Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Eye on China and Taiwan
Common Ground Common Sense > Issues that Affect Our Lives > Foreign Policy and National Defense > Foreign Policy & National Defense Issues Archive
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Snuffysmith
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HC31Cb06.html
Gutierrez shifts US-China trade policy emphasis

BEIJING - China and the United States should work together to ease the rising protectionist sentiment in the latter, US Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said on Wednesday while on an official visit to Beijing.

He made the remarks after a six-month delay was announced in a Senate vote on proposed sanctions against Chinese imports linked to the value of the yuan. The vote had been scheduled for this Friday.

Gutierrez, in a speech to US business people, appealed to Chinese leaders to help fight efforts to restrict trade. "The voices in the United States calling for protectionist policies are very real. There is a real protectionist and isolationist sentiment creeping up in our country," he said. "That is not good for trading relationships."

Gutierrez said an erosion of trade between the two countries would have a negative impact on the US economy and have even greater consequences for progress in China, noting: "Think what [it] would do to China's economy if China's No 1 customer all of a sudden decided to be protectionist ... and frankly not buy as much as it does today ... [this] would be devastating to China's economy."

The comments were seen by some as indicating a shift in emphasis of US trade policy on China, which has been focused on the yuan-dollar exchange rate. Since the exchange-rate issue has been put on the back burner after the delay this week of the proposed Schumer-Graham tariff bill, Gutierrez' focus on the benefits to China of freer trade and more strict enforcement of laws protecting intellectual property has been taken as a likely indicator of where the emphasis of US trade policy will lie in the coming months.

Admitting that the United States derives significant benefits from commerce with China, the secretary quoted the latest American Chamber of Commerce survey as saying that about two-thirds of US companies had expanded the range of products and services they offer in China. Protectionism is the worst thing that can happen, he said, adding that the two sides should seek to revolve disputes with candid dialogue.

Gutierrez called on China to open its market further and promote the enforcement of intellectual-property protection. The secretary noted that Chinese efforts to subsidize local industries, promote home-grown security standards for wireless computer networks, and restrict multinationals' access to government purchasing programs were straining trade ties. "Our companies still don't have the access that they were promised under the terms of China's WTO entry," he said.

On Tuesday, Gutierrez met with his Chinese counterpart Bo Xilai and Vice Premier Wu Yi to "ensure the two countries use the China-US Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade [JCCT] to achieve results". This year's session of the JCCT, a top-level commercial dialogue mechanism, is scheduled for next month on the eve of talks between President Hu Jintao and US President George W Bush in the United States.

Gutierrez' talks with Bo covered numerous issues, ranging from market access and intellectual-property rights to the trade deficit with China, according to a statement published Wednesday on the website of the Ministry of Commerce. Bo told Gutierrez that China was improving the transparency of its trade policies and further opening its market according to commitments made to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The sponsors of the US sanctions bill, Senators Lindsey Graham, a Republican, and Charles Schumer, a Democrat, said on Tuesday that they would postpone a vote on the measure until September, saying they had seen signs of currency reform during a trip to China last week (see Schumer-Graham 'nuke' holstered).

Many US manufacturers and politicians claim the yuan is undervalued by up to 40%, giving Chinese exporters an unfair trade advantage and contributing to the US trade deficit with China. The proposed sanctions measure would have slapped 27.5% tariffs on Chinese exports to the United States if the yuan were not revalued.

But the US senators should drop the vote, not just postpone it, said Mei Xinyu, a trade expert with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation, a think-tank of the Ministry of Commerce.

While in Beijing, Gutierrez also met Tian Lipu, commissioner of the Intellectual Property Office, to discuss China's protection of intellectual property. "The US is willing to offer partnership and cooperation in intellectual-property protection," Gutierrez said.

The secretary stressed that fighting piracy is crucial to Sino-US relations, and, unusually, noted that a decline in illegal software sales would also benefit China. "If China simply cuts [the] software piracy rate from 90% down to 80%, it would generate US$6.5 billion in tax revenue and create 2.6 million jobs in China," he said.

(Asia Pulse/XIC)
Snuffysmith
- China Signs Key Trade Deals In Australia
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/China_Sign..._Australia.html

Beijing (UPI) Apr 04, 2006 - Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao signed an agreement with Australian Prime Minister John Howard clearing the path for sales of uranium and other raw materials to fuel its growing economy. Resource acquisition is a major component of Chinese foreign policy.
Snuffysmith
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HD06Cb04.html
Peugeot Citroen steps up a gear

BEIJING - French automaker PSA Peugeot Citroen plans to build a new production plant and launch a slew of new models in China to boost sales in the world's third-biggest and fastest-growing auto market.

Yves Boutin, chief representative of PSA Peugeot Citroen in China, said on Monday the group would build a new manufacturing base with its Chinese partner Dongfeng Motor Corporation. The plant will be a part of PSA Peugeot Citroen's existing joint venture with Dongfeng, based in Wuhan, capital of Central China's Hubei province.

Boutin said details such as the exact location, annual production capacity and investment size of the new plant would be revealed in July. The French automaker would introduce nine new models into the joint venture, Dongfeng Peugeot Citroen, from 2006 to 2009, Boutin said.

The new plant and product plans seem to rule out the possibility of PSA Peugeot Citroen seeking a new Chinese partner in the near term. Last year, the French carmaker was reportedly in talks with Hafei Automobile Co Ltd, Mitsubishi Motors' partner in northeast China's Heilongjiang province and Jinhua Youngman Group, a small privately-owned manufacturer of trucks and buses in Zhejiang province.

Boutin said that annual sales of Dongfeng Peugeot Citroen would reach 300,000 cars in 2008. The venture sold 140,000 cars in 2005, surging by 57.5% year-on-year. This represented a sharp rebound from a 14% tumble in 2004.

Dongfeng Peugeot Citroen announced earlier this year that it aimed to increase sales to more than 200,000 cars this year. The venture now has an annual production capacity of 220,000 cars, expected to grow to 300,000 units at the end of this year.

But in 2005, it reported 360 million yuan (US$44.9 million) in losses due to heated price wars in the Chinese auto market and high costs. Executives with the venture said that it would regain profitability this year due to robust sales growth and cost-cutting efforts.

Boutin said the joint venture will make high-end cars by 2010. Currently, the joint venture assembles the Citroen Fukang, Elysee, Picasso, Xsara and Triomphe as well as the Peugeot 307 and 206, which are small and medium-sized vehicles. The Triomphe and 206 were launched earlier this year as part of PSA Peugeot Citroen's new China product lines from 2006 to 2009.

"China's car market is expanding steadily and we are very confident about our new products," Boutin said. PSA Peugeot Citroen recently set up a wholly owned affiliate in Beijing with an investment of 50 million yuan, which would be mainly responsible for its imported car business in China, he added. The subsidiary Peugeot Citroen (China) Automobile Trade Co Ltd would also be in charge of exporting Chinese-made spare car parts to other countries, Boutin said.

The French carmaker's current imported products in China include the Citroen C5 and C4, and the Peugeot 407, 607, 206CC and 307CC.

Last year, PSA Peugeot Citroen's imported car sales in China amounted to 1,300 units, Boutin said. He also said that the group would start to provide loans to Chinese car buyers at the end of June. This will be through a three-party car financing joint venture with Dongfeng Peugeot Citroen and the Bank of China, one of the nation's four biggest state-owned banks.

Despite recent growth, auto industry analysts said that the French automaker, which kicked off production in China in 1992, now lagged behind international rivals such as General Motors, Volkswagen, Honda and Hyundai in the China market.

Last year, General Motors and Volkswagen, the current market leaders, sold 665,390 and 571,000 vehicles in China, respectively. Total vehicle demand in China is forecast to grow by around 15% this year from 2005. Last year, demand rose by 14% to 5.7 million units, including 3.1 million passenger cars.

(Asia Pulse/XIC)
Snuffysmith
China has U.S. anti-missile tech, via transfer from Israel :

The transfers came from U.S.-made Patriots sent to Israel to counter Iraqi missile attacks during the Persian Gulf war.
http://tinyurl.com/ga9nz
Snuffysmith
THE MANDARIN OFFENSIVE: INSIDE BEIJING'S GLOBAL CAMPAIGN TO MAKE CHINESE THE NUMBER ONE LANGUAGE IN THE WORLD - MICHAEL ERARD (WIRED, APRIL)
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.04/mandarin.html
VIA
http://eccentricstar.typepad.com/public_di...ng_promote.html
Snuffysmith
- China Close To Testing New Prototype Of Combat Jet Co-Developed With Pakistan
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/China_Clos...h_Pakistan.html

Beijing (AFP) Apr 09, 2006 - China is close to testing a new prototype of the FC-1 Xiaolong combat jet jointly developed with Pakistan, about a year behind the initial schedule, state media said Sunday. The fourth prototype of the Xiaolong aircraft, a multi-role fighter-bomber with a range of 1,200 kilometers (750 miles), will take to the air "in the near future," the Beijing News reported.
Snuffysmith
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HD08Cb06.html
Chinese auto makers ready to go it alone

BEIJING - For years, Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC), a government-owned behemoth, has worked side by side with General Motors Corporation (GM) and Volkswagen AG on world-class assembly lines to build cars for the Chinese market.

