as P.L. 112-239 on January 2, 2013) required reports on the PRC’s tunnel sites and nuclear weapons program; and on any critical gaps in intelligence and capabilities to counter challenges from the PRC, North Korea, and Iran. The legislation also required additional reporting to strengthen the annual report on the PLA to include assessments of the PRC’s cyber, space, nuclear, anti-access/area denial, C4ISR, and maritime law enforcement capabilities, among other information; and limit funds to no more than $7 million for the Center of Excellence on Nuclear Security in China. Secretary of Defense Hagel submitted the annual report late in May 2013.35 Based on S. 1197, Section 1242 of the FY2014 NDAA (P.L. 113-66) required the report to cover the PLA’s 5th generation fighters. Also, Section 233 prohibited the Defense Department from using funds to integrate the PRC’s missile defense systems into U.S. missile defense systems. (In 2013, Turkey, a NATO ally, considered a purchase of the PRC’s HQ-9 system.) Secretary of Defense Hagel again submitted the annual report late in June 2014, after a visit by PLA Chief of General Staff Fang Fenghui in May.36 In April, Representatives Forbes and Hanabusa introduced H.R. 4495, Asia-Pacific Region Priority Act, to support the strategic “rebalance” to the region. Section 205 seeks to add to the annual report some information on developments in the PRC’s maritime law enforcement capabilities. The House passed H.R. 4435, FY2015 NDAA, on May 22, incorporating much of the language in H.R. 4495. On June 2, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported S. 2410 (Levin), FY2015 NDAA. On December 2, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees agreed on language for the FY2015 NDAA (inserted in H.R. 3979). Section 1252 amends the requirement for the annual report to examine China’s maritime strategy. Section 1259 requires a report on the Defense Department’s maritime security strategy in the Asia-Pacific, including an assessment of how the strategy leverages U.S.PRC mil-to-mil engagements to reduce the potential for miscalculation and tensions in the East and South China Seas. In addition, the committees, in their Joint Statement on the NDAA, direct the Defense Secretary to brief congressional defense committees, by March 15, 2015, on an assessment of whether the mil-to-mil engagements meet PACOM’s objectives and to provide a detailed description of mil-to-mil exchanges for the 12 months after March 15, 2015. Section 34 Secretary of Defense, “Military and Security Developments Involving the PRC 2012,” May 17, 2012. Secretary of Defense, “Military and Security Developments Involving the PRC, 2013,” May 6, 2013. 36 Secretary of Defense, “Military and Security Developments Involving the PRC, 2014,” June 5, 2014. 35 Congressional Research Service 17 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress 1259A expresses the sense of Congress that both the PRC and Taiwan should be afforded opportunities to participate in the HA/DR portions of future multilateral exercises, such as RIMPAC. Section 1265 prohibits the use of funds to integrate a PRC missile defense system into any U.S. missile defense system. Section 1601 requires a study of potential alternative defense and deterrent strategies in response to the existing and projected counter-space capabilities of China and Russia. H.R. 3979 became P.L. 113-291 on December 19, 2014. Prohibitions on Defense Procurement Section 1211 of the NDAA for FY2006 (signed into law as P.L. 109-163 on January 6, 2006) prohibits procurement from any “Communist Chinese military company” for goods and services on the Munitions List, with exceptions for U.S. military ship or aircraft visits to the PRC, testing, and intelligence-collection; as well as waiver authority for the Secretary of Defense. Original language reported by the House Armed Services Committee in H.R. 1815 on May 20, 2005, would have prohibited the Secretary from any procurement of goods or services from any such company. S. 1042 did not have similar language. During conference (H.Rept. 109-360), the Senate receded after limiting the ban to goods and services on the Munitions List; providing for exceptions for procurement in connection with U.S. military ship or aircraft visits, testing, and intelligence-collection; and authorizing waivers. In May 2011, the House adopted an amendment to H.R. 1540, the NDAA for FY2012, proposed by Representatives Rosa DeLauro and Frank Wolf, to broaden the ban against procurement of PRC defense articles to include all entities owned or controlled by the PLA, the PRC government, or an entity affiliated with PRC defense industries. Enacted as P.L. 112-81 on December 31, 2011, the final bill did not keep the House’s broadened definition of “Communist Chinese military company” but adopted the requirement (in §1243) for a report from the Defense Secretary not less than 15 days before any waiver of the ban in P.L. 109-163. In related action, on February 18, 2011, Representative DeLauro introduced H.Res. 106 to express the sense of the House that defense systems, including the Presidential helicopters, should not be procured from a PRC entity. On July 22, Representatives Forbes and Madeleine Bordallo led 17 Members to write to the Secretary of the Air Force to seek an explanation for the procurement of T-53A trainers from Cirrus Aircraft, which was acquired by the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC). The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on November 8 on China’s counterfeit electronic parts entering the U.S. defense supply chain. The Committee later issued a report on its findings in May 2012.37 On April 25, 2013, the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing at which Representative Mike Rogers raised concerns about the Defense Department’s lease of a PRC-owned commercial satellite (Apstar-7) in May 2012 for the Africa Command (AFRICOM). In May 2013, the Defense Department renewed the contract after adding