Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old August 24th, 2014 #81
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Israel Denies China Planes have US Technology
Friday, November 12, 1999

Israel denies China planes have U.S. technology

By Amnon Barzilai, Ha’aretz Defense Correspondent

IAI to install radars in jets

The United States is pressuring Israel to cancel plans to build early warning radar aircraft for the Chinese air force, but Israeli officials have countered by saying that the radar systems do not include American technology. Washington is worried that the planes will enhance the power of China and thereby have an adverse effect on the status of Taiwan.

In July, the U.S. Air Force announced that it would sell advanced early warning radar aircraft, including the E-2T Hawkeye, to Taiwan.

The American approach to Israel was made after the disclosure of the fact that Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) had taken delivery of a Russian-made Ilyushin 76 transport aircraft on October 25 in order to install a radar system in it before handing it over to the Chinese. According to U.S. intelligence reports, the plane will be transferred to China next spring.

Until then, the defense establishment had maintained a total blackout over the agreements it signed with China and Russia as part of “Project Ring.”

Under the terms of the agreement between Israel and China, China has the option of purchasing two or three additional intelligence aircraft from Israel. However, the New York Times reported yesterday that China is thought to be considering the purchase of four to eight radar systems developed for the Israeli Air Force by Elta, an IAI subsidiary, and installing them on Russian aircraft.

Such a deal would be worth up to $2 billion, since each of the airborne radar systems costs $250 million.

The project represents the zenith of transactions conducted by the Israeli Defense Ministry with China since the start of the decade. At the same time, the deal stands on its own and does not necessarily herald a breakthrough in Israeli arms sales to China.

Last month saw the first visit to Israel by a Chinese defense minister. However, Israeli defense sources emphasized that the visit was not intended to promote the sale of arms to China.

Only recently the former director-general of the Defense Ministry, Ilan Biran, confirmed that Israeli defense exports to China were at a nadir, totaling only tens of millions of dollars a year.

Sources in the defense establishment said there is a regular cycle in the U.S. administration’s reactions to Israel’s defense ties with China. Such reactions could come in the wake of a leak or in the wake of information made available to U.S. intelligence.

The sources said there is nothing new in the fact that Israel is building a radar system for installation in a plane to be delivered to the Chinese air force.

Another possibility is – although this has no confirmation from any U.S. source – that American defense concerns are putting pressure on the Pentagon to restrain Israel. The two largest defense firms, Boeing and Lockheed Martin, are competitors against IAI in international tenders to supply intelligence aircraft.

Those firms could argue that while they are barred from selling to China, Washington has no control over Israel’s military industries.

The deal with China for the intelligence aircraft was launched about five years ago, when the two countries signed an agreement for the building of an early warning radar plane. However, the deal ground to a halt over a dispute regarding the cargo plane in which the system would be installed.

Israel suggested that it purchase a used Boeing 707 for the purpose, but the Chinese insisted on a Russian plane. That required the approval of Russian President Boris Yeltsin, which was finally given when former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Russia in the spring of 1997.

To keep the deal secret, a false statement was issued about the deal, according to which the agreement was for Israel to upgrade Russian weapons. IAI purchased the Ilyushin for $50 million after tough bargaining with the Russians, and Israeli engineers went to Russia to implement the necessary changes in the plane’s technical specifications so the radar system could be installed.

(c) copyright 1999 Ha’aretz. All Rights Reserved
 
Old August 24th, 2014 #82
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Israel Suspected of Transferring US Laser Weapon Data to China
Source: The Washington Times, Published in Washington, D.C., 5am, January 27, 1999

Israel Suspected of Transferring U.S. Laser Weapon
Data to China

By Bill Gertz

The Defense Intelligence Agency suspects Israel shared with China restricted U.S. weapons technology obtained during a joint U.S. – Israeli effort to build a battlefield laser gun, The Washington Times has learned.

Israeli government agents also have tried for the past two years to obtain embargoed weapons know-how from U.S. defense contractors involved in the Tactical High-Energy Laser (THEL) program, said officials familiar with a Pentagon intelligence report on the issue.

The report said officials of the Israeli government armament agency Rafael obtained some restricted technology from a U.S. defense contractor involved in the program in 1996. The unauthorized transfers prompted TRW Space and Electronics Group, the main contractor for the program, to halt further data transfers to the Israelis.

DIA suspicions about the technology leakage are based on reports from U.S. contractor employees in Israel who spotted Chinese technicians working secretly with one of the Israeli companies involved in the laser weapon program, and also from a Chinese official who knew details about it, said the officials who declined to be named.

“If the Chinese are seeking this technology in Israel, it’s another episode in their worldwide effort to purloin Western technology,” said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.

The $131 million joint laser weapon program was launched in 1996 in an effort to rapidly build a weapon to knock out Katyusha rockets fired by Hezbollah guerrillas based in southern Lebanon.

The system consists of a pointer-tracker, a laser, and a battle management system. It is being developed by TRW, two other U.S. contractors — Ball Aerospace & Technology and Contraves Brashear Systems — along with four Israeli firms. Israel expects to field the first anti-rocket laser unit later this year in northern Israel.

As part of a memorandum signed by officials from both countries in July 1996, the lasers are supposed to have built-in software limiting their range. The system is designed for knocking out 122mm Katyusha rockets, which have ranges of several miles, and mortar and artillery. The agreement also restricts transferring the technology to other countries. The Israelis have been trying to obtain the source codes for the laser’s target selection computer software to increase its range so the weapons can be used to knock out other targets such as short-range missiles or aircraft.

The DIA said if Israel obtains the embargoed software coding used to target the laser gun, it could “fire at targets other than those permitted by the Memorandum of Agreement with Washington,” and it would allow “a controlled technology to proliferate.” “Acquiring and modifying the source codes would help Tel Aviv overcome the mission-limiting U.S. engineering built into the THEL system,” the report said.

Some DIA officials were alarmed by several reports that Chinese weapons technicians are working secretly at an Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI) plant involved in the laser gun program. IAI is working on the THEL system’s radar, fire control assemblies and sensors for its pointer-tracker.

According to DIA, Chinese officials were seen at the IAI Systems and Space Technology Division facility outside Tel Aviv twice between July and October 1997. The U.S. employees were told the “Chinese presence” was supposed to be kept secret from the United States. On a third occasion, the U.S. workers at the plant were “rushed” out of the IAI plant after seeing Chinese workers there, the report said.

The report stated that Israeli Aircraft Industries in the past offered transfers of restricted weapons technology to foreign customers in an effort to conclude weapons deals. “IAI has transferred technology to China, possibly including U.S.-supplied technology,” the report said.

The DIA said it could not confirm that Chinese officials at the Israeli factory were working on lasers. But the agency said its suspicions were bolstered by a Chinese scientist who had revealed details about the THEL system and asked for more information about the weapon, once called Nautilus, during an international symposium on lasers. “Beijing is working on high-energy deuterium fluoride lasers most likely for weapons applications and has acquired technology in this area from Russia,” the report said.

Spokesman for TRW, Ball Aerospace and Contraves Brashear referred calls to the U.S. Army Missile and Space Command in Alabama, which had no immediate comment. A spokeswoman for the Israeli Embassy also had no comment.

Officials said the reference to earlier leaks of U.S. technology from Israel to China involved Beijing’s acquisition of U.S. Patriot anti-missile interceptor technology in 1992. The Bush administration investigated whether Israel illegally transferred Patriot know-how, a probe first disclosed by The Times. The investigation failed to confirm intelligence reports indicating one of Washington’s closest allies had shared sensitive weapons data with China. CIA Director Robert Gates said in 1993 that China had acquired the Patriot technology, but government officials were divided over whether Israel had secretly supplied it.

Regarding recent efforts to acquire restricted THEL software, the DIA said that after Rafael was denied access to the source codes, the Israeli representatives demanded further software transfers from the U.S. subcontractor, and also tried to “pressure” TRW into having the State Department grant an export license, the report said. The Israeli program manager and an electronics engineer also tried to illegally obtain software codes and details on the THEL computer controller, according to the DIA.

In a third case, an Israeli Defense Ministry consultant tried to acquire “tracking algorithms” used in the radar focal plane array used by the laser gun’s pointer-tracker. Initial requests for the source code were made on May 1, 1997, and after the request was flatly denied, the consultant set up a meeting with TRW official and again demanded the codes for the weapon’s software.

“I have no comment on intelligence matters,” Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said. A spokesman for the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command in Huntsville, Ala., said he was unaware of the Israeli efforts to obtain embargoed THEL technology or the improper release of data.

Copyright © 1999 News World Communications, Inc.
 
Old August 24th, 2014 #83
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Israel Violates Rules on Missile Sales
U.S. Charges Israel with Violating Rules on Missile
Technology Sales
Global Intelligence Update Red Alert
July 2, 1998
According to Israeli television, the Israeli Space Agency has received a notice from the United States government notifying them that Israel is in violation of the Missile Technology Control Regime. Israel is being accused of transferring U.S. missile technology to third countries. Under the MTCR, any country given access to U.S. missile technology is prohibited from transferring that technology without the expressed permission of the United States. Israel now joins Iran, North Korea, Iraq and China as sanctioned under the MTCR protocol. The immediate results of the sanctions are not drastic. Israeli scientists and engineers will have their access to U.S. facilities limited to some degree. There are several joint projects that could potentially be affected under this agreement, but it is not clear how far the Clinton Administration will go in placing sanctions on Israel. The news stories do point to the fact that an Israeli is currently training with NASA in anticipation of a shuttle mission. This could be a pressure point. NASA’s director, not coincidentally, is currently in Israel on a visit.
Israel has expressed astonishment at the charges. While the decision to list Israel under the MTCR at this moment is surprising, the fact that Israel is eligible for sanctions is not. Israel’s aerospace industry has close and long-term relations with its American counterparts. Israel also has an extremely aggressive military sales program, which it uses to underwrite its own weapons development programs. Given collaboration with the United States, it is inevitable that Israel will be re-exporting U.S. technology in the course of its overseas sales. Since the Israelis are both aggressive and not necessarily fussy about whom they do business with, Israel could have been sanctioned at any point in recent years. Thus, Israeli astonishment, which is probably genuine, is not about being in violation of the MTCR as much as it is surprise that the United States would decide to cite them now.

There are two reasons for the sanctions, we suspect. The first is the rift that has developed between the United States and Israel over the peace process. Washington is furious with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and has been looking for pressure points that might increase Israeli pain and U.S. leverage. The low-profile the U.S. has placed on the listing might indicate that Washington wants to let the Israelis know just how bad things could become for Israel and how serious the United States is on the subject, without triggering a public outburst. However, given the fact that Netanyahu is counting on his ability to stir up a public outburst in the United States as a counter to any meaningful measures by Washington, the fact that Washington is minimizing publicity on this may simply convince him that Washington does not have the resolve to go through with it.

There is a second dimension to this. The United States is becoming genuinely concerned about the diffusion of sensitive technology into less- than-friendly hands. Israel is not alone in the re-export game by any means, but it has been aggressive and not particularly scrupulous in selecting its customers. There is little doubt that Israel has worked with China. There are long-standing rumors of Israeli-Iranian cooperation, motivated by their joint fear of Iraq. However, the trigger to all of this may have been the recent Indian nuclear tests, which focused attention on India’s missile delivery systems. There have been strong indications that Israel has cooperated with India in developing this technology. Pakistan has vociferously raised this charge. Given the recent reevaluation of U.S. policy following the failure of U.S. intelligence to anticipate the Indian tests, we wonder whether the decision to sanction Israel was not the result of the intelligence review started after the tests. The review may have turned up proof of Israeli collusion, triggering the response. This latter is, of course, speculation.

This much is not speculation. Israel announced today that it was ordering three West German submarines capable of missile launching. The apparent purpose: to create a missile launch capability more secure than land based systems. The decision to create a strategic missile submarine force is not going to please the United States. Indeed, it will concern the U.S. far more than Netanyahu’s Palestinian policy. The U.S. badly wants to get control of nuclear proliferation and is clearly going to view Israel’s defense policy and its sales policy as a primary culprit. U.S.-Israeli relations are clearly in deep trouble. Undoubtedly, this is being noted with interest in Arab capitals.
 
Old August 24th, 2014 #84
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Israeli Espionage and Illegal Technology Retransfer
Source: Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

Pentagon, GAO Report Israeli Espionage And Illegal Technology Retransfer

by Shawn L. Twing

April 1996, pgs. 14, 113

The new year started off on a sour note for the controversial U.S.-Israeli “strategic relationship” when two reports from the Department of Defense and one from the General Accounting Office (GAO) highlighted Israel’s espionage activities against the United States and Israeli thefts of U.S. military technology secrets, and confirmed that Israel has illegally retransferred U.S. technology from the largely U.S.-funded Lavi fighter program to China.

The first round of revelations began with a report in the February issue of Moment, a Jewish monthly published in Washington, DC. The magazine described a Defense Investigative Service (DIS) warning to U.S. defense contractors about espionage by U.S. allies. One of the counterintelligence profiles provided with the memo detailed Israeli “espionage intentions and capabilities” aimed at the United States (see p. 113 for the full text of the DIS Counterintelligence Profile). The memo was sent to defense contractors last October by the Syracuse, NY-based agency responsible for issuing security clearances to Department of Defense employees and defense contractors.

Shortly after the Moment story appeared, Anti-Defamation League (ADL) executive director Abraham Foxman protested that the profile “impugns American Jews and borders on anti-Semitism” because of its reference to the potential security threat posed by individuals having “strong ethnic ties” to Israel, a euphemism for American Jews.

The Pentagon responded to Foxman by canceling the memo and promising not to issue a similar one in the future. In a letter to Foxman, Assistant Secretary of Defense for military intelligence Emmett Paige, Jr. wrote that, “The content of [the DIS counterintelligence profile] does not reflect the official position of the Department of Defense.” He added that, “We have instructed appropriate personnel that similar documents will not be produced in the future.”

Within days after the DIS warning became public, however, the General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, released a declassified report which also included numerous revelations about espionage against the United States by its allies. The report, “Defense Industrial Security: Weaknesses in U.S. Security Arrangements With Foreign-Owned Defense Contractors,” claimed that “Country A” (publicly identified as Israel in the Feb. 22 Washington Times) “conducts the most aggressive espionage operation against the United States of any U.S. ally.” The list of espionage operations described in the report included the following:

“An espionage operation run by the intelligence organization responsible for collecting scientific and technologic information for [Israel] paid a U.S. government employee to obtain U.S. classified military intelligence documents. [This is a reference to the 1985 arrest of Jonathan Pollard, a civilian U.S. naval intelligence analyst who provided Israel's LAKAM espionage agency an estimated 800,000 pages of classified U.S. intelligence information.]
“Several citizens of [Israel] were caught in the United States stealing sensitive technology used in manufacturing artillery gun tubes.
“Agents of [Israel] allegedly stole design plans for a classified reconnaissance system from a U.S. company and gave them to a defense contractor from [Israel].
“A company from [Israel] is suspected of surreptitiously monitoring a DOD telecommunications system to obtain classified information for [Israeli] intelligence.
“Citizens of [Israel] were investigated for allegations of passing advanced aerospace design technology to unauthorized scientists and researchers.
“[Israel] is suspected of targeting U.S. avionics, missile telemetry and testing data, and aircraft communications systems for intelligence operations.
“It has been determined that [Israel] targeted specialized software that is used to store data in friendly aircraft warning systems.
“[Israel] has targeted information on advanced materials and coatings for collection. An [Israeli] government agency allegedly obtained information regarding a chemical finish used on missile re-entry vehicles from a U.S. person.”
No U.S. Response

The release of the General Accounting Office report makes it clear that Congress is aware of the extent of Israeli espionage in the United States, but so far no public action has been taken by the U.S. government in response.

The third revelation of Israel’s violation of its privileged security relationship with the United States came from the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). Its 36-page report, “Worldwide Challenges to Naval Strike Warfare,” contained the first unclassified confirmation by the U.S. government that Israel has retransferred sensitive U.S. military technology to China. In reference to the Israeli-Chinese military relationship, the report reads, in part: “U.S. technology has been acquired through Israel in the form of the Lavi fighter and possibly [surface-to-air] missile technology.” Prior to the release of the ONI report, U.S. intelligence officials had been unwilling to state publicly what has become an open secret: that Israel violated U.S. law and numerous agreements with the United States by providing China with sensitive U.S. technology that has the potential to threaten U.S. national security interests directly (for a report on Israel’s illegal retransfer of Lavi technology, see the January 1996 Washington Report, p. 12).

Defense and intelligence analysts have speculated that these reports signal the beginning of a new, downgraded chapter in the U.S.-Israeli intelligence and security relationship. One CIA veteran who has served in Tel Aviv told the Washington Report that “the CIA has seen less and less return for its investment with Israeli intelligence of late.” The agent said that “the failure of their entire intelligence apparatus to anticipate the Rabin shooting, in many people’s minds, was probably one of the biggest reasons for us to downgrade our ties with the Israelis.”

Another U.S. government official from the Defense Investigative Service was quoted in the Saudi Gazette as saying that the frank DIS counterintelligence profile of Israel resulted from the fact that “the Pentagon has gone kind of sour on Israel as of late,” because of Israel’s “illegal sale of the Lavi fighter to China and dozens of other spy cases within the U.S. defense industry, which I’m not at liberty to discuss.”

