State Council on Cox Report
Beijing Zhongguo Xinwen She -- 1342 GMT 31 May 1999
Comparative version of report on State Council Information Office
Director Zhao Qizheng criticizing US "Cox Report," originally filed
from Beijing Xinhua Domestic in Chinese; explanatory notes
describe differences from the Xinhua Domestic version
Beijing, 31, May (ZXS) -- Zhao Qizheng, director of
the Information Office of the State Council, pointed out at a news
conference held this afternoon by the Information Office of the State
Council that the 'Cox Report' is another adverse current against China
among the series of anti-China incidents created by some people in the
United States over recent years. The Chinese Government and the people
express great indignation at such attack that is marked by fabrication of
facts, by turning white into black, by creating something out of nothing,
and by speaking and acting on hearsay evidence.
Zhao Qizheng issued a statement on the "Cox Report." Full text of the
statement as follows: [Xinhua version reads: Zhao Qizheng, director of
the Information Office of the State Council, today issued a statement on
the publication of the "Cox Report" by the US Congress. He pointed out:
The "Cox Report" is a farce to instigate anti-China feelings and
undermine Sino-US relations.]
A number of American anti-China politicians, represented by
Christopher Cox, dished out a tediously long so-called investigation
report on 25 May 25, after more than half a year of meticulous scheming.
The report alleges that sophisticated national defense technology and
major scientific and technological achievements related to national
economic progress developed independently by China through self-reliance
are "stolen" or illegally "acquired" from the United States. The Chinese
Government and people are strongly indignant over this groundless attack
that is based on fabrications and confuses black and white.
The Cox Report claims that "the PRC employs all types of people,
organizations, and collection operations to acquire sensitive technology
from the United States. Threats to the United States' national security
can come from PRC scientists, students, business people, or bureaucrats,
in addition to professional civilian and military intelligence
operations." This is an extremely great slander against the Chinese
nation and is typical racial prejudice. China is a large country with a
long history of civilization. The Chinese nation is an industrious and
ingenious nation. China has always relied on its own efforts to handle
its own affairs. Never did China in the past, nor does it at present, nor
will it in the future, base its development of the major and
sophisticated national defense technology related to national security
and interests on the "theft" of technology from other countries. China
relies on its own strength to independently develop its national defense
science and technology. This is a basic principle China has consistently
upheld.
He said: As everybody knows, during the years when the United States
imposed an all-round blockade and used nuclear blackmail against China,
China relied on its own efforts to develop "two bombs, one satellite" and
other sophisticated national defense technology. Fifteen years before
China and the United States established diplomatic relations, on 29 June
1964, China successfully launched the first domestically developed
surface-to-surface missile, and on 16 October the same year, China
successfully exploded its first atomic bomb. Twelve years before the
establishment of Sino-US diplomatic relations, on 17 June 1967, China
exploded its first H-bomb. Nine years before the establishment of Sino-US
diplomatic relations, on 24 April 1970, China successfully launched its
own man-made earth satellite. These facts indicate that China has a full
capacity to independently develop any sophisticated national defense
technology. Cox and other anti-China politicians in the United States,
turning a blind eye to these facts, have tried their best to belittle and
deny the Chinese people's innovative capacity in developing sophisticated
national defense technology.
He pointed out: The Cox Report attacks China for extensively "stealing"
various military technologies of the United States over a long period.
But terms of conjecture such as "seemingly," "presumably," "if,"
"perhaps," "probably," and "perhaps in the future" can be found
throughout the report while offering no substantive evidence. Without any
solid and concrete facts, they even claim China "stole" US sensitive
technology in an organized and extensive way that threatens the national
security of the United states. This is utterly absurd. This sensational
conclusion does not hold water. The Cox Report also brands such normal
academic activities as investigating and studying open materials and
international academic exchanges as "stealing" US technological secrets.
This is extremely ridiculous. It uses the method of first maintaining
that China displays the behavioral pattern of "stealing," and then
fabricating facts subjectively by scraping together deliberately
concocted information. By the way, I would like to tell you a fact that
the concept of Simulated Nuclear Explosion by Laser used in the Cox
Report was developed on the basis of "ICF" (Inertial Confinement Fusion
by Laser), which was originally advanced by the Chinese scientist Mr.
Wang Ganchang in 1964. China has never said that the use of this theory
by other counties is a theft of technology.
He said: China has been relying on its own efforts to manufacture and
develop its nuclear weapons. China has never, as the Cox Report claims,
"stolen" secrets from the US nuclear weapons laboratory. In reality,
performance data on the seven types of nuclear warheads, W56, W62, W70,
W76, W78, W87, and W88 have long been openly published in the United
States. They are no longer secrets, so there is nothing to "steal." For
instance, the "US Nuclear Forces and Capability," the first volume of the
"Nuclear Weapons Databook," written by Thomas B. Cochran and others in
1984, and "US Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History," written by Chuck
Hansen in 1988, all make a detailed introduction to the aforementioned
nuclear warheads' power, weight, length, diameter, materials, circular
error probability and other relevant data, as well as development units,
supporting carrier system, and the armed services to be equipped. The
writers specifically pointed out that all the materials they quoted came
from the records of hearings of the US Congress, the three major nuclear
laboratories of the US Department of Energy, and the US Department of
Defense, in order to emphasize the authority and reliability of the
books. Moreover, in recent years, performance data about various types of
nuclear warheads, ranging from the early MK-1 to the latest W88, can
easily be found on the Internet.
He said the Cox Report claimed that the US has conducted about 1,030
nuclear tests, while China has only carried out 45 such tests. But China
has developed advanced thermal nuclear warheads technologically similar
to those of the United States. Here, the report, humming and hawing,
drops a hint that China has achieved this by "stealing" US nuclear
technology, otherwise, the achievement would be impossible. This kind of
logic is quite ridiculous. According to it, any scientific and
technological achievements attained by other countries, particularly
those developed faster than in the United States, come from technology
"stolen" from the United States. This is wildly arrogant. It only took
China two years and eight months to go from the explosion of the first
atom bomb to that of the first H-bomb. China achieved this under the
condition of a severe US blockade. This achievement, perhaps, cannot be
denied by certain anti-China politicians in the United States.
He pointed out that the Cox Report also greatly distorts China's space
efforts. China began developing its own space program during the period
of embargo and blockade by Western countries. China's space sector has
developed by totally relying on its own strength. Without any foreign
assistance, China has independently developed intermediate and
short-range missiles, long-range rockets, submarine-launched
solid-propellant rockets, recoverable satellites, the technology to
launch multiple satellites atop a single rocket, and geostationary
communication satellites. When China announced it would enter the
international commercial satellite launching market in 1985, the country
already had the experience of 20 successful launches, giving it the
ability to launch all kinds of satellites in high, medium, and low
orbits. China launched the first international commercial satellite in
1990. Launched by the Long March-III carrier rocket, the "Asiasat I"
satellite made by the Hughes Corp. achieved the most accurate orbit
insertion precision among the 31 satellites in the same category launched
by the company to that date. These facts all demonstrate that the space
technology of China has already ranked among the world's top level.
He said that commercial satellite launches represent the peaceful use
of space technologies and is a normal commercial activity based on mutual
benefit. The Cox Report slanders China by saying it had "acquired" US
missile guidance technology through commercial launches to promote the
development of its own missiles. This is a totally deceptive statement
that substitutes one thing for another. Although China already had the
high- precision missile guidance technology, people with even slight
scientific knowledge will know that commercial satellite launches require
only an economical and rational guidance system with moderate precision,
instead of the high-precision guidance system needed for ballistic
missiles. It is understandable if it is a non-professional who is saying
that the precision of the missile guidance system can be improved through
commercial launches. But it is very surprising that such a statement
comes from the so-called investigation report of the Special Committee of
the US Congress. The Cox Report uses many pages to exaggerate China's
failures in commercial satellite launches in 1995 and 1996. It alleges
that because the reasons for the failures were all determined under the
guidance of American experts, China could improve its carrier-rocket
technology and then apply it to its missiles. It is sheer nonsense. The
rocket has been developed by China itself, and the various flight data
are kept by the Chinese. The Chinese have been independently developing
rockets for more than 30 years, during which time they have experienced
numerous successes and failures. Do they still need others' guidance to
remove any glitches? Moreover, the Chinese cannot easily leak the details
of their own rocket design. How can the Americans who don't know the ins
and outs of the thing give any guidance? Since China has the ability to
independently develop the carrier rocket, it certainly has the ability to
solve the problems related to its flight technology. China has never and
has no such need to "acquire" the sensitive technology of the United
States through the investigation of glitches.
China launches US satellites strictly in accordance with the agreement
between the governments of the two countries. The security of US-made
satellites was under the strict 24-hour control of the US side, he said.
However, the Cox Report claims, "It would be surprising if China has not
exploited security lapses while US-built satellites and associated
equipment and documents were in China." This is really surprising to
wantonly make such a subjective assumption, especially when it is unable
to prove that China "has stolen" sensitive US technology through
commercial launches!
The Cox Report not only slanders China "stealing" US nuclear weapon and
missile technology, but also charges that China has applied the advanced
US technologies in the areas of high-performance computers, civil
aviation, and precision machinery for military purposes. And, based on
this, it suggests the United States intensify control over the export of
dual-purpose commodities and technology to China. It even unreasonably
demands China should establish a so-called open and transparent system
which enables American nationals designated by the United States to
examine on the spot the end-users without advance notice. This is a
hegemonic act that disregards China's sovereignty and violates the basic
norms governing international relations. China by no means agrees with
this.
He also pointed out that Chinese scientists, students, and personnel
working and studying in the US have made positive contributions to
increasing exchanges between China and the US and understanding between
the two peoples. Their dignity and rights should be respected. Facts have
shown that acts like the "Cox Report" that creates something out of
nothing and that make willful accusations will only incur a general
antipathy among scientific, educational, industry, and commerce circles,
and among the general public. [Xinhua version omits the above paragraph]
A short time ago, the US-led NATO used missiles to attack the Chinese
Embassy in Yugoslavia, which has been strongly condemned by the Chinese
Government and people and the international community. It seems totally
intentional that the Cox Report was published under the current
circumstances. It is another adverse current against China among the
series of anti-China incidents created by some people in the United
States over recent years. Their purpose is to divert public attention,
fan anti-China feelings, defame China's image, and try to hold back
Sino-US relations so as to contain China in its development. This attempt
is doomed to fail.
He stressed that China will unswervingly persist in taking economic
construction as the central task, adhere to reform and opening up, and
stick to the independent foreign policy of peace. China is a peace-loving
country. China develops its scientific and technological undertakings and
its national defense strength for the purpose of safeguarding the
national security and interests, and maintaining state sovereignty and
world peace. China opposes hegemonism, and China will never seek
hegemony.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