Now, the giant auto maker is getting ready to use the technical expertise and experience it has gained from these partnerships - which turn out hundreds of thousands of Buicks and Chevrolets as well as VW Santanas and Passats a year - to make its own high-end sedan.

Shanghai Automotive's shift from an ally of its foreign partners to a potentially dangerous rival is a sign of sweeping changes ahead for auto makers in the fast-growing China market, which has become an increasingly important source of sales and profits for US and European auto companies.

Prodded by Chinese economic planners, large state-run companies that have joint ventures with other foreign manufacturers, from Ford Motor Corporation of the US to Japan's Suzuki Motor Corporation and South Korea's Kia Motors Corporation, are also moving to develop and sell more vehicles under their own brand names. The push comes amid a broader questioning of the role that foreign companies and brands should play in China's economy.

"This is a watershed in the development of the auto industry in China," said Michael Dunne, president of consultancy Automotive Resources Asia. "The Chinese formed joint ventures for one purpose: to learn how to do it themselves one day. That day is here."

Zhu Xiangjun, a spokeswoman for Shanghai Automotive, said the company's launch of its own brand will foster a "healthy" rivalry that will "drive" the joint ventures to "further improve their competitiveness". The company is expected to release more details about its new-car development plans Monday.

In a prepared statement, GM said it "understands" Shanghai Automotive's "desire for further growth" and is confident "SAIC recognizes that the success of both companies in the China market is closely linked to the success of our joint ventures". Volkswagen said: "Volkswagen and SAIC keep a close and long-lasting partnership. We understand SAIC's wish to build up an own Chinese car brand. We offered our support in the past and still do at present."

The new car from Shanghai Automotive, China's largest passenger car maker, will be a modified version of MG Rover Group Ltd's Rover 75, a luxury, four-door sedan that will compete head to head with some cars produced by Shanghai Automotive's joint ventures with GM and VW. Shanghai Automotive bought the plans for the cars and the rights to make them from MG Rover Group before the British company filed for bankruptcy in April 2005.

Shanghai Automotive says its new car, which hasn't been named, will start rolling off the assembly line within the next six months. Sales in the domestic market will start soon after. The company also plans to push into its partners' home turf, with exports to Europe and the US. It is aiming to start sales in Europe as early as 2007.

Succeeding with such ambitious plans won't be easy. "It's risky for local companies to start at the high end. Their brands aren't strong enough," said Yale Zhang, an analyst at CSM Worldwide in Shanghai.

Over the near term, foreign auto makers have few alternatives. Under Chinese regulations, to make cars in China, foreign companies must form joint ventures in which their Chinese partners own no less than 50%. The major multinationals have already teamed up with the biggest and most promising local firms. So, observers say, they have little choice but to keep making their cars and encourage their partners not to compete too directly with them.

For now, few analysts expect Shanghai Automotive or China's other state enterprises to suddenly walk away from their very substantial, and profitable, investments in joint ventures with foreign firms. But, they say, balancing cooperation and competition is likely to become increasingly difficult.

GM's China joint ventures have become especially critical to the company at a time when it is piling up large losses in North America. For 2005, GM reported preliminary profit of US$327 million from its affiliates in China, compared with $417 million the year before.

Already, sales of homegrown Chinese cars, many made by small manufacturers, are starting to take off. Last year, 26% of passenger cars sold in China were Chinese brands, more than double the share in 2001, according to Automotive Resources Asia. Heightened competition is pushing down prices and squeezing profits.

Now that Shanghai Automotive and the country's other major vehicle manufacturers are getting into the game, it is likely to accelerate the trend. Shanghai Automotive employs about 50,000 people. Last year, its manufacturing ventures made more than 600,000 vehicles, dwarfing the output of Chery Automobile Co and Geely Holding Group, two smaller auto makers that have garnered attention abroad because of their export ambitions.

Shanghai Automotive traces its roots back to factories that made tractors, buses and shiny, black Phoenix sedans for party cadres in the years after the communist revolution. The company stopped making its own vehicles in the mid-1980s when it signed a joint-venture deal with Volkswagen. Partnership agreements followed with dozens of parts makers and, in 1997, with GM.

Shanghai Automotive's recent efforts say a lot about industrywide strategies for gaining access to know-how and technology to strengthen China's domestic manufacturers. The company says it has gleaned "rich experience and resources in every field" from its work with GM and VW. In addition to manufacturing ventures, Shanghai Automotive insisted on a joint research and development (R&D) operation with GM. Staffed by top GM engineers and designers and their local counterparts, the center has been doing increasingly sophisticated design work for GM cars sold in China.

Shanghai Automotive is hiring experienced engineers and managers from these joint ventures to work on its own car projects. It is also bringing in veteran executives from foreign car makers. Wang Xiaoqiu, general manager of the Shanghai Automotive unit that will be making the new sedan, for example, once worked for Shanghai Volkswagen. Its R&D head, Wang Dazong, is a veteran of GM and parts supplier Delphi Corporation.

Shanghai Automotive says it is planning to open a design center in Europe later this year. And it has brought in engineers from Korean sport-utility vehicle maker Ssangyong Motor Co, in which Shanghai Automotive bought a controlling stake in 2004.

Chinese and foreign auto makers are already grappling with the implications of the state enterprises' solo efforts. Xu Liuping, chief executive of government-controlled Changan Automobile Group, which has joint ventures with Ford and Suzuki, said his company plans to roll out four of its own new passenger car models within the next year. "Of course, there will be a certain degree of competition," Xu said. "But my view is that different brands and products will have different target customers."

(Asia Pulse/XIC)
Snuffysmith
http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.24113/pub_detail.asp

Taiwan's Security
Beyond the Special Budget
By Mark A. Stokes
Posted: Monday, March 27, 2006

ASIAN OUTLOOK
AEI Online
Publication Date: March 27, 2006

This Asian Outlook is available here as an Adobe Acrobat PDF.

No. 2, 2006

Dr. Chang Ya-chung is a professor of political science at the prestigious National Taiwan University who carries a powerful message: America has lost touch with popular sentiment on Taiwan.[1] Professor Chang leads a growing movement called the Democratic Action Alliance (DAA, minzhu xingdong lianmeng)[2] that has been dead set against appropriating a $15-billion[3] special budget for the procurement of three major weapon systems from the United States. For Chang, the debate over the use of a special budget or increased annual budget to fund weapons is irrelevant. He opposes any increase in defense spending in light of more pressing domestic needs. Though Chang may be an outlier in Taiwan's defense policy circles, his influence illustrates the profound debate that America's offer of a large package of weaponry sparked over the island's national security.

A Review of the Special Budget "Problem"

Chang Ya-chung's views stand in stark contrast to mainstream political thought in Taiwan, which is dominated by two camps. On one side is the pan-Green coalition of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), led by President Chen Shui-bian. For the past three years, the pan-Greens have sought the special budget to pay for three major arms packages the United States first released for sale in 2001. In opposition is the pan-Blue coalition, consisting of Kuomintang (KMT) and the People's First Party (PFP), which has fought the special budget but supports a debate on priorities and requirements for Taiwan's defense.

These parties are competing in an increasingly complex domestic, cross-Strait, regional, and international environment. The pan-Blues suggest that the pan-Greens could potentially destroy Taiwan through pursuit of de jure independence. The pan-Greens cast the pan-Blues as "selling out" to communist China. However, none of the mainstream elements within the four parties is seeking a radical, strategic shift in external relations. Instead, legislative debates have been tactical: how best to avoid entrapment by the People's Republic of China (PRC) and use of force across the Strait, maintain healthy relations with the United States, and secure Taiwan's economic and political relevance in the international community, including the level of investment required to keep alive the notion of sovereignty in the Republic of China (ROC).[4]

Since its submission to Taiwan's legislature in June 2004, the special budget has served as one of several symbolic issues in Taiwan's domestic political competition, but its importance has been amplified in the United States. Over the last year, a growing number of U.S. observers have questioned Taiwan's commitment to its own defense. Even traditional supporters of Taiwan in Congress have said there would be serious repercussions if President Chen's request for extrabudgetary funding of three key defense systems continues to be held in abeyance. One U.S. official likened the special budget debate to a "political football." A better analogy would be that it is an "end-around fake," a diversion away from where the football really is.

U.S. officials have blamed the Legislative Yuan for its failure to take action on the special budget and the Chen administration's prioritization of domestic programs. Senior representatives from the State and Defense Departments have called upon Taiwan to develop the "collective will" to invest in a viable defense, address the PRC threat, and enhance its ability to negotiate the future of cross-Strait relations from a position of strength. There is an implicit threat contained in messages emanating from Washington: American support for Taiwan will diminish if Taiwan is not willing to invest the proper resources in self-defense.[5]

The internal debate over the special budget and increased defense spending does not symbolize a lack of commitment to Taiwan's defense. The standoff stems from fundamental differences over how to best manage limited economic resources to ensure the long-term survival of Taiwan's democracy in a difficult environment. Mainstream members of the pan-Blue alliance are not the enemy, nor is the Chen administration, which placed its political credibility on the line over the special budget issue. Neither camp is seeking unification with the PRC or de jure independence--at least not any time in the near future.[6] There is a basic consensus that Taiwan needs an adequate self defense, but the debate is about just what constitutes "adequate" within the context of Taiwan's broader national interests.[7]

This diversion has appeared to fit nicely with Beijing's interests. As the Bush administration and some in Congress hyperventilate on defense budget issues, the PRC has further squeezed the ROC's international breathing space and marginalized the island politically and economically. In doing so, it has successfully enmeshed Taiwan's economy with its own. Until it was taken off the table in February 2006, the special budget issue diverted attention from more important issues, especially the economic health and prosperity of Taiwan's people, and perhaps even put at risk public enthusiasm for democracy.