new higher-level review. On June 14, the House passed the FY2014 NDAA, H.R. 1960, with Section 1605 to prohibit the Defense Secretary from contracting satellite services with a foreign entity owned by a “covered foreign country” (PRC, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), or a state sponsor of terrorism). Section 1602 in the final legislation (P.L. 113-66) contains the amended prohibition. Representative Rogers explained the concern that “the military had no other option but to enter 37 Senate Armed Services Committee, “Inquiry into Counterfeit Electronic Parts in the Department of Defense Supply Chain,” S.Rept. 112-167, May 21, 2012. Congressional Research Service 18 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress into a contract that undermined our military embargo on China and exposed our military to the risk that China may seek to turn off our ‘eyes and ears’ at a time of its choosing.”38 Foreign Aid Section 620(f)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (P.L. 87-195) prohibits assistance to any Communist country, and specifically lists the PRC as a “Communist country” for purposes of the subsection. Section 620(h) requires the President to ensure that U.S. foreign aid is not used to promote or assist the foreign aid projects or activities of a Communist country for purposes of subsection (f). Pursuant to Section 620(f)(2), the President is authorized to remove a country from the application of Section 620(f), along with other provisions that reference it, if the President makes a determination and reports to Congress that such action is important to U.S. national interests. On December 11, 1985, acting pursuant to the authority under Section 620(f)(2), the Secretary of State removed the PRC (and Tibet) from the application of Section 620(f) for an indefinite period. Nonetheless, Section 7071(g) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-117) stipulated that Section 620(h) applied to foreign aid projects or activities of the PLA, including those by any entity owned or controlled by or affiliated with the PLA. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2012 (P.L. 112-74) repeated this ban. Section 7043(e)(2) of the FY2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-76) again repeated the ban. Leverage to Pursue U.S. Security Objectives Objectives At different times, under successive Administrations, DOD has pursued exchanges with the PLA to various degrees of closeness as part of the policy of engagement in the relationship with China. The record of the mil-to-mil contacts can be used to evaluate the extent to which those contacts resulted in tangible benefits to advance U.S. security goals and deterrence has been effective. Some skeptics say strategy focuses on goals, while the “relationship” is not the end in itself. The Pentagon’s last East Asia strategy report, issued by Secretary of Defense Cohen in November 1998, placed “comprehensive engagement” with China in third place among nine components of the U.S. strategy. It said that U.S.-PRC dialogue was “critical” to ensure understanding of each other’s regional security interests, reduce misperceptions, increase understanding of PRC security concerns, and build confidence to “avoid military accidents and miscalculations.” While calling the strategic non-targeting agreement announced at the summit in June 1998 a “symbolic” action, it asserted that the action “reassured both sides and reaffirmed our constructive relationship.” The report further pointed to the presidential hotline set up in May 1998, Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA), and Defense Consultative Talks (DCT) as achievements.39 In March 2008, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England defined these principal U.S. objectives in the annual report to Congress on contacts with the PLA: • • • 38 39 support the President’s overall policy goals regarding China; prevent conflict by clearly communicating U.S. resolve to maintain peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region; lower the risk of miscalculation between the two militaries; Mike Rogers, “Changing the Military’s Approach to Commercial Satellite Services,” Space News, January 13, 2014. Secretary of Defense, The United States Security Strategy for the East Asia-Pacific Region, 1998. Congressional Research Service 19 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress • • • • • increase U.S. understanding of China’s military capabilities and intentions; encourage China to adopt greater openness and transparency in its military capabilities and intentions; promote stable U.S.-China relations; increase mutual understanding between U.S. and PLA officers; and encourage China to play a constructive and peaceful role in the Asia-Pacific region; to act as a partner in addressing common security challenges; and to emerge as a responsible stakeholder in the world. As discussed above on the required annual report, the NDAA for FY2010, P.L. 111-84, required the Defense Secretary to address the U.S. strategy for engagement with the PLA. In his report submitted on August 16, 2010, Secretary Gates told Congress that “sustainable and reliable” military-to-military ties are an important component of the overall U.S.