Criticism also has come from other, seemingly unlikely sources. Dov Zakheim and Stephen Bryen are Jewish Americans who held high-level posts in the Pentagon during the Reagan administration (Bryen was undersecretary of defense for trade security policy, and Zakheim was undersecretary of defense for planning and resources). They had much to say about the DIS counterintelligence profile.

In the Feb. 19, 1996 issue of The Jewish Week of Queens, NY, Bryen condemned the profile as “blatant racism,” but admitted that “the biggest problem is primarily Israel’s sale of war materials to countries that may be adverse to our interests, and maybe Israel’s, too.” He concluded that “Israel’s attitude seems to be, we don’t care about thatwe’re just arms merchants.” Bryen’s comments were notable because he is the founder and his wife is executive director of the Washington-based Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), a hard-line lobbying group with ties to Israel’s arms industry.

Zakheim, who currently is president of a security consulting firm in Arlington, VA, told the Israeli financial paper Globes that, in reference to U.S. allegations of Israeli espionage, “It’s obvious that there is a lot of smoke, and Israel does nothing to dispel it. This is not an American problem but an Israeli problem.” He also argued that raising the specter of anti-Semitism in the Pentagon is misguided. “Do you know how many Jews work in the Defense Department?” he asked. “I’d recommend to Israel and the Jewish establishment not to play this card. This can only cause damage.”

WEBMASTERS NOTE: BE SURE TO CHECK OUT THE “JEWS ARM COMMUNIST CHINA” SECTION FOR MORE DETAILS.
 
Old August 24th, 2014 #85
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Israeli Fighter Flies into Storm of Controversy
U.S.-financed Israeli Fighter Flies into Storm of
Controversy

Second in a series By Charles R. Babcock

The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — It was like the unveiling of a monument, a tribute to the growing closeness between Israel and the United States that has evolved during the Reagan administration. The moment — 8:15 p.m. on July 21 — was celebrated with music, sweeping spotlights and stirring speeches.

Then, from a special hangar where engineers and technicians had hustled round the clock for months preparing for this evening, the new Lavi jet fighter was wheeled onto the tarmac at Ben Gurion International Airport near Tel Aviv and introduced to the world.

To the applause of American and Israeli dignitaries, the sleek plane’s virtues were recited: speed, agility, range, the most modern electronic equipment — virtually all of it, every rivet, every microchip, paid out of nearly $2 billion in U.S. aid money earmarked for the plane’s development. Although no mention of it was made that night, Israel is operating on the assumption that the United States will spend billions more on the fighter’s production costs.

This is the story of how the U.S. government came to underwrite a foreign fighter, which could compete with U.S.-built jets for sales in the Third World, and how Congress came to pay for the fighter with such eagerness that it initially provided $150 million more than Israel could spend.

The tale of the Lavi — pronounced LahVEE, the Hebrew word for lion — illustrates many of the ties that bind the United States to Israel.

Like much of the history of U.S. Israeli relations, it is a tale of weapons and money and politics, of personal relationships and persistence.

It also is a tale, one former State Department official said, like the old “story of the stone soup”: Once there was a man with a stone. He offered to provide his stone to cook some soup for a guileless stranger, if the Stranger would provide a pot of water. and some carrots to flavor the stone. And some potatoes. And some onions. And some meat. And seasoning. Before long, the stone had become a beef stew at the stranger’s expense.

The official said he was reminded of the stone soup story as he listened to the Israeli team that first briefed the State Department in late 1981 on its ambitions for the Lavi. As the Israelis laid out their plans, the official said he sensed “general incredulity” among the Americans at the meeting.

They were going to build this airplane, he said “All they needed was American technology and American money.”

Israel’s defense strategy is based on air superiority, on the belief that it must control the’ skies in a geographic region where flying time from Arab capitals is measured in minutes.

Planning for a new airplane to replace the aging Israeli fleet of U.S.-built A-4 Skyhawks and Kfirs, the first generation of Israeli-built fighters, began soon after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, when Israel lost a quarter of its aircraft to Soviet-made surface-to-air missiles.

Israeli air force planners vowed it would not happen again. They went to work on a new plane, whose main role was attacking ground targets. It would incorporate the nation’s unique battle experience and the latest electronic gadgetry to help elude a new generation of Soviet SAMs.

Realizing the country could not afford to build the new fighter without help, the Israelis in late 1977 added the project to Matmon B, their five-year wish list of requests sent to the United States, according to one former U.S. official. Matmon means “treasure” in Hebrew.

Israeli officials said they saw other benefits to the project, too: a way to provide needed jobs, a way to prevent Israel’s aerospace talent from leaving the country for more challenging opportunities abroad, and a catalyst for developing “high-tech” products suitable for export.

Such logic didn’t carry much weight in Washington, however, and the Lavi idea foundered for several years, bereft of powerful patrons. In 1979, the Pentagon officials did give Israel permission to approach a U.S. company about buying an engine, but they blocked other requests for U.S. technology, arguing that Israel would be better off buying more American-made fighters, such as F-15 interceptors and F-16 fighter-bombers. The Defense Department also denied requests for U.S. aid money for the Lavi, saying the aid was intended to buy American products only.

But the Israelis persisted.

“They were asking for everything,” one Pentagon official recalled. “Fly-by-wire technology, the latest electronic counter-measure pods and radar-warning receivers and their logarithms, graphite composite and single-crystal turbine technology.” It was not until spring 1983 that the roadblocks in Washington began to crumble, in part because of changes in Israel’s government. Moshe Arens, an aeronautical engineer, had just replaced Ariel Sharon as Israel’s defense minister and had been one of the original champions of the Lavi project.

Arens, a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the California Institute of Technology, had just finished a tour as Israel’s ambassador here, and he had made friends, including Secretary of State George Shultz. Arens knew he would need allies in the Lavi fight, and one of his first became Rep. Charles Wilson, D-Texas, a key member of the subcommittee responsible for appropriating foreign aid.

In early April, Wilson went to Tel Aviv on a congressional trip and met with Arens. Also present at the meeting was Zvi Rafiah, a former embassy official here, Wilson recalled.

They talked about the Lavi project and Arens asked Wilson, an admirer of Israel and its fighting prowess, to sponsor legislation that would permit U.S. aid to be spent in Israel on the Lavi. Wilson agreed.

“I feel the only chance Israel’s got to be economically viable is through military and high-tech sales,” Wilson said. “They have no natural resources. They have lots of brains, but .you can’t support the economy exporting cello players.”

A few days later, on April 13, 1983, Arens held a seven-hour meeting with about 20 members of the Lavi project team, according to Marvin Klemow, Washington representative for the Lavi’s builder, Israel Aircraft Industries. Klemow flew to Tel Aviv with Dan Halperin, the economics minister at the Israeli embassy in Washington.

Eight months earlier, Klemow had written a memo pointing out the need to make a concerted effort to sell the Lavi to the mid level Pentagon and State Department officials responsible for drafting U.S. policy papers. But at the time, Israel was mired in a war in Lebanon and the memo went unanswered, Klemow said.

Now, Klemow advised Arens to go over the heads of Defense Department officials.

“Our strategy should be that the Pentagon doesn’t exist. This is a political decision. We should go to State: and the White House,” Klemow recalled saying at the meeting.

Halperin said he then suggested that the time was right to call Shultz, Arens’ friend, and ask him to expedite three crucial licenses, which the Pentagon was holding up and which American companies needed to transfer their technological secrets to Israel.

The Americans “hold you in high esteem and want you to succeed,” Halperin recalled telling Arens, as a way of healing the rift in the U.S.-Israel relationship caused by Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and Sharon’s prickly style. Arens made the call and in a few days the first licenses were approved, Halperin said.

By autumn, attention shifted to Congress where Wilson was making good on his pledge to Arens. One night at Charley’s Crab restaurant on Connecticut Avenue here, Wilson bumped into Rafiah, the Israeli business lobbyist, and James Bond, a staff member of the key Senate Appropriations subcommittee controlling foreign aid. They sat together and worked out a plan for an amendment allowing U.S. aid to be spent in Israel for the development of the Lavi.

By Wilson’s account, he then asked the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the influential pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington, to draft the language for the amendment. AIPAC’s lobbyists were surprised by the request and asked Klemow how much money was needed. There was confusion.

“As far as I can remember,” said Oded Eran, who was the Israeli Embassy’s congressional liaison, “the figure came right out of thin air.” But another knowledgeable official said Wilson misunderstood and asked for $150 million more than IAI needed that year.

The amendment earmarked $550 million of that year’s $1.7 billion military aid package to Israel for the Lavi project. Of that, $300 million was to be spent in the United States and $250 million in Israel. “We couldn’t spend it all,” Klemow says.

Nevertheless, a Congress whose members appeared eager to respond positively to Israel’s aid request approved the appropriation with virtually no questions. The only controversy was over who would get credit for it when it passed in November.

“It was like a reverse paternity suit,” Wilson said. “Everyone wanted to be the father of that amendment.”

In contrast to the overwhelming support for the Lavi In Congress, some Reagan administration officials are concerned about where the project is headed.

One senior State Department official said Congress had not addressed the basic question of the Lavi, which is “the appropriateness of developing a foreign fighter offshore.” He said Congress focused on “the aggregate numbers (of how much aid Israel gets) and hasn’t studied the details,” and thus was largely ignorant about the Lavi. Some members of Congress said they had not scrutinized the Lavi because they considered it Israel’s prerogative to determine how its .foreign aid allocation is spent.

A Pentagon official who is skeptical of the Lavi program said, “It boggles the imagination to think that we helped them finance a plane we’ll never use.”

Other countries might use it, however. An IAI marketing document put together in the early 1980s, entitled “Lavi: the Affordable Fighter,” outlined ambitious plans to sell 407 of the jets to such countries as Argentina,, Chile, South Africa and Taiwan.

The Lavi’s export potential doesn’t sit well with some U.S. aerospace companies, which covet the same dwindling market for high performance fighters. As early as 1983, the Northrop Corp, which has invested roughly $1 billion in the F-20 fighter without any U.S. government aid and has yet to sell a single plane, began complaining about the potential competition.

In initial meetings, U.S. officials said, the Israelis assured them that the Lavi was not intended for export. Klemow, the IAI Washington representative, said he was unaware of these assurances. He said Israel hoped to export to the plane, but not until the Israeli air force received its 300, sometime in the late 1990s.

When the first Lavi prototype rolled out of its hangar in July, some speakers mentioned the cost debate. But on that night, as the bands played and the 1,500 guests applauded, such concerns were muted.

Rep. Jack Kemp, R-N.Y., one of five members of Congress who flew to Israel for the event, told the crowd that the Lavi was “a real and visible expression of the partnership of our two democracies.”

Then, noting the American role in developing the plane, he pointed toward the Star of David painted on the fuselage and said: “Save a little room for the Stars and Stripes …”

Getting the money

Late 1977: An idea is born of circumstances. Israel adds Lavi fighter project to five-year U.S. aid wish list.
1979-: Pentagon permits Israel to approach U.S. company about buying an engine, but blocks other requests for U.S. technology. Without patrons, Lavi idea stalls.
Spring 1983: Moshe Arens, a U.S.-educated aeronautical engineer, replaces Ariel Sharon as defense minister. Friends in high places include George Shultz and Rep. Charles Wilson, D Texas, of the House foreign aid subcommittee.
April 1983: Wilson, Arens and business lobbyist Zvi Rafiah visit Tel Aviv. Arens asks Wilson to sponsor bill to permit aid money to be spent in Israel on the Lavi. Wilson agrees.
Autumn 1983: Shultz expedites licenses for American companies to transfer technological secrets to Israel.
Autumn 1984: Wilson, Rafiah and James D. Bond work out an amendment. AIPAC drafts the language. $550 million of that year’s $1.7 billion military aid package goes for the Lavi.
November 1984: Congress approves the appropriation; no questions asked.
TUESDAY: The war over Arab arms sales.
 
Old August 24th, 2014 #86
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Israeli Transferring Laser Technology to China
Source: http://www.israelwire.com/error.html

Washington Times: Israeli Transferring Laser
Technology

(IsraelWire-1/28-14:00-IST) According to an Israel Radio report, the Washington Times of Wednesday accuses Israel of passing laser technology to China and making attempts to obtain US restricted military software. The Times article quotes the United States Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) as the source for the allegations.

The case refers to the $131 million Nautilus program involving Israel and the US. The program, which includes the Tactical High-Energy Laser (THEL) which is being developed, and Israel is optimistic that it will be able to deploy the new system in 1999, as a response to Katyusha rocket attacks in the north.

The Times report alleges that an employee of the US-based “TRW” saw Chinese scientists working in the Israel Aircraft Industry facility sometime in 1997. The American employee was instructed not to mention the presence of the Chinese in the facility. It was later suspected that the Chinese were working on the THEL system, and later raised the issue at an international symposium on lasers.

Israel is reportedly working to obtain classified software, which would enable the new laser system to overcome its inability to deal with Katyusha rocket attacks. Spokespersons for Raphael and IAI denied the report, and insist no technology was being transferred to the Chinese illegally.
 
Old August 24th, 2014 #87
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Israel's Retransfer of US Technology Exposed
Israel’s Unauthorized Retransfer of U.S. Technology
Exposed

By Shawn L. Twing

SEPTEMBER 1995, PAGES 8, 100

Although allegations have been made on numerous occasions linking Israel to the illegal re-export of U.S.-origin defense and dual-use technology, there never has been an independently prepared, comprehensive and systematic analysis of the phenomenon available to the general public–until now.

“Israel’s Unauthorized Arms Transfers,” by Duncan Clarke, appearing in the summer issue of Foreign Policy quarterly, demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that some American defense technology received by Israel has been retransferred to other countries, some of which are potentially hostile to the United States, in direct contravention of U.S. law. Clarke, a professor of international relations at American University in Washington, DC, maintains that these retransfers “have threatened American commercial interests, compromised intelligence, upset regional stability, strained diplomatic relations, and confirmed the U.S. national security bureaucracy’s long-standing distrust of Israeli technology transfer practices.”

In order to understand the magnitude of Israel’s retransfer of U.S. technology, it is important to consider four factors. First, Israel receives the largest sum of annual U.S. security assistance, $1.8 billion per year, and has access to much of the most sensitive U.S. technology. Second, Israeli defense firms which, according to Clarke, often re-export with the Israeli government’s approval, retransfer U.S. technology to countries to which the United States will not sell (e.g., pre-Mandela South Africa) or who are potential adversaries of the United States (e.g., China). Third, Israel’s defense industry produces nearly identical versions of U.S.-origin equipment which it then sells on the world market in direct competition with U.S. defense firms. Finally, the complaints made by U.S. officials responsible for safeguarding America’s technological secrets fall on deaf ears in Congress, where domestic political maneuvering takes precedence over protecting American national security and commercial interests.

Israel’s annual security assistance budget from the United States helps subsidize the Israeli defense industry, making it heavily dependent on the U.S. for its economic survival. The 1995 Foreign Assistance Act, for example, stipulates that Israel receive no less than $625 million in U.S. taxpayer grant money in 1995 to research, develop and procure “advanced weapons systems” and “defense articles” in the United States and in Israel. This subsidy, combined with Israel’s willingness to re-export U.S. defense technology, gives Israeli defense companies a substantial edge over potential competitors, including defense companies in the United States. By heavily subsidizing the research side of the development process, providing what are effectively working prototypes from which the Israeli firms can build, and allowing Israel to retransfer sensitive technology, the United States government has increased Israel’s ability to compete in the international market exponentially.

Perhaps the worst aspect of Israel’s contravention of U.S. export law involves the end recipients of U.S. technology. South Africa and China, the “principal recipients of unauthorized Israeli re-exports of U.S.-origin defense technology,” according to Clarke, have received substantial amounts of sensitive U.S. technology from Israel. South Africa has acquired anti-tank missiles, aircraft engines, armored personnel carriers and recoilless rifles. China has obtained thermal imaging tank sights, air-to-air missile technology, assistance with “new generation” fighter aircraft (based partly on the largely U.S.-funded Israeli Lavi fighter) and even Patriot missile technology. Not only is most of the evidence for these allegations based on information deemed “reliable” by “virtually all policy and intelligence officials who follow technology transfer issues,” it was partially substantiated with physical evidence when, ironically, U.S.-origin technology was found in captured Iraqi tank sights that had been re-exported from Israel to China, and then to Iraq.

Hard Evidence

In an interview with the Washington Report, Dr. Clarke made it clear that normally such hard evidence of retransfers is nearly impossible to find. However, the massive loss of Iraq’s military equipment during the Gulf war made it possible for U.S. military inspectors to get possession of the gun sights. (An earlier piece of tangible evidence linking Israel to illegal retransfers involved U.S. cluster bombs which Israel sold to Ethiopia. They were found in Sudan.)

The retransfer of Patriot missile technology is another example of alleged Israeli actions that directly threaten U.S. security interests. If the Patriot, which is a ground-to-air missile designed to intercept and destroy incoming tactical missiles, was retransferred to China, “this would have enabled China to modify its M-9 and M-11 ballistic missiles to prevent U.S. systems from intercepting them,” thus eliminating one of America’s crucial lines of defense against attack from a theater missile delivery system. Although there has been a lengthy dispute over the credibility of the evidence suggesting Israel’s role in the retransfer of Patriot technology (which Clarke discusses in detail), it appears that at the very least Israel gave China “technical data” about the Patriot which it could have used to modify its ballistic missiles.

