. CONSEQUENCES OF CHINA'S MIUTARY SALES ,^^ TO IRAN Y 4. IN 8/16; C 44/12 Consequences of China's llilitarg Sa. . HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SEPTEMBER 12, 1996 Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations '^0 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 35-167CC WASHINGTON : 1996 ForsalebyiheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Wa.shington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-053684-7 ^^ CONSEQUENCES OF CHINA'S MIUTARY SALES TO IRAN Y 4. IN 8/16; C 44/12 Consequences of China's Hilitarg Sa... HEAEING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS HOUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SEPTEMBER 12, 1996 Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations ^^Ci3 fSSi U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 35-167CC WASHINGTON : 1996 ForsalebytheU.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice SuperintendentofDocuments,CongressionalSalesOffice,Washington,DC 20402 ISBN 0-16-053684-7 COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania LEE H. HAMILTON, Indiana JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut TOBY ROTH, Wisconsin TOM LANTOS, California HENRYJ. HYDE, Illinois ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska HOWARD L. BERMAN, Cahfornia CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York DAN BURTON. Indiana HARRY JOHNSTON, Florida JAN MEYERS, Kansas ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American ELTON GALLEGLY, California Samoa ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey DANA ROHRABACHER, California ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey EDWARD R. ROYCE, California SHERROD BROWN, Ohio PETERT. KING, New York CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia JAY KIM, California ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas ALBERT RUSSELL WYNN, Maryland DAVID FUNDERBURK, North Carolina JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia STEVENJ. CHABOT, Ohio VICTOR O. FRAZER, Virgin Islands (Ind.) MARSHALL "MARK" SANFORD, South CHARLIE ROSE, North Carolina Carolina PAT DANNER, Missouri MATT SALMON, Arizona EARL HILLIARD, Alabama AMO HOUGHTON, New York TOM CAMPBELL, California JON FOX, Pennsylvania Richard J. Garon, ChiefofStaff Michael H. Van DusEN, Democratic ChiefofStaff Deborah Bodlander, Professional StaffMember Kenneth KatymaN, CRS Close Support Tracy E. Hart, StaffAssociate (11) CONTENTS WITNESSES Page Dr. Beth Cams, ResearchAnalyst, Center forNavalAnalyses 3 Mr. Michael Eisenstadt, Military Fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy 8 Mr. Leonard Spector, Senior Fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 11 APPENDIX StatementofChairman BenjaminA. Oilman 27 Statement ofDr. Seth Cams 29 Statement andbiographyofMr. Michael Eisenstadt 37 Statement andbiographyofMr. LeonardSpector 42 Questions submittedby Representative Brown andMr. Specter's answers 50 StatementofRepresentative Robert Menendez 53 (III) CONSEQUENCES OF CHINA'S MILITARY SALES TO IRAN THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1996 House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations, DC Washington, The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:07 a.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Benjamin A. Oilman, chairman ofthe committee, presiding. Chairman Oilman. The hearing will come to order. Our hearing today is entitled Consequences of China's Military Sales to Iran. Our witnesses have been asked to inform us about the effects of Chinese weapons that were sold to Iran will have on our troops, upon Israel, and the stability ofthe region. According to the State Department's annual report on terrorism entitled, "Patterns of Global Terrorism 1995," "Iran remains the premier state sponsor of international terrorism and is deeply in- volved in the planning and execution of terrorist acts both by its own agents and by surrogate groups. 'This year Tehran escalated its assassination campaign against dissidents living abroad... "Iran provides arms, training, and money to Lebanese Hizballah and several Palestinian extremist groups that use terrorism to op- pose the Middle East peace process. Tehran, which is against any compromise with or recognition of Israel, continued in 1995 to en- courage Hizballah, HAMAS, the PIJ, the PFLP-gc, and other Pal- estinian rejectionist groups to form a coordinated front to resist Is- rael and the peace process through violence and terrorism." Hizballah held American hostages in Lebanon and blew up the marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Hizballah was also responsible for bombing the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992, killing some 96 people. Iran has a network of clandestine operatives in the Persian Gulf states. There are indications that Iran was involved in the June 25 bombing in Dhahran. Early this Summer, Bahrain, a close ally of the United States, uncovered an Iranian plot to destabilize the re- gime there. Little by little, Iran is gaining influence in Iraq. It arms, trains, and funds Islamic guerrillas that are active not only in southern Iraq but in the north as well. Iranian meddling has much to do with the intra-Kurdish fighting in Iraq that has now brought Sad- dam Hussein back in control in the north. According to the State Department's terrorism report, "Iran con- tinued to view the United States as its principal foreign adversary, (1) supporting groups such as Hizballah that pose a threat to U.S. citi- zens." With the help of China, Iran is becoming a formidable military power. China supplies Iran with weapons of mass destruction and delivery technology. China's assistance has helped Iran to develop one ofthe largest chemical weapons programs in the world. A CIA study concluded that China had "delivered dozens, per- haps hundreds, ofmissile guidance systems and computerized tools to Iran." In January 1996, the U.S. Navy detected an Iranian test firing of a Chinese supplied C-802 sea-skimming cruise missile in the Persian Gulf. China is said to have sold Iran about 40 of the mis- siles, against which the U.S. Navy does not have a reliable defense. Chinese Silkworm missiles were fired by Iran at U.S.-escorted ships during the Iran-Iraq war. Accordingly, this committee needs to take a good hard look at what these Chinese weapons in the hands of the current, hostile, anti-American Iranian regime means to our troops in the region and to our friends and allies. We look forward to hearing from our witnesses today. Our witnesses today include Dr. Seth Carus, research analyst, Center for Naval Analyses; Mr. Michael Eisenstadt, military fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy; Mr. Leonard Specter, senior fellow, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. I am going to call on our members for any opening statements. [Chairman Oilman's statement appears in the appendix.] Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for convening this very important hearing. What the committee is trying to find out today is whether there is anything the Beijing regime can do, anything at all, so egregious that it willcause the Clinton administration to reconsider its policy ofappeasement ofthat brutal regime. Our government has taken the position in recent years that the way to get Beijing to behave is what it calls constructive or com- prehensive engagement. So we impose no economic or diplomatic sanctions, not even mild ones, for the imprisonment ofpolitical and religious dissidents, for torture, for forced abortion and steriliza- tion, or for genocide against the people of Tibet. We impos—ed no sanctions—against the PRC for supplying nuclear materials ring magnets to Pakistan although our law clearly required such sanc- tions. The Administration evaded this requirement by pretending that the Chinese Government did not really know it had been sup- plying those ring magnets. Today we will hear testimony about the more dangerous form of proliferation by Beijing, not to Pakistan but to Iran. Our distin- guished witnesses will provide not only details of what is going on but also I hope about the extent to which this activity represents a threat to the interests of the United States and to other freedom- loving peoples and about what the United States wants to do in re- sponse. Ironically, the Clinton administration frequently announces that it will impose trade sanctions against the PRC for economic infrac- tions such as pirating software and CD's and videocassettes. This suggests that when the U.S. Government really wants to persuade the PRC government to stop doing something we disapprove of, it regards trade sanctions as an effective tool. Perhaps our witnesses today will be able to help us understand whether the use of trade sanctions in one case but not the others just means this, that the Clinton administration cares more about software and CD's and cassettes than about nuclear proliferation and whether there is a principled way to defend the distinction. Thank you for having this timely hearing. I yield back. Chairman Oilman. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Mr. Bereuter. Mr. Bereuter. I have no opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Oilman. We will start with Dr. Carus's statement. Dr. Cams is currently a research analyst at the Center for Naval Anal- yses, and while at CNA he has researched and written classified studies for the Office of the Secretary of Defense Department of Navy, including a study of the implications of North Korean NBC capabilities for the prosecution of a major regional conflict on the Korean Peninsula. Prior to joining CNA, Dr. Carus worked in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, assigned to the Policy Plan- ning Office. Dr. Carus received his Ph.D. in international relations from Johns Hopkins