China’s Military Employment of American Dual-Use Technologies
Email this article
Print this article
On June 5, 1989 President George H.W. Bush announced the United States suspension of sales of items on the U.S. munitions list, or an arms embargo, in response to the June 3-4 Tiananmen Massacre in Beijing, China. In 1990 this policy was codified by the U.S. Congress.[1] But almost from its inception successive American presidents have made exceptions to this law, primarily by issuing wavers to allow the purchase of Chinese satellite launch services. In addition, by the mid-1990s the U.S. Commerce Department has allowed a growing trade in so-called "dual-use" items that may have a military use but are not weapons in and of themselves.
In a 2005 exchange regarding U.S. exports of dual use technologies to China, former Department of Defense official Lawrence Korb (then with the Center for American Progress) told Peter Lichtenbaum, then Acting Undersecretary for Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce, that "…the United States exports equipment and technology to China that actively contributes to Beijing's ability to wage war." Korb noted that U.S. exports were not "…being used in a manner consistent with our national security and nonproliferation interests."[2]
Lichtenbaum disagreed, noting, "The United States maintains an arms embargo on China. Because dual-use items (such as computers) have important commercial uses, we do not have an embargo on exports of dual-use items to China. However, we have a general policy of denying export license applications for dual-use items to Chinese military end-users."[3] Nevertheless, it is clear that the State and Commerce Departments have used this distinction to allow an increasing traffic in American made or designed products to China which do have a specific military use. Despite Mr. Lichtenbaum’s assurance, these items are going directly into the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) inventory, or are easily accessible by the PLA from Chinese "civilian" entities.
Open source information shows that the PLA and China’s People’s Armed Police (PAP) are benefitting from many American made or designed products. Some, like the AM General Humvee vehicle, were explicitly designed for military use. Others, like jet airliners, utility helicopters, all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) and Segway personal transports may not have been originally designed for military or police use, but are thus used in the West, and now in China. In the case of airliners, it is proving the case that both the United States and Europe have sold China a considerable potential military capability. As such, one can conclude that the State Department and the Commerce Department are not doing their job and ensuring that these dual use items do not end up increasing China’s military capabilities.
 | |
From 2005 to the present, both the Bush Administration and the U.S. Congress have expressed their opposition to Europe relaxing its 1989 arms embargo. In 2008 the European Parliament and the U.S. Congress have affirmed their support for Europe’s embargo. However, Europe also has its problem in allowing a greater traffic in dual-use technology that is increasing Chinese military capabilities. This is especially true in the case of helicopter and transport aircraft technologies. Despite the 1989 EU arms embargo Eurocopter has sustained a technology relationship with Chinese helicopter companies, and is now co-developing the EC-175/Z-15 advanced utility helicopter with China. Furthermore, in its rush to secure a greater share of the Chinese airliner market from rival Boeing, Airbus has transferred an airline "kit" assembly line to Tianjin that can only help China advance its own program to build a large airliner by 2020, one that will likely be produced in multiple military variants.
 | |
 | |
However, it is critical that before Washington considers taking any complaints to Brussels, that it review how American dual-use exports to China are being used to improve PLA and PAP capabilities. What follows is a list of U.S. dual-use technologies that are benefiting China’s military.
AM General Humvee Light Truck
While the ubiquitous M998 High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV, or Humvee) is now being quickly supplanted by thousands of more heavily armored Mine Resistant Armor Protected (MRAP) vehicles in U.S. service, tens of thousands of this AM General design have entered the U.S. armed forces and about 45 other countries since the early 1980s. Designed as the successor to the iconic Willy’s Jeep of World War II fame, the 1.5 ton Humvee can carry a much greater array of modern weapons and equipment and has been produced in over twenty variants for the U.S. services alone, from utility transport, to ambulance, anti-tank, anti-aircraft, electronic warfare and weather station missions. The Humvee became a critical system to fulfill new U.S. Army doctrines of the 1980s that stressed greater mobility and firepower, and thousands were successfully used during the 1990-1991 and 1993 wars against Iraq.