Another issue relating to Israel’s retransfer of U.S. technology is the virtual duplication of U.S. defense products or the incorporation of significant amounts of U.S.-origin technology in Israeli-made defense items by Israeli firms, which then are sold on the international market in competition with the original American products, or sold to countries to which the United States is unwilling to sell either because they are potential threats to the U.S. or because of their human rights record. Among the examples Clarke cites are the Israeli-made Python-3 air-to-air missile (based largely on the U.S.-made AIM-9L Sidewinder); Israel’s Popeye air-to-ground missile, which is “virtually identical” to the HAVE-NAP missile made by the U.S. firm Martin-Marietta; the STAR cruise missile that the “CIA believed Israel was marketing [to] China”; and the U.S.-funded, Israeli-made Arrow anti-tactical ballistic missile, “which is unofficially opposed by the U.S. Army, many at Defense, the intelligence community, ACDA (Arms Control and Disarmament Agency), and some offices in State.” All of these are examples in Clarke’s article of how U.S. taxpayers subsidize the Israeli defense industry, which then competes unfairly with U.S. companies, eventually costing American jobs. Whatever their motives, Israeli defense firms, with Israeli governmental approval, frequently ignore U.S. re-export laws as well as American national security concerns, and continue to sell advanced American weaponry to whomever they please with little or no reaction from the U.S. government.

A “Black Hole”

With a situation as frustrating as this one, it is easy to apply the blame for inaction on the U.S. government as a whole. However, many individuals within the executive branch who bear the responsibility for monitoring technology retransfer are working hard to discover and document the violations and report them to Congress. At least nine reports describing Israeli violations have been sent to Congress, two of them in January of this year. Unfortunately, none has had any effect. Instead, Clarke reports, the strength of the pro-Israel lobby on Capitol Hill creates what one observer calls a “black hole” into which all of these reports fall because of the belief among members of Congress that taking a strong, critical stand toward Israel’s misbehavior “could harm them politically.”

Nor, apparently, is relief in sight. Part of Israel’s reward for signing the 1993 Declaration of Principles with the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) has been the creation of two U.S. governmental groups “to facilitate technology flow.” Their activities, if history is an accurate indicator, may more than offset the efforts of U.S. defense experts to protect America’s military and commercial secrets by increasing the opportunities for more illegal retransfers of U.S. military and dual-use technology to third parties.

Further, the Clinton administration has been extremely lax in its handling of Israel’s violations of U.S. law, and in fact has effectively rewarded the Israelis for their misbehavior by relaxing curbs on the transfer of sensitive technology to Israel, despite the fact that Israel violates U.S. defense re-export laws more frequently and with more sensitive technology than any other country. Overall, it appears Israel’s persistent abuse of its special relationship with Washington will continue into the foreseeable future. Israeli officials are pursuing short-term financial gains. American officials are concerned about domestic political repercussions. Both, it seems, are ignoring long-term security concerns.

Shawn L. Twing is the news editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.
 
Old August 24th, 2014 #88
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Jew Acts as America's Asia Point Man
Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index

AMERICA’S ASIA POINT MAN
Roth defends APEC, engagement and Al Gore

Asia Week, 02/19/99 Editor Ann Morrison and Senior Correspondent Alejandro Reyes

AMONG THE LARGE U.S. delegation attending the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in the Swiss enclave of Davos earlier this month was Assistant Secretary of State Stanley Roth, Washington’s point man for East Asia. Roth, who turns 45 in March, has worked on regional issues for nearly two decades and has served in his current post since 1997. After his trip to Europe, Roth traveled to Jakarta, where he met with a range of government officials and opposition leaders. In Davos, Roth spoke with Editor Ann Morrison and Senior Correspondent Alejandro Reyes about U.S. policy in Asia. Excerpts:

How do you see the China-Taiwan situation?

The fact that high-level cross-strait talks have resumed is encouraging. Nevertheless, the question remains as to the basis for resolving the issues. Obviously this is between the two parties. The U.S. has absolutely no desire to be an intermediary, broker or negotiator. We are absolutely determined to see this issue resolved peacefully. That is the very core of U.S. policy.

The Spratlys dispute has flared up again between Beijing and Manila.

It’s important not to overstate the situation, while at the same time not to underestimate the need to get some resolution. There has been a lot of publicity recently which might suggest that freedom of navigation is at risk because of new construction by China at Mischief Reef. In fact, [the building] is in no way a fundamental threat to security. The fact is the U.S. Navy transits the region all the time. It is disappointing that China chose to build. It appears to be at odds with commitments they have given the Philippines previously and certainly with the notion of resolving by peaceful means the many disputed claims.

What is your reading on Indonesia in the run-up to the June elections?

All indicators are that the government intends to have an election. From our talks with the government and military, there is total recognition of the importance of the elections – the fact that the government has to be perceived as legitimate and the fact that this is important both internally and also for relations with the outside world. The [recent] passage of electoral laws was a demonstration that the stage was being set for an election in which the opposition could compete. I’ve heard no allegations that the laws were in any way designed to cook the books in favor of the government. The army has said that it will remain neutral. Our hope is for as violence-free an election as possible. But the question is whether there is a government-led or military-led attempt to disrupt the election. We see no evidence of that whatsoever.

Are the region’s institutions in trouble?

There have been some challenges as countries cope with severe economic challenges and turn inward. There was much less progress in regional meetings than in prior years. But that is very different from saying that the survival of these institutions is at risk or that they don’t have the potential to resume their productive roles. Improvement in the Asian financial situation should enable us to see more progress in these institutions. It is way premature to start ringing the death knell.

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad is still pushing for a separate East Asian caucus.

The whole issue is dead. There is broad recognition, particularly after the financial crisis, of the absolutely essential role of the U.S. in managing this issue. A lot of Malaysia’s difficulties at APEC related to Malaysian policies. APEC promotes trade and investment liberalization. Unfortunately, Malaysia turned away from that path – temporarily, according to them. Consequently, [as last year's APEC chair] it was awkward for them to push a vigorous agenda. I hope that Malaysia will rejoin the mainstream, but I would not see APEC as fundamentally flawed.

What about U.S. Vice President Al Gore’s speech in Kuala Lumpur?

The vice president gave a rather profound speech trying to discuss the correlation of good governance, transparency, the opening up of economies, pluralism and democracy with economic performance. The record in Asia strongly supports his position. As countries open up, their economic performance increases. This was not a call for revolution in the streets. The intention was merely to suggest that the reform movement in Malaysia is quite similar to others we have seen in the region and that the desire to seek change in Malaysia itself should help on the economic side.

Is there consensus in the U.S. about engagement in Asia?

In fact, isolationist pressures have probably diminished because of trade. The concern may be more justified in the willingness to support foreign aid. But there is no serious movement to bring U.S. troops home from Asia. The region does not need to be nearly as anxious as it is about our staying power.

Could that be undone by difficulties with China over human rights and a growing trade deficit?

The exchange of state visits [in 1997 and 1998] helped to educate the American public. There is no shortage of difficult issues. But what we are talking about is a key bilateral relationship that will have an awful lot to do with whether we have peace and stability in the next century. Obviously there is a lot of criticism of China, which has been increasing recently because of what is perceived to be backward motion on human rights and a growing trade deficit. The answer to that is not to break or change the policy of engagement but rather to achieve progress in specific areas.
 
Old August 24th, 2014 #89
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Jews Happily Trade US Security for Profits
The Great Wall:
Hollywood’s Push for China Trade

In what may turn out to be this year’s most contentious lobbying battle, the highly-anticipated push to permanently grant normal trade relations with China has already sparked a showdown between the nation’s top business interests and labor unions. But those aren’t the only powerful interests looking to influence the landmark trade deal, which congressional leaders and the White House have pledged to bring to a vote before Memorial Day.

The entertainment industry –- which accounted for nearly $10 million in soft money, PAC and individual contributions in 1999 –- also has thrown its hat into the ring, with some of Hollywood’s top executives forming an alliance to lobby in favor of the controversial measure.

The China Trade Relations Committee, organized by the Motion Picture Association of America, includes moguls such as Michael Eisner of the Walt Disney Co., Edgar Bronfman of Joseph E. Seagram & Sons (parent company of Universal Studios, Interscope Records and other media outfits), Sumner Redstone of Viacom Inc. and Gerald Levin of Time Warner.

The group, which will be headed by MPAA lobbyist Jack Valenti, was formed to “persuade Congress to approve” the China trade bill. In a statement, Valenti says he and the other committee members believe it’s in the “long-term interests of our country that we put in place a sensible, enduring relationship with the largest nation on earth.”

In a nutshell, Hollywood sees its chance to gain greater access to China’s largely untapped media market, which currently limits how many U.S. films can be shown in that country. Until recently, China, under Communist rule, was openly hostile to Hollywood, viewing its films as western propaganda. But in 1995, after lobbying from the MPAA and President Clinton, China approved a measure allowing 10 U.S. films to be distributed in that country each year.

Recently, China, in its negotiations to join the World Trade Organization, agreed to double the number of imported U.S. films to 20, while also pledging to open its markets to other American goods, including music. American record companies, which for years have waged campaigns against China’s rampant violations of international copyright laws, would be permitted to establish operations in the country, should the trade measure be approved. That means Hollywood, like other U.S. businesses, could earn millions in additional revenue from its entry into the Chinese market.

The importance of this legislation to Hollywood likely is reflected in the number of high-profile executives who have signed onto the MPAA China Trade Relations Committee. All told, the eight companies that boast members on the committee contributed nearly $2.8 million in soft money, PAC and individual contributions to federal parties and candidates in 1999. Sixty percent of the contributions went to Democrats, the party that seems to be most divided on the China trade issue.


MPAA China Trade Relations Committee Members
Soft Money, PAC & Individual Contributions, 1999*
Organization Committee Members Total Dems Repubs
Time Warner Gerald Levin, Barry Meyer, Alan Horn $668,895 $474,325 $193,320
Joseph E Seagram & Sons Edgar Bronfman, Jr. Ron Meyer $556,129 $373,600 $182,529
Walt Disney Co Michael Eisner, Sandy Litvack $518,227 $297,566 $215,661
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Alex Yemenidjian, Chris McGurk $365,587 $164,750 $200,837
Viacom Inc Sumner Redstone, Jonathan Dolgen, Sherry Lansing, Bill Bernstein $325,811 $215,384 $110,177
News Corp Rupert Murdoch, Peter Chernin, Chase Carey, Bill Mechanic $155,875 $54,375 $101,500
Sony Corp of America John Calley, Mel Harris, Robert Wynne $135,940 $59,450 $75,990
Motion Picture Assn of America Jack Valenti $62,786 $31,553 $31,233


Top Senate Recipients of MPAA Committee
Member PAC & Individual Contributions, 1999*
Rank Name Total
1 John McCain (R-Ariz) $116,812
2 Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass) $50,750
3 Bob Kerrey (D-Neb) $31,803
4 Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) $25,250
5 Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) $22,338
6 Spencer Abraham (R-Mich) $13,500
7 Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) $9,662
8 Charles S. Robb (D-Va) $9,000
9 Kent Conrad (D-ND) $8,000
9 Conrad Burns (R-Mont) $8,000
10 Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC) $7,500


Top House Recipients of MPAA Committee
Member PAC & Individual Contributions, 1999*
Rank Name Total
1 Howard L. Berman (D-Calif) $52,000
2 James E. Rogan (R-Calif) $18,066
3 W. J. “Billy” Tauzin (R-La) $14,577
4 Rick A. Lazio (R-NY) $10,442
5 Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) $10,000
6 Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) $9,746
7 Bill McCollum (R-Fla) $9,741
8 Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Calif) $9,638
9 Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio) $9,500
10 Bart Gordon (D-Tenn) $8,500
10 Edward J. Markey (D-Mass) $8,500
*Based on FEC data downloaded 3/1/00.
 
Old August 24th, 2014 #90
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Long Battle Against Israels Transfers to China
U.S. Had to Wage Long Battle Against Israel’s Technology Transfers to China

By Donald Neff

June/July 1997, pgs. 70-72

It was seven years ago, on June 13, 1990, that the Los Angeles Times reported Israel had become the largest supplier of advanced military technology to China since the United States banned military sales in the wake of the Chinese suppression of the democracy movement a year earlier. An unnamed U.S. official told the newspaper that Israel was a “back door to U.S. technology that the United States won’t sell them.”1

The meaning was that Israel was not only breaching America’s embargo, but selling to China technology that the United States had given to it for the Jewish state’s own defense. With the technology came restrictions that Israel would not re-export. What was especially interesting about the Times account was that it cited anonymous U.S. sources. There had been stories over the past decade about the growing Sino-Israeli relationship but few, if any, came from recognizable U.S. sources, who usually hesitated to criticize Israel, even anonymously.

The story was a strong indicator that Israel’s relations with China had grown so massive and intimate that they were becoming too close for comfort for the administration of President George Bush. This was particularly so at a time when China was under worldwide criticism for its antidemocracy policy. Washington was especially loud in its condemnation of China.

Nonetheless, Israel was not deterred. Shortly before the Times report, Israel, which had no official diplomatic relations with China, opened an office of the Israeli Academy of Sciences in Beijing. It was no doubt that blatant act that caused U.S. officials to begin leaking information. The Times’ source said Israel’s supposedly academic office in Beijing was actually “facilitating a whole range of military-to-military cooperation between Israel and China.”

The newspaper said intelligence experts in the West and Asia believed Israel in recent years had provided China with some of the advanced technology needed to modernize China’s jet planes and missiles. It said U.S. officials had told Israel they strongly opposed the military cooperation because it undercut the intended effect of U.S. sanctions against China. “This is over our objections,” a senior administration official told the newspaper. U.S. officials insisted that Israel was not operating as a proxy for the United States in the military sales, as it did when it supplied arms to Iran during the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages affair.

The story had no discernible impact on Israel, perhaps because the administration had decided to take a low-profile approach by leaking it to a West Coast newspaper rather than The New York Times or Washington Post. Over the next few years an undeclared battle raged as Washington, in its frustration, became increasingly aggressive in its criticism and Israel went on blithely selling arms technology to China and upgrading relations between the two countries.

The U.S. had more than enough evidence to convict Israel, if it had the political will to do so.

A year after the Times report, in June 1991, China and Israel signed a bilateral agreement on scientific cooperation, the only area in which they had official relations. Israel was represented in Beijing by a liaison officer of its Academy of Science office in Beijing.2

On Nov. 20, 1991, the East Coast press finally caught up with the story. Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens was reported to have made a secret official visit to China in early November, the first Israeli minister to visit China. The four-day visit gave an unprecedented boost to the rapidly growing relations.3 By the end of 1991, China’s Deputy Foreign Minister Yang Fuchang visited Israel, the highest Chinese official to do so.4

How fast Sino-Israeli relations were increasing became apparent on Jan. 24, 1992, when China and Israel established formal diplomatic relations in ceremonies in Beijing. The occasion was attended by Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen and Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy.5

The Sino-Israeli relationship was a strange one. China traditionally favored the Arabs in the Arab-Israel conflict, and just the day before the establishment of full relations, Chinese spokesman Wu Jianmin said: “It has been China’s consistent position that the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people should be restored, the Arabs’ occupied territories should be returned, and the sovereignty and security of all the Middle East countries, including Israel, should be guaranteed and respected.”6 Moreover, while Israel based its pleas for enormous amounts of U.S. aid on the danger from Arab countries, its selling of weapons technology to China was indirectly helping strengthen the Arabs because China was a major supplier of missiles to Iran and such Arab countries as Saudi Arabia and Syria.7

Stepped-Up Leaks

In an obvious effort to dampen the burgeoning Sino-Israeli relationship, U.S. officials stepped up their leaks. Unnamed officials revealed in early March 1992 that there was “overwhelming” evidence of Israel’s cheating on written promises not to re-export U.S. weapons technology to Third World countries, including China.8 They added there was well-founded suspicion that Israel was also selling secrets of America’s vaunted Patriot anti-missile missile to China.9 The issue was so serious that a U.S. team of experts was dispatched to Israel in late March but it failed to find any proof of Israeli cheating. The State Department said on April 2 that “the Israeli government has a clean bill of health on the Patriot issue.”10

But there was clearly disagreement in the government. Defense Secretary Dick Cheney said there remained “good reason” to believe a diversion had taken place.11 CIA Director Robert Gates agreed, saying, “There is some indication that they [the Chinese] have some of the [Patriot] technology.”12

About the same time a study by the Pentagon-supported think tank RAND Corp. became public with the conclusion that Israel had become “China’s leading foreign supplier of advanced technology.” It said there had been reports that Israel had helped China develop the HQ-61 surface-to-air missile, the CSS-2 intermediate missile, the PL-8 air-to-air and surface-to-air missile as well as advanced armor for battle tanks and an air-borne early warning radar system. It added Israel was currently cooperating with China to develop an advanced fighter jet.13

These disclosures were followed by a major report in The Wall Street Journal that significantly broadened the scope of the charges. It mentioned illegal Israeli re-exports of an array of technology to a number of countries beyond China, including Chile, Ethiopia, South Africa and Thailand. The story said there was “no doubt in the U.S. intelligence community that Israel has repeatedly engaged in diversion schemes.”14 The Washington Post joined the fray by adding that one official said there were “lots and lots of clear-cut cases.” The clear impression was that the U.S. had more than enough evidence to convict Israel, if it had the political will to do so.15

The leaks by unnamed but official sources came just days before Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens was due to meet on March 16, 1992, in Washington with his counterpart, Dick Cheney. Arens’ initial public reaction was outrage: “There is not a grain of truth. No truth in it at all.” But as the volume of charges grew, his statements changed to questioning the motives of the leakers: “The real story is who are these unnamed individuals who are floating these malicious rumors?”16 Defense Secretary Cheney and his spokesmen declined any comment.17

Israel was hit with another major blow on April 1, 1992, when the State Department released a report by its inspector general charging that a “major recipient” of U.S. military aid was engaged in a “systematic and growing pattern” of selling secret U.S. technology in violation of U.S. law. The public report did not directly name Israel, but officials left no doubt that it was the subject of the report. The report said Israel’s violations began about 1983 and that Israel sought to conceal the violations. A secret version of the report allegedly identified Chile, China, Ethiopia and South Africa as among the recipients of Israel’s sales.18

State Department Inspector General Sherman M. Funk said he notified Secretary of State James A. Baker III about intelligence reports of Israel’s violations in June 1991 and that new procedures to prevent future violations were then put in force under an operation called Blue Lantern. Funk said U.S. officials previously had depended on verbal assurances from Israel that it was not retransferring, adding that such assurances from Israel “are not an effective mechanism for providing end-use verification. We identified instances where U.S. items and technology were retransferred or were used in violation of the assurances.”