University in 1987. Dr. Carus, you may submit your full statement or summarize, whichever you feel appropriate. STATEMENT OF DR. SETH CARUS, RESEARCH ANALYST, CENTER FOR NAVALANALYSES Dr. Carus. With your permission, I will summarize my prepared statement. Chairman Oilman. Without objection, your full statement will be made part ofthe record. Please proceed. Dr. Carus. It is an honor to be asked to testify before this com- mittee. I will be focusing specifically on the implications of Chinese conventional arms transfers to Iran. Before proceeding, let me clarify that my views do not necessarily represent those either of the Center for Naval Analyses or the De- partment ofDefense. In addition, I want to clearly indicate that all the information discussed here is from open sources. Why should we care about Chinese arms sales to Iran? China is not the only supplier of arms to Iran, nor in most cases is it the source of the most advanced arms going to the Islamic Republic. Just to take a few examples, while China has sold Iran some F- 7 fighters which are versions of the very old Soviet fighter, the MIO-21, Russia has provided larger numbers of the far more capa- ble MIO-29 fighter and SU-24 strike aircraft. Moreover, while the Chinese have supplied versions of the anti- quated SAM-2, the Russians are apparently negotiating with the Iranians on the sale of the SAM-10, which is one of the world's most sophisticated surface-to-air missiles. As it happens, we care about Chinese arms sales to Iran for a very specific reason. If it was deliveries just limited to the systems that I described, we would care little, but unfortunately that is not the case. Chinese arms supplies have played a sig^iificant role in two categories ofconcern to the United States. First, the Chinese have supplied the Iranians with large quan- tities of the short-range CSS-8 surface-to-surface to supplement the longer-range Scud derivatives obtained from the North Kore- ans. China also is reported to have supplied technology needed by Iran in its indigenous efforts to develop and build more capable surface-to-surface missiles. Second, the Chinese have played a central role in the reconstruc- tion of Iranian naval warfare capabilities. The growing capabilities of Iran's naval forces since the end of the Iran-Iraq war in 1988 poses a serious challenge both to the interests of the United States and its friends and allies in the region. It is this Chinese contribu- tion to Iran's growing naval power that is the focus of my testi- mony today. The strategic importance ofIranian naval armaments grows from the economic geography ofthe Persian Gulf. Through the waters of the Persian Gulf transit much of the world's petroleum. Every oil- producing country in the Gulf exports at least some of its oil using tankers that must pass through the Strait of Hormuz to reach the international markets. Even Saudi Arabia, which has a large pipe- line that carries much ofits oil to a port in the Red Sea, transports most of its oil by ship from the Gulf. As a result, safe passage through the waters ofthe Persian Gulf is vital to the international economy. By its geographic position, Iran dominates the Gulf. It has the longest coastline in the Gulf, which stretches its entire length from the border with Iraq to the Strait of Hormuz. As a result, Iran casts a looming shadow over everything that happens there. In par- ticular, it dominates the routes that tankers must travel to leave the Gulf. Besides its control over half of the Strait of Hormuz, Ira- nian-controlled islands inside the Gulf sit astride the key tanker routes. Thus, Iran and its naval forces are well positioned to chal- lenge the movement oftankers. Iran has made considerable efforts to strengthen its naval forces in the years since the end of the Iran-Iraq war. Most of the mili- tary exercises conducted by the Iranians since 1988 have involved naval forces, reflecting the importance Iran assigns to its maritime border. In addition, the Iranians have acquired significant amounts ofnew naval equipment. As I mentioned before, the Chinese have played a significant role in these efforts although they are not the only supplier. Thus, the Russian sale ofKilo submarines to Iran is the most widely reported sale of naval equipment to Iran. But while the submarines may be the most expensive Iranian purchase, I tend to believe that they are far less important than the less well known Chinese supplies. The recent Chinese sales to Iran continue a pattern of activity that began nearly a decade ago. In 1987, the Chinese provided Iran with Silkworm anti-ship missiles. At the time, the Chinese denied supplying them, and it appears that the missiles were sent to Iran through North Korea so the Chinese leadership could deny respon- sibility for the shipments. Significantly, the Silkworm missiles were shipped at a time of growing tensions between Iran and the United States and posed se-