-China relationship and are “necessary” for the relationship to be “comprehensive.” Gates also cautioned that such military contacts are “not ends in and of themselves” and that “a sustained exchange program has been difficult to achieve.” He sought to expand practical cooperation in areas in which U.S. and PRC national interests converge and to discuss candidly those areas in which there is disagreement. He noted the challenges for the risk that “misapprehension or miscalculation” could lead to crisis or conflict. In laying out priorities, the Defense Department identified these: • • • build cooperative capacity (based on anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden), foster institutional understanding (particular in nuclear, space, and cyber strategies and policies), and develop common views (on international security like nuclear nonproliferation in North Korea and Iran, and stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but also “respectful discussion” of differences over China’s claim to Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and harassment of U.S. ships and aircraft exercising international freedom of navigation, while the United States remains “vigilant” in watching for PRC behavior that puts at risk the safety of U.S. military personnel).40 In August 2011, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta submitted an annual report on the PLA, which specified the mil-to-mil relationship as a critical part of the Administration’s strategy to shape China’s rise in a way that maximizes cooperation and mitigates risks. One policy issue concerns the effectiveness of such a strategy of shaping PRC behavior. In the annual report of June 2014, Defense Secretary Hagel asserted that mil-to-mil engagement supports U.S. objectives of promoting China’s development that would be consistent with international rules and norms, and that would serve as a source of security and shared prosperity in Asia. Debate U.S. security objectives in mil-to-mil contacts with China have included gaining insights about the PLA’s capabilities and concepts; deterrence against a PLA use of force or coercion against Taiwan or U.S. allies; reduction in tensions in the Taiwan Strait; strategic arms control; weapons nonproliferation in countries such as like North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan; closer engagement with top PRC leaders; freedom of navigation and flight; preventing dangers to U.S. military 40 Secretary of Defense, “Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2010,” August 16, 2010. Congressional Research Service 20 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress personnel operating in proximity to the PLA; minimizing misperceptions and miscalculations; and accounting for American POW/MIAs. Skeptics of U.S.-PRC mil-to-mil contacts say they have had little value for achieving these U.S. objectives. Instead that they contend that the contacts served to inform the PLA as it builds its warfighting capability against the United States, viewed by the PLA as a potential adversary. There was concern that exchanges seemed to reward belligerence. They oppose rehabilitation of PLA officers involved in the Tiananmen Crackdown. They question whether the PLA has shown transparency and reciprocated with equivalent or substantive access, and urge greater attention to U.S. allies over China. From this perspective, the ups and downs in the military relationship reflect its use as a tool in the political relationship, in which the PRC at times had leverage over the United States. Thus, they contend, a realistic appraisal of the nature of the PLA threat would call for caution in military contacts, perhaps limiting them to exchanges such as strategic talks and senior-level talks, rather than operational areas that involve military capabilities. A former U.S. Army Attache in Beijing wrote in 1999 that under the Clinton Administration, military-to-military contacts allowed PLA officers “broad access” to U.S. warships, exercises, and even military manuals. He argued that “many of the military contacts between the United States and China over the years helped the PLA attain its goals [in military modernization].” He called for limiting exchanges to strategic dialogue on weapons proliferation, Taiwan, the Korean peninsula, freedom of navigation, missile defense, etc. He urged policy makers not to “improve the PLA’s capability to wage war against Taiwan or U.S. friends and allies, its ability to project force, or its ability to repress the Chinese people.”41 He also testified to Congress in 2000 that the PLA conceals its capabilities in exchanges with the United States. For example, he said, the PLA invited General John Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to see the capabilities of the 15th Airborne Army (in May 1997), but it showed him a highly scripted routine. Furthermore, the PLA allowed Secretary of Defense Cohen to visit an Air Defense Command Center (in January 1998), but it was “a hollow shell of a local headquarters; it was not the equivalent of America’s National Command Center” that was shown to PRC leaders.42 In 2000, Randy Schriver, a former official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, discussed lessons learned in conducting military exchanges during the Clinton Administration and argued for limiting such exchanges. Schriver assessed senior-level talks as exchanges of talking points rather than real dialogue, but nonetheless helpful. He considered the MMCA a successful confidence-building measure (before the EP-3 aircraft collision crisis less than one year later in April 2001). He also said it was positive to have PLA participation in multilateral fora and to expose younger PLA officers to American society. However, Schriver said that the United States “failed miserably” in gaining a window on the PLA’s modernization, gaining neither access as expected nor reciprocity; failed to shape China’s behavior while allowing China to shape the behavior of some American “ardent suitors”; and failed to deter the PLA’s aggression while whetting the PLA’s appetite in planning against a potential American adversary. He disclosed that the Pentagon needed to exert control over PACOM’s contacts with the PLA, with the Secretary of Defense issuing a memo to set guidelines. He also called for more consultations with Congress.43 41 Larry Wortzel, “Why Caution is Needed in Military Contacts with China,” Heritage Foundation, December 2, 1999. Larry Wortzel, Director of the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation, testimony on “China’s Strategic Intentions and Goals” before the House Armed Services Committee, June 21, 2000. 