Clutching to a policy based on an illusory status quo, U.S. policymakers appear to be having a difficult time keeping up with Taiwan's dynamic and complex political, economic, and military environment. The ROC's political system is being tested in terms of its ability to resolve differences in accordance with the desires of the people. In this environment, the perception that the United States views the value of Taiwan in terms of its defense expenditures rather than its overall security runs the risk of diminished U.S. relevance in Taiwan. A growing segment of Taiwan's population already sees its future linked with the mainland rather than with the U.S.-led community of democracies.

The Right Policy at an Inauspicious Time?

In April 2001, the Bush administration announced the release of the largest arms sale package to Taiwan in history (see table 1 in the PDF). The objective was to reverse twenty years of relative neglect and frontload the systems that Taiwan had asked to be made available as the Clinton administration drew to a close.

Additionally, the United States approved Taiwan's request for a classified briefing on the PAC-3 missile defense system. Also offered were four decommissioned Kidd-class destroyers (roughly $800 million total) and an integrated undersea surveillance system (roughly $500 million) for strategic cuing of its P-3C MPA and diesel electric submarines. Taiwan's request for Aegis-equipped destroyers (roughly $6 billion) was deferred, although the program was granted a "soft approval" in the form of a design study that likely would have served as the initial stage of a full program.[8]

Later in 2001, the United States released M1A2 SEP Abrams battle tanks (roughly $500 million), at least thirty attack helicopters--either the AH-64D Apache or AH-1Z Super Cobra (roughly $2 billion)--and four signals intelligence (SIGINT) aircraft (roughly $300 million). The U.S. also fulfilled Taiwan's 2003 request for the upgrade of its three existing Patriot systems to PAC-3, as well as the procurement of six new PAC-3 fire units (roughly $3 billion).

At no time in the ROC's history has it had so many choices of defense systems. By the summer of 2003, the total value of all the systems it had been offered amounted to approximately $30 billion. Taking the F-16s and Patriots out of the equation as anomalies, between 1982 and 2001, Taiwan had not procured any single system from the U.S. with a value over $500 million. Within a very short time span, it suddenly had at least twelve. The Bush administration's policy shift was long overdue. However, having opened the floodgates, Washington policymakers perceived that Taiwan was not moving fast enough to grasp the opportunities and take decisive measures to counter China's increasingly capable military.

Since 2002, Taiwan's ostensible lack of progress in taking advantage of this opportunity to modernize its defenses has either influenced or dominated the bilateral agenda. Under pressure, Taiwan's senior political and military leadership announced to senior U.S. government officials in July 2003 its intention to submit to the Legislative Yuan a request for a $15-billion appropriation for three programs: diesel electric submarines, Patriot PAC-3, and P-3C maritime patrol aircraft.[9] After completing the necessary documentation in early 2004, the Executive Yuan forwarded the Ministry of National Defense's (MND) special budget funding request for these systems to the Legislative Yuan's secretariat and to the Procedures Committee, which sets the legislative agenda. The original value of the package was more than $18 billion. Almost $12.5 billion was earmarked for submarines, $4.39 billion for upgrading Taiwan's existing three Patriot fire units and an additional six fire units equipped with PAC-3 missile defense interceptors, and $1.61 billion for the procurement and refurbishment of twelve P-3C maritime patrol aircraft.

Since its submission, however, pan-Blue coalition members of the Legislative Yuan, maintaining strict party discipline, have opposed the budget's passage. The stalemate has been disappointing to both the Bush and Chen administrations. The budget issue also has been frustrating to the MND, which has dedicated tremendous resources to justify the request. Three major factors help explain Taiwan's apparent lack of progress in increasing its defense expenditures: the transformation of its defense establishment, budgetary pressures imposed by the island's poor economic performance in recent years, and Taipei's push for indigenous defense production.

Overhaul of the Defense Establishment

Toward the end of the Lee Teng-hui administration, a group of military mavericks working with a small number of mostly DPP legislators saw the need to reform the defense establishment. As a result, two defense laws--the National Defense Law and the National Defense Organization Act--were enacted in 2002 and 2003, respectively, with consequences on a scale equal to the U.S. National Defense Act of 1947 and the Goldwater-Nichols Act of 1986 combined.

Under these laws, a civilian minister of defense--who granted budgetary authority over the military for the first time in the ROC's history--was placed into the operational chain of command. Also, the civilian MND leadership received responsibility for personnel, procurement, planning, programming, and budgeting from the general staff. In 2001, new offices under the minister of defense were established for strategic planning, quantitative systems analysis, personnel management, and other functions. The law also mandated the formation of a centralized acquisition bureau and prioritization of indigenous procurement.[10]

As these laws were being implemented, Taiwan was also reducing the size of its manpower. The savings derived from these personnel cutbacks were originally intended to augment its force modernization budget. However, the rise in military pay needed to create incentives for volunteer enlistees has eaten up those savings.[11]

The United States has played a major role in Taiwan's defense reform program. It dispatched a deputy assistant secretary-level Pentagon official for strategic planning to Taipei in December 1998 to initiate a senior-level dialogue on defense reform. The Clinton administration implemented initiatives that could have enabled Taiwan's defense establishment to conduct strategic planning and operations in a more effective manner, and enhance the ability of the U.S. and ROC militaries to operate together as an ad hoc coalition.[12] The series of U.S. military assessments and surveys carried out during the Clinton administration served as the basis for decisions that the Bush administration made in January 2001. Several factors explain the pace of the defense overhaul.

Culture Shock. The impact of the defense laws on the MND was significant. But compounding these effects was the psychological adjustment necessary in the wake of the March 2000 presidential election. After fifty years of KMT rule, the culture shock of the DPP win in 2000 was considerable. Many in the military were alarmed by the ascendance of a political organization that represented ideals previously viewed as dangerous to national security. Despite the legacy of mistrust between the ruling party and the military, the latter's support for Taiwan's democratic transition is perhaps its greatest achievement in the past six years.

Bureaucratic Surprise. The stress stemming from the reorganization and political transition was not the only challenge. The Bush administration's approval of the largest arms package in history was a surprise. Since the shift in diplomatic relations from Taipei to Beijing in 1979 and the 1982 communiquГѓВ© regarding arms sales, the Taiwan military had annually submitted to the U.S. government a list with an average of six to twelve requests for defense articles and services. After a few months of deliberation, the U.S. government would release a fraction of them. This uncertainty caused Taiwan's defense establishment to use a spaghetti-on-the-wall approach: throw a list out and see what sticks.

With so many projects approved at once, Taipei has found it difficult to handle the bureaucratic overload. The defense budgeting process is cumbersome, and bureaucracies generally employ standard operating procedures based on incremental adjustments to previous years' budgets. At the military service level, only a handful of officers have the expertise needed to draft the requisite operational requirement documentation, cost and operational effectiveness analysis, detailed systems analysis, and exhaustive budget-planning data.13 This bottleneck of expertise has necessarily delayed the Taiwanese procurement process when it was shocked with so many projects so quickly.

Shift in Focus on Software. Another factor in Taiwan's slow response was the shifting focus since 1998 toward such "software" concerns as strategy, doctrine, and personnel management, as opposed to traditional military "hardware" such as aircraft and tanks. Budgeting for software programs took as long as two years before actualization and implementation. In other words, the U.S. move to approve major hardware sales occurred just as Taiwan's defense bureaucracy began to focus on non-hardware reform and modernization.

Increased Legislative Oversight. The new defense laws significantly increased the legislative role in overseeing, authorizing, and appropriating government funding. Although oversight can be healthy, the new Legislative Yuan is not only relatively inexperienced in defense budget matters, it is also structured in a way that inhibits effective and efficient oversight. With two legislative sessions held per year, members of the Defense Committee, who are responsible for reviewing budget proposals and authorizing funding, often change. Committee chairmanships rotate on a regular basis. As DPP legislator Lee Wen-chung said, "[T]he level of defense expertise within the legislature remains extremely low, and there is little incentive to acquire such expertise because knowledge about national defense doesn't usually win votes."[14]

At the same time that legislative capability to oversee procurement has diminished, political pressure to do so has increased. Negative public sentiment toward foreign arms procurement remains strong following the French Lafayette and Mirage scandals, the former of which allegedly involved the death of an ROC Navy officer in 1993. Shortly after the Chen administration came to power, a special investigation was set up to examine the case in more detail. Significant details, which allegedly involved at least $400 mil-lion in kickbacks, became public at the time of the Bush administration's release of the April 2001 arms package. At least twenty-eight people--thirteen military officers and fifteen sales representatives--were prosecuted on corruption charges. Despite the best efforts of ministers of defense Tang Yiau-ming and Lee Jye to improve the military's image and prosecute corruption within the ranks, this case has cast a pall over foreign procurement that has been difficult to shake.[15]

Strategy, Planning, and Budgeting. Another factor affecting the special budget is the shift of strategic doctrine that accompanied the transition of power in 2000. Prior to the Chen administration, Taiwan's defense strategy was largely army-centric. It was believed that the PRC would not be able to claim a decisive victory without controlling the entire territory of Taiwan, and therefore the army would be the primary defensive force. However, during the 2000 presidential campaign, Chen Shui-bian argued that given the high population density, especially on Taiwan's western coast, any combat on Taiwanese soil would not only devastate the entire country's economy, but would also ravage its population.