He added that he had recommended that Israel be forced to repay the money illicitly earned from the transfers but Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger rejected the proposal as being an impossible chore. Eagleburger was a protŽgŽ of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and a strong supporter of Israel.

The succession of charges sent a shockwave through Israel, as they no doubt were intended to, because the subject went to the heart of the economic prosperity of the Jewish state. Arms sales of around $1.5 billion annually accounted for 40 percent of Israel’s exports and were based almost entirely on U.S. technology.19

A Revealing Study

The background on how Israel became so advanced in technology was revealed in a study by the General Accounting Office.20 They began in 1970 with the signing of an important and far-reaching Master Defense Development Data Exchange Agreement that provided for the greatest transfer of technology to Israel, or any other country, ever undertaken. Transfer of U.S. technology was provided by what was known as Technical Data Packages, the entire complex of blueprints, plans and types of materials required to actually construct new weapons.

More than 120 such packages were given to Israel over the next eight years, according to a 1979 study by the official Middle East Arms Transfer Panel.21 Such a massive infusion of technology provided a boon to Israel’s economy. By 1981, Israel had emerged from being a technologically backward arms importer to the seventh largest exporter of military weapons in the world, with overseas sales of $1.3 billion.22

An Israeli writer observed, “The Americans have made virtually all their most advanced weaponry and technology, meaning the best fighter aircraft, missiles, radar, armor, and artillery, available to Israel. Israel, in turn, has utilized this knowledge, adapting American equipment to increase its own technological sophistication, reflected tangibly in Israeli defense offerings.”23

Despite the number of reports over the years that Israel was illicitly profiting from U.S. technology at the cost of American companies and U.S. security, Washington continued providing ever-increasing amounts of technology to Israel. According to a report in 1992, there were 322 separate cooperative U.S.-Israeli ventures at that time, valued at $2.9 billion. In addition, there were 49 country-to-country programs involving Israel in co-development or co-production and research with the United States, and there existed 36 active data exchange agreements and 11 new proposed accords. The report concluded: “The magnitude of existing cooperative efforts with Israel is extensive and growing rapidly.”24 Despite that magnitude, when Bill Clinton became president in 1993 he promised to lift the “technological barrier” by granting Israel even more sophisticated technology.25

Meanwhile Sino-Israeli relations flourished. Israeli President Chaim Herzog visited China between Dec. 24 and 30, 1992. In January 1993, with the administration of President Bill Clinton taking over in Washington, Israel and China signed a contract permitting Israel to buy Chinese coal. On Feb. 14, 1993, the two countries signed a scientific agreement for joint research projects in electronics, medical technology, renewable energy, agriculture and civilian uses of space technology.26

On Oct. 12, 1993, the CIA added its weight to the controversy by revealing to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee that Israel had been selling advanced military technology to China for more than a decade. Central Intelligence Director R. James Woolsey estimated that the trade “may be several billion dollars.” Woolsey added: “Building on a long history of close defense industrial relations, including work on China’s next-generation fighter, air-to-air missiles and tank programs, and the establishment of diplomatic relations in January 1992, China and Israel appear to be moving toward formalizing and broadening their military technical cooperation.”27

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin denied that the trade reached billions of dollars, adding that the figure for 1992 was about $60 million. “All these stories of billions of dollars of arms business in the past 10 years are total nonsense,” he said. “We have made it clear time and again that we have never done a thing against American law…never transmitted items of technology that we got from the United States. We are not stupid enough” to endanger Israel’s annual $3 billion in U.S. aid. He issued his statement in Beijing, where he was on an official four-day visit, the first public visit by Israel’s prime minister.28

The CIA said that new indications of stronger Sino-Israeli ties were the opening of a number of Israeli military sales offices in China, the Feb. 14, 1993 signing by the two countries of an agreement to share technology, and the current visit to Beijing of Rabin. The report stated: “We believe the Chinese seek from Israel advanced military technologies that the U.S. and Western firms are unwilling to provide. Beijing probably hopes to tap Israeli expertise for cooperative development of military technologies, such as advanced tank power plants and airborne radar systems, that the Chinese would have difficulty producing on their own.”29

In 1994, another serious report documented Israel’s sales to China. Professor Duncan L. Clarke of The American University in Washington, DC reported in a study: “For years, Israel had violated the Arms Export Control Act and related executive agreements.30 Israel has employed U.S. weaponry contrary to U.S. law and policy, incorporated U.S. technology into Israeli weapons systems without prior approval, and made improper transfers of U.S. missile and other defense systems and technologies to other countries, including Chile, China, and South Africa.”31

The issue climaxed in early 1995 with yet another series of media reports on Israel’s China trade. These led to official denials by Israel. David Ivri, the director-general of the Israeli Defense Ministry, admitted on Jan. 3 that Israel had sold China “some technology on aircraft” but added that it was not U.S. technology and that the contracts were “very small in magnitude.”32

State Department spokesperson Michael McCurry said the next day that “those types of reports concern us very much….This has been an item on our agenda for some time….This has been going around for some time.” He said Undersecretary of State for International Security Lynn E. Davis had had “substantive discussions with the government of Israel on a range of these types of issues.” McCurry added that he was unaware of any authorization being given to Israel to share any U.S. technology with China.33

On Jan. 6, Aded Ben-Ami, the spokesperson for Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, again denied that Israel had illegally transferred any U.S. technology to China. “Israel did not transfer any American technology or American components to China,” he said.34 Two days later Defense Secretary William Perry discussed the issue with Prime Minister Rabin in Jerusalem, but the Israeli leader again denied any U.S. technology was involved.35

Then, suddenly, the issue disappeared from the public eye.

The controversy had visibly begun in 1990 with anonymous leaks and had grown into official charges by the United States, culminating at the beginning of 1995 with serious discussions between the two countries at the highest levels. After Perry’s meeting with Rabin, the subject dropped from public sight. Whatever action, if any, was taken was not announced. But that was not uncommon. Washington would not want to embarrass its “most reliable” Middle East ally.

RECOMMENDED READING:

Black, Ian, and Benny Morris, Israel’s Secret Wars: A History of Israel’s Intelligence Service, New York, Grove Weidenfeld, 1991.

Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin, The Israeli Connection, New York, Pantheon Books, 1987.

Brecher, Michael, Decisions in Israel’s Foreign Policy, London, Oxford University Press, 1974.

*Cockburn, Andrew and Leslie, Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship, New York, HarperCollins Publishers, 1991.

El-Khawas, Mohammed and Samir Abed-Rabbo, American Aid to Israel: Nature and Impact, Brattleboro, VT, Amana Books, 1984.

*Findley, Paul, Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts about the U.S.-Israeli Relationship, Brooklyn, NY, Lawrence Hill Books, 1993.

*Hersh, Seymour M., The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, New York, Random House, 1991.

Klieman, Aaron S., Israel’s Global Reach: Arms Sales and Diplomacy, Washington, DC, Pergamon-Brassey’s, 1985.

*Ostrovsky, Victor and Claire Hoy, By Way of Deception, New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1990.

*Raviv, Dan and Yossi Melman, Every Spy a Prince: The Complete History of Israel’s Intelligence Community, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1990.

*Available from the AETBook Club.

FOOTNOTES

1United Press International, #0543, 6/13/90.

2Jackson Diehl, Washington Post, 11/20/91. Also see Israeli Foreign Affairs, “Defense Minister Arens Visited China,”Vol. VII, No. 10-11 (Special Double Issue), 12/16/91.

3Jackson Diehl, Washington Post, 11/20/91; Clyde Haberman, New York Times, 1/9/92.

4Clyde Haberman, New York Times, 1/9/92.

5Lena H. Sun, Washington Post, 1/25/92. A discussion of early Sino-Israeli relations is in Brecher, Decisions in Israel’s Foreign Policy, pp. 111-172. For more recent relations, see Beit-Hallahmi, The Israeli Connection, pp. 36-37.

6New York Times, 1/24/92.

7Richard A. Bitzinger, “Chinese Arms Production and Sales to the Third World,” RAND Corp., 1991.

8Edward T. Pound, Wall Street Journal, 3/13/92; David Hoffman and R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, 3/14/92. For a survey of U.S. support of Israel’s arms industry, see Bishara A. Bahbah, “The US Role in Israel’s Arms Industry,” The Link, Vol. 20, No. 5, December 1987.

9Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, 3/12-13/92.

10David Hoffman, Washington Post, 4/3/92.

11Bill Gertz, Washington Times, 4/9/92.

12Bill Gertz, Washington Times, 1/5/93.

13Richard A. Bitzinger, “Chinese Arms Production and Sales to the Third World,” RAND Corp., 1991.

14Edward T. Pound, Wall Street Journal, 3/13/92.

15David Hoffman and R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, 3/14/92.

16Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, 3/15/92.

17Eric Schmidt, New York Times, 3/17/92.

18David Hoffman, Washington Post, 4/2/92.

19Cockburns, Dangerous Liaison, p. 7.

20See “U.S.Assistance to the State of Israel, Report by the Comptroller General of the United States,”GAO/ID-83-51, June 24, 1983, U.S. Accounting Office. The report was up to 1983 the most comprehensive survey ever made of the extraordinary special arrangements provided for Israel’s profit. When it was released, the report was heavily censored, but uncensored versions quickly leaked to such organizations as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. An uncensored early draft of the report can be found in El-Khawas and Abeh-Rabbo, American Aid to Israel, pp. 114-91.

2!Middle East Arms Transfer Panel, “Review of Israel’s Military Requirements, 1979-84″; prepared in 8/79; secret.

22Drew Middleton, New York Times, 3/15/81. For a report on the state of Israel’s arms industry in 1986, see Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, 12/7/86.

23Kleiman, Israel’s Global Reach, p. 175.

24Near East Report, 2/10/92.

25Clinton press conference, C-SPAN, 11/12/93; Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, 11/13/93.

26Israeli Foreign Affairs, 2/26/93.

27Michael R. Gordon, New York Times, 10/13/93.

28Patrick E. Tyler, New York Times, 10/14/93.

29Bill Gertz, Washington Times, 10/13/93; Michael R. Gordon, New York Times, 10/13/93.

30The act, PL 94-329, requires that no defense article or service shall be transferred by the U.S. to a foreign country unless that country agrees not to transfer the article to a third country or use it for purposes other than those for which it was furnished, without prior approval of the U.S.

31Duncan L. Clarke, “The Arrow Missile:The United States, Israel and Strategic Cooperation,” Middle East Journal, Summer 1994, pp. 483-84.

32Associated Press, Washington Times, 1/4/95.

33Ibid., 1/5/95.

34Washington Times, 1/7/95.

35Associated Press, Washington Times, 1/9/95.
 
Old August 24th, 2014 #91
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Look Who's Arming China
Source: Creators Syndicate (http://www.creators.com)

Look Who’s Arming China
Pat Buchanan January 29, 1999

“China’s army conducted a military exercise last month with simulated missile firings against Taiwan and also for the first time conducted mock attacks on U.S. troops in the region … “

That was the jolting lead of a Jan. 26 story by Bill Gertz of The Washington Times. With those mock attacks, China is sending a message: We will collar Taiwan and drag the renegade province back to the embrace of the Motherland, even if it means war with America.

In 1996, Bill Clinton sent two carrier battle groups to respond to China’s menacing of Taiwan. The confrontation dissolved. By practicing with silo-housed missiles, and targeting U.S. troops in Korea, in Japan and on Okinawa, China is saying: Next time, we do not back down.

China’s imperial intentions are clear: Seize all the disputed islands off Asia’s coast, especially the Spratlys. Build up nuclear and conventional missile forces to deter America. Put China at the center of a Beijing-Moscow-Teheran axis to overturn U.S. hegemony in Asia.

Indispensable to the modernization of China’s war arsenal are three collaborators — Israel, Russia and the U.S.A.

“The Defense Intelligence Agency suspects Israel shared with China restricted U.S. weapons technology obtained during a joint U.S.-Israeli effort to build a battlefield laser gun,” writes Gertz on Jan. 27. U.S. employees have twice “spotted Chinese technicians working secretly with one of the Israeli companies involved in the laser weapon program.” A Chinese official in Israel exhibited hard knowledge of the super-secret program to build lasers to shoot down the Katyusha rockets used by Hezbollah on Israeli towns.

Israel has been charged before with betraying vital U.S. secrets. In 1992, The Washington Times reported Israel had given Beijing the secret technology of the U.S. Patriot missile. A U.S. investigation found that, while Beijing had acquired the secrets of the Patriot, it could not say for sure who gave them up.

According to Richard Fisher of the Heritage Foundation, Russia and Israel have teamed up to build China an AWACS system, using Israel’s Phalcon radar.

Arms expert Duncan Clarke wrote in the July 22 Christian Science Monitor that Israel has used “U.S. technology to assist China in developing its next fighter aircraft — the J-10 — airborne radar systems, tank programs and a variety of missiles. Over vigorous Pentagon objections, Israel has apparently transferred to China the most lethal air-to-air missile in the world: the Python 4. This system employs an advanced helmet-mounted sight, developed together by American and Israeli firms.”

China’s J-10 is based on the Lavi, an Israeli plane subsidized with $1.4 billion in U.S. tax dollars. As ominous, writes Clarke, is “Israel’s transfer to China of its STAR-1 cruise missile technology (that) … incorporates U.S. stealth technology and is … ‘a growth version’ of Israel’s Delilah-2 missile, which contains U.S. parts and technology.”

Thus does critical U.S. weapons technology go into machines of war that Beijing prepares for use on Americans. Israel is engaged in the moral equivalent of America selling Stingers to Hezbollah.

Why is Israel doing this? “When the customer is interested,” Israeli scholar Yitzhak Shichor is quoted in Clarke’s piece, “it (is) difficult for the Ministry of Defense to abort or prevent an Israeli arms transfer to whatever country for whatever reason.” Adds Clarke: “Yet neither President Clinton nor Congress will confront Israel and its most powerful American partisans.”

For such cowardice, U.S. Marines, airmen and sailors may one day pay with their lives.

Russia’s contribution? Moscow has sold China 48 SU-27 fighters with a licensing deal for 200 more and hinted at selling the SU-30. This, says Heritage’s Fisher, would give Beijing “the basis of a modern strike capability.” Russia is also producing for China 30 Sunburn anti-ship missiles that skim the ocean’s surface at twice the speed of sound. Guess whose ships they will be targeted on.

Why is Russia doing this? As one Russian newspaper put it, Moscow “is ready to assist China’s transformation into a first-class military power. Especially considering the fact that Beijing is ready to pay for that in freely convertible currencies.”

Where does China get the hard currency to pay the Israelis and Russians? From a $60 billion annual trade surplus with the United States.

When one considers that China covets Russia’s Far East, sends missile technology to Israel’s mortal enemy, Iran, menaces our old ally, Taiwan, and uses profits from its U.S. trade to buy weapons to target U.S. troops, ships and planes, all three of us may one day come to rue our stupidity and our greed.
 
Old August 24th, 2014 #92
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

New York and Hillary's Chinese Rockets
Source: The New Australian, No. 146, 28 Feb.- 5 March 2000


New York, and Hillary’s Chinese Rockets


By James Henry


Now that Hillary the Hun is running for New York it’s once again time to reflect on the co-presidency that has done so much to humiliate and degrade the Republic. Let us recall what the mainstream media has tried to swill down its Orwellian memory hole and that is the Clintons insistence (Zipper never does anything political without Madam Guillotine’s approval) on the transfer of sensitive technology to China. This technology greatly improved the accuracy of Beijing’s ICBMs that are now targeting American cities, including New York City. Being the outrageous liar that he is, Clinton denied that our cities had been targeted despite conclusive proof to the contrary by the CIA. Whose cities did the Clintons think Beijing was going to target?


Despite intelligence briefs, Clinton, with the advice of Hillary, approved the export of hi-tech know-how to China by Loral, now under investigation by a federal grand jury. That this may have involved classified information doesn’t seem to have fazed the Clintons one bit. Why is that I wonder? Is it because in 1997 Bernard Schwarze, Loral’s chairman and CEO, made the largest personal contribution to the Democratic National Committee? The result of Schwarze’ treason (I’m sorry, I meant donation) is that the Clintons got what they wanted — money, Beijing got what it wanted, Schwartz got what he wanted and Americans got to be targets for Chinese missiles. Guess who’s got the biggest grin.