43 Randy Schriver, former Country Director for China in the Office of the Secretary of Defense during the Clinton Administration, and later Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs during the Bush Administration, discussed military contacts with China at an event at the Heritage Foundation on July 27, 2000. See Stephen Yates, Al Santoli, Randy Schriver, and Larry Wortzel, “The Proper Scope, Purpose, and Utility of U.S. (continued...) 42 Congressional Research Service 21 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress Warning of modest expectations for military ties and the PLA’s use of “suspended” exchanges to signal messages or retaliate against a perceived wrong action, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia and the Pacific (1995-2000) Kurt Campbell contended in late 2005 that security ties can only follow, not lead, the bilateral relationship. After serving as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Randy Schriver noted in 2007 that military engagement has continued to pursue the “same modest, limited agenda that has been in place for close to 20 years,” despite a visit by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in November 2007. In 2011, Schriver called for reducing military contacts. Later, also as former Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Campbell commented in 2014 that the United States and PRC have divergent objectives in dealing with maritime incidents like the nearcollision between the USS Cowpens and a PLA Navy ship in December 2013. U.S. goals include crisis prevention, but the PRC aims to limit U.S. military operations and deployments. Moreover, the United States and PRC differ over deterrence.44 He wrote that, America often employs overwhelming displays of military capability – shock and awe – to create apprehension in the minds of potential adversaries or competitors. For China, deterrence – or, perhaps better, doubt – is achieved not through overt displays of power, but through creating uncertainty in the perception of others. So, by this avenue of logic, the less operational intimacy and understanding with PLA forces, the greater the deterrent value. Proponents of military exchanges with the PRC point out that contacts with the PLA cannot be expected to equal contacts with allies in transparency, reciprocity, and consistency. They argue that the mil-to-mil contacts nonetheless promote U.S. interests and allow the U.S. military to gain insights into the PLA, including its top leadership, that no other bilateral contacts provide. U.S. military attaches, led by the Defense Attache at the rank of brigadier general or rear admiral, have contacts at levels lower than the top PLA leaders and are subject to strict surveillance in China. In addition to chances for open intelligence collection, the military relationship can minimize miscalculations and misperceptions, and foster pro-U.S. leanings and understanding, particularly among younger officers who might lead in the future. Proponents caution against treating China as if it is already an enemy, since the United States seeks China’s cooperation on international security issues. There might be benefits in cooperation in military medicine to prevent pandemics of diseases, like avian flu. During the epidemic of SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) in 2003, it was a PLA doctor, Dr. Jiang Yanyong, who revealed the PRC leadership’s coverup of SARS cases at premier PLA hospitals.45 Rather than bilateral exchanges, the U.S. military could engage with the PLA in multilateral venues. On October 28, 2010, the PLA hosted in Beijing the first “Pan Asian-Pacific Conference on Military Medicine.” Further, since the early 1990s, Congress and the Defense Department have viewed China as the key to getting information to resolve the cases of POW/MIAs from the Korean War 1950-1953. Citing a few examples in 1998 (the PACOM Commander’s first foreign look at the 47th Group Army, a U.S. Navy ship visit to Shanghai, and naval consultative talks at Naval Base Coronado), the U.S. Naval Attache in Beijing wrote that “the process of mutual consultation, openness, and (...continued) Relations with China’s Military,” Heritage Lectures, October 10, 2000. 44 Kurt Campbell and Richard Weitz, “The Limits of U.S.-China Military Cooperation: Lessons From 1995-1999,” Washington Quarterly, Winter 2005-2006; Randall Schriver, “The Real Value in Gates’ Asia Trip,” Taipei Times, November 16, 2007; “Bound to Fail,” Washington Times, July 26, 2011; Kurt Campbell, “How China and America Can Keep a Pacific Peace,” Financial Times, January 2, 2014. 45 John Pomfret, “Doctor Says Health Ministry Lied About Disease,” Washington Post, April 10, 2003; “Feature: A Chinese Doctor’s Extraordinary April in 2003,” People’s Daily, June 13, 2003. Congressional Research Service 22 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress sharing of concerns and information needed to preclude future misunderstandings and to build mutual beneficial relations is taking place between the U.S. and China’s armed forces, especially in the military maritime domain.” He stressed that “the importance of progress in this particular area of the Sino-American relationship cannot be overestimated.”46 Two former U.S. military attaches posted to China maintained in a report that “regardless of whether it is a high-level DOD delegation or a functional exchange of medical officers, the U.S. military does learn something about the PLA from every visit.” They advocated that “the United States should fully engage China in a measured, long-term military-to-military exchange program that does not help the PLA improve its warfighting capabilities.” They said, “the most effective way to ascertain developments in China’s military and defense policies is to have face-to-face contact at multiple levels over an extended period of time.” Thus, they argued, “even though the PLA minimizes foreign access to PLA facilities and key officials, the United States has learned, and can continue to learn, much about the PLA