Chen thus introduced a new doctrine that he called "decisive operations off-shore" (jingwai juezhan), which called for engagement of enemy forces off the coast of Taiwan and extending to the mainland itself. These operations, in combination with a no-first-strike policy, required a mix of capabilities, including power projection for the purposes of deterrence and denial (fanzhi zuozhan), maritime interdiction and denial, air defense, and ground defense of the island itself.

Although denial is a traditional aspect of the ROC's strategy, its relative emphasis has shifted over time. Denial options at the operational level include targeting of critical nodes in the People's Liberation Army's theater command system, key airfields, theater ballistic missile command centers, and logistics, ports, and staging areas. With the introduction of advanced air defenses along the southeast coast of China, the costs of using traditional means of fixed-wing airstrikes have become too high. In order to maintain the ability to hold at-risk targets in southeast China, Taiwan's Chungshan Institute of Science and Technology (CSIST) is said to be in the final stages of developing land attack cruise and conventional ballistic missiles equipped with advanced conventional munitions.

To respond to PRC aggression, Taiwan policymakers have--or will soon have--a range of strategic options, as well. Coordinated precision missile strikes, special operations, computer network operations, and other means of power projection against a small number of critical nodes could ensure a type of economic mutual assured destruction. PRC economic and logistics structures located on the eastern coast include a fragile network of connected and interdependent systems, including sources of raw materials, banking, key industries such as semiconductor fabrication plants, national switching systems and satellite ground stations, air and surface transportation nodes, and other critical infrastructure. Even with a minimal capability, strikes at the right node at the right time could ensure a systemic economic collapse or paralysis that would take years to reverse.[16]

In short, defense of Taiwan's democracy through deterrence raises the threshold for PRC use of force by introducing the pos-sibility of mutual suicide, a balance of terror, and fear of retaliatory annihilation without resorting to traditional weapons of mass destruction or punishment strategies that would result in widespread civilian casualties. By maintaining a highly reliable ability to inflict unacceptable damage at any time and assuming an ability to maintain continuity of government and strategic command and control, the payoff of this mutual economic destruction doctrine is expected to be a tense but stable peace which is compounded by growing economic integration.

The PRC also is aware that Taiwan maintains contacts with Tibetan and East Turkestan Islamic Republican separatist networks, although there is no evidence that Taiwan has opted to trigger troubles to date. As the leader of the East Turkestan movement said in a Taipei Times interview, a PRC attack against Taiwan "amounts to signal that all the East Turkestan people will respond with riots. If China attacks Taiwan at four o'clock in the morning, we will have an uprising at 3." In combination, these factors enhance Taipei's deterrent capability.

The Economic Environment

When the Bush administration assumed power, Taiwan was going through its worst economic slump in history. In 2001, Taiwan experienced its first negative gross domestic product (GDP) growth rate since 1947 and its highest unemployment rate on record. Taiwan's national debt also reached a new high mark. The budget deficit jumped to $106 billion by 2004, the equivalent of 32.6 percent of gross national product (GNP).

Since 1991, Taipei has run a budget deficit driven by infrastructure, social welfare, and government spending. Over the same period, special budgets for arms procurement from France (Mirage and Lafayette) and the United States (F-16s) and earthquake relief also fueled Taiwan's deficit spending. In the 1990s, tax revenues decreased due to new private investment incentives and a reduction in individual income tax. As a result, the ratio of outstanding public debt to GNP rose from 6 percent in 1991 to 39 percent by the end of 2004.[17] According to the directorate-general of the Office of Budget, Accounting, and Statistics, an additional $10.5 billion (NT$337.3 billion) was expected to be added to the national debt by the end of 2005.[18]

Taiwan's Budget and Public Debt Laws restrict the central government's total public debt to no more than 40 percent of the average gross national product for the previous three years. In 2005, the debt approached this redline when it reached more than $100 billion, or 37.3 percent of average GNP for the previous three years. Taiwan's ratings in international financial risk assessments began to decline in 2002 and fell sharply in 2004. Standard & Poor's was quoted in 2004 as saying, "President Chen Shui-bian's proposal to spend $18 billion to bolster the island's military would keep the island from reaching its goal to balance the budget by 2010."[19] Interest payments alone on the debt have averaged around $4 billion a year.

The budgetary situation has been aggravated by a drop in the economic growth rate. According to figures from the Chunghua Institution for Economic Research released in October 2005, GDP growth fell from 5.7 percent in 2004 to 3.53 percent in 2005.20 At the same time, Taiwan's inflation rate of 2.3 percent in 2005 was the highest in nearly nine years. According to a government survey of economic progress in 2005, the exodus of domestic manufacturers and other factors has led to record numbers of laid-off workers.[21]

In the months following the April 2001 U.S.-Taiwan arms sales talks, the Chen administration, faced with an unfavorable economic situation, sought U.S. support for favorable financing arrangements for the weapon systems that had been approved. Because the Chen administration failed to reach a bilateral financing agreement for the purchase, it developed a plan to finance the three systems by selling bonds, a method the administration had already used for other purposes. It proposed the issuance of $13 billion in bonds, augmenting these amounts with $3.1 billion from the sale of public lands managed by MND, and sold shares in state-owned enterprises for a total of $18 billion for the special budget.

The proposal for debt financing of the three systems came under fire from pan-Blue legislators, who highlighted the DPP's rapid accumulation of government debt. They also cited misuse of the special budget mechanism as a means to circumvent restrictions on government spending and what they say was the issuance of central government bonds without legal foundation. From the pan-Blue perspective, use of the special budget at a time of record-level national debt was an attempt to skirt the budget laws.

While KMT and PFP opposition to the special-arms budget has been part of a broader debate over fiscal management, some sources assert that the special budget has become a useful weapon in a broader political strategy. Due to the legal restrictions on the national debt, forcing the funding of these systems through the annual defense budget places a burden on the DPP to make budgetary tradeoffs. Increased defense spending at the expense of other sectors--such as social welfare, education, and industrial development--would likely reduce DPP political support.

To improve the economic situation and create conditions conducive to a rise in government spending, the DPP outlined an agenda to raise revenue through tax rate increases and the elimination of tax breaks for businesses and higher-income individuals. The Executive Yuan approved a fiscal reform plan in 2003 with the aim of balancing the budget by 2011.

The Shift toward Indigenous Production

Another factor in the perceived slow pace of force modernization has been a renewed emphasis on indigenous production. Faced with an economic downturn, the ROC decided to shore up its defense industry to sustain economic growth while also ensuring a sufficient self-defense capability. Article 22 of the 2000 National Defense Law established a legal mandate for prioritization for the indigenous development, production, and maintenance of defense articles. This law reflects a broader effort to shore up Taiwan's economy, and Taipei plans to increase its domestic share from around 50 percent of all expenditures on equipment and maintenance to as much as 75 percent by the end of the decade.

Shortly after the announcement of the April 2001 arms package, the Chen administration and members of the Legislative Yuan on both sides of the political spectrum attempted to balance U.S. interests with Taiwan's new legal requirement for increased spending on indigenous production. First, the administration sought a cooperative arrangement for the development and production of a missile defense interceptor. In 2001, deputy minister of defense Kang Ning-hsiang proposed a U.S.-Taiwan joint production effort that would have involved a partial procurement of PAC-3 in combination with U.S. industrial assistance and Taiwan's own missile defense interceptor, the TK-2 ATBM. Under development since 1996, a co-produced indigenous interceptor, combined with PAC-3, was intended to fill Taiwan's total requirement of twelve fire units (batteries), a capability that could have provided coverage for up to 75 percent of Taiwan's population.

After U.S. resistance to the TK-2 ATBM/PAC-3 joint development offer, senior Taiwan officials scratched the TK-2 and decided to go forward without U.S. cooperation on a new system designated the TK-3. The program's research and development (R&D) budget is estimated at $600 million. According to an article in the Liberty Times, the TK-3 program is scheduled to enter its operational testing and evaluation phase in 2006. Further legislative consideration of the PAC-3 program was suspended in November 2005.[22]

Likewise, after President Bush's commitment to assist Taiwan in its acquisition of diesel electric submarines in April 2001, Taiwan's legislature--eventually backed by the MND--sought industrial cooperation from the United States for the development and construction of the submarines. In May 2002, the Legislative Yuan sent a signed petition with more than a hundred signatures to the Chen administration with a threat that "failure to achieve this goal [domestic construction] will cause the fund of the budget of this project not to be appropriated." The U.S. response was cool, and in July 2004, the Bush administration formally ruled Taiwan's role in the defense industry of the submarine program beyond repair and maintenance.[23]

With joint production having been ruled out, the U.S. Navy sponsored an independent cost estimate (ICE) for Taiwan submarines in 2002. The ICE, which was forwarded to the MND in January 2003, estimated that the development, production, and administration of a submarine program for Taiwan would cost up to $11.7 billion. Five-hundred million dollars was estimated for nonrecurring costs associated with submarine design, planning, and industrial tooling of production facilities, in addition to a $400-million estimate for program management and administration fees. The cost of Taiwan's required industrial cooperation was projected to cost at least $185 million. Submarine construction was estimated to cost $5.3 billion.