Naturally, this smelly trail leads right back to Chinese funding for the Clintons’ election campaign. Anyone who thinks the Chinese would fund anyone without something in exchange is definitely inhaling. The CIA and FBI knew that Beijing was running agents agents in the US in the guise of fund-raisers for the Democratic National Committee. Charlie Trie, who ‘contributed’ oodles of lettuce to the Clintons’ defence fund, is unquestionably a Chinese agent. It was Charlie who introduced Ol’ Slickory to the Chairman of the Chinese Communist Polytech at a White House fund-raiser. This gentleman, surprise, surprise, is also connected with Chinese intelligence. Not that this would bother Bubba Clinton and Madam Dragonfly, both of whom seem to think everything is for sale, even national security. After all, if the Clintons were genuinely concerned with the country’s security they would not have ignored the CIA’s intelligence briefs.


Some might think that I’m drawing a long bow on this. Now way. When Johnny Chung didn’t get what he wanted on PRC visitors to the White House, meetings Bill and Al, etc., who did he go to? You guessed it, Hillary. And did she give him what he wanted? You bet she did. Now why would she do that? For fear of appearing churlish there is also Hillary’s long-standing ties with Charlie Trie that go right back to Littlerock. That Charlie was a money-peddling Chinese agent was just bad luck for her, wasn’t it? And who had Johnny Huang, another Chinese agent, appointed to the Commerce Department? Right again. It was Hillary. Boy, this dame sure can pick ‘em.


We all know that there have been serious security leaks from the White House. Equally, there is no doubt about the source of those leaks, which brings us directly back to Hillary the Succubus. She took it upon herself, with her husband’s happy support, to select a great many of the White House staff. Many of these appointees were known, and still are, for their extreme left-wing views and their belief that the US is an unjust, racist, sexist and exploitative society. It should come as no surprise, therefore, if this deep-rooted animosity to their own country should take the form of an occasional phone call to a Chinese agent.


Of course, if this were anyone else it would immediately raise questions about why they were so keen on appointing people who despise their own society, except in the case of Hillary we already know the answers. It’s time New Yorkers learnt them too.
 
Old August 24th, 2014 #93
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Sales to China Upsets Asian Power Balance
Special Report: U.S. Military Technology Sold By
Israel to China Upsets Asian Power Balance

By Tim Kennedy

Israel’s Lavi fighter-bomber was designed to be one of the deadliest weapons in the air. However, it now has been revealed that after Israel discontinued the largely U.S.-funded project, it sold China the plans for the Lavi and the associated secret U.S. technology. This has enabled the Chinese to build their own version of this new generation of fighter aircraft.

The illegal transfer of plans for the Lavi aircraft from Tel Aviv to Beijing first became known by the Pentagon when an American surveillance satellite orbiting over China spotted several new fighter planes on the runway of a Chinese air base traditionally used for the test and evaluation of prototype aircraft. Imagery experts at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) created rough sketches of the jet, then processed the graphic data through high-speed supercomputers in order to obtain three-dimensional representations of the prototype Chinese fighter planes.

Stunning Images

CIA officials specializing in aviation technology were stunned at the 3-D images generated by the computers. China’s newest fighter jet was in fact a copy of the Israeli Lavi, which itself was modeled upon the U.S. F-16 Fighting Falcon multi-role aircraft.

Although Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI), Israel’s biggest state-owned manufacturer of arms and defense technology, was the Lavi’s prime contractor, nearly 90 percent of the Lavi was funded by the Pentagon. This is just one astonishing aspect of the story of the U.S.-Israeli aircraft, the evolution of which was almost as Byzantine as its surprise ending as the most formidable weapon in China’s military arsenal.

The Lavi program, as conceived in the early 1980s by Israeli military planners and their supporters in the Pentagon and Congress, was intended as an exceedingly generous gift from America to the people of Israel. The Pentagon never had any intention of including the Lavi in its own military aviation fleet.

The thinking among U.S. Defense Department officials was that the United States, having provided Israel for two decades with some of America’s best fighter aircraft- including F-4 Phantoms, F-15 Eagles and F-16 Fighting Falcons-now should give the Jewish state the ability to manufacture its own state-of-the-art fighter planes.

It took American military officials very little time to decide which American fighter plane should serve as the model for the Lavi. They chose the F-16 Fighting Falcon.

The F-16 was-and still is-the American fighter plane most sought after by foreign governments. Compact and with a highly maneuverable design, it has proven itself in air-to-air combat and air-to-surface attack.

General Dynamics, the prime contractor for the F-16, touts the Fighting Falcon as an “aircraft that provides a relatively lowcost, high performance weapon system… While operating in air combat role, the F-16′s maneuverability and combat radius exceed that of all potential threat fighter aircraft. It can locate targets under all weather conditions and detect low-flying aircraft in radar clutter. In an air-to-surface role, the F-16 can fly more than 500 miles, deliver its weapons with superior accuracy, defend itself against enemy aircraft, and return to its starting point. An all-weather capability allows it to accurately deliver ordnance during non-visual bombing conditions.”

Foreign military sales officials at the U.S. Department of Defense traditionally are tolerant of Israeli mismanagement of U.S. arms programs. However, as the delays, cost overruns and blatant moves by IAI to stamp “Made in Israel” on American-made Lavi avionics evolved, the Pentagon decided to terminate the program.

The U.S. Department of Defense therefore formally ceased sending money to Israel for the Lavi program in 1987, but only after American taxpayers had paid some $1.5 billion to fund the project. The interruption of cash flow effectively killed the program, but left Israel with two fully functional Lavi prototypes.

While the Lavi program was underway, China repeatedly initiated talks with U.S. government officials regarding purchase of the F-16. These requests always were turned down, largely because American defense officials feared China’s possession of the F-16 could destabilize Beijing’s relationships with its neighbors, specifically Taiwan, India, Russia, Japan, and the Philippines.

Unbeknownst to U.S. officials, however, at some point the Chinese also initiated talks with Israel. As a result, according to a declassified Air Force study obtained by the Washington Report, the Chinese version of the Lavi-which has been dubbed the F-10 by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization-will be “built in large numbers” by the year 2003 “and will possess a radar-evading [read stealth] capability.”

Currently, China’s most sophisticated aircraft are domestically-produced copies of the Russian MiG-21 Fishbed fighter, a relatively slow, short-range day fighter which first saw service in 1956.

Morton Miller is a retired State Department intelligence analyst who formerly tracked sales to Beijing of other Israeli weapons, some of which also have involved illegal Israeli export of other sophisticated U.S. defense technology to China. He has told journalists that the close defense relationship between Israel and China dates back to the mid-1980s, and involves the transfer of “five billion dollars’ worth” of U.S.-made computers, high-tech electronics and advanced manufacturing equipment used to create long-range missiles, nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

Ignoring these charges, the Israeli Ministry of Defense officially acknowledges that it is working with China to manufacture jointly an advanced fighter plane, but denies that any of the technology from the Lavi is used in the Chinese F-10. Nevertheless, IAI documents dating from 1985 credit the enormous role the Pentagon played in helping to build the Lavi, and acknowledge that “about 50 percent of the Lavi is built in the United States. ..The program is supported by the capabilities of no less than 120 American firms.”

Pentagon sources revealed to the Washington Report that when U.S. Secretary of Defense William Perry confronted Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin with the allegations concerning transfer to China of U.S. stealth and other fighter aircraft technologies last year in Tel Aviv, Rabin promised to “resolve the issue.” That was before Rabin’s Nov. 4 assassination.

Requests to IAI by the Washington Report for further details on the Lavi technology transfer to China were stonewalled. “That’s a story that’s been going around for a number of years,” said Lisa Gordon, assistant to the director of IAl’s military aircraft office in Washington, DC. “We’re just seeing it come around again,” she said. “Beyond that, we aren’t commenting on it.”

The CIA, which for some time has been concerned about the increasingly close link between Israeli and Chinese defense industries, and the threat this alliance poses to world stability, has been similarly frustrated.

Former CIA director R. James Woolsey informed the U.S. Senate in late 1993 that he was “alarmed” by the military partnership between Tel Aviv and Beijing, and officially accused Israel of “illegally supplying China with classified defense technology from sources in the West.”

Reading from a declassified CIA report while appearing before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Woolsey added: “We believe the Chinese seek from Israel advanced military technologies that U.S. and Western firms are unwilling to provide.”

Woolsey revealed that Israel has been selling military technology to China for over a decade, and that the sales may amount to several billion dollars.

During subsequent testimony, Woolsey said the CIA is convinced China also is relying on its friends in Israel to assist in developing advanced engines for the next generation of Chinese combat vehicles. He said also that China will rely on Israeli expertise to create sophisticated airborne radar that employs super-secret technology that has been entrusted to Israel for another multibillion dollar joint project-production in Israel of the Arrow missile defense program which also has been funded largely by the United States.

“[These are] systems,” concluded Woolsey in his testimony, “the Chinese would have difficulty producing on their own.” Now it appears that, thanks to Israeli transfer of highly classified U.S. military technology, the Chinese have done just that, setting off alarm bells among China’s neighbors, and America’s allies, all around the rim of Asia.
 
Old August 24th, 2014 #94
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Strange Bedfellows: China and Israel
Source: http://www.bigeye.com/041600.htm

Strange Bedfellows: China and Israel

By Eric S. Margolis 16 April 2000

The first-ever visit by a Chinese head of state to Israel last week seemed at first glance rather curious. China, a longtime political and military supporter of the Arabs and Iran, used to denounce Israel as a `running dog of US imperialism’ and `a racist-fascist state?’ So what was President Jiang Zemin doing hobnobbing in Israel?

Jiang had two objectives: a. deepen the secret 20-year military relationship between China and Israel; b. by openly befriending Israel, counteract growing anti-Chinese feeling in Congress that threatens both China’s exports to the US, and its admission to the World Trade Organization. . .

The normally pro-Israeli Clinton Administration, however, is not pleased. William Cohen, the US Secretary of Defense, recently unleashed an unprecedented public blast at Israel for selling advanced military technology to China that could threaten American forces in the event of a clash with China over Taiwan.

Cohen demanded Israel cancel the US $1-2 billion sale of 3-5 AWACS airborne radar aircraft to China. Israel refused, though it may only sell China one of the Russian aircraft equipped with an Israeli `Phalcon’ advanced radar/electronic warfare system, developed from the US `Hawkeye’ AWACS system, at least until the heat subsides

Former CIA Director James Woolsey testified Israel has covertly sold `several billions’ of dollars worth of top-secret US technology to China since 1983. The Inspector General of the US State Department found, in a 1992 report, a `systematic and growing pattern’ of Israel selling American military technology in direct violation of US law. That report concluded Israel was supplying arms based on restricted American technology to China, Chile, Ethiopia, and South Africa, all of whom then under US arms embargo.

The Pentagon has claimed since the mid-1980′s that Israel simply copies or reverse engineers secret US defense technology and then exports it – even on occasion, its is whispered, to Russia. Until now, Israel’s influential friends on Capitol Hill managed to downplay or cover up these serious charges.

The transfer of billions worth of advanced US military technology to Israel, under the innocuous title of `Technical Data Packages,’ was arranged by Israel’s American supporters, beginning in 1970. This massive infusion of secret US weapons and electronics technology- the largest ever to another nation – allowed Israel to develop state-of-the art military industries that exported some $1.5-2 billion annually (40% of its total exports by the late 1980′s), and which became the nation’s largest employer. Israel is now the world’s sixth largest arms exporter. In some cases, Israel improved on US weapons and electronics systems.

Pentagon sources charge Israel `backdoored’ US technology to China for the Patriot AA missile, other surface-to-air missiles; the PL-8 air-to-air missiles; C-802 anti-ship missiles; advanced composite tank armor and tank guns; aircraft avionics and ground radar systems; and the J-10 fighter, which is based on secret US technology used in Israel’s cancelled `Lavi’ fighter. Israel denies these charges. A Pentagon investigation of the Patriot sale, cleared Israel. Critics charged it did so under intense political pressure from Israel’s supporters.

Israel insists its high-tech arms exports are all 100% of Israeli origin. But American defense claim the Israelis often only make minor modifications to basic US-supplied technology and weapons, then sell them clandestinely. Israeli intelligence agents are known to have targeted specific advanced US defense technology.

Israel has also sold considerable quantities of arms, electronics, and US technology to Taiwan, including a reverse-engineered US Lance missile, and anti-ship missiles. Singapore is another major recipient of Israeli arms and discreetly co-produces weapons with Israel. Israel has become a major military supplier to India, including nuclear weapons and missile technology.

Ironically, some of Israel’s arms and technology sales have returned to haunt the Jewish state. This column learned in 1994 that nuclear technology Israel had bartered for enriched uranium to South Africa, was resold by South Africa to Iraq in exchange for oil. Iraq’s infant nuclear program, designed as a counter-force to Israel’s nuclear arms, thus originated, in part, from Israel. Missile technology sold by Israel to China found its way into tactical missiles sold by China to Iran, Syria, and Iraq, and, reportedly, into CSS-2 ballistic missiles sold by China to Saudi Arabia.

American defense and state department officials are furious at Israel for so flagrantly violating the US embargo of high-tech arms to China, particularly as tensions between Washington and Beijing rise. There have even been angry demands in Congress for the value of the Israeli AWACS aircraft sold to China to be deducted from the $3-5 billion in aid Israel receives annually from the US. Fears are being expressed that US technology for Israel’s new `Arrow’ anti-missile system, developed with nearly $1 billion in US aid, may also be sold to China.

Israelis claim their weapons sales to China motivate Beijing to keep a leash on its ally, North Korea, which, says Israelis, ships missiles to Iran and the Arabs. Russia remains China’s main arms supplier. Sales by Israel keep Russia and China apart, say Israeli partisans. Nonsense, retorts the Pentagon. But in an election year, New York City is far more important than China. So Israel will probably only get its wrists slapped – if that.

Copyright eric margolis april 2000
 
Old August 24th, 2014 #95
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Technology Transfer Neff
Middle East History

It Happened in June

June/July 1997, pgs. 70-72

U.S. Had to Wage Long Battle Against Israel’s Technology Transfers to China

By Donald Neff

It was seven years ago, on June 13, 1990, that the Los Angeles Times reported Israel had become the largest supplier of advanced military technology to China since the United States banned military sales in the wake of the Chinese suppression of the democracy movement a year earlier. An unnamed U.S. official told the newspaper that Israel was a “back door to U.S. technology that the United States won’t sell them.”1

The meaning was that Israel was not only breaching America’s embargo, but selling to China technology that the United States had given to it for the Jewish state’s own defense. With the technology came restrictions that Israel would not re-export. What was especially interesting about the Times account was that it cited anonymous U.S. sources. There had been stories over the past decade about the growing Sino-Israeli relationship but few, if any, came from recognizable U.S. sources, who usually hesitated to criticize Israel, even anonymously.

The story was a strong indicator that Israel’s relations with China had grown so massive and intimate that they were becoming too close for comfort for the administration of President George Bush. This was particularly so at a time when China was under worldwide criticism for its antidemocracy policy. Washington was especially loud in its condemnation of China.

Nonetheless, Israel was not deterred. Shortly before the Times report, Israel, which had no official diplomatic relations with China, opened an office of the Israeli Academy of Sciences in Beijing. It was no doubt that blatant act that caused U.S. officials to begin leaking information. The Times’ source said Israel’s supposedly academic office in Beijing was actually “facilitating a whole range of military-to-military cooperation between Israel and China.”

The newspaper said intelligence experts in the West and Asia believed Israel in recent years had provided China with some of the advanced technology needed to modernize China’s jet planes and missiles. It said U.S. officials had told Israel they strongly opposed the military cooperation because it undercut the intended effect of U.S. sanctions against China. “This is over our objections,” a senior administration official told the newspaper. U.S. officials insisted that Israel was not operating as a proxy for the United States in the military sales, as it did when it supplied arms to Iran during the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages affair.

The story had no discernible impact on Israel, perhaps because the administration had decided to take a low-profile approach by leaking it to a West Coast newspaper rather than The New York Times or Washington Post. Over the next few years an undeclared battle raged as Washington, in its frustration, became increasingly aggressive in its criticism and Israel went on blithely selling arms technology to China and upgrading relations between the two countries.

The U.S. had more than enough evidence to convict Israel, if it had the political will to do so.

