U.S. Senator Seeks to Prevent Use of Chinese Technology in NATO Missile Shield

Senator Mark Kirk, center, greeted by Vice President Joe Biden upon his return to the Senate in January. The Illinois Republican is offering an amendment to defense legislation that could effectively block integration of Chinese-built interceptor components into NATO's missile shield.
National Journal
Rachel Oswald, Global Security Newswire
See more stories about...
Rachel Oswald, Global Security Newswire
Nov. 20, 2013, 10:02 a.m.

WASH­ING­TON — A meas­ure pro­posed on Tues­day in the U.S. Sen­ate would pro­hib­it Wash­ing­ton from fin­an­cially sup­port­ing the in­teg­ra­tion of a Chinese mis­sile sys­tem with U.S. tech­no­logy that is to play an es­sen­tial role in an evolving NATO de­fens­ive shield.

The amend­ment to the Sen­ate ver­sion of the fisc­al 2014 de­fense au­thor­iz­a­tion bill, offered by Sen­at­or Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), per­tains to a pos­sible Turk­ish ef­fort to buy an an­ti­mis­sile sys­tem from Beijing.

If ad­op­ted by the Sen­ate and ul­ti­mately moved in­to law, the pro­vi­sion would pro­hib­it any ap­pro­pri­ated mon­ies from be­ing spent “to in­teg­rate mis­sile de­fense sys­tems of the People’s Re­pub­lic of China in­to United States mis­sile de­fense sys­tems.”

The amend­ment also of­fers a sep­ar­ate “sense of Con­gress” that Chinese an­ti­mis­sile sys­tems “should not be in­teg­rated” with the NATO bal­list­ic-mis­sile shield.

It is not known when the amend­ment might come up for con­sid­er­a­tion by the Sen­ate, which is cur­rently de­bat­ing the au­thor­iz­a­tion bill. Once the up­per cham­ber passes the de­fense le­gis­la­tion, it will have to be meshed in con­fer­ence com­mit­tee with a House ver­sion — passed by that cham­ber in June — be­fore be­ing sent to the White House for the pres­id­ent’s sig­na­ture.

Kirk and a num­ber of oth­er Re­pub­lic­an sen­at­ors have raised con­cerns about a pos­sible de­cision by NATO ally Tur­key to pur­chase the FD-2000 an­ti­mis­sile sys­tem pro­duced by a Chinese gov­ern­ment-con­trolled com­pany that is un­der U.S. sanc­tions for vi­ol­at­ing the 2006 Ir­an, North Korea and Syr­ia Non­pro­lif­er­a­tion Act.

A Pentagon spokes­man on Wed­nes­day said the De­fense De­part­ment would not com­ment on pending le­gis­la­tion.

The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion and NATO lead­ers have pub­li­cized their con­cerns that the Chinese tech­no­logy will not be com­pat­ible with oth­er al­li­ance mem­ber states’ mis­sile de­fense tech­no­logy. Those sys­tems are in­ten­ded to be in­teg­rated with each oth­er, in ac­cord­ance with a plan to es­tab­lish a com­pre­hens­ive anti-bal­list­ic mis­sile cap­ab­il­ity for Europe.

There are also wor­ries that Chinese de­velopers might in­stall di­git­al back­doors in­to the FD-2000 so they can gain ac­cess to clas­si­fied NATO data and mil­it­ary plans.

The United States is sup­ply­ing the bulk of the in­ter­cept­ors, radars and oth­er tech­no­logy planned for use in the NATO mis­sile shield. For that reas­on, it is un­clear wheth­er Chinese tech­no­logy could be in­teg­rated in­to the al­li­ance’s frame­work if it is pro­hib­ited by the U.S. gov­ern­ment from be­ing con­nec­ted to U.S. de­fens­ive sys­tems.

Kirk and a num­ber of oth­er GOP sen­at­ors in a let­ter sent last month to the Pentagon and the State De­part­ment urged the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion to “en­sure NATO will nev­er al­low such a sys­tem to be in­teg­rated in­to NATO’s se­cur­ity ar­chi­tec­ture.”

State De­part­ment spokes­wo­man Jen Psaki on Tues­day told re­port­ers that Sec­ret­ary of State John Kerry in a Monday meet­ing with his vis­it­ing Turk­ish coun­ter­part, Ah­met Dav­u­to­glu, “re­it­er­ated our con­cerns and the im­port­ance of pro­cur­ing a NATO in­ter­op­er­able sys­tem.”

In re­sponse to the up­roar, the Turk­ish gov­ern­ment has said it has not made a fi­nal de­cision on ac­quir­ing the FD-2000. Ank­ara has in­vited European and Amer­ic­an de­fense con­tract­ors to sweeten their pro­pos­als for provid­ing Tur­key with a na­tion­al mis­sile-de­fense cap­ab­il­ity that could be in­teg­rated in­to the NATO shield.

An uniden­ti­fied seni­or U.S. dip­lo­mat in the Turk­ish cap­it­al told De­fense News this week that any Turk­ish com­pan­ies that be­come sub­con­tract­ors to the China Pre­ci­sion Ma­chinery Im­port and Ex­port Corp. in build­ing the FD-2000 could be pen­al­ized by the U.S. gov­ern­ment for work­ing with the black­lis­ted or­gan­iz­a­tion.

“Turk­ish en­tit­ies to be in­volved in this pro­gram in part­ner­ship with [the Chinese firm] CP­MIEC would be denied ac­cess to any use of U.S. tech­no­logy or equip­ment in re­la­tion to this pro­gram,” the en­voy re­portedly said.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
8 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
8 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
9 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×