 | |
 | |
While the PLA was reportedly very impressed with the Humvee’s performance during the first Gulf War, its introduction to this vehicle predated that war. In 1988 AM General was reported to have displayed the Humvee at a military exhibition in Beijing.[4] Other Chinese sources have noted that the U.S. Government may have given China a small number in the late 1980s as part of early anti-narcotics cooperation. However, at the 2000 Zhuhai Airshow this analyst noted that a picture of a Humvee-like vehicle appeared in a brochure of the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation. And then at the 2004 Zhuhai show, an actual Shenyang copy was put on display, armed with the TY-90 anti-aircraft missile of Luoyang Optoelectric Technology Company. But by this time it was apparent that a second copy was also being produced by the Dong Feng Motors Company, called the EQ2050 "Meng Shi." This version was marketed at the 2005 IDEX show in Abu Dhabi armed with a turret equipped with FN-6 short-range surface-to-air missiles (SAMs)[5] that almost copied the Boeing FIM-92A Avenger still in use by the U.S. Army.
 | |
 | |
Despite repeated inquiries from 2005 onward, this analyst could not get a response from AM General officials regarding the reasons why two Chinese companies would be producing Humvee vehicles. This changed in early 2008 when on AM General official, on condition of anonymity, explained that the State and Commerce Departments sanctioned the sale and co-production of the civilian H-1 version of the Humvee for the Chinese market in the 1997 time frame. This led to a partnership with Dong Feng Motors. It is less clear that there was a formal relationship with the Shenyang Aircraft Corporation. However, the official noted that AM General sells parts to both companies. This official also acknowledged that the PLA and the Chinese government are the main customers for these co-produced Humvees. So far it appears that Dong Feng may produce 1,500 copies but that has not happened yet. However, neither company has rights to sell versions to the civilian market. AM General had also received in 2007 a reconfirmation from the Commerce Department of its authorization to sell Humvees to the Chinese market.
 | |
Currently Dong Feng Motors appears to be the most active producer of Chinese-made Humvee versions. Dong Feng made Humvees apparently use a slightly more powerful diesel engine. One Chinese article suggested that if Dong Feng were to enlist other companies, it could produce up to 100,000 a year for wartime production.[6] So far Chinese-made Humvees have been purchased by Chinese Police departments, the PLA Marines, various PLA Army units to very likely include Airborne and Special Forces units. Dong Feng markets a version armed with a roof-mounted 23mm cannon and another Special Forces version armed with a automatic grenade launcher and a squad machine gun. Another version of the Humvee forms the carrier for 81mm automatic mortar[7] and a twin-23mm anti-aircraft gun, and are being used by a novel PLA "Mechanized" Special Forces unit. The Poly Technologies arms trading firm markets the "FB-6A Missile Launching Vehicle," which is armed with eight FB-6A man-portable air defense system (MANPADS) anti-aircraft missiles.[8] This vehicle is a virtual copy of the Boeing Avenger system. Inasmuch as Taiwan makes extensive use of several version of the Humvee, and has purchased 72 Boeing Avengers for Army air defense, the PLA’s growing inventory of Humvee copies presents many opportunities for surprise and deception operations against Taiwanese forces.
 | |
 | |
Despite the capability that has been transferred to the PLA and the growing threat this presents to U.S. friends like Taiwan, AM General faces tough competition in the China military vehicle market from European automakers. The Italian IVECO designed NJ2046 produced by Chinese partner NAVECO is used by the PLA in several versions, including one for Airborne Forces. The PAP uses one IVECO van version as a mobile lethal-injection prisoner execution platform. Germany’s Mercedes Benz has several truck versions in production in China, and the PAP uses an armored Mercedes G-Class vehicle with an anti-sniper detection device.
