US Tax Dollars Helping EU Arm China

[onedomino]

What the hell is going on here?

Helping Europe arm China?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050202-102013-2861r.htm

By William R. Hawkins
Last Saturday, thousands of Chinese gathered to honor Zhao Ziyang, the Communist Party leader ousted in 1989 for opposing the bloody military assault on pro-democracy demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. Zhao died Jan. 17 after 15 years under house arrest.

The still autocratic Chinese regime took extraordinary measures to prevent his death stirring memories of the student massacre and inciting new protests. It ordered a virtual news blackout, detained dissidents and seized control of the funeral from his family.

President Hu Jintao had already been applying new pressure against "public intellectuals" and what has been denounced as "the new liberalism." Veteran China-watcher Willy Lam has recently said, "Hu and his colleagues are masterminding an old-style ideological campaign to promote Marxist rectitude and 'ideological purity' among cadres and ordinary party members."

Zhao championed market reforms and thus showed how opening to capitalism is not the same as abandoning tyranny.

The day after Zhao's death, Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan said of Tiananmen, "The past 15 years have shown China's decision was correct." Mr. Kong cited the rapid growth of the Chinese economy, fueled by transnational corporations that value the communist dictatorship's stability over the turbulence of popular politics.

The European Union is about to furnish more proof how easy it is to get away with mass murder. Only four days after Zhao's death, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw went to Beijing to pledge London's support for lifting the EU arms embargo on China. Beijing has long denounced the ban on weapons sales as a "Cold War relic" but the ban was actually imposed in retaliation for the Tiananmen massacre.

While France and Germany see arming China as a way to create a "counterweight" to American power, Britain, Italy and other European states are led down this dangerous path by the desire to make money. The EU runs a trade deficit with China that topped $73 billion in the first 10 months of last year. European firms — led by Germany, are moving production to China and then exporting the output back to the EU. Europeans are desperate to increase exports to China to reduce the deficit, and Beijing wants weapons and military technology.

At the China-European Union Summit in The Hague, the Netherlands, last Dec. 9, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao lobbied for lifting the arms embargo. He was rewarded in a very ironic way. The summit issued a Joint Declaration on Nonproliferation and Arms Control which was "to maintain international and regional peace, security and stability" and "to strengthen controls over exports of conventional weapons." Yet Point 7 of this document said, "The EU side confirmed its political will to continue to work towards lifting the embargo."

The Chinese Foreign Ministry claims supplying Beijing with modern arms and military technology "would not harm the interests of any other third party." Such words provide little comfort to Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Philippines or the United States, whose interests are challenged by China's growing ambitions.

European firms have already helped China build new capabilities despite the embargo. British jet engines and satellite technology, and maritime diesel engines from France and Germany have already been adapted for military use. European firms have been able to get around the embargo by claiming sales are for civilian use. However, there is no separation in China between military and civilian sectors, as the government owns all strategic industries.

Italian Deputy Minister of Defense Salvator Cicu attended the Zhuhai international air show last November for the signing of a co-production agreement between the Anglo-Italian firm AgustaWestland and Aviation Industries of China II for a new helicopter design. The Chinese helicopter project is based on the Agusta A-109, which is in use by the U.S. Coast Guard. The A-109 is also a candidate for a new U.S. Army helicopter program. So if the EU lifts its arms embargo on Beijing, it will pose an obvious threat of improved Chinese military capabilities against the United States in Asia. A leading authority on the Chinese military, Richard Fisher, has recently written "by providing almost continuous technology support during the 1990s, European companies have helped China to create a modern attack and transport helicopter sector."

The Pentagon has just selected AgustaWestland to build the new helicopter fleet that will service the White House, picking it over the American Sikorsky firm, which is the mainstay of the U.S. military helicopter industrial base. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, California Republican, responded to the Defense Department choice by saying, "It is difficult to understand why we would use U.S. tax dollars to fund the further development of foreign helicopter technology." It is even harder to understand this decision when it is not just the European industry that is being helped, but through it, Chinese industry as well.

The Bush administration has been trying to dissuade the EU from lifting the arms embargo. But talk is not enough. Washington needs to take the profit out of EU-China cooperation. Any EU firm that contributes to China's military capability should be denied the right to bid on U.S. military contracts or have access to American technology.

Existing contracts should be canceled, e.g., the Presidential helicopter contract with Lockheed-Agusta-Westland. Why should US taxpayer dollars be spent to develop EU helicopter technology? Will the US Navy please explain? Why did Sikorsky not get this contract? It is the US Navy that awarded the Presidential Helicopter contract to the LAW joint venture. It is worth a staggering $6.2 billion; $3.6 billion for a fleet of 23 helicopters and the rest for research and development!! WTF? That’s $274 million per delivered helicopter!! This is outrageous and must be stopped. http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/30/news/copter.html Was this contract a reward for participating in the Iraq Coalition?
-

 

[Annie]

:firing: Good questions and we need some good answers!