Since completion of the ICE, the Bush administration has required assurance of Taiwan's ability to fund the program through legislative appropriation of the entire amount outlined in the ICE before proceeding with the initial stages of the program. Without details on design and definition, Taiwan legislators across party lines have rejected this approach, citing the exorbitant costs as compared with other diesel-electric submarine projects around the world.[24]

A number of reports have indicated that some within the U.S. Navy, fearful of a slippery slope that could ultimately result in the introduction of diesel- electric submarines into the U.S. inventory, may have inflated the price and refused to accept a phased approach in order to discourage passage of the program within Taiwan's legislature.

Taiwan's Defense Spending

Despite the relative decrease in defense spending as a proportion of GDP since 1993, Taiwan is still investing significant resources into its defense. After hitting a low in 2002, the defense budget has increased each year since 2003. In spring 2004, MND submitted its long-range budget plan to the Legislative Yuan. The plan outlined MND's intention to procure up to $35.4 billion worth of U.S. weapon systems over the next ten to fifteen years. This figure does not include indigenous programs. Table 2 contains a summary of the planned procurements that were included.

After submission of its long-range plan, the MND provided its five-year defense plan (FY 2004-2008) to the Legislative Yuan in September 2004 with a budget requirement of almost $50 billion. The Executive Yuan, presumably based on a consensus within the Chen administration, adjusted the amount down to $38.57 billion, leaving the MND with a projected shortfall of $11.37 billion, including over $2 billion for operations and maintenance.[25] Nearly 30 percent of the military's force-modernization plan was associated with command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance.

In 2004, force modernization cost $2.03 billion (NT$67 billion) of the entire $8.05 billion (NT$265 billion) defense budget, at least $1.94 billion (NT$63 billion) of it in 2005. More than $775 million--up from at least $688 million in 2003--was dedicated to funding major new defense purchases from the United States. In 2005, all force-modernization programs, including foreign military and direct commercial sales and indigenous programs, amounted to at least $860 million (NT$26.85 billion), with another $290 million appropriated for research and development (see tables 3 and 4 in the PDF).

The Chen administration has come under fire from pan-Blue legislators for increasing force modernization at the expense of operations and maintenance (O&M), including logistical support and training. Legislative criticism regarding shortfalls in spare parts and other logistical portions of the O&M budget, as well as over-reliance on foreign sources of procurement, began as early as 2000.[26] One legislative analysis conducted on the 2004 defense budget cited that shortfalls for training are 25 percent below what is required. Similar shortfalls were cited for spare parts, ammunition, and other aspects of readiness. Legislators also have cited shortfalls in the Taiwanese army's portion of the budget, particularly in the areas of counterterrorism and investment into passive defense.[27]

Taiwan's projected defense budget for 2006 is $7.93 billion (NT$253 billion). Of this amount, $2.6 billion (NT$83.4 billion) will be dedicated to weapons procurement, development, and engineering.28 Up to $1.79 billion (NT$57.2 billion) is included in the classified portion of the defense budget, most of which is presumably dedicated to foreign military procurement and sensitive domestic programs. After the Defense Committee's removal from the special budget in November 2005, members did not approve the Chen administration's request for NT$10.9 billion to be earmarked for the PAC-3 program. However, there have been recent indications that the MND may seek funding for modest upgrades to Taiwan's three existing Patriot fire units. Also under consideration for funding is an indigenous unmanned aerial vehicle[29] and a new frequency-hopping tactical radio.

Another ongoing program is a 600-kilometer-range land-attack cruise missile designated the Hsiungfeng-2E (HF-2E). Three batteries comprising twenty-four mobile launchers and forty-eight missiles are said to be in the final stages of testing and may be fielded within two years. Research and development and production costs are estimated at approximately $600 million, with $156 million in the CY 06 budget.[30] Taiwan also has plans for the domestic development and production of a new fast-attack boat. Designated the Kuang Hua-6 (KH-6), the program calls for the construction of thirty 150-ton boats. The program was awarded to China Shipbuilding Corporation in June 2005, but the procurement process has been contested by Jong Shyn Shipbuilding Corporation, a private competitor.[31]

Taiwan and Its Commitment to Self-Defense

Based on the record, Taiwan's political leadership and legislators from both sides of the political spectrum have demonstrated commitment to self-defense. Given the military's central role, it has come under close scrutiny from observers in the U.S. and in Taiwan's media. Media outlets often thrive on exposing weaknesses, mismanagement, and malfeasance. What sometimes gets lost, however, is an accurate representation of the positive changes. The ongoing transformation of the ROC's defense establishment is one of the best cases. Taiwan's military has weathered political storms, provided stability during the ROC's transition of political power from one party to another, and made significant advances in its ability to deter and defend against PRC aggression.

In this process of change, Taiwan's defense establishment has operated at the edge of chaos and order, the precise point where innovation thrives. With the legal mandate enshrined in the new defense laws, ministers of defense Tang Yiau-ming and Lee Jye have been able to manage the shocks and stresses of a rapidly changing environment, maintain a fundamental level of military effectiveness, maximize combat power with the resources on hand, and provide an environment within which the process of transformation can take place. As Taiwan's defense establishment settles into its new structure, it is also developing a set of new operational doctrines and structures that are establishing the framework for an appropriate degree of jointness between the services. It has been experimenting by seeing what works and what does not.

To cover anticipated requirements over the next five to ten years, however, Taiwan's defense establishment has made a strong case for an increase in its annual budget. Over the last ten years, Taiwan's military has made significant strides.

Infrastructure Hardening and Protection. Taiwan has invested a large portion of its resources into protecting its command and control system, hardening its infrastructure, and modernizing its surveillance, intelligence, and reconnaissance systems. The military has revamped its operational command and control structure to enable greater jointness and more effective fighting.[32] It has upgraded its national communications network and is procuring a high-cost joint tactical information distribution system that will provide a common tactical picture capability for its armed forces. Taiwan has improved its tactical intelligence capability-invested resources to procure commercial high-resolution imagery from multiple sources, launched its own remote sensing satellite, and made plans for a follow-on system. National command authorities have developed an information operations strategic plan (guojun cixunzhan celue guihua) with a committee to oversee its implementation and support authorities to protect national-level assets.[33] Taiwan also has conducted a series of counterterrorist exercises, the most recent occurring in early December 2005.

Air Operations. The ROC Air Force has advanced its ability to sustain strikes, reconstitute operations, and conduct air defense and other missions. It has renewed its F-16 training program in the U.S., moved to increase the number of AIM-120 AMRAAM and AIM-9M air-to-air missiles in its inventory, enhanced the survivability of its fighter force by acquiring towed decoys, and submitted requests for additional air-to-ground munitions, such as the AGM-88C High Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) and Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) kits for its existing inventory of 500- and 2,000-pound bombs. The Bush administration, however, denied the release of these two air-to-ground munitions that the Air Force requested through the Ministry of National Defense.34 In lieu of HARMs, Taiwan has proceeded with its own air-launched antiradiation missile, the TC-2A. There have been reports of interest in Sensor Fuzed Weapons (SFW) munitions, modified for maritime interdiction, which could significantly increase the number of deaths suffered by People's Liberation Army (PLA) forces attempting to conduct landing operations in Taiwan.35 To enhance its ability to sustain air operations after ballistic and land-attack cruise missile raids, the air force has procured a large number of rapid repair kits and associated equipment. Plans, reportedly, are underway for more. As it modernizes its tactical communications network, Taiwan has upgraded and expanded its radar surveillance network.

Media sources have indicated that Taiwan has acquired access to Defense Support Program satellite early-warning notices on PRC ballistic missile launches.

Naval Operations. The Taiwan Navy adjusted its operational doctrine and introduced the first two of four Kidd-class destroyers into its inventory in December 2005. These systems, equipped with SM-2 missiles, provide a significant enhancement in anti-air warfare protection for the Taiwanese fleet. Taiwan has moved to procure a new generation of fast-attack boats equipped with advanced antiship cruise missiles. In addition to improvements in defensive mining, the Taiwan Navy has improved its targeting and logistics capability and its joint maritime interdiction capability. Consistent with Taiwan's overall C4ISR modernization efforts, the navy is upgrading its own command and control systems.