through its long-term relationship.”47 Another former U.S. military attache in Beijing (from 1992 to 1995) acknowledged that he saw many PLA drills and demonstrations by “showcase” units and never any unscripted training events. Nonetheless, he noted that in August 2003, the PLA arranged for 27 military observers from the United States and other countries to be the first foreigners to observe a PLA exercise at its largest training base (which is in the Inner Mongolia region under the Beijing Military Region). He wrote that “by opening this training area and exercise to foreign observers, the Chinese military leadership obviously was attempting to send a message about its willingness to be more ‘transparent’ in order to ‘promote friendship and mutual trust between Chinese and foreign armed forces.’”48 However, in a second PLA exercise opened to foreign observers, the “Dragon 2004” landing exercise at the Shanwei amphibious operations training base in Guangdong province in September 2004, only seven foreign military observers from France, Germany, Britain, and Mexico attended, with no Americans (if invited).49 A retired admiral and PACOM Commander, Dennis Blair, co-chaired a task force on the U.S.China relationship. Its report of April 2007 recommended a sustained high-level military strategic dialogue to complement the “Senior Dialogue” started by the Deputy Secretary of State in 2005 and the “Strategic Economic Dialogue” launched by the Secretary of the Treasury in 2006.50 After visiting China in 2011 as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen argued for sustained dialogue in the face of disputes and potential common interests.51 After visiting China in 2013, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and Commander of Pacific Air Forces wrote that “distrust and increasing misperception have made the need to improve lines of communication between our two governments and militaries all the more urgent.” They argued that the two countries have “shared security interests.” Moreover, they contended that, because of the growing frequency and proximity at which the U.S. and PRC militaries operate in 46 Brad Kaplan, USN, “China and U.S.: Building Military Relations,” Asia-Pacific Defense Forum, Summer 1999. Kenneth Allen and Eric McVadon, “China’s Foreign Military Relations,” Stimson Center, October 1999. 48 Dennis Blasko, “Bei Jian 0308: Did Anyone Hear the Sword on the Inner Mongolian Plains?” RUSI Chinese Military Update, October 2003. 49 Xinhua, September 2; Liberation Army Daily, September 3; Jane’s Defence Weekly, September 22, 2004. 50 Dennis Blair and Carla Hills, Task Force of the Council on Foreign Relations, “U.S.-China Relations: An Affirmative Agenda, A Responsible Course,” April 10, 2007. 51 Mike Mullen, “A Step Toward Trust with China,” New York Times, July 25, 2011. 47 Congressional Research Service 23 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress international waters and in the airspace above the maritime domain, it is important to maintain the highest levels of safety and professionalism in military interactions and for “managing friction.”52 Perspectives Aside from a debate about how to engage with the PLA, some officials and observers warn about challenges that stem from the different perspectives between the U.S. military and PLA. A stillsalient study prepared for the Defense Department’s Office of Net Assessment in 1997 focused on a long-standing concern about China’s misperceptions that could pose dangers to U.S. security interests.53 In particular, the study focused on five “dangerous misperceptions:” (1) overestimating U.S. hostility; (2) over-estimating U.S. weakness; (3) over-estimating U.S. decline; (4) under-estimating costs of war; and (5) under-estimating fears of neighbors to China’s rising military power. As implications for U.S. contacts with the PLA, the study suggested that the Defense Department review past exchanges and plan future exchanges to rebut more directly and effectively the most dangerous misperceptions held by China’s military. Nonetheless, the study cautioned that while U.S. engagement with China softened its hostility and suspicion of the United States in the 25 years after the “Shanghai Communique,” it was remarkable how little China’s fundamental perceptions of world politics changed. U.S. policy makers would have to consider prudently that another 25 years of “strategic dialogue” and military exchanges would not eliminate completely the PRC’s dangerous misperceptions. U.S. policy might need to anticipate the persistence of such misperceptions and potential miscalculations (including China’s use of force) that could surprise the United States and the failure of U.S. efforts to deter the PLA. In 1999, the Center for Naval Analyses found in a study that U.S. and PRC approaches to military exchanges were “diametrically opposed,” thus raising tension at times. While the United States has pursued a “bottom-up” effort starting with lower-level contact to work toward mutual understanding and then strategic agreement, the PRC has sought a “trickle-down” relationship in which agreement on strategic issues results in understanding and then allows for specific activities later. The study said that “the PLA leadership regards the military relationship with the U.S. as a political undertaking for strategic reasons—not a freestanding set of military initiatives conducted by military professionals for explicitly military reasons. Fundamentally, the military relationship is a vehicle to pursue strategic political ends.” While recognizing that using the military relationship to enhance military modernization is extremely important to the PLA, the study contended that “it is not the key motive force driving the PLA’s engagement with DOD.” The report also argued that because the PLA suspects the United States uses the military relationship for deterrence, intelligence, and influence, “it seems ludicrous for them to expose their strengths and weaknesses to the world’s ‘sole superpower.’” It noted that using “reciprocity” as a measure of progress was “sure to lead to disappointment.”54 In August 2011, the Defense Intelligence Officer for East Asia and a former Army Attache in Beijing wrote about multiple lessons learned that the PRC’s cultural approach to relations or friendships treats them as tough business negotiations. He warned U.S. officials that “the key is to conclude all negotiations with a true win-win solution, not the promise of favor in the future.”55 52 Generals Mark Welsh and Hawk Carlisle, USAF, “Strengthening Understanding and Engagement with China’s Air Force,” Air & Space Power Journal, January-February 2014. 