A year after the Times report, in June 1991, China and Israel signed a bilateral agreement on scientific cooperation, the only area in which they had official relations. Israel was represented in Beijing by a liaison officer of its Academy of Science office in Beijing.2

On Nov. 20, 1991, the East Coast press finally caught up with the story. Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens was reported to have made a secret official visit to China in early November, the first Israeli minister to visit China. The four-day visit gave an unprecedented boost to the rapidly growing relations.3 By the end of 1991, China’s Deputy Foreign Minister Yang Fuchang visited Israel, the highest Chinese official to do so.4

How fast Sino-Israeli relations were increasing became apparent on Jan. 24, 1992, when China and Israel established formal diplomatic relations in ceremonies in Beijing. The occasion was attended by Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen and Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy.5

The Sino-Israeli relationship was a strange one. China traditionally favored the Arabs in the Arab-Israel conflict, and just the day before the establishment of full relations, Chinese spokesman Wu Jianmin said: “It has been China’s consistent position that the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people should be restored, the Arabs’ occupied territories should be returned, and the sovereignty and security of all the Middle East countries, including Israel, should be guaranteed and respected.”6 Moreover, while Israel based its pleas for enormous amounts of U.S. aid on the danger from Arab countries, its selling of weapons technology to China was indirectly helping strengthen the Arabs because China was a major supplier of missiles to Iran and such Arab countries as Saudi Arabia and Syria.7

Stepped-Up Leaks

In an obvious effort to dampen the burgeoning Sino-Israeli relationship, U.S. officials stepped up their leaks. Unnamed officials revealed in early March 1992 that there was “overwhelming” evidence of Israel’s cheating on written promises not to re-export U.S. weapons technology to Third World countries, including China.8 They added there was well-founded suspicion that Israel was also selling secrets of America’s vaunted Patriot anti-missile missile to China.9 The issue was so serious that a U.S. team of experts was dispatched to Israel in late March but it failed to find any proof of Israeli cheating. The State Department said on April 2 that “the Israeli government has a clean bill of health on the Patriot issue.”10

But there was clearly disagreement in the government. Defense Secretary Dick Cheney said there remained “good reason” to believe a diversion had taken place.11 CIA Director Robert Gates agreed, saying, “There is some indication that they [the Chinese] have some of the [Patriot] technology.”12

About the same time a study by the Pentagon-supported think tank RAND Corp. became public with the conclusion that Israel had become “China’s leading foreign supplier of advanced technology.” It said there had been reports that Israel had helped China develop the HQ-61 surface-to-air missile, the CSS-2 intermediate missile, the PL-8 air-to-air and surface-to-air missile as well as advanced armor for battle tanks and an air-borne early warning radar system. It added Israel was currently cooperating with China to develop an advanced fighter jet.13

These disclosures were followed by a major report in The Wall Street Journal that significantly broadened the scope of the charges. It mentioned illegal Israeli re-exports of an array of technology to a number of countries beyond China, including Chile, Ethiopia, South Africa and Thailand. The story said there was “no doubt in the U.S. intelligence community that Israel has repeatedly engaged in diversion schemes.”14 The Washington Post joined the fray by adding that one official said there were “lots and lots of clear-cut cases.” The clear impression was that the U.S. had more than enough evidence to convict Israel, if it had the political will to do so.15

The leaks by unnamed but official sources came just days before Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens was due to meet on March 16, 1992, in Washington with his counterpart, Dick Cheney. Arens’ initial public reaction was outrage: “There is not a grain of truth. No truth in it at all.” But as the volume of charges grew, his statements changed to questioning the motives of the leakers: “The real story is who are these unnamed individuals who are floating these malicious rumors?”16 Defense Secretary Cheney and his spokesmen declined any comment.17

Israel was hit with another major blow on April 1, 1992, when the State Department released a report by its inspector general charging that a “major recipient” of U.S. military aid was engaged in a “systematic and growing pattern” of selling secret U.S. technology in violation of U.S. law. The public report did not directly name Israel, but officials left no doubt that it was the subject of the report. The report said Israel’s violations began about 1983 and that Israel sought to conceal the violations. A secret version of the report allegedly identified Chile, China, Ethiopia and South Africa as among the recipients of Israel’s sales.18

State Department Inspector General Sherman M. Funk said he notified Secretary of State James A. Baker III about intelligence reports of Israel’s violations in June 1991 and that new procedures to prevent future violations were then put in force under an operation called Blue Lantern. Funk said U.S. officials previously had depended on verbal assurances from Israel that it was not retransferring, adding that such assurances from Israel “are not an effective mechanism for providing end-use verification. We identified instances where U.S. items and technology were retransferred or were used in violation of the assurances.”

He added that he had recommended that Israel be forced to repay the money illicitly earned from the transfers but Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger rejected the proposal as being an impossible chore. Eagleburger was a protŽgŽ of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and a strong supporter of Israel.

The succession of charges sent a shockwave through Israel, as they no doubt were intended to, because the subject went to the heart of the economic prosperity of the Jewish state. Arms sales of around $1.5 billion annually accounted for 40 percent of Israel’s exports and were based almost entirely on U.S. technology.19

A Revealing Study

The background on how Israel became so advanced in technology was revealed in a study by the General Accounting Office.20 They began in 1970 with the signing of an important and far-reaching Master Defense Development Data Exchange Agreement that provided for the greatest transfer of technology to Israel, or any other country, ever undertaken. Transfer of U.S. technology was provided by what was known as Technical Data Packages, the entire complex of blueprints, plans and types of materials required to actually construct new weapons.

More than 120 such packages were given to Israel over the next eight years, according to a 1979 study by the official Middle East Arms Transfer Panel.21 Such a massive infusion of technology provided a boon to Israel’s economy. By 1981, Israel had emerged from being a technologically backward arms importer to the seventh largest exporter of military weapons in the world, with overseas sales of $1.3 billion.22

An Israeli writer observed, “The Americans have made virtually all their most advanced weaponry and technology, meaning the best fighter aircraft, missiles, radar, armor, and artillery, available to Israel. Israel, in turn, has utilized this knowledge, adapting American equipment to increase its own technological sophistication, reflected tangibly in Israeli defense offerings.”23

Despite the number of reports over the years that Israel was illicitly profiting from U.S. technology at the cost of American companies and U.S. security, Washington continued providing ever-increasing amounts of technology to Israel. According to a report in 1992, there were 322 separate cooperative U.S.-Israeli ventures at that time, valued at $2.9 billion. In addition, there were 49 country-to-country programs involving Israel in co-development or co-production and research with the United States, and there existed 36 active data exchange agreements and 11 new proposed accords. The report concluded: “The magnitude of existing cooperative efforts with Israel is extensive and growing rapidly.”24 Despite that magnitude, when Bill Clinton became president in 1993 he promised to lift the “technological barrier” by granting Israel even more sophisticated technology.25

Meanwhile Sino-Israeli relations flourished. Israeli President Chaim Herzog visited China between Dec. 24 and 30, 1992. In January 1993, with the administration of President Bill Clinton taking over in Washington, Israel and China signed a contract permitting Israel to buy Chinese coal. On Feb. 14, 1993, the two countries signed a scientific agreement for joint research projects in electronics, medical technology, renewable energy, agriculture and civilian uses of space technology.26

On Oct. 12, 1993, the CIA added its weight to the controversy by revealing to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee that Israel had been selling advanced military technology to China for more than a decade. Central Intelligence Director R. James Woolsey estimated that the trade “may be several billion dollars.” Woolsey added: “Building on a long history of close defense industrial relations, including work on China’s next-generation fighter, air-to-air missiles and tank programs, and the establishment of diplomatic relations in January 1992, China and Israel appear to be moving toward formalizing and broadening their military technical cooperation.”27

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin denied that the trade reached billions of dollars, adding that the figure for 1992 was about $60 million. “All these stories of billions of dollars of arms business in the past 10 years are total nonsense,” he said. “We have made it clear time and again that we have never done a thing against American law…never transmitted items of technology that we got from the United States. We are not stupid enough” to endanger Israel’s annual $3 billion in U.S. aid. He issued his statement in Beijing, where he was on an official four-day visit, the first public visit by Israel’s prime minister.28

The CIA said that new indications of stronger Sino-Israeli ties were the opening of a number of Israeli military sales offices in China, the Feb. 14, 1993 signing by the two countries of an agreement to share technology, and the current visit to Beijing of Rabin. The report stated: “We believe the Chinese seek from Israel advanced military technologies that the U.S. and Western firms are unwilling to provide. Beijing probably hopes to tap Israeli expertise for cooperative development of military technologies, such as advanced tank power plants and airborne radar systems, that the Chinese would have difficulty producing on their own.”29

In 1994, another serious report documented Israel’s sales to China. Professor Duncan L. Clarke of The American University in Washington, DC reported in a study: “For years, Israel had violated the Arms Export Control Act and related executive agreements.30 Israel has employed U.S. weaponry contrary to U.S. law and policy, incorporated U.S. technology into Israeli weapons systems without prior approval, and made improper transfers of U.S. missile and other defense systems and technologies to other countries, including Chile, China, and South Africa.”31

The issue climaxed in early 1995 with yet another series of media reports on Israel’s China trade. These led to official denials by Israel. David Ivri, the director-general of the Israeli Defense Ministry, admitted on Jan. 3 that Israel had sold China “some technology on aircraft” but added that it was not U.S. technology and that the contracts were “very small in magnitude.”32

State Department spokesperson Michael McCurry said the next day that “those types of reports concern us very much….This has been an item on our agenda for some time….This has been going around for some time.” He said Undersecretary of State for International Security Lynn E. Davis had had “substantive discussions with the government of Israel on a range of these types of issues.” McCurry added that he was unaware of any authorization being given to Israel to share any U.S. technology with China.33

On Jan. 6, Aded Ben-Ami, the spokesperson for Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, again denied that Israel had illegally transferred any U.S. technology to China. “Israel did not transfer any American technology or American components to China,” he said.34 Two days later Defense Secretary William Perry discussed the issue with Prime Minister Rabin in Jerusalem, but the Israeli leader again denied any U.S. technology was involved.35

Then, suddenly, the issue disappeared from the public eye.

The controversy had visibly begun in 1990 with anonymous leaks and had grown into official charges by the United States, culminating at the beginning of 1995 with serious discussions between the two countries at the highest levels. After Perry’s meeting with Rabin, the subject dropped from public sight. Whatever action, if any, was taken was not announced. But that was not uncommon. Washington would not want to embarrass its “most reliable” Middle East ally.

RECOMMENDED READING:

Black, Ian, and Benny Morris, Israel’s Secret Wars: A History of Israel’s Intelligence Service, New York, Grove Weidenfeld, 1991.

Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin, The Israeli Connection, New York, Pantheon Books, 1987.

Brecher, Michael, Decisions in Israel’s Foreign Policy, London, Oxford University Press, 1974.

*Cockburn, Andrew and Leslie, Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship, New York, HarperCollins Publishers, 1991.

El-Khawas, Mohammed and Samir Abed-Rabbo, American Aid to Israel: Nature and Impact, Brattleboro, VT, Amana Books, 1984.

*Findley, Paul, Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts about the U.S.-Israeli Relationship, Brooklyn, NY, Lawrence Hill Books, 1993.

*Hersh, Seymour M., The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, New York, Random House, 1991.

Klieman, Aaron S., Israel’s Global Reach: Arms Sales and Diplomacy, Washington, DC, Pergamon-Brassey’s, 1985.

*Ostrovsky, Victor and Claire Hoy, By Way of Deception, New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1990.

*Raviv, Dan and Yossi Melman, Every Spy a Prince: The Complete History of Israel’s Intelligence Community, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1990.

*Available from the AETBook Club.

FOOTNOTES

1United Press International, #0543, 6/13/90.

2Jackson Diehl, Washington Post, 11/20/91. Also see Israeli Foreign Affairs, “Defense Minister Arens Visited China,”Vol. VII, No. 10-11 (Special Double Issue), 12/16/91.

3Jackson Diehl, Washington Post, 11/20/91; Clyde Haberman, New York Times, 1/9/92.

4Clyde Haberman, New York Times, 1/9/92.

5Lena H. Sun, Washington Post, 1/25/92. A discussion of early Sino-Israeli relations is in Brecher, Decisions in Israel’s Foreign Policy, pp. 111-172. For more recent relations, see Beit-Hallahmi, The Israeli Connection, pp. 36-37.

6New York Times, 1/24/92.

7Richard A. Bitzinger, “Chinese Arms Production and Sales to the Third World,” RAND Corp., 1991.

8Edward T. Pound, Wall Street Journal, 3/13/92; David Hoffman and R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, 3/14/92. For a survey of U.S. support of Israel’s arms industry, see Bishara A. Bahbah, “The US Role in Israel’s Arms Industry,” The Link, Vol. 20, No. 5, December 1987.

9Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, 3/12-13/92.

10David Hoffman, Washington Post, 4/3/92.

11Bill Gertz, Washington Times, 4/9/92.

12Bill Gertz, Washington Times, 1/5/93.

13Richard A. Bitzinger, “Chinese Arms Production and Sales to the Third World,” RAND Corp., 1991.

14Edward T. Pound, Wall Street Journal, 3/13/92.

15David Hoffman and R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, 3/14/92.

16Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, 3/15/92.

17Eric Schmidt, New York Times, 3/17/92.

18David Hoffman, Washington Post, 4/2/92.

19Cockburns, Dangerous Liaison, p. 7.

20See “U.S.Assistance to the State of Israel, Report by the Comptroller General of the United States,”GAO/ID-83-51, June 24, 1983, U.S. Accounting Office. The report was up to 1983 the most comprehensive survey ever made of the extraordinary special arrangements provided for Israel’s profit. When it was released, the report was heavily censored, but uncensored versions quickly leaked to such organizations as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. An uncensored early draft of the report can be found in El-Khawas and Abeh-Rabbo, American Aid to Israel, pp. 114-91.

2!Middle East Arms Transfer Panel, “Review of Israel’s Military Requirements, 1979-84″; prepared in 8/79; secret.

22Drew Middleton, New York Times, 3/15/81. For a report on the state of Israel’s arms industry in 1986, see Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, 12/7/86.

23Kleiman, Israel’s Global Reach, p. 175.

24Near East Report, 2/10/92.

25Clinton press conference, C-SPAN, 11/12/93; Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, 11/13/93.

26Israeli Foreign Affairs, 2/26/93.

27Michael R. Gordon, New York Times, 10/13/93.

28Patrick E. Tyler, New York Times, 10/14/93.

29Bill Gertz, Washington Times, 10/13/93; Michael R. Gordon, New York Times, 10/13/93.

30The act, PL 94-329, requires that no defense article or service shall be transferred by the U.S. to a foreign country unless that country agrees not to transfer the article to a third country or use it for purposes other than those for which it was furnished, without prior approval of the U.S.

31Duncan L. Clarke, “The Arrow Missile:The United States, Israel and Strategic Cooperation,” Middle East Journal, Summer 1994, pp. 483-84.

32Associated Press, Washington Times, 1/4/95.

33Ibid., 1/5/95.

34Washington Times, 1/7/95.

35Associated Press, Washington Times, 1/9/95.

© Copyright 1997 American Educational Trust
The WRMEA web site is designed by the Paradigm
 
Old August 24th, 2014 #96
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

The Cox Report
Source: The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

Defense & Intelligence:
What the Cox Report Does and Does Not Say About
Israeli Technology Transfer to China

By Shawn L. Twing

July/August 1999, pages 49, 135

On May 25, 1999, the U.S. House of Representatives released a declassified version of its investigation into China’s illegal acquisition of U.S. nuclear and military technology. The Report of the Select Committee On U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People’s Republic of China—called the Cox report after House Policy Committee Chairman Christopher Cox (R-CA)—details China’s multifaceted campaign to obtain U.S. military technology and hardware from the United States and third countries.

Included in the committee’s declassified findings is a brief mention of Israel’s role in providing U.S. weapons technology illegally to China. More important than what is included, however, is the volume of publicly available information, much of it from U.S. government sources, that has been left out of the report’s findings.

The Third Country

One of China’s methods used to obtain U.S. military technology, according to the Cox report, involves illegally transferring technology from third countries (p. 20). “To fill its short-term technological needs in military equipment, the PRC has made numerous purchases of foreign military systems. The chief source of these systems is Russia, but the PRC has acquired military technology from other countries as well,” the report reads (p. 24). Aside from Russia and the United States, the only other country named in the Cox report as a provider of weapons technology to China is Israel (p. 25).

The short section explaining Israel’s role in providing U.S. weapons technology to China is extraordinarily brief, lacks several important details, and excludes an enormous amount of information pertinent to the Cox report. That section reads: “Recent years have been marked by increased Sino-Israeli cooperation on military and security matters. Israel has offered significant technology cooperation to the PRC, especially in aircraft and missile development. Israel has provided both weapons and technology to the PRC, most notably to assist the PRC in developing its F-10 fighter and airborne early warning aircraft.”

The section explaining Israel’s role excludes an enormous amount of information.

The Cox report fails to mention that China’s F-10 is a nearly identical copy of Israel’s failed Lavi fighter, a project that was terminated in 1987 after receiving more than $1.5 billion from U.S. taxpayers. The Cox report also fails to mention that Israel’s transfer of Lavi technology, which now has been confirmed by the United States, China, and Israel, is a direct violation of U.S. arms export laws and dozens of U.S.-Israel agreements. Even Israeli officials have stated publicly that more than 50 percent of the Lavi is of U.S. origin—which is an exceedingly conservative estimate, considering the fact that some 730 U.S. firms contributed to the Lavi’s development. What is not stated by Israel, however, or the United States for that matter, is that all U.S.-made components and technology related to the Lavi project are protected by U.S. arms export laws that forbid the retransfer of that technology to third countries without U.S. permission, which in this case has not been given. (For more on Israel’s retransfer of the Lavi to China, see: “U.S. Military Technology Sold by Israel to China Upsets Asian Power Balance,” January 1996 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, p. 12.)

The Cox report also fails to mention the multitude of other suspected transfers of technology from Israel to China, all of which have been reported publicly. Among those weapons systems are:

1. Cruise missile technology, including Israel’s STAR-1 cruise missile which “incorporates sensitive U.S. technology,” according to American University professor and technology retransfer specialist Duncan Clarke.