Army Operations. Taiwan is restructuring its army into a more mobile, agile force to respond more quickly and flexibly to a variety of contingencies. In addition to introducing nine CH-47SD heavy-lift helicopters into its force three years ago, the ROC Army is increasing its ability to operate at night through significant acquisition of night-vision equipment. The ROC Army has increased focus on interrupting PLA logistics supply lines, and its Improved Mobile Subscriber Equipment communications system proved critical in Taiwan's response to the devastating earthquake in September 1999. Plans are in place for expansion of this capability. In addition to added emphasis on NCO training, a new generation of tactical radios will be introduced into the army's inventory within the next few years, as well as a number of new small arms, including advanced sniper rifles. The planned acquisition of advanced unmanned aerial vehicles and other sensors will provide significant advances in its situational awareness. The army has expanded its special operations and counterterrorism capabilities and increased its inventory of munitions to include Hellfire. Perhaps most significant is the introduction over the next few years of a new generation light armored vehicle and a new multiple-rocket launching system.

Conclusion

The United States has interests in a Taiwan that is stable, democratic, economically viable, and able to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability. It is also interested in a Taiwan that has a professional, civilian-controlled defense establishment that is modern, joint, and able to function effectively should it be required to defend itself. However, America's preeminent interest should lie in Taiwan's value as a democracy that, like other democracies in the region, can serve as a shining example for others to follow.

As Taiwan has coped with how best to meet the objectives above in a difficult fiscal environment, observers in the United States have questioned Taiwan's commitment to its own defense. The debate over special budget and increased defense spending has not symbolized a lack of commitment. If anything, the defense budget debate has been a manifestation of the vast complexities associated with a democracy in transition. And, perhaps most important, the budget standoff stemmed from fundamental differences over how to best manage limited economic resources to ensure the long-term survival of Taiwan's democracy.

In the larger scheme of things, the United States should remain above domestic debates regarding how Taiwan manages its national resources. While keeping the door open as wide as possible, these issues should be left up to Taiwan's domestic political system to work out on its own, armed with as much information as possible and in an environment free from coercion. The special budget has been important to the Chen administration, which has placed its political credibility on the line for it. This issue has also been important to those in the ROC's armed forces who have invested incredible resources to justify it and pleaded to their political leaders for an increase in its annual defense budget every year since, at the very latest, 2000.

Indeed there are some, such as those within the Democratic Action Alliance and other civic organizations, who see Taiwan's future aligned with the PRC and advocate disarmament. However, mainstream political actors on both sides of the political spectrum are dedicated to defending the island against PRC aggression. The question lies in determining an adequate level of defense spending, allocating resources within the defense budget, and juxtaposing both with other national interests.

The author expresses gratitude to Fu S. Mei, a leading authority on Taiwan defense affairs and editor of the preeminent journal Taiwan Defense Review, and Dan Blumenthal, a resident fellow at AEI and former senior country director for the PRC and Taiwan within the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Christopher Griffin provided research assistance and Nicole Passan worked with Mr. Stokes to edit and produce this Asian Outlook.

Notes

1. The terms "Republic of China" (ROC) and "Taiwan" are used interchangeably here.

2. Chang is also convener of the Anti-Arms Procurement Alliance. The DAA was founded by Hwang Kwang-kuo, a professor of social psychology at National Taiwan University. Its members possess a diverse range of personalities, including Professor Li Ming-hui, award-winning movie director Hou Hsiao-hsien, writer Chu Tien-hsin, ex-Democratic Progressive Party activist Yeh Yao-peng, and dozens of college professors and other well-known literary figures and artists. Among various sources, see Chin Heng-wei, "What Lies in a Name Is Tricky Business," Taipei Times, July 2, 2004.

3. Unless otherwise noted, all figures are in U.S. dollars.

4. This characterization is borrowed from Shelly Rigger, "Party Politics and Taiwan's External Relations," (presentation, Foreign Policy Research Institute, Philadelphia, Pa., January 27, 2005). Her table on formal party positions with regard to national and cross-Strait identity is especially informative.

5. For a very good English-language editorial regarding the awkward position that Taiwan faces, see Philip Yang, "Domestic Factors and the U.S. Arms Sale to Taiwan," Taipei Times, September 30, 2005.

6. As Arthur Waldron has astutely noted, "A consensus has formed that, however the future develops, Taiwan must retain complete control over its own affairs." See "Our Stake in Taiwan," Commentary 18, no. 3 (October 2004): 60-65.

7. For a good overview of the complexities involved in evaluating "adequate self-defense," see Fu S. Mei's testimony in U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, China's Military Modernization and Cross-Strait Balance, 109th Cong., 1st sess., September 15, 2005, 217-26.

8. See Li Mingxian, "Guofangbu zhengshi mei jiangshou wo shundunjian" [Ministry of National Defense Confirms U.S. Could Sell Taiwan Aegis Destroyers], Ziyou ribao [Liberty Times], September 22, 2003.

9. Over the last fifty years, Taiwan has used the special budget almost thirty times. See Greg Man, "The Taiwan Special Budget: Implications for Future Defense Programs," Defense and Aerospace Report, 3rd quarter (Arlington, Va.: US-Taiwan Business Council), 17.

10. An English summary of these laws is available at Ministry of National Defense R.O.C., www.mnd.gov.tw/eng/discover/default.htm (accessed March 9, 2006). The Chinese text of the laws is also available at Ministry of National Defense R.O.C., http://law.mnd.gov.tw/eng.asp (accessed March 9, 2006).

11. Interviews in Taipei with Taiwanese officials whose identities are withheld by mutual agreement, December 20, 2005.

12. These changes are discussed in Michael D. Swaine, Taiwan's National Security, Defense Policy, and Weapons Procurement Processes (Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND, 1999). Also see Dr. Michael Pillsbury, "The U.S. Role in Taiwan's Defense Reforms" (presentation, ITDSS Conference, Taipei, February 29, 2004).

13. Interviews in Taipei with Taiwanese officials whose identities are withheld by mutual agreement, December 2005.

14. "A Call to Arms," Taiwan Business Topics 34, no. 11 (2006), available at www.amcham.com.tw/publication_topics_view.php?volume=34&vol_num=11&topics_id=561 (accessed March 9, 2006). The first test of the new organizational structure and budgeting process was MND's September 2003 $80-million request for four refurbished U.S. Navy Kidd-class destroyers. As one officer described it, the process was "painful," and involved detailed legislative examination of each and every line item. In the end, the Legislative Yuan cut 15 percent of the proposed budget, which was resolved through a reduction in the number of Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) anti-air missiles.

15. Among numerous sources, see "Taiwan Wants 26.75 Million Dollars Back from French Arms Supplier," Agence France-Presse, July 10, 2001; and Sofia Wu, "Lafayette Team Opposed to Parole of Corrupt Officer," Central News Agency, November 22, 2005.

16. For the best discussion of the ACTS model for defense of Taiwan, see Shih Chi-Hsiung, "The Reality and Feasibility of Deterring China: Re-Examining the Meaning of Deterrence in Taiwan's Defense," Taiwan Defense Affairs 5, no. 1 (Autumn 2004): 22-51. In terms of fundamental strategic culture within the Taiwan Air Force, one should not dismiss the legacy of U.S. Air Force officers schooled in ACTS doctrine, ranging from Chennault to former Taiwan Defense Command deputy commander Lieutenant General Harry Grant.

17. A package of fiscal reforms in 1997-98 lifted the budget back into surplus. However, the slide back toward a declining tax base, increasing government bonds and loans, and major expenditure on social welfare and earthquake relief quickly drove the fiscal budget back into deficit in 1999.

18. Among the indicators for measuring the health of a country or territory's economy and standard of living of its people is its gross domestic product (GDP). GDP is the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year, equal to total consumer, investment and government spending, plus the value of exports, minus the value of imports. Gross national product (GNP) is GDP plus the income accruing to domestic residents as a result of investments abroad, minus the income earned in domestic markets accruing to foreigners abroad.

19. James Peng, "Taiwan's Debt Outlook Downgraded by S&P," Bloomberg News, December 1, 2004.

20. Lin Mei-chun, "Rising Public Debt: Why It's So High," Taiwan Business Topics 35, no. 4 (April 2005), available at www.amcham.com.tw/publication_topics_view.php?volume=35&vol_num=4&topics_id=604; and Chen Chien-Hsun, "Taiwan's Burgeoning Budget Deficit: A Crisis in the Making?" Asian Survey 45, no. 3 (May/June 2005): 383-96.

21. "Taiwan's Enterprises Lay Off Increasing Number of Employees," Taiwan Economic News, January 2, 2006.

22. For a summary of the Liberty Times report, see Taiwan Defense Review, November 21, 2005. In effect, the TK-2 ATBM and TK-3 are one and the same; the TK-2 ATBM was the research and development project name. The system uses an upgraded Chang Bai (Lockheed Martin ADAR, which shares many of the same characteristics of the SPY-1D Aegis radar system) phased array radar and a missile equipped with an imported (non-U.S.) Ku-band active radar seeker (however, other sources indicate that the seeker uses an X-Band seeker). Taiwan has been, and continues to be, interested in authorization for release of high powered Ka-band traveling wave tube amplifiers for the seekers, thus far without success.

23. However, if the Legislative Yuan authorizes funding of the program, U.S. defense contractors are assuming that the China Shipbuilding Corporation, or ostensibly any other qualified shipyard in Taiwan, would be granted authority to provide repair and maintenance services.