53 Michael Pillsbury, “Dangerous Chinese Misperceptions: the Implications for DOD,” 1997. 54 David Finkelstein and John Unangst, “Engaging DoD: Chinese Perspectives on Military Relations with the United States,” CNA Corporation, October 1999. 55 Col. (retired) Frank Miller, “Negotiating with the Chinese,” International Affairs, FAO Association, August 2011. Congressional Research Service 24 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress After decades of U.S. efforts to engage the PLA, including increasing “habits of cooperation,” the U.S. military has continued to face challenges in mil-to-mil engagement with the PRC. Perspectives of the U.S. military and the PLA have remained critically divergent. Contrary to some expectations in the 1990s, mil-to-mil engagement has failed to deter the PRC from robust, rapid PLA modernization and what some officials have observed as assertive actions in maritime areas of dispute. Some participants in the mil-to-mil engagement have observed that the PLA has reduced the value placed on engaging with the United States, even as the PLA’s modernization, roles, and interaction in the world increased. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, issued strategic guidance for 2011 that placed priority on U.S. security interests in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Still, he noted an increased focus on Asia-Pacific in balancing risks from an “aggressive” North Korea and a “more assertive” China and in defending international freedom of navigation. Others, however, have noted that China has been assertive in various cycles over many years. (See the Appendix on confrontations with the U.S. military.) Even if the PLA has not increased assertive actions, its capabilities and range have improved. Even on relatively innocuous and cooperative efforts such as the parallel anti-piracy naval operations in the Gulf of Aden since late 2008, the PLA has not described them as useful for milto-mil engagement or cooperation with the U.S. Navy (at odds with U.S. goals and views). U.S. engagement with the PLA in anti-piracy included hosting the commander of the PLA Navy’s task force at the Headquarters of the U.S. 5th Fleet in Bahrain in December 2010. In February 2011, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued the National Military Strategy in which he stated the goals of a deeper military relationship to “expand areas of mutual interest and benefit, improve understanding, reduce misperception, and prevent miscalculation” as well as promotion of “common interests through China’s cooperation in countering piracy and proliferation of WMD, and using its influence with North Korea to preserve stability on the Korean peninsula.” However, on March 31, 2011, the PLA issued its 2010 Defense White Paper which included a new discussion of the PLA Navy’s anti-piracy operation but did not portray this area as one for U.S.-PRC military cooperation. Indeed, the Defense White Paper did not even mention contact with the U.S. military in discussing contacts with various foreign navies. In July 2012, the commander of the PLAN’s “naval escort” task force held only an “informal exchange” in Oman at the “temporary request” of the multinational Combined Task Force (CTF) 151. At the release of that Defense White Paper, a key researcher of the PLA’s Academy of Military Science (AMS), Chen Zhou, candidly highlighted a key difference between China and others. He said that unlike “Western” militaries that seek transparency as the premise for military mutual trust, the PLA saw trust as the requirement for transparency. He called for first developing common interests and respecting each other’s strategic interests.56 Recognizing the challenges in cooperation and divergent perspectives with the PLA, the Obama Administration has tried to apply lessons learned to mil-to-mil engagement with China. While the United States has sought to build confidence in avoiding crises, the PLA has avoided giving confidence. On the eve of Secretary Gates’ visit in January 2011, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Schiffer acknowledged some distance before achieving a deep and real “strategic understanding” between our two countries. He presented the U.S. view that mil-to-mil should be a “critical component” of the U.S.-PRC relationship; mil-to-mil should be sustained, reliable, and continuous; mil-to-mil should not be used as a “reward or favor” or “punishment or a penalty” to the United States; and mil-to-mil should not be viewed as separate from the overall 56 Interview in Jiefangjun Bao [Liberation Army Daily], April 1, 2011. Congressional Research Service 25 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress bilateral relationship. The U.S. approach sought a framework to institutionalize mil-to-mil and integration of the PLA into the stated goal of “comprehensive” cooperation with China.57 U.S. Security Interests With lessons learned, a fundamental issue in overall policy toward China is how to use U.S. leadership and leverage in pursuing a prudent program of military contacts that advances, and does not harm, a prioritized list of U.S. security interests. The Pentagon could pursue such a program with focused control by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD); with consultation with Congress and public