2. Air-to-air missile technology, including Israel’s Python-3 short-range air-to-air missile, which is thought to be a re-engineered version of the U.S.-made AIM-9 “Sidewinder.”

3. Anti-tactical ballistic missile technology, particularly information related to the U.S. Patriot missile. Despite a State Department investigation that could not find physical evidence to support allegations that Israel retransferred Patriot missile technology to China, it is widely believed in the U.S. intelligence community that Israel transferred technical data, but not Patriot hardware, to China, in violation of U.S. export laws. Technical modifications made to Chinese medium-range ballistic missiles fired across the Taiwan Strait in 1996 also support this allegation.

4. Laser weapons technology. The Jan. 27, 1999 Washington Times cited a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report accusing Israel of selling U.S. laser technology to China. That technology was obtained by Israel in the joint U.S.-Israeli Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) program, formerly known as Nautilus. The lion’s share of funding for the Nautilus/ THEL program has come from U.S. taxpayers. (For more on THEL/Nautilus program and the DIA report, see: “Clinton Promises Israel Additional Aid, Including Nautilus Laser System,” WRMEA, July 1996, p. 37, and “U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency Report Accuses Israel of Laser Technology Transfer to China,” WRMEA, April/May 1999, p. 44.)

The impact of China’s acquisition of an airborne early warning (AEW) system from Israel (and Russia) also is not adequately explained by the Cox report. Israel has agreed to provide its Phalcon phased-array radar system, to be mounted on a Russian transport plane, as part of a $1 billion project to outfit China with capabilities similar to those provided by American AWACS planes. China’s acquisition of this system will “significantly erode the military technical edge held by the U.S. and Taiwan that is necessary for deterring China,” according to Heritage Foundation senior analyst Richard Fisher.

With volumes of well-documented research and information related to Israel’s transfer of American technology available publicly, including exposés in publications like Foreign Policy and literally dozens of reports in the trade-weekly Defense News and the various Jane’s defense publications, the Cox report’s lack of information on Israel’s role in arming China does not reflect a lack of information elsewhere.

An alternate explanation for the deceptive brevity of the Cox report as it relates to Israel can be found on page 20 of that report. “Specific details on [China’s] acquisitions appear in the Select Committee’s classified report, but the Clinton administration has determined that they cannot be made public,” it reads.

[Author’s note: The articles from the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs cited in this article, as well as several others related to Israel’s retransfer of American technology to China and other countries, can be found in their entirety on the Washington Report’s Web site.]

Shawn L. Twing is the Web site developer for the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs.

© Copyright 1995-1999, American Educational Trust. All Rights Reserved.
 
Old August 24th, 2014 #97
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

The Defense Intelligence Agency Suspects Israel
Source: Washington Times, 1-28-99

DIA suspects Israel

M. Hoffman (ZINC)

“The Defense Intelligence Agency suspects Israel shared with China restricted U.S. weapons technology obtained during a joint U.S.-Israeli effort to build a battlefield laser gun, The Washington Times has learned. Israeli government agents also have tried for the past two years to obtain embargoed weapons know-how from U.S. defense contractors involved in the Tactical High-Energy Laser (THEL) program, said officials familiar with a Pentagon intelligence report on the issue. The report said officials of the Israeli government armament agency Rafael obtained some restricted technology from a U.S. defense contractor involved in the program in 1996. The unauthorized transfers prompted TRW Space and Electronics Group, the main contractor for the program, to halt further data transfers to the Israelis.

DIA suspicions about the technology leakage are based on reports from U.S. contractor employees in Israel who spotted Chinese technicians working secretly with one of the Israeli companies involved in the laser weapon program, and also from a Chinese official who knew details about it, said the officials who declined to be named. “If the Chinese are seeking this technology in Israel, it’s another episode in their worldwide effort to purloin Western technology,” said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control. The $131 million joint laser weapon program was launched in 1996 in an effort to rapidly build a weapon to knock out Katyusha rockets fired by Hezbollah guerrillas based in southern Lebanon. The system consists of a pointer-tracker, a laser, and a battle management system. It is being developed by TRW, two other U.S. contractors — Ball Aerospace & Technology and Contraves Brashear Systems — along with four Israeli firms. Israel expects to field the first anti-rocket laser unit later this year in northern Israel.

As part of a memorandum signed by officials from both countries in July 1996, the lasers are supposed to have built-in software limiting their range. The system is designed for knocking out 122mm Katyusha rockets, which have ranges of several miles, and mortar and artillery. The agreement also restricts transferring the technology to other countries. The Israelis have been trying to obtain the source codes for the laser’s target selection computer software to increase its range so the weapons can be used to knock out other targets such as short-range missiles or aircraft. The DIA said if Israel obtains the embargoed software coding used to target the laser gun, it could “fire at targets other than those permitted by the Memorandum of Agreement with Washington,” and it would allow “a controlled technology to proliferate.” “Acquiring and modifying the source codes would help Tel Aviv overcome the mission-limiting U.S. engineering built into the THEL system,” the report said. Some DIA officials were alarmed by several reports that Chinese weapons technicians are working secretly at an Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI) plant involved in the laser gun program.

IAI is working on the THEL system’s radar, fire control assemblies and sensors for its pointer-tracker. According to DIA, Chinese officials were seen at the IAI Systems and Space Technology Division facility outside Tel Aviv twice between July and October 1997. The U.S. employees were told the “Chinese presence” was supposed to be kept secret from the United States. On a third occasion, the U.S. workers at the plant were “rushed” out of the IAI plant after seeing Chinese workers there, the report said. The report stated that Israeli Aircraft Industries in the past offered transfers of restricted weapons technology to foreign customers in an effort to conclude weapons deals. “IAI has transferred technology to China, possibly including U.S.-supplied technology,” the report said.

The DIA said it could not confirm that Chinese officials at the Israeli factory were working on lasers. But the agency said its suspicions were bolstered by a Chinese scientist who had revealed details about the THEL system and asked for more information about the weapon, once called Nautilus, during an international symposium on lasers. “Beijing is working on high-energy deuterium fluoride lasers most likely for weapons applications and has acquired technology in this area from Russia,” the report said. Spokesman for TRW, Ball Aerospace and Contraves Brashear referred calls to the U.S. Army Missile and Space Command in Alabama, which had no immediate comment. A spokeswoman for the Israeli Embassy also had no comment.

Officials said the reference to earlier leaks of U.S. technology from Israel to China involved Beijing’s acquisition of U.S. Patriot anti-missile interceptor technology in 1992. The Bush administration investigated whether Israel illegally transferred Patriot know-how, a probe first disclosed by The Times. The investigation failed to confirm intelligence reports indicating one of Washington’s closest allies had shared sensitive weapons data with China. CIA Director Robert Gates said in 1993 that China had acquired the Patriot technology, but government officials were divided over whether Israel had secretly supplied it. Regarding recent efforts to acquire restricted THEL software, the DIA said that after Rafael was denied access to the source codes, the Israeli representatives demanded further software transfers from the U.S. subcontractor, and also tried to “pressure” TRW into having the State Department grant an export license, the report said.

The Israeli program manager and an electronics engineer also tried to illegally obtain software codes and details on the THEL computer controller, according to the DIA. In a third case, an Israeli Defense Ministry consultant tried to acquire “tracking algorithms” used in the radar focal plane array used by the laser gun’s pointer-tracker. Initial requests for the source code were made on May 1, 1997, and after the request was flatly denied, the consultant set up a meeting with TRW official and again demanded the codes for the weapon’s software. “I have no comment on intelligence matters,” Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said. A spokesman for the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command in Huntsville, Ala., said he was unaware of the Israeli efforts to obtain embargoed THEL technology or the improper release of data.”

THE WASHINGTON TIMES 1/28/99:

“The Defense Intelligence Agency suspects Israel shared with China restricted U.S. weapons technology obtained during a joint U.S.-Israeli effort to build a battlefield laser gun, The Washington Times has learned.

Israeli government agents also have tried for the past two years to obtain embargoed weapons know-how from U.S. defense contractors involved in the Tactical High-Energy Laser (THEL) program, said officials familiar with a Pentagon intelligence report on the issue. The report said officials of the Israeli government armament agency Rafael obtained some restricted technology from a U.S. defense contractor involved in the program in 1996.

The unauthorized transfers prompted TRW Space and Electronics Group, the main contractor for the program, to halt further data transfers to the Israelis. DIA suspicions about the technology leakage are based on reports from U.S. contractor employees in Israel who spotted Chinese technicians working secretly with one of the Israeli companies involved in the laser weapon program, and also from a Chinese official who knew details about it, said the officials who declined to be named. “If the Chinese are seeking this technology in Israel, it’s another episode in their worldwide effort to purloin Western technology,” said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.

The $131 million joint laser weapon program was launched in 1996 in an effort to rapidly build a weapon to knock out Katyusha rockets fired by Hezbollah guerrillas based in southern Lebanon. The system consists of a pointer-tracker, a laser, and a battle management system. It is being developed by TRW, two other U.S. contractors — Ball Aerospace & Technology and Contraves Brashear Systems — along with four Israeli firms.

Israel expects to field the first anti-rocket laser unit later this year in northern Israel. As part of a memorandum signed by officials from both countries in July 1996, the lasers are supposed to have built-in software limiting their range. The system is designed for knocking out 122mm Katyusha rockets, which have ranges of several miles, and mortar and artillery. The agreement also restricts transferring the technology to other countries.

The Israelis have been trying to obtain the source codes for the laser’s target selection computer software to increase its range so the weapons can be used to knock out other targets such as short-range missiles or aircraft. The DIA said if Israel obtains the embargoed software coding used to target the laser gun, it could “fire at targets other than those permitted by the Memorandum of Agreement with Washington,” and it would allow “a controlled technology to proliferate.” “Acquiring and modifying the source codes would help Tel Aviv overcome the mission-limiting U.S. engineering built into the THEL system,” the report said.

Some DIA officials were alarmed by several reports that Chinese weapons technicians are working secretly at an Israeli Aircraft Industries (IAI) plant involved in the laser gun program. IAI is working on the THEL system’s radar, fire control assemblies and sensors for its pointer-tracker. According to DIA, Chinese officials were seen at the IAI Systems and Space Technology Division facility outside Tel Aviv twice between July and October 1997.

The U.S. employees were told the “Chinese presence” was supposed to be kept secret from the United States. On a third occasion, the U.S. workers at the plant were “rushed” out of the IAI plant after seeing Chinese workers there, the report said. The report stated that Israeli Aircraft Industries in the past offered transfers of restricted weapons technology to foreign customers in an effort to conclude weapons deals. “IAI has transferred technology to China, possibly including U.S.-supplied technology,” the report said. The DIA said it could not confirm that Chinese officials at the Israeli factory were working on lasers. But the agency said its suspicions were bolstered by a Chinese scientist who had revealed details about the THEL system and asked for more information about the weapon, once called Nautilus, during an international symposium on lasers. “Beijing is working on high-energy deuterium fluoride lasers most likely for weapons applications and has acquired technology in this area from Russia,” the report said.

Spokesman for TRW, Ball Aerospace and Contraves Brashear referred calls to the U.S. Army Missile and Space Command in Alabama, which had no immediate comment. A spokeswoman for the Israeli Embassy also had no comment. Officials said the reference to earlier leaks of U.S. technology from Israel to China involved Beijing’s acquisition of U.S. Patriot anti-missile interceptor technology in 1992.

The Bush administration investigated whether Israel illegally transferred Patriot know-how, a probe first disclosed by The Times. The investigation failed to confirm intelligence reports indicating one of Washington’s closest allies had shared sensitive weapons data with China.

CIA Director Robert Gates said in 1993 that China had acquired the Patriot technology, but government officials were divided over whether Israel had secretly supplied it. Regarding recent efforts to acquire restricted THEL software, the DIA said that after Rafael was denied access to the source codes, the Israeli representatives demanded further software transfers from the U.S. subcontractor, and also tried to “pressure” TRW into having the State Department grant an export license, the report said. The Israeli program manager and an electronics engineer also tried to illegally obtain software codes and details on the THEL computer controller, according to the DIA.

In a third case, an Israeli Defense Ministry consultant tried to acquire “tracking algorithms” used in the radar focal plane array used by the laser gun’s pointer-tracker. Initial requests for the source code were made on May 1, 1997, and after the request was flatly denied, the consultant set up a meeting with TRW official and again demanded the codes for the weapon’s software. “I have no comment on intelligence matters,” Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon said.

A spokesman for the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command in Huntsville, Ala., said he was unaware of the Israeli efforts to obtain embargoed THEL technology or the improper release of data.”
 
Old August 24th, 2014 #98
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

The Long Battle Against Israels Transfers to China
U.S. Had to Wage Long Battle Against Israel’s
Technology Transfers to China

By Donald Neff

June/July 1997, pgs. 70-72

It was seven years ago, on June 13, 1990, that the Los Angeles Times reported Israel had become the largest supplier of advanced military technology to China since the United States banned military sales in the wake of the Chinese suppression of the democracy movement a year earlier. An unnamed U.S. official told the newspaper that Israel was a “back door to U.S. technology that the United States won’t sell them.”1

The meaning was that Israel was not only breaching America’s embargo, but selling to China technology that the United States had given to it for the Jewish state’s own defense. With the technology came restrictions that Israel would not re-export. What was especially interesting about the Times account was that it cited anonymous U.S. sources. There had been stories over the past decade about the growing Sino-Israeli relationship but few, if any, came from recognizable U.S. sources, who usually hesitated to criticize Israel, even anonymously.

The story was a strong indicator that Israel’s relations with China had grown so massive and intimate that they were becoming too close for comfort for the administration of President George Bush. This was particularly so at a time when China was under worldwide criticism for its antidemocracy policy. Washington was especially loud in its condemnation of China.

Nonetheless, Israel was not deterred. Shortly before the Times report, Israel, which had no official diplomatic relations with China, opened an office of the Israeli Academy of Sciences in Beijing. It was no doubt that blatant act that caused U.S. officials to begin leaking information. The Times’ source said Israel’s supposedly academic office in Beijing was actually “facilitating a whole range of military-to-military cooperation between Israel and China.”

The newspaper said intelligence experts in the West and Asia believed Israel in recent years had provided China with some of the advanced technology needed to modernize China’s jet planes and missiles. It said U.S. officials had told Israel they strongly opposed the military cooperation because it undercut the intended effect of U.S. sanctions against China. “This is over our objections,” a senior administration official told the newspaper. U.S. officials insisted that Israel was not operating as a proxy for the United States in the military sales, as it did when it supplied arms to Iran during the Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages affair.

The story had no discernible impact on Israel, perhaps because the administration had decided to take a low-profile approach by leaking it to a West Coast newspaper rather than The New York Times or Washington Post. Over the next few years an undeclared battle raged as Washington, in its frustration, became increasingly aggressive in its criticism and Israel went on blithely selling arms technology to China and upgrading relations between the two countries.

The U.S. had more than enough evidence to convict Israel, if it had the political will to do so.

A year after the Times report, in June 1991, China and Israel signed a bilateral agreement on scientific cooperation, the only area in which they had official relations. Israel was represented in Beijing by a liaison officer of its Academy of Science office in Beijing.2

On Nov. 20, 1991, the East Coast press finally caught up with the story. Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens was reported to have made a secret official visit to China in early November, the first Israeli minister to visit China. The four-day visit gave an unprecedented boost to the rapidly growing relations.3 By the end of 1991, China’s Deputy Foreign Minister Yang Fuchang visited Israel, the highest Chinese official to do so.4

How fast Sino-Israeli relations were increasing became apparent on Jan. 24, 1992, when China and Israel established formal diplomatic relations in ceremonies in Beijing. The occasion was attended by Chinese Foreign Minister Qian Qichen and Israeli Foreign Minister David Levy.5

The Sino-Israeli relationship was a strange one. China traditionally favored the Arabs in the Arab-Israel conflict, and just the day before the establishment of full relations, Chinese spokesman Wu Jianmin said: “It has been China’s consistent position that the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people should be restored, the Arabs’ occupied territories should be returned, and the sovereignty and security of all the Middle East countries, including Israel, should be guaranteed and respected.”6 Moreover, while Israel based its pleas for enormous amounts of U.S. aid on the danger from Arab countries, its selling of weapons technology to China was indirectly helping strengthen the Arabs because China was a major supplier of missiles to Iran and such Arab countries as Saudi Arabia and Syria.7

Stepped-Up Leaks

In an obvious effort to dampen the burgeoning Sino-Israeli relationship, U.S. officials stepped up their leaks. Unnamed officials revealed in early March 1992 that there was “overwhelming” evidence of Israel’s cheating on written promises not to re-export U.S. weapons technology to Third World countries, including China.8 They added there was well-founded suspicion that Israel was also selling secrets of America’s vaunted Patriot anti-missile missile to China.9 The issue was so serious that a U.S. team of experts was dispatched to Israel in late March but it failed to find any proof of Israeli cheating. The State Department said on April 2 that “the Israeli government has a clean bill of health on the Patriot issue.”10

But there was clearly disagreement in the government. Defense Secretary Dick Cheney said there remained “good reason” to believe a diversion had taken place.11 CIA Director Robert Gates agreed, saying, “There is some indication that they [the Chinese] have some of the [Patriot] technology.”12

About the same time a study by the Pentagon-supported think tank RAND Corp. became public with the conclusion that Israel had become “China’s leading foreign supplier of advanced technology.” It said there had been reports that Israel had helped China develop the HQ-61 surface-to-air missile, the CSS-2 intermediate missile, the PL-8 air-to-air and surface-to-air missile as well as advanced armor for battle tanks and an air-borne early warning radar system. It added Israel was currently cooperating with China to develop an advanced fighter jet.13

These disclosures were followed by a major report in The Wall Street Journal that significantly broadened the scope of the charges. It mentioned illegal Israeli re-exports of an array of technology to a number of countries beyond China, including Chile, Ethiopia, South Africa and Thailand. The story said there was “no doubt in the U.S. intelligence community that Israel has repeatedly engaged in diversion schemes.”14 The Washington Post joined the fray by adding that one official said there were “lots and lots of clear-cut cases.” The clear impression was that the U.S. had more than enough evidence to convict Israel, if it had the political will to do so.15

The leaks by unnamed but official sources came just days before Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Arens was due to meet on March 16, 1992, in Washington with his counterpart, Dick Cheney. Arens’ initial public reaction was outrage: “There is not a grain of truth. No truth in it at all.” But as the volume of charges grew, his statements changed to questioning the motives of the leakers: “The real story is who are these unnamed individuals who are floating these malicious rumors?”16 Defense Secretary Cheney and his spokesmen declined any comment.17

Israel was hit with another major blow on April 1, 1992, when the State Department released a report by its inspector general charging that a “major recipient” of U.S. military aid was engaged in a “systematic and growing pattern” of selling secret U.S. technology in violation of U.S. law. The public report did not directly name Israel, but officials left no doubt that it was the subject of the report. The report said Israel’s violations began about 1983 and that Israel sought to conceal the violations. A secret version of the report allegedly identified Chile, China, Ethiopia and South Africa as among the recipients of Israel’s sales.18

State Department Inspector General Sherman M. Funk said he notified Secretary of State James A. Baker III about intelligence reports of Israel’s violations in June 1991 and that new procedures to prevent future violations were then put in force under an operation called Blue Lantern. Funk said U.S. officials previously had depended on verbal assurances from Israel that it was not retransferring, adding that such assurances from Israel “are not an effective mechanism for providing end-use verification. We identified instances where U.S. items and technology were retransferred or were used in violation of the assurances.”

He added that he had recommended that Israel be forced to repay the money illicitly earned from the transfers but Deputy Secretary of State Lawrence S. Eagleburger rejected the proposal as being an impossible chore. Eagleburger was a protŽgŽ of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and a strong supporter of Israel.

The succession of charges sent a shockwave through Israel, as they no doubt were intended to, because the subject went to the heart of the economic prosperity of the Jewish state. Arms sales of around $1.5 billion annually accounted for 40 percent of Israel’s exports and were based almost entirely on U.S. technology.19

A Revealing Study

The background on how Israel became so advanced in technology was revealed in a study by the General Accounting Office.20 They began in 1970 with the signing of an important and far-reaching Master Defense Development Data Exchange Agreement that provided for the greatest transfer of technology to Israel, or any other country, ever undertaken. Transfer of U.S. technology was provided by what was known as Technical Data Packages, the entire complex of blueprints, plans and types of materials required to actually construct new weapons.

More than 120 such packages were given to Israel over the next eight years, according to a 1979 study by the official Middle East Arms Transfer Panel.21 Such a massive infusion of technology provided a boon to Israel’s economy. By 1981, Israel had emerged from being a technologically backward arms importer to the seventh largest exporter of military weapons in the world, with overseas sales of $1.3 billion.22

An Israeli writer observed, “The Americans have made virtually all their most advanced weaponry and technology, meaning the best fighter aircraft, missiles, radar, armor, and artillery, available to Israel. Israel, in turn, has utilized this knowledge, adapting American equipment to increase its own technological sophistication, reflected tangibly in Israeli defense offerings.”23

Despite the number of reports over the years that Israel was illicitly profiting from U.S. technology at the cost of American companies and U.S. security, Washington continued providing ever-increasing amounts of technology to Israel. According to a report in 1992, there were 322 separate cooperative U.S.-Israeli ventures at that time, valued at $2.9 billion. In addition, there were 49 country-to-country programs involving Israel in co-development or co-production and research with the United States, and there existed 36 active data exchange agreements and 11 new proposed accords. The report concluded: “The magnitude of existing cooperative efforts with Israel is extensive and growing rapidly.”24 Despite that magnitude, when Bill Clinton became president in 1993 he promised to lift the “technological barrier” by granting Israel even more sophisticated technology.25

Meanwhile Sino-Israeli relations flourished. Israeli President Chaim Herzog visited China between Dec. 24 and 30, 1992. In January 1993, with the administration of President Bill Clinton taking over in Washington, Israel and China signed a contract permitting Israel to buy Chinese coal. On Feb. 14, 1993, the two countries signed a scientific agreement for joint research projects in electronics, medical technology, renewable energy, agriculture and civilian uses of space technology.26

On Oct. 12, 1993, the CIA added its weight to the controversy by revealing to the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee that Israel had been selling advanced military technology to China for more than a decade. Central Intelligence Director R. James Woolsey estimated that the trade “may be several billion dollars.” Woolsey added: “Building on a long history of close defense industrial relations, including work on China’s next-generation fighter, air-to-air missiles and tank programs, and the establishment of diplomatic relations in January 1992, China and Israel appear to be moving toward formalizing and broadening their military technical cooperation.”27

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin denied that the trade reached billions of dollars, adding that the figure for 1992 was about $60 million. “All these stories of billions of dollars of arms business in the past 10 years are total nonsense,” he said. “We have made it clear time and again that we have never done a thing against American law…never transmitted items of technology that we got from the United States. We are not stupid enough” to endanger Israel’s annual $3 billion in U.S. aid. He issued his statement in Beijing, where he was on an official four-day visit, the first public visit by Israel’s prime minister.28

The CIA said that new indications of stronger Sino-Israeli ties were the opening of a number of Israeli military sales offices in China, the Feb. 14, 1993 signing by the two countries of an agreement to share technology, and the current visit to Beijing of Rabin. The report stated: “We believe the Chinese seek from Israel advanced military technologies that the U.S. and Western firms are unwilling to provide. Beijing probably hopes to tap Israeli expertise for cooperative development of military technologies, such as advanced tank power plants and airborne radar systems, that the Chinese would have difficulty producing on their own.”29

In 1994, another serious report documented Israel’s sales to China. Professor Duncan L. Clarke of The American University in Washington, DC reported in a study: “For years, Israel had violated the Arms Export Control Act and related executive agreements.30 Israel has employed U.S. weaponry contrary to U.S. law and policy, incorporated U.S. technology into Israeli weapons systems without prior approval, and made improper transfers of U.S. missile and other defense systems and technologies to other countries, including Chile, China, and South Africa.”31

The issue climaxed in early 1995 with yet another series of media reports on Israel’s China trade. These led to official denials by Israel. David Ivri, the director-general of the Israeli Defense Ministry, admitted on Jan. 3 that Israel had sold China “some technology on aircraft” but added that it was not U.S. technology and that the contracts were “very small in magnitude.”32

State Department spokesperson Michael McCurry said the next day that “those types of reports concern us very much….This has been an item on our agenda for some time….This has been going around for some time.” He said Undersecretary of State for International Security Lynn E. Davis had had “substantive discussions with the government of Israel on a range of these types of issues.” McCurry added that he was unaware of any authorization being given to Israel to share any U.S. technology with China.33

On Jan. 6, Aded Ben-Ami, the spokesperson for Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, again denied that Israel had illegally transferred any U.S. technology to China. “Israel did not transfer any American technology or American components to China,” he said.34 Two days later Defense Secretary William Perry discussed the issue with Prime Minister Rabin in Jerusalem, but the Israeli leader again denied any U.S. technology was involved.35

Then, suddenly, the issue disappeared from the public eye.

The controversy had visibly begun in 1990 with anonymous leaks and had grown into official charges by the United States, culminating at the beginning of 1995 with serious discussions between the two countries at the highest levels. After Perry’s meeting with Rabin, the subject dropped from public sight. Whatever action, if any, was taken was not announced. But that was not uncommon. Washington would not want to embarrass its “most reliable” Middle East ally.

RECOMMENDED READING:

Black, Ian, and Benny Morris, Israel’s Secret Wars: A History of Israel’s Intelligence Service, New York, Grove Weidenfeld, 1991.

Beit-Hallahmi, Benjamin, The Israeli Connection, New York, Pantheon Books, 1987.

Brecher, Michael, Decisions in Israel’s Foreign Policy, London, Oxford University Press, 1974.

*Cockburn, Andrew and Leslie, Dangerous Liaison: The Inside Story of the U.S.-Israeli Covert Relationship, New York, HarperCollins Publishers, 1991.

El-Khawas, Mohammed and Samir Abed-Rabbo, American Aid to Israel: Nature and Impact, Brattleboro, VT, Amana Books, 1984.

*Findley, Paul, Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts about the U.S.-Israeli Relationship, Brooklyn, NY, Lawrence Hill Books, 1993.

*Hersh, Seymour M., The Samson Option: Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal and American Foreign Policy, New York, Random House, 1991.

Klieman, Aaron S., Israel’s Global Reach: Arms Sales and Diplomacy, Washington, DC, Pergamon-Brassey’s, 1985.

*Ostrovsky, Victor and Claire Hoy, By Way of Deception, New York, St. Martin’s Press, 1990.

*Raviv, Dan and Yossi Melman, Every Spy a Prince: The Complete History of Israel’s Intelligence Community, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1990.

*Available from the AETBook Club.

FOOTNOTES

1United Press International, #0543, 6/13/90.

2Jackson Diehl, Washington Post, 11/20/91. Also see Israeli Foreign Affairs, “Defense Minister Arens Visited China,”Vol. VII, No. 10-11 (Special Double Issue), 12/16/91.

3Jackson Diehl, Washington Post, 11/20/91; Clyde Haberman, New York Times, 1/9/92.

4Clyde Haberman, New York Times, 1/9/92.

5Lena H. Sun, Washington Post, 1/25/92. A discussion of early Sino-Israeli relations is in Brecher, Decisions in Israel’s Foreign Policy, pp. 111-172. For more recent relations, see Beit-Hallahmi, The Israeli Connection, pp. 36-37.

6New York Times, 1/24/92.

7Richard A. Bitzinger, “Chinese Arms Production and Sales to the Third World,” RAND Corp., 1991.

8Edward T. Pound, Wall Street Journal, 3/13/92; David Hoffman and R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, 3/14/92. For a survey of U.S. support of Israel’s arms industry, see Bishara A. Bahbah, “The US Role in Israel’s Arms Industry,” The Link, Vol. 20, No. 5, December 1987.

9Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times, 3/12-13/92.

10David Hoffman, Washington Post, 4/3/92.

11Bill Gertz, Washington Times, 4/9/92.

12Bill Gertz, Washington Times, 1/5/93.

13Richard A. Bitzinger, “Chinese Arms Production and Sales to the Third World,” RAND Corp., 1991.

14Edward T. Pound, Wall Street Journal, 3/13/92.

15David Hoffman and R. Jeffrey Smith, Washington Post, 3/14/92.

16Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, 3/15/92.

17Eric Schmidt, New York Times, 3/17/92.

18David Hoffman, Washington Post, 4/2/92.

19Cockburns, Dangerous Liaison, p. 7.

20See “U.S.Assistance to the State of Israel, Report by the Comptroller General of the United States,”GAO/ID-83-51, June 24, 1983, U.S. Accounting Office. The report was up to 1983 the most comprehensive survey ever made of the extraordinary special arrangements provided for Israel’s profit. When it was released, the report was heavily censored, but uncensored versions quickly leaked to such organizations as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. An uncensored early draft of the report can be found in El-Khawas and Abeh-Rabbo, American Aid to Israel, pp. 114-91.

2!Middle East Arms Transfer Panel, “Review of Israel’s Military Requirements, 1979-84″; prepared in 8/79; secret.

22Drew Middleton, New York Times, 3/15/81. For a report on the state of Israel’s arms industry in 1986, see Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, 12/7/86.

23Kleiman, Israel’s Global Reach, p. 175.

24Near East Report, 2/10/92.

25Clinton press conference, C-SPAN, 11/12/93; Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, 11/13/93.

26Israeli Foreign Affairs, 2/26/93.

27Michael R. Gordon, New York Times, 10/13/93.

28Patrick E. Tyler, New York Times, 10/14/93.

29Bill Gertz, Washington Times, 10/13/93; Michael R. Gordon, New York Times, 10/13/93.

30The act, PL 94-329, requires that no defense article or service shall be transferred by the U.S. to a foreign country unless that country agrees not to transfer the article to a third country or use it for purposes other than those for which it was furnished, without prior approval of the U.S.

31Duncan L. Clarke, “The Arrow Missile:The United States, Israel and Strategic Cooperation,” Middle East Journal, Summer 1994, pp. 483-84.

32Associated Press, Washington Times, 1/4/95.

33Ibid., 1/5/95.

34Washington Times, 1/7/95.

35Associated Press, Washington Times, 1/9/95.
 
Old August 24th, 2014 #99
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

US Begs Jews to Stop Selling Military Technology to China
Source: The Associated Press | January 2, 2003

United States Asks Israel to Freeze Defense
Exports to China

by Slobodan Lekic

JERUSALEM (AP) – The United States has asked Israel to suspend sales of military equipment to China over concerns that the technology could be used to threaten Taiwan, officials and the media said Thursday.

Israeli government officials were surprised by the U.S. request but had to comply in order not to jeopardize Washington’s massive defense assistance program to Israel, the Haaretz daily said.

Two years ago, Israel pulled out of a deal to supply China with a sophisticated airborne radar system after the Pentagon warned that the early warning planes could be used in an armed conflict with Taiwan. Israel was forced to pay $350 million as compensation after it canceled the contract.

Beijing considers Taiwan a rebellious province and wants it to reunite with China. An improvement in China’s military capabilities could intimidate Taiwan into agreeing to integration on Beijing’s terms or help conquer it if peaceful means fail.

Military ties between Israel and China have grown quickly over the past decade, and Haaretz said some Israeli officials believe the real reason for Washington’s opposition stemmed from the fact that U.S. defense companies were trying to break into China’s market and wanted to eliminate their Israeli competitors.

An official at the U.S. Embassy in Israel confirmed that Israel has been asked to suspend sales of military equipment to China. “The sale of military equipment to China affects the strategic interests of the United States. The government of Israel knows that,” said the diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The official said talks on the issue have been going on for some time.

Rachel Niedak-Ashkenazi, a spokeswoman for the Israeli Defense Ministry, would not comment directly on the suspension. “Periodically, concrete issues arise that require more discussion between ourselves and China and between ourselves and the United States,” she said.

U.S.-China military relations have been steadily improving after traveling a rocky road during the past decade. The two sides are currently finalizing an agreement on resuming military exchanges, reached during a summit between Chinese President Jiang Zemin and President Bush last month.

In November, a U.S. battle group led by the aircraft carrier USS Constellation arrived in Hong Kong for a four-day port call, and a U.S. destroyer visited the port of Qingdao. It was the first port call to mainland China by a U.S. warship since military ties were ruptured following the collision of a Navy spy plane and a Chinese fighter jet in April 2001.
 
Old August 24th, 2014 #100
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

US Links Golan Withdrawal Aid to Halting Arms Sales
Source: Ha’aretz 03/24/2000

U.S. links Golan withdrawal aid to halting arms sales to
China

By Aluf Benn, Ha’aretz Diplomatic Correspondent

The U.S. has again asked Israel not to sell advanced military technologies to China, this time linking it to a defense package in the event of a withdrawal from the Golan. The U.S. made it clear that it sees China’s military empowerment as serious cause for concern, especially in light of current tensions between China and Taiwan, and that any further advancement in China’s military ability is likely to endanger U.S. capabilities in Asia.

The U.S. position was presented to Defense Ministry Director-General Amos Yaron, who yesterday completed a short visit to Washington. Yaron mentioned the issue of an American defense package in exchange for the evacuation of the Golan Heights following a peace agreement with Syria. Members of the Pentagon and the State Department then voiced their concerns over China’s proliferation of power and then effectively linked the two issues. The U.S. does not believe that at a time when Israel is asking for an unprecedently large military aid package and full access to America’s most advanced technologies, including spy satellites and Tomahawk missiles, it should supply modern military technologies to a state viewed by Washington as a strategic enemy.

This warning is the latest in a long line passed on to Israel recently by members of Congress and the U.S. government. The U.S. has in the past accused Israel of abrogating agreements by transferring military technologies to China.

Secretary of Defense William Cohen will visit Israel next month and is expected to voice once again America’s concerns over the sale of arms to China. Chinese President Jiang Zemin will pay his first visit to Israel a short time afterward and is expected to concentrate on the security needs of both countries. The PM’s Office expects Jiang’s visit to pass without incident, as did the visit of the Chinese defense minister in October 1999 just days before a visit by Cohen.

Barak must now decide whether to go ahead with a deal to provide China fitted with AWACS systems. The first plane is due to arrive in Beijing soon. The U.S. is demanding that Israel renege on the next parts of the agreement and supply no more planes to the Chinese.
 
Reply

Tags
#1, solar general

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:38 AM.
Page generated in 0.90034 seconds.