24. After receiving the ICE quote, the Chen administration formally requested that the United States evaluate less expensive options to fill its requirements for diesel electric submarines at least as an interim measure until a solution to the impasse could be found. The Italian government had expressed interest in transferring up to eight retired Sauro-class submarines to the U.S. that could have been refurbished and transferred to Taiwan for as little as $3 billion. However, media reports indicated that the initiative was dropped due to U.S. and Taiwan Navy resistance. For background, see Rich Chang, "Submarine Costs Too Dear," Taipei Times, September 29, 2005; "Taiwan 'Rejects Deal on Four Subs,'" Agence France-Presse, December 18, 2001; and Brian Hsu, "MND Considering Used Submarines," Taipei Times, July 19, 2003. For an overview of the ICE, see Wang Tsung-ming, "Gongbu qianjian tebie yusuan 2880yi--guofangbu: hai hui gen meifang zhuyi taolun" [MND Announces the NT $288 Billion Submarine Special Budget Can Still Be Discussed with U.S.], Donglin News, September 28, 2005.

25. Other figures, such as those in tables 2 and 3, reflect the $40.53 billion required for force modernization--the differences could lie in currency exchange rates or adjustment for inflation.

26. Chou Cheng-chih, "My View on the Preparation of Defense Budget," Taiwan Defense Affairs (October 2000).

27. See Lin Yu-fang, "An Examination of 2004 Taiwan Defense Budget," Defense International (Quanqiu fangwei zazhi), November 2004; and "Reducing Budget for Repair of Arms a Concern, Says PFP," Central News Agency, September 20, 2005.

28. "Zongyusuan'an choubian jinggou ji zhuyao neirong" [Outline of 2006 Central Budget Plan], Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting, and Statistics (DGBAS), available at http://www.dgbas.gov.tw.

29. Chen Zhulai, "Yuan chushenshan aiguozhe-3 feidan 109yi yusuan" [LY Pre-Announces Cut of PAC-3 NT $10.9 Billion Budget], Central News Agency, November 9, 2005.

30. Taiwan Defense Review, September 6, 2005; Apple Daily, August 29, 2005; China Times, September 1, 2005; and Lu Chaolong, "Zizao xunyi feidan chengjun" [Indigenous Cruise Missile Enters the Military], China Times, August 12, 2005.

31. "Investigation Task Force to Be Formed over Navy Purchase Plan," Central News Agency, December 19, 2005.

32. For a good overview of the new command structures, see Lu Chao-lung, "Erduan qingjin'an mingnian diwancheng--27wan5qianren--guajun zongyuan'e diding" [The Second Phase of the Ching-ching Program to Be Completed by End of Year], China Times, January 1, 2006.

33. "Certain Trumpet: Interview with Defense Minister Wu," Taiwan Defense Affairs (October 2000).

34. "Non-NOCERE," Taiwan Defense Review, August 14, 2005.

35. Wendell Minnick, "Taiwan Seeks to Purchase CBU-105 for F-16s," Jane's Defence Weekly, January 4, 2006. By comparison, the Bush administration's policy on release of air-to-ground munitions has been more restrictive than that of the Clinton administration, which released a number of air-to-ground munitions, such as the AGM-65G Maverick and air-launched Harpoon with a coastal target suppression capability. In stark contrast to the Clinton administration, the current administration's JDAM decision has been particularly questionable. Taiwan already has the bombs in its inventory that can be guided with laser designators. The addition of JDAM kits to these bombs would enhance the effectiveness and versatility of its already existing inventory of munitions in a way that reduces collateral damage, reduce the number of passes that pilots would have to make over targets, and thereby reduce the chances of them getting shot down.
Snuffysmith
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HD08Df02.html
Multinationals giving Indian IT a big fight
By Indrajit Basu

KOLKATA - With a formal announcement this week of its intention to acquire a majority stake in Mphasis, a Bangalore-based applications and business process outsourcing (BPO) services company, for US$383 million, Electronic Data Systems Corp (EDS), a Plano, Texas-based global technology services company, became the latest information-technology multinational to join the slugfest between IT multinational corporations (MNCs) and top-tier Indian IT companies to grab a bigger slice of the global IT outsourcing pie.

Ever since last September, when Tata Consultancy Services Ltd (TCS), Infosys, Wipro, Hindustan Computers Ltd (HCL) and Patni, a few of India's top IT companies, started grabbing an unexpected, albeit small, share of the billions of dollars of outsourcing contracts that were hitherto meant only for the MNC IT companies, the Big Six of the latter - namely Accenture, Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), Computer Sciences Corp (CSC), EDS, Hewlett-Packard (HP) and IBM - have been worried.

"Indian companies are not satisfied playing the second fiddle anymore. They are competing big with the global IT companies," said Kiran Karnik, president of the National Association of Software and Services Companies (NASSCOM), India's IT industry lobby.

Chet Kamat, managing partner of Accenture India admitted that large Indian IT players are getting into deals "where only Accenture, EDS or IBM were considered", although he quickly added that "they aren't expected to be significant threats any time soon".

Still, the worried IT MNCs are ramping up their Indian operations as never before to cash in on the low-cost offshore strategy that their Indian counterparts have been using for more than a decade to grab the largest share of the global offshore outsourcing pie.

Early this week, EDS made an open offer to buy 83 million shares, or a 52% stake, in Mphasis BFL at $4.58 per share. Of course the offer is contingent on Mphasis shareholders' willingness to sell out to EDS - because after the offer, share prices have crossed $5 each, and EDS has not committed to revising its offer price yet - but if this offer goes through, the deal would perhaps be the biggest buyout of a BPO firm in India to date.

"This offer is complementary to our overall strategy to enhance EDS's presence and capabilities in India," said Mike Jordan, chairman and chief executive officer of EDS.

EDS is not the only one of the Big Six to have enhanced its presence and capabilities in India; the rest are ramping up aggressively as well. For instance, just two days after the EDS announcement, Computer Sciences Corp India, a wholly owned subsidiary of California-based CSC, said it was expanding its Indian operations "to support CSC's aggressive growth objectives". The rest of the pack - Accenture, ACS, HP and IBM - started their spurt of expansions long before.

Indeed, say industry sources, the Big Six are under pressure to hold on to their share as the Indian IT companies have increasingly started encroaching on the their turf. For instance, last September the Indian trio TCS, Infosys and Patni Computers managed to grab a significant portion ($400 million) worth of the $2.2 billion IT outsourcing contract that IBM thought was coming its way. Although IBM still managed to walk away with the remainder of the deal, it was, according to a Patni spokesperson, a breakthrough deal because Indian IT companies bagged a chance to dance with the MNCs for the first time ever. Soon HCL Computers - yet another top Indian IT company - managed to bag a $335 million deal from European retailer DSG International.

But what caused the biggest churn in the global IT outsourcing arena was the huge package of outsourcing contracts worth $7.5 billion that General Motors announced at the beginning of February. It saw EDS, GM's longtime primary supplier, losing ground while HP, ignored at times, got a lift. Although EDS, which was used to bagging about two-thirds of GM's outsourcing business, still managed to win $3.8 billion, or about half, of the total deal, IBM, France's Cap Gemini, and Compuware Covisint along with HP ended up as the biggest encroachers.

But most significant, for the first time ever, GM recognized Wipro, one of India's top five IT services companies, as its Tier 1 supplier by awarding it a $27 million contract directly, which Wipro says will scale up to $300 million over the next five years.

"The dominance of the Big Six [in] outsourcing is getting challenged," said Dennis McGuire, founder and chairman of TPI, which claims to be the largest outsourcing advisory firm.

According to TPI, 293 contracts were signed in 2005, more than in any other year. Of these 70% were small-to-medium-sized contracts worth $50 million to $200 million; of these, Indian IT firms were invited to pitch for 30% and went on to win 70%.

"The trend to a larger number of smaller single-function contracts and the increasing use of multiple providers is creating opportunities for a wider range of providers, but diluting the competitive advantage of the Big Six," said Siddharth Pai, leader of TPI's Global Service Delivery group, who heads its office in Bangalore.

However, the stakes for the Big Six could get even higher. That's because, says TPI, about $100 billion worth of major outsourcing contracts are expected to come up for renewals in the next two years, about two-thirds of which have the Big Six as incumbents. Of the $100 billion, it is estimated that about $50 billion is the combined share of IBM and EDS.

And almost all top IT companies are expanding, or getting into acquisitions, as well as adding competencies and deepening domain knowledge to compete with the Big Six and grab as much as they can away from them. Consequently, according to AMR Research, the US-based advisory research firm, large Indian IT companies will continue to eat into the market share of global outsourcing firms such as EDS and IBM.

That is why the Big Six are "fighting back too", said Pai of TPI. For one, the Big Six are ramping up their Indian operations on a war footing "so that they too can offer the India-advantage touted by the Indian IT firms".

Why does EDS needs Mphasis? Because its global customers have been insisting it lower its prices and create an offshore presence. With $350 million in annual revenues, Mphasis is known for its deep domain knowledge in the banking and financial-services industry as well as its clients in multiple industries, including transportation, technology and health care. It recently indicated its ambition to scale the $1 billion revenue mark and reach an employee strength of 50,000 by 2010.