disclosures; and in coordination with allies and partners, such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore, and Taiwan. Such a program might include these objectives. Communication, Conflict Avoidance, and Crisis Management Confrontations and Safety The various crises of direct confrontation between the U.S. military and PLA might call for greater cooperation with China to improve communication, conflict avoidance, and crisis management. Given confrontations in the maritime areas (particularly in 2001 and 2009), some stress that the foremost U.S. interest would be to safeguard the safety of U.S. military personnel. There are increasing concerns that options pursued thus far still leave critical challenges. Analysts in China have studied the government’s strengths and weaknesses in crisis management in light of the EP-3 crisis in 2001.58 Nonetheless, the crisis over the EP-3 aircraft collision and subsequent confrontations have shown the limits in benefits to the United States of pursuing personal relationships with PLA leaders, the consultations under the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA), as well as the presidential hotline. From the beginning of the crisis, PRC ruler Jiang Zemin pressed the United States with a hard-line stance, while PLA generals followed without any greater inflammatory rhetoric.59 Telephones During his second visit to China as PACOM Commander in December 1997, Admiral Prueher said that “I remember wishing I had your telephone number,” in response to a PLA naval officer’s question about Prueher’s thinking during the Taiwan Strait crisis in 1995-1996.60 After becoming ambassador to China in December 1999, Prueher was nonetheless frustrated when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the PLA would not answer the phone or return phone calls in the immediate aftermath of the EP-3 collision crisis in April 2001.61 Personal ties were not useful in crises.62 57 Author’s consultations; Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia, “Building Greater Cooperation in the U.S.-China Military-to-Military Relationship in 2011,” IISS, Washington, DC, January 6, 2011. 58 Author’s discussions with government-affiliated research organizations in China in 2002. 59 CRS Report RL30946, China-U.S. Aircraft Collision Incident of April 2001: Assessments and Policy Implications, by (name redacted) et al. 60 LTC Frank Miller (U.S. Army), “China Hosts Visit by the U.S. Commander in Chief, Pacific,” Asia Pacific Defense Forum, Spring 1998. The article ended by saying that “perhaps the most important result of Adm. Prueher’s December 1997 trip to China is that, should there be another crisis like the March 1996 Taiwan Strait Missile Crisis, Adm. Prueher now has the phone number.” 61 John Keefe, “Anatomy of the EP-3 Incident, April 2001,” Center for Naval Analyses report, January 2002. 62 Thomas Henderschedt and Chad Sbragia, “China’s Naval Ambitions,” Armed Forces Journal, September 2010. Congressional Research Service 26 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress Still, some continue to believe there could be benefits in fostering relationships with PLA officers, both at the senior level and with younger, future leaders. While in Beijing in January 2004, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers, said that “it’s always an advantage to be able to pick up a telephone and talk to somebody that you know fairly well. The relationship that I have with General Liang [Chief of General Staff], the relationship that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has with his counterpart, General Cao, is going to be helpful in that regard.”63 Likewise, visiting Beijing in September 2005, Admiral William Fallon, PACOM Commander, hoped for the value for his regional responsibilities to “pick up the telephone and call someone I already know.”64 During his visit to Beijing in July 2011, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, still said he wished that he could “pick up the phone” in a crisis.65 Maritime Disputes and International Freedom of Navigation and Overflight Much attention has been on the MMCA for resolving tension and preventing crisis or conflict. The MMCA, initialed at the first DCT in December 1997 and signed by Secretary Cohen in Beijing in January 1998, only arranged meetings to discuss maritime and air safety (i.e., to talk about talking). There was no agreement on communication during crises or rules of engagement. Despite the 2001 crisis, the U.S. military encountered difficulties with the PLA in discussions under the MMCA, including simply setting up meetings and PLA objections to U.S. activities in China’s claimed 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (beyond the territorial sea up to 12 nautical miles from the coast).66 In spite of the MMCA meetings since the late 1990s, the U.S. Navy and Air Force have faced challenges to operational safety and freedom of navigation. The Defense Secretary told Congress in a report in August 2010 that “the United States and China continue to have differences over the rights of coastal states in their exclusive economic zones, and the appropriate response to such differences.” It also stressed that “the United States remains vigilant in its watch for behavior that puts at risk the safety of U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, or is in clear violation of international norms. The Department will continue to use all available channels, in particular an invigorated MMCA and Defense Policy Coordination Talks process, to communicate the U.S. government position on these and other matters to the PLA, while taking advantage of opportunities for the two sides to discuss practical ways to reduce the chances for misunderstanding and miscalculation between our armed forces.”67 However, another assessment is that not only have dangerous confrontations occurred despite the MMCA but that the tension have been based on different national interests rather than any misperception or misunderstanding. The PLA has tried purposefully to keep U.S. military operations farther from China and restrict them even beyond the PRC’s territorial seas. The Defense Secretary reported to Congress in August 2010 that his department did not observe a resurgence of harassment by PRC fishing vessels of U.S. naval auxiliary ships conducting routine and lawful military operations beyond the PRC’s territorial seas that occurred in spring 2009. Still, he warned that such harassment could occur again. Moreover, two months after the Secretary’s report to Congress, at a meeting of the MMCA in Honolulu in October 2010, the U.S. military raised concerns to the PLA about several incidents involving unsafe and unprofessional 63 Jim Garamone, “China, U.S. Making Progress on Military Relations,” AFPS, January 15, 2004. PACOM, Admiral William J. Fallon, “Roundtable at Embassy PAS Program Room,” Beijing, September 7, 2005. Fallon also said he consulted “extensively” with retired Admiral Prueher, a former PACOM Commander. 65 Admiral Michael Mullen, Media Roundtable, Beijing, China, July 10, 2011. 66 Chris Johnson, “DOD Will Urge China to Conduct Joint Search and Rescue Exercise,” Inside the Navy, March 13, 2006. 67 Secretary of Defense, “Military and Security Developments Involving the PRC 2010,” August 16, 2010. 64 Congressional Research Service 27 U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress actions by PRC ships as well as aircraft that risked the lives of U.S. sailors and airmen in the Navy and Air Force. The PLA repeated complaints about U.S. maritime and air reconnaissance by U.S. ships and planes. Critically, the PLA rejected the possibility of accidents, blaming continued U.S. operations for any risks, so that another collision would be only the United States’ fault. The PLA also has limited its primary representation to the PLAN in attending MMCA meetings, while the U.S. side has interacted with the PLA at a joint level led by PACOM. In 2010, PLA fighters conducted unusually close intercepts of U.S. military aircraft operating in international airspace, in addition to harassment by PRC ships of U.S. survey ships operating outside of PRC territorial seas, reported the Secretary of Defense to Congress in August 2011. The 7th Fleet Commander said in February 2011 that the PLAN ignored ship-to-ship communication in Asia, even if it made such contact in anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden (that the PLA calls “escort missions”).68 At other times, the PLA indicated generally that it can understand the escalating dangers of accidents and collisions. In 2010, General Liang Guanglie (a CMC Member and PRC Defense Minister) acknowledged the risk of accidents. He used the phrase “an accidental discharge of gunfire in cleaning a gun” to refer to inadvertent accidents that could lead to military tension.69 On June 29, 2011, Taiwan’s F-16 fighters flew to intercept PLA Air Force Su-27 fighters that crossed a “median line” for the Taiwan Strait to confront a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft. Then, on July 22, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement that stressed respect for freedom of navigation as well as overflight in the South China Sea, and three days later, met with PRC State Councilor Dai Bingguo in Shenzhen and stressed freedom of navigation. In August, the two sides held an MMCA working group meeting in Qingdao and discussed disputes over the PLA’s complaints against U.S. reconnaissance flights. Again, there was no MMCA plenary in 2011. Policy issues include how to reinvigorate the MMCA talks and how to include the actions of the PLAAF and the PRC’s official maritime law enforcement ships and aircraft that have coordinated with those of the PLAN and PLAAF.70 The PLAN has shifted ships to maritime law enforcement. 68 Wall Street Journal, February 21, 2011; and South China Morning Post, Hong Kong, February 22, 2011. Interview with Defense Minister Liang Guanglie published in Renmin Ribao [People’s Daily], December 29, 2010. 70 China’s official maritime law enforcement forces previously included China Maritime Surveillance (CMS), under the Ministry of Land and Resources; Fisheries Law Enforcement Command (FLEC), under the Ministry of Agriculture; China Coast Guard (CCG), a paramilitary People’s Armed Police (PAP) force under the Ministry of Public Security (MPS); Maritime Safety Administration (MSA) and China Rescue and Salvage (CRS), under the Ministry of Transportation; and Anti-Smuggling Maritime Police, under the General Administration of Customs. Although some analysts attributed rising tension in China’s territorial and maritime disputes to inadequate coordination among PRC agencies, there have been reported inter-agency coordination and cooperation between the PLA and the maritime forces. The official ships and aircraft augment the PLA’s naval ships and aircraft to assert China’s claims and control. For example, On March 4-8, 2009, Y-12 maritime surveillance aircraft, a PLAN frigate, PRC patrol and intelligence collection ships, and trawlers coordinated in increasingly aggressive and dangerous harassment of unarmed U.S. ocean surveillance ships, the USNS Victorious and USNS Impeccable, during routine operations in international waters in the Yellow Sea and South China Sea. The civilian ships in involved in the “Impeccable Incident” included those from the CMS and FLEC, and the U.S. Navy special mission ships defended themselves with non-lethal force. In January 2011, Wu Shengli, CMC Member and PLAN Commander, spoke at a meeting on the PLAN’s anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden and referred to “close coordination” between the PLAN and shipping companies, and Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Transportation. In April 2011, the PLAN held a military-civilian exercise in the South China Sea. The next month, the Deputy Director of [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3ARL32496. Public record. Not legal advice.