Helicopters
As it has at various times during the Bush Administration there has been the suggestion that the U.S. relent on Tiananmen related sanctions and permit the sale of spare parts for the 24 Sikorsky S-70 Blackhawk helicopters sold to the PLA in the 1980s.[9] Most recently China requested these spare parts for humanitarian concerns related to the S-70’s role in relief operations responding to the devastating May 12, 2008 Sichuan earthquake. However, this idea has been repeatedly rejected, in large part due to the S-70s overt military role; this helicopter is regularly seen in PLA exercises carrying artillery and Special Forces vehicles. It will almost certainly be employed in any future operations against Taiwan—which also operates the S-70 and is seeking more.
 | |
 | |
However, in part due to pressure from the U.S. helicopter industry the Commerce and State Departments have relented in permitting sales of U.S. helicopters to "civilian" Chinese entities. In 2001 United Technologies subsidiary Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation sold S-76 transport helicopters to the Chinese Ministry of Communications, and in 2005 sold S-92 helicopters to China Easter General Aviation to support offshore oil drilling operations. In 2007 Sikorsky entered into a partnership with Chinese helicopter maker Change Aircraft Industries Corporation to co-produce S-76 airframes to support Sikorsky production.[10] In 1998 Sikorsky entered into a partnership with China’s AVIC-2 consortium to co-develop the larger S-92 helicopter, and it manufactures the tail of that helicopter. In 2003 Sikorsky established its Chinese partner "Shanghai Sikorsky," and in 2008 AVIC-2, though its subsidiary Change, became a shareholder of Shanghai Sikorsky.[11] Change also co-produces the Sikorsky-Schweitzer S-300, a lightweight training helicopter, which also formed the basis for U.S. Navy’s Northrop Grumman MQ-8B Fire Scout unmanned helicopter.
 | |
Another United Technologies subsidiary, the Pratt Whitney Canada aircraft engine maker, sold ten of its PT6C-67C helicopter turboshaft engines in 2000-2001 to assist the Chinese Medium Helicopter program of the Chinese Helicopter Research and Development Institute (CHRDI),[12] the chief designer of China’s helicopters. In 2007 Pratt and Whitney Canada claimed they thought they were assisting the "civilian" version of this program,[13] which had been thought to include the 5.5 ton WZ-10 dedicated attack helicopter, and a 6 ton utility helicopter based on the same drive train. The later has yet to materialize, while several prototypes of the Z-10 military attack helicopter are now flying powered by PT6C-67C engines. The Z-10 is about the same size and configuration as the Eurocopter Tiger, one of the world’s most modern and capable attack helicopters. Full production of the Z-10 powered by Pratt Whitney engines would give the PLA an unprecedented level of "aerial artillery" to support amphibious invasion and subsequent operations against Taiwan.
 | |
 | |
Bell Helicopter Canada, a subsidiary of the American Textron Company, sold its Bell-427 light helicopter in China after 2000, and in 2003 entered into a partnership with Hafei Aviation Industries to manufacture airframes for the Bell-430 helicopter.[14]
However, on a corporate or company level there is a thin-to-no distinction between selling to a "civilian" and a "military" entity in China. All of China’s helicopter companies perform either research and development or manufacturing for the PLA. While one might quibble that Sikorsky S-76 and Bell-430 airframes or S-300 helicopters are relatively low-tech, it is likely that China’s intelligence services have targeted these companies to ensure that Chinese companies benefit from data gathered in China, or via cyber espionage operations that could benefit from an understanding of corporate data bases. In addition, all U.S. helicopters sold to "civilian" Chinese entities are theoretically subject to emergency military mobilization. This was demonstrated in the response to the May 12 Sichuan earthquake when a S-76 helicopter sold to a "civilian" operator was used along with Russian Mil Mi-17s and European Eurocopter AS-332 helicopters sold to other Chinese "civil" operators.[15] These helicopters are equally likely to be used to support potential Chinese military operations against Taiwan, Japan and India.
 | |
As is the case with autos, American helicopter companies believe they must compete with Russian and European firms which gain political favor by selling helicopters and technology to the PLA. The PLA has purchased about 240 Russian Mil Mi-17I/V5 medium utility helicopters and has just entered a kit-based co-production agreement anticipated to add an additional 160 to its inventory over five years.[16] While Russia may hope to safeguard its technology,[17] it is apparent that Europe views the transfer of its helicopter technology as key to securing future helicopter market share. Eurocopter helped CHRDI design the drive train for the Z-10 attack helicopter.[18] Since 2004 Eurocopter and China’s AVIC-2 have proceeded with a co-development and co-production project to create a new 8-ton utility helicopters, called the EC-175 in Europe and the Z-15 in China. Its first flight is expected in 2009 and it is expected to be certified in 2011. A Eurocopter official told this analyst that they do not expect the Chinese military to use the EC-175.[19] But Eurocopter’s record is not encouraging; Eurocopter’s SA321, SA365, AS350 and HC-120, all co-produced in China, serve in the PLA, as the Z-8, Z-9, Z-11 and HC-120.
PLAAF Boeing B-737-300 Electronic Platform
At the November 2004 Zhuhai Airshow this analyst noticed a peculiar feature in a video presented by the Xian Aircraft Corporation. In a section of the video that showed newly built H-6 bombers outside the Xian factory, there was a Boeing B-737 jet transport with what appeared to be new fairings atop the fuselage. When the author asked Asian military contacts about this oddity there was a surprising report: China had converted two Boeing 737 airliners to serve as electronic control and monitoring platforms to support testing for new long range Land Attack Cruise Missiles. Subsequent Internet-source pictures of the aircraft revealed that new fairings has been placed on top of and on the bottom of the fuselage. Such a configuration could support a command and control or the suggested cruise missile test monitoring mission. A more recent Internet-source photo shows the aircraft to be part of a special PLA Air Force squadron equipped with other electronic and radar test aircraft.
 | |
 | |
In early 2005 officials in the State and Commerce Departments told Bill Gertz of the Washington Times that this PLA use of an American-made aircraft was under investigation. A State Department official reported to Gertz, "…commercial jets are permitted for export to China without a license, but that converting a civilian aircraft into a military jet is not allowed under U.S. export rules." This official then stated, "It is unquestionably true that these jets could not have been sold to the Chinese military without a presidential waiver, which is very unlikely," Gertz also reported that if China had violated U.S. export rules, "penalties could range from fines to the imposition of economic sanctions on China that would bar purchases of U.S. aircraft worth hundreds of millions of dollars."[20] However, three and half years later, there has been no action by the State Department or the Commerce Department reacting to this flagrant Chinese military employment of a controlled American technology. Instead, Boeing continues to sell its B-737 airliners to Chinese airlines, which now operate over 200. In March 2008 the Pentagon reported that China could have as many as 250 new Land Attack Cruise Missiles targeting Taiwan.[21] In early 2007 Taiwan’s Ministry of Defense reported that only 100 such PLA cruise missiles were deployed.[22]
 | |
PLA Use of American Cargo Airliners for Military Operations
A more ominous use of American made airliners is the PLA’s regular incorporation of civilian airliners into military troop and cargo transport missions. It has long been known that the PLA uses China’s fleet of civilian airliners as a "reserve" air transport resource. These airliners have been used to perform troop rotations and are occasionally used in troop transport exercises. Following the May 12 Sichuan earthquake the PLA again used Boeing and Airbus airliners with China Southern and China Eastern airlines to make emergency shipments of personnel and material. These supplemented the use of PLAAF Ilyushin Il-76 and Xian Y-8 transports for the same missions. But then in mid-June, perhaps capitalizing on the need to hone emergency airlift mobilization, the PLA conducted another exercise in which PLAAF Il-76 and both Airbus and Boeing airliners were mobilized to move PLA Airborne troops.
However, there was a unique addition to this mid-June exercise: the use of at least one Boeing B-747F and one McDonnell Douglas MD-11F dedicated cargo transports. A cursory count of U.S. made cargo airliners used by Chinese airlines—which would now include Hong Kong’s airlines-- indicates that they have at least 31 Boeing 747F cargoliners of various models and 9 MD-11F models, for a current total of 40 cargoliners.[23] An Il-76 can carry about 48 metric tons while a Boeing B-747F-400 can carry about 55 metric tons. If one accepts current estimates that the PLAAF has about 20 Il-76 cargo transports, then the potential addition of U.S. made cargoliners could potentially treble the PLA’s air cargo lift capacity. But this is set to increase as Hong Kong’s Cathay Airlines has 16 Boeing B-747 cargoliners on order, and China Southern Airlines has six new Boeing B-777 cargoliners on order. Enlisting "civilian" cargoliners in potential operations against Taiwan would be very attractive to the PLA. These aircraft could concentrate on moving the wide variety of palletized cargo, from bullets to artillery rockets to beans, that would be needed to sustain light and medium weight tracked and wheeled armored forces that would be best moved by Il-76s. By using civilian cargoliners to build up weapons and supplies, PLA Airborne armored forces sent to capture a Taiwanese airport could quickly move from a defensive to an offensive mission.
 | |
 | |
China’s Arms Embargo Of America ?
Despite the U.S. and European arms embargos of 1989 responding to the Tiananmen Massacre, an event for which the Chinese government refuses still to acknowledge responsibility or offer justice, China’s military is making flagrant and increasing military use of American and European dual use technologies. In the case of the PLA Air Force’s "pirate" Boeing B-737, the U.S. State Department and Commerce Department cannot even organize themselves to define and enforce American law. This aircraft has very likely made a major contribution to the development of the PLA’s now rapidly growing offensive cruise missile capabilities. Co-produced Humvees, Sikorsky and Bell helicopters, plus Boeing and McDonnell Douglas cargoliners all are available now to the PLA to undertake direct attack or deception operations against Taiwan.
But there is perhaps another lesson for American policy makers. Instead of quietly increasing its exploitation of this growing instance of American weakness, China’s leaders are instead pressing for their own "embargo," actually threatening American aircraft makers Boeing, Bell and Sikorsky that they cannot sell to the Chinese market if they sell new weapons to Taiwan. In mid-May Defense News reported:
"Over the past two years, China has threatened to stop buying commercial airliners from Boeing and civil helicopters from Bell Helicopter and Sikorsky if the companies continue to sell weapons and "advanced helicopter technologies" to Taiwan, sources said. Each of the companies stands to lose billions of dollars in potential orders, sources added… In 2006, China’s threats led Boeing to shutter its Taipei office and move the staff to Singapore, sources said."[24]
The fact of the matter is that China cannot yet make its own commercial/military high-capacity transport aircraft or even keep pace with helicopter technology without foreign assistance. This, however, could change dramatically in the next decade should Airbus and Eurocopter, either willingly or otherwise, give China the technology needed to make competitive aircraft that will form the basis for indigenous military versions. Yet the Chinese leadership believes that it is now strong enough to blackmail American aircraft corporations into forcing the American government into betraying a longstanding security interest in Asia: defending the democracy on Taiwan.
The regular and evidently intentional fudging of restrictions on dual use and other exports is most likely understood as manifesting the rarely-spoken but clear expectations that have set Washington’s expectations since the 1970s. These are first that whatever happens, China will sooner or later emerge as the supreme economic and military power in Asia. The second is that it is therefore essential for the United States to be friendly with that China, regardless.
Expert opinion is divided. Some believe China will indeed continue smoothly on her present course and that her neighbors will sooner or later acquiesce. The result will be a replication of the China-centered tributary system that, although it never existed in fact, was widely portrayed in traditional Chinese writings. Others see dangers ahead for China—not just popular unrest and the problem of keeping political control without elections or free speech, but also environmental degradation, waste of resources—and if China attempts to coerce her neighbors, the emergence of a powerful coalition to balance her.
For Washington to plump so firmly on one side of this debate, making little provision for internal problems in China or external adventures, is most unwise. For the moment, however, that seems to be the signal being sent to China by the White House.
Reading this, the Chinese see themselves as engaged in a classic test of will what they consider the declining power of the United States and its allies. Analyzing our policy choices, they see an increasing willingness to defer to their wishes rather than to consider the interests of Asia as a whole. Few things are more dangerous in international affairs than a state that expects to be able to step into a position of primacy, be it regional or global, more or less effortlessly—indeed with the hegemon-emeritus smoothing the way. That China would actually be able to assume such a position and that the United States would knowingly smooth the way are both most doubtful propositions. But if our actions, for example with respect to dual use technologies, have the effect of convincing China that we are packing up and leaving the field to them, and leading our allies to think that they will soon be on their own, the results are likely to be opposite to what Washington intends—and potentially conflictual.
[1] H.R. 3792, Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, (Considered and Passed by House), http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c101:1:./temp/~c101LWTHBp:e212825:
[2] See, "An E-mail Exchange between the Department of Commerce and the Center for American Progress," March 27, 2005, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2005/03/b727703.html
[3] Ibid.
[4] "EQ2050 High Mobility Utility Vehicle," SinoDefense.com, March 27, 2007, http://www.sinodefence.com/army/transport/eq2050.asp; There are many English and Chinese language references to, and photographic coverage of China’s co-produced Humvees: "PRC HMMWVs," Wikipdeia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRC_HMMWVs; There has also been steady coverage of these vehicles in SinoDefence.com forum, China-Defense.com web page and Chinese language military issue web pages like CJDBY.com, Warsky, FYJS and Top81.
[5] Brochure, Poly Technologies, "FN-6 Portable Air Defense Missile System," obtained at the 2005 IDEX show.
[6] "Mengshi vehicles could have wartime annual output of 100,000," viewed on the War-Sky web page, June 28, 2008, http://www.war-sky.com/forum/htm_data/4/0804/249918.html
[7] Christopher Foss, "NORINCO develops quick-firing 81 mm self-propelled mortar," Jane’s International Defence Review, July 2008, p. 12.
[8] Brochure, Poly Technologies, "FB-6A Missile Launching Vehicle," obtained at the 2007 IDEX show.
[9] "US has "no plans" to lift China sanctions," Agence France Presse, October 17, 2001.
[10] Elizabeth Keck, "China’s Changing Skies," The China Business Review, March-April 2001, http://www.chinabusinessreview.com/public/0103/keck.html; "S-76," Deagle.com, http://www.deagel.com/Commercial-Helicopters/S-76_a000105001.aspx; Press Release, "Sikorsky Selects Changhe to Supply S-76 Helicopter," August 24, 2007, http://www.prlog.org/10028356-sikorsky-aircraft-selects-changhe-to-supply-76-helicopter-airframes.html
[11] "AVIC-II Joins Shanghai Sikorsky," China Aviation, February 8, 2008, http://chinaaviation.aero/news/airline/7268/59/AVIC-II-Joins-Shanghai-Sikorsky-
[12] David Pugliese, "Canadian engine flies Chinese attack helicopter, sale OK’d for civilian version of helicopter, Pratt Whitney says," The Ottowa Citizen, October 18, 2007, http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=372f9669-ca0f-4aaf-9088-1e27ec0a724f&k=68206; for previous reporting see "Elementary Watson, There Is A Z-10," ShowNews, Farnborough 2004, July 19, 2004, p.16, http://aviationweek.com/shownews/04farn/sn_071904.pdf; Robert Hewson, "China’s Z-10 helicopter build on Western Expertise," Jane’s Defence Weekly, April 13, 2005.
[13] Pugliese, op-cit.
[14] "China, Canada to Jointly Manufacture Bell-430 Helicopters," People’s Daily, September 30, 2003, http://english.people.com.cn/200309/04/eng20030904_123734.shtml
[15] Photos of these helicopters in the quake zone was posted on the FYJS web page on June 12, 2008, http://www.fyjs.cn/bbs/htm_data/27/0806/145738.html
[16] Prasun K. Sengupta, "Mi-17 Deliveries On The Rise In Southeast Asia," Tempur, July 2008, pgs. 87-88.
[17] At the November 2007 Dubai Airshow a Russian source had noted their concern about protecting their helicopter technology in light of China’s blatant copying of the Sukhoi Su-27 as the basis of its J-11B fighter.
[18] Hewson, op-cit.
[19] Interview, Dubai Airshow, November 2007.
[20] Bill Gertz, "Conversion of jetliners in China draw attention," The Washington Times, February 1, 2005, http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050131-115544-1044r.htm
[21] Office of the Secretary of Defense, Annual Report To Congress, Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2008, p. 56.
[22] Bradley Perret, "Almost 1,000 Chinese missiles ranged against Taiwan," Aviation Week and Space Technology, January 29, 2007, p. 27.
[23] Numbers of U.S.-made cargoliners in Chinese, Macau and Hong Kong airlines from "World Airline Directory," Flight International, March 27, 2007, April 15, 2008 and April 22, 2008.
[24] Wendell Minnick and Vago Muradian, "China Threatens U.S. Defense Contractors Over Taiwan," Defense News, May 12, 2008.