 

[dilloduck]

WTF???? is right---that contract outta be yanked--yesterday !!!!!!!!!!!

Our EU buddies are blatantly screwing us AGAIN !

 

[Johnney]

While France and Germany see arming China as a way to create a "counterweight" to American power

im sure they do, until the red is knocking on their door wanting in.

 

[Hobbit]

France appears to be trying to create Eurasia, Eastasia, and Oceania as the three spheres of power. I just have one question...WHY???

 

[Annie]

France appears to be trying to create Eurasia, Eastasia, and Oceania as the three spheres of power. I just have one question...WHY???

To offset the US. It's really unfunny.

 

[Johnney]

France appears to be trying to create Eurasia, Eastasia, and Oceania as the three spheres of power. I just have one question...WHY???

so they can pat themselves in the back and say "see what i did?"
well thats nice jr, but your 42 now, it says a 10 year old could do it

 

[onedomino]

Spinning Marine One
Lockheed, Sikorsky, and the politics of procurement.
by Victorino Matus
02/07/2005 12:00:00 AM

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/219aiwbt.asp

THERE'S SOMETHING ALLURING about flying in a private jet, even if you're sitting backwards, crammed alongside other reporters. Maybe it's because you walk directly onto the tarmac, up the stairs to the Lear, no lines and no need to remove your shoes. Maybe it's the leather chairs and wood paneling. Or maybe it's the free scotch and Snickers bars. Not that I imbibed on the 9:00 a.m. flight to Owego, New York, courtesy of Lockheed Martin. (You would think the largest defense contractor in the world could afford a Gulf Stream. Or a stealth bomber.) Still, it was a treat--and the only thing Lockheed wanted was a story praising the US101 as the helicopter best suited for the president of the United States.

Not that the case couldn't be made. During our trip last October to Owego, home of Lockheed's Systems Integration facility, communications director Michael Drake explained that with the US101's three engines, "you have a choice of where to land. With two, you have to land immediately." In addition, the US101 is battle-tested: Its Royal Marine equivalent, the EH-101, has been serving honorably in Iraq. Said Stephen Ramsey, vice president and general manager of the US101, "What you don't want to offer is a helicopter that is unproven." Officials dubbed it an "Oval Office in the sky." When it comes to systems integration, Lockheed is arguably the best.

So why would you choose anything else?

Two months after the trip to Owego, I was flown to Stratford, Connecticut, home of Sikorsky Aircraft, the long-time maker of the president's current helicopter. We flew on a luxurious Hawker 800, which offered more space than the Lear. "The key," said a British journalist, "is if you can stand up in the aisle." (You can.)

Could Stratford exist without a Sikorsky? It's hard to imagine, what with some 6,000 employees working there. Besides their own Marine One prototype--the VH-92--Sikorsky builds the Blackhawk helicopter, a staple of U.S. presence in Iraq. Touring their plant, it's hard to miss the American flags, proudly hanging on the walls and in the hangars. There's a plaque honoring factory employees who are on active duty in the Middle East. The message is clear: Shouldn't the president of the United States fly in an American-made helicopter? Would the president drive around in a Mercedes?


INDEED, only 65 percent of the Lockheed model is American. The other 35 percent comes from Italy and Great Britain (AgustaWestland). In a post-9/11 environment, Sikorsky makes a valid argument as to whether the gearboxes and rotor blades manufactured abroad will be as secure as something made here. Many Sikorsky employees (though not all) have "Yankee White Clearance"--meaning top secret access, which British and Italian workers lack. Besides which, the aircraft has other merits, which program manager Nick Lappos (himself a veteran helicopter pilot) explains impressively. The VH-92 is an outgrowth of the Blackhawk, which has logged more than 7 million flight hours, he says. Also, three engines are actually a burden on the lift, resulting in less payload and less range--and besides that, with either two engines or three, if something is damaged, you land regardless. And while the US101 claims to be longer, the VH-92 is wider.


IN THE EARLY MONTHS of the competition (known as VXX), Sikorsky Aircraft officials stressed the "Made in America" aspect, while Lockheed maintained that VXX was about getting the best helicopter, not the most American. "Which is the better helicopter?" asked Lockheed's Stephen Ramsey. "Our competitor wants to divert attention away from that and talk about how American they are. Frankly we think the first question ought to be 'Shouldn't the president have the best helicopter?'" And besides, "If our key allies are good enough to shed their blood, sweat, and tears with us on the battlefield, why isn't the product of their industrial labor good enough for our president?"

Sikorsky insisted that long before the "Buy American" argument was made, their rivals were politicizing the issue at a much deeper level. To wit, a letter sent to President Bush in January of 2003 that read in part:

Dear George,
I understand that you intend to accelerate the replacement of your Marine Corps Executive Transport helicopters. I wanted to draw your attention to the significant capabilities offered by the US101 helicopter for this role . . . . With many thousands of flying hours behind it, the US101 is a low risk solution with the additional safety and security provided by the latest technology (including U.S. defensive measures) and three engines . . . . I hope that you will be able to look favorably on this proven "off the shelf" product.

Yours ever,
Tony

The "Tony" in question is one Prime Minister Tony Blair.


LAST DECEMBER, when Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and President Bush met with the press, a member of the Italian media (who some suspect was a plant) asked if the two men discussed the contest for Marine One. Said Berlusconi, "Italian helicopter is almost completely made, manufactured in the United States . . . . I can only say that I've been flying these helicopters for 30 years and I'm still here." Bush ended the meeting, saying "The prime minister brought up the issue. I'm very familiar with it. . . . I'm very aware of the joint venture. I understand the nature of U.S. jobs that will be created in this venture, and I assured him the venture will be treated fairly."

Two leaders integral to Bush's coalition of the willing were making an unprecedented lobbying effort for a U.S. government contract bid. "You want to talk political?" scoffed a Sikorsky representative.

When the government's decision was postponed until after the presidential election, insiders saw it as a good sign for Lockheed--awarding the $1.8 billion contract to a partially European venture would have led critics to charge the president with turning his back on 9,000 American jobs--he was outsourcing Marine One! When the Defense Acquisition Board announced a decision would be made at the end of January, prior to Bush's visit to Europe, others speculated this also benefited Lockheed since there was no way the president would go to Blair and Berlusconi empty-handed. But just before January 28th, an Italian newspaper claimed to have sources saying the winner of the bid was Sikorsky.

The winner was, in fact, Lockheed/AgustaWestland. According to John Young, assistant secretary of the Navy, "The Lockheed streamlining proposal was selected because it was judged more likely to meet . . . government requirements on schedule, with lesser risk, and at a lower cost."


SECRETARY YOUNG'S ANNOUNCEMENT set off a firestorm, mostly through a flurry of press releases: Connecticut senator Joseph Lieberman called the decision "outrageously wrong. It insults Sikorsky's workers and management, who earned the right to build the president's helicopter. As I said from day one, our commander in chief should fly in the very best helicopter made in America--and the only one that meets that standard was Sikorsky's." His counterpart in the House, Democrat Rosa DeLauro, suggested the Navy's strategy was "short-sighted and deeply flawed." She continued, "In awarding this contract not to Sikorsky but to Lockheed Martin--a company that has never been in the business of making helicopters--the administration has shown that it has no faith in American business or American workers." Duncan Hunter, the Republican chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, was equally incensed, saying "it is difficult to understand why we would use U.S. tax dollars to fund development of foreign helicopter technology."

On the other side, Senator Hillary Clinton said she "can attest that it will serve the president well . . . . the US101 truly represents the best that New York and America have to offer." Citizens Against Government Waste applauded the decision. Said CAGW president Tom Schatz: "Taxpayers avoided what could have been another helicopter sinkhole had Sikorsky won the contract. Twenty years ago, Sikorsky's Comanche seemingly had it all: dazzling graphics, wide political support and great promise. However, the helicopter never materialized; $8 billion later, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mercifully discontinued the project . . . . Thankfully, DOD learned its lesson and chose not to head down the same expensive and ultimately fruitless road."

Douglas Harpel, the Washington correspondent for Defence Systems Daily and president of Aerospace Intelligence, a Washington-based consulting firm, offered this assessment: "Sikorsky, offering a variant of its spanking new S-92, decided to play the 'All-American' card early and often. The trouble was, as the Navy noted last week, the competition came down to schedule, risk, and price, with national origin not registering. Proven performance meant more than promised performance; 'made in quantity' meant more than 'made in America.'"

For Sikorsky, the next few months are vital. They've recently lost the Comanche and Marine One. If they lose this summer's bid for the Air Force's Personnel Recovery Vehicle, what will happen to the company and its employees? True, Sikorsky continues to thrive on the Blackhawk and the larger CH-53X Super Stallion. But losing a prestige contract and billions of dollars in research and development is a serious blow. Sikorsky called the Marine One competition "a must-win" and many presume that now the company's president Steve Finger will have to step down.

"But would the president really kill Sikorsky?" asked another trade writer. In other words, in the interest of protecting the dwindling U.S. military-helicopter base, a compensation contract would need to go to Sikorsky. Which might leave Lockheed wondering if they really won at all.

-

 

[Annie]

Speaking of a Hobbesian choice! Geez, better him than me. :teeth:

 

[taff]

What the hell is going on here?

Existing contracts should be canceled, e.g., the Presidential helicopter contract with Lockheed-Agusta-Westland. Why should US taxpayer dollars be spent to develop EU helicopter technology? Will the US Navy please explain? Why did Sikorsky not get this contract? It is the US Navy that awarded the Presidential Helicopter contract to the LAW joint venture. It is worth a staggering $6.2 billion; $3.6 billion for a fleet of 23 helicopters and the rest for research and development!! WTF? That’s $274 million per delivered helicopter!! This is outrageous and must be stopped. http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/30/news/copter.html Was this contract a reward for participating in the Iraq Coalition?
-

What the hell is your problem with Britain. The arms embargo your talking about is a European embargo that was enforced during the cold war.Times change and now the EU feel they can remove their embargo.Its not an American embargo or a world embargo so why should we ask permision to do so. You really are not from this planet are you.As for the roter blades being built in Britain ,WOW , big deal.The RAF has just replaced the Lynx attack helicopter with YOUR apache helicopters.The munitions for this is being bought from Manitoba in Canada. Our navy is kitting itself out with YOUR cruise missiles ensuring more work for American labour, Now do i have a problem with any of this? No i dont. But then you hate the Brits dont you Onedomino.I mean the last time we spoke you started telling me i was anti semitic just because im European.Started posting links to newspaper articles proclaiming all Europeans as jew haters.Well let me suprise you idiot, if you type in the same thing in your search box enquiring about America then you shall get the same rubbish appear.Does this mean all Americans are jew haters.No of course it doesnt so why do you believe it when it appears about the Brits

 

[onedomino]

You should really go back on your medication, taff. Remember the Chinese, taff? They are the ones defecating all over the freedom the Brits left behind in Hong Kong. I have lived in Shanghai. From personal experience I know the Chinese are oppressed: no one can vote for anything. Remember democracy, taff? Or does selling weapons take precedent over that incidental detail? The Chinese live in a state controlled communications blackout. Remember freedom of the press, taff? Or are you sanguine about your government selling weapons to a country that routinely blocks the internet when it does not like the news content? My point is this: countries selling weapons to the totalitarian oppressors in China, as the EU intends, should receive no military technology transfers from the US. Period. And that includes the UK, which should know better. Chinese weapons purchased from the British, French, and Germans will be pointed at Americans defending democracy in Taiwan.

 

[taff]

I dont mind you critisising the UK for lifting the embargo to China, because i dont agree with it myself.But i do mind if its constantly surfing the net just to find negative remarks to post about Britain.I have nothing negative to say about the Americans, in fact i served a lot of time with them in different areas around the world.Thats why i dont understand your constant critisism.

 

[onedomino]

I dont mind you critisising the UK for lifting the embargo to China, because i dont agree with it myself.But i do mind if its constantly surfing the net just to find negative remarks to post about Britain.I have nothing negative to say about the Americans, in fact i served a lot of time with them in different areas around the world.Thats why i dont understand your constant critisism.

taff, I have posted more than 650 times on this message board. You can point-and-click to select all my posts. Go through them. If you find more than ten that pertain to the UK, I'd be surprised. Regarding threads, I can only remember two. Unless, of course, you consider posts about the EU equal to posts about the UK, which I do not. I have posted several topics about the EU.

 

[Johnney]

taff, I have posted more than 650 times on this message board. You can point-and-click to select all my posts. Go through them. If you find more than ten that pertain to the UK, I'd be surprised. Regarding threads, I can only remember two. Unless, of course, you consider posts about the EU equal to posts about the UK, which I do not. I have posted several topics about the EU.

EVIL POST!! 666

 

[taff]

Then i apologise Onedomino for jumping the gun at you. Sometimes i did find the posts insulting when referring to the EU however from now on i know you are talking about continental Europe and not including Britain.

 

[Annie]

Then i apologise Onedomino for jumping the gun at you. Sometimes i did find the posts insulting when referring to the EU however from now on i know you are talking about continental Europe and not including Britain.

Taff whenever I refer to the EU, I am excluding UK and Eastern Europe. FYI. :teeth:

 

[Said1]

Taff whenever I refer to the EU, I am excluding UK and Eastern Europe. FYI. :teeth:

Me too!

 

[taff]

Cheers Kathianne,Said1. Any posts you make against Europe i shall giggle at with you knowing they are not directed at the UK.The continentals have been quite pathetic over the last year so it is good to be seperated from them.

 

[Annie]

Cheers Kathianne,Said1. Any posts you make against Europe i shall giggle at with you knowing they are not directed at the UK.The continentals have been quite pathetic over the last year so it is good to be seperated from them.

warm of course!