Besides the Mphasis move, EDS is also investing $35 million in India to expand its own operations. Though EDS is the second-largest software-services company in the world, it has not been able to grow its operations in India as peers IBM and Accenture have done. IBM, for instance, has a head count of more than 38,000 professionals and achieved a revenue growth exceeding 50% in 2005. Accenture has a head count of 17,000, and both HP (about 10,000) and CSC (about 5,000) have larger operations in India than EDS's approximately 3,000 (slated to go up to about 6,000 after the $35 million expansion), signifying that although EDS is the second-largest software-services company in the world, its immediate MNC competitors have bypassed it by leaps and bounds in India.

The near-term outlook for the industry will likely feature a brutal period of competition between the Big Six and the domestic Indian players. This will not be easy for the latter: while the Big Six are setting up offshore service centers all over the world and offering their clients an array of destinations, "Indian firms are still not sufficiently globalized and offer primarily the India advantage," said Pai.

Indrajit Basu is a Kolkata-based equity analyst turned journalist with more than 12 years of experience in business/finance and technology journalism. Besides writing for Asia Times Online, he also writes for US-based publications, as well as IT companies.

(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing .)
Snuffysmith
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=1...wIQ&refer=home#


China Trade Surplus Soared to $11.2 Billion in March (Update4)
April 11 (Bloomberg) -- China's trade surplus widened to $11.2 billion in March, the second-highest on record, an increase that may heighten tensions before a meeting between President Hu Jintao and U.S. President George W. Bush next week.

Bush said yesterday he wants Hu to explain how the government will allow its currency to strengthen and crack down on counterfeiting of Hollywood movies and Microsoft Corp. software. Hu, set to meet with Bush in Washington on April 20, is seeking to spur imports while protecting exports, which helped the nation's economy grow 9.9 percent last year.

``This is really going to aggravate tensions with the U.S. ahead of Hu Jintao's visit,'' said Ben Simpfendorfer, a currency strategist at Royal Bank of Scotland in Hong Kong. ``Unless there's a dramatic decrease in the coming months, the trade surplus for the year is likely to widen.''

The surplus widened from $2.43 billion in February and was double the $5.7 billion median estimate of 27 economists in a Bloomberg survey. Exports jumped 28.3 percent from a year earlier to a record $78.1 billion, the fastest gain since October, the Ministry of Commerce said on its Web site.

Imports rose 21.1 percent to $66.9 billion. The statement didn't give a breakdown by region. The surplus for the first quarter rose to $23.2 billion, from $16.5 billion a year earlier.

Piracy, Currency

``A lot of Americans are wondering where's the equity in trade,'' said Bush, 59. ``It's very important for him to make a declaration on intellectual property.''

U.S. lawmakers have stepped up calls for China to let its currency appreciate more rapidly, arguing that an artificially low exchange rate gives Chinese exporters an unfair advantage and causes the loss of American jobs. European Union finance ministers on April 9, by contrast, called for a gradual appreciation in the currency.

The yuan has appreciated 1.3 percent against the U.S. currency since China's July 21 decision to revalue the yuan by 2.1 percent and end a decade-long peg to the dollar.

Traders today bet the yuan will rise 3.9 percent against the dollar in a year, according to forwards contracts traded in Hong Kong. The so-called implied exchange rate yesterday matched the strongest level since Jan. 9. The yuan's spot rate rallied as far as 8.0022 per dollar yesterday.

Trade Imbalances

China said its trade surplus tripled to a record $102 billion in 2005 from a year earlier, including a $114 billion gap with the U.S., its largest trading partner. The U.S. estimates it ran a $202 billion deficit with China in the year, part of an overall deficit of $726 billion.

China's Commerce Minister Bo Xilai today said the trade gap has been spurred by U.S. curbs on technology exports to China. The European Union, which has looser restrictions, estimates it had a deficit of 74.1 billion euros ($89.7 billion) with China in 2005.

He also blamed the gap on foreign companies that have moved production to China to benefit from low wages. Almost 60 percent of the nation's $760 billion of exports last year were shipped by foreign-invested companies, he said.

``If you exclude the net surplus gained by foreign-invested companies, China's trade surplus was only $20 billion to $30 billion last year,'' said Bo.

Shipments of technology goods made in China, including Dell Inc. computers and Motorola Inc. cell phones, rose 37 percent from a year earlier in the first two months of the year.

Dell plans to buy $18 billion of products in China this year, from $16 billion last year, Chairman Michael Dell said on March 22. Shipments from China by Motorola jumped 84 percent last year, the Ministry of Information Industry said last month.

Steaming Ahead

The larger-than expected surplus may power growth in China's economy, the world's fourth biggest, said Tai Hui, a Hong Kong-based economist with Standard Chartered Bank.

``With investment and consumption also steaming ahead, the trade surplus adds to the upside risks to growth,'' said Hui, who forecasts growth of 9.6 percent for the first quarter.

President Hu, 63, may be more receptive to U.S. demands because the yuan's lack of flexibility is making it harder for the government to manage the economy. China's foreign exchange reserves climbed to a record $853.7 billion at the end of February, the world's largest, and the central bank has been forced to print yuan to buy excess foreign currency.

``The trade surplus is a big economic problem for China because it's boosting foreign-exchange reserves and adding too much liquidity into the economy,'' said Paul Cavey, Hong Kong- based economist at Macquarie Bank Ltd.

China may agree to extend a crackdown on copyright piracy at a summit between trade officials in Washington today. The U.S. is preparing to file a lawsuit with the World Trade Organization alleging Chinese intellectual property laws fall short of global requirements, people familiar with the case said last week.

Hu's itinerary includes visits to the offices of Microsoft Corp. and Boeing Co. Boeing may sign a $5 billion order from eight Chinese carriers for as many as 80 planes in the coming week, executives at the airlines said.
Snuffysmith
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/HD13Cb05.html
China and the art of (standards) war
By Indrajit Basu

In the afternoon of January 10, Huang Ju, China's vice premier, made a videophone call from the Science and Technology Innovation Achievements Exhibition that was then being held in Beijing. For the residents of Bijie county, to whom this call was made, it was a simple call from the vice premier that conveyed New Year greetings. But for the global telecom industry, it was an end to several years of anxious waiting.

"I am impressed with the quality of the call," Huang said, and with those words he put the Chinese government's official stamp of approval on the locally developed third-generation (3G) technology that was used for the demonstration. China's operators and global equipment makers had been waiting for years for Beijing to roll out 3G licenses and make a final decision on the technology that it would use for 3G services, expected to start in mid-2006.

The video call also ended another uncertainty: whether China would adopt its "home-grown" 3G technology standard, known as time division-synchronous code division multiple access (TD-SCDMA), and not the globally accepted and European-backed wideband code division multiple access (W-CDMA) or the US-backed CDMA-2000. According to global technology experts who assisted China in developing TD-SCDMA, "development of this technology was a prestige issue".

On its face, this statement might seem curious. There are many sources of prestige for countries - strong economies, five-star hotels, powerful militaries, gold medals at the Olympics - but technical electronics standards, which are mostly invisible to the devices' users? After all, what difference does it make whether a mobile phone is GSM (global system for mobile communications), CDMA or some other standard, as long as it works?

Clearly, something important is going on here, because the TD-SCDMA case is not an isolated example. Over the past several years, China has been making a systematic effort to develop its own standards in a host of other areas ranging from mobile phones to next-generation digital video discs (DVDs) to digital television to nanotechnology, and even trying to wrest control of the personal-computer (PC) operating system standard away from Microsoft by openly supporting Linux.

Evidently, China's government considers the development of indigenous technical standards a strategic priority. To understand why, we have to discuss two business concepts: first-mover advantage, and the experience curve.

First-mover advantage refers to the fact that the first company to develop a new product or technology has the greatest chance of becoming the dominant player as that industry develops and consolidates - basically because it has a head-start both in terms of the product or technology itself and in terms of consumer identification. While being first certainly does not assure long-term success (how many MITS Altair computers have you seen on the market lately?), empirically, first movers have a greater chance of hanging around for the long haul than their imitators.

The experience-curve concept, developed by Boston Consulting Group beginning in the 1970s, states that the more often a task is performed, the lower will be the cost of doing it. Mathematically, when unit cost is graphed versus cumulative output, the curve slopes gently downward and to the right. The experience curve helps to explain first-mover advantage - first movers, having been around longer, have the ability to offer a product at a lower price relative to their competitors.

How does this relate to electronics standards? Simple: a new type of mobile phone, or color TV, or whatever, is subject to the two phenomena above, just like any other product. Whenever the need for a new standard arises - for example, when innovations in lasers, optics and digital technology created the necessary foundation for digital audio discs in the 1970s - the companies that develop that standard first can dominate that industry for years or even decades afterward, as they race down the experience curve ahead of competing firms.

At the moment, most of the first movers are US, European or Japanese firms. But China would dearly like the first movers of the future to be Chinese. And the easiest way to make sure that happens is to promote indigenous technical standards, which - because China's market is so huge and growing so rapidly - the global electronics industry cannot afford to ignore, even if they perceive that losing control of standards will undermine their long-term interests.

There is another factor as well: license fees for intellectual property rights (IPR). Although it would be easy enough, in most cases, for a country to reverse engineer and copy standardized technology from abroad, the world trade system makes it difficult for countries that do this to export the products to the country where the technology originated. And modern production technology is so efficient that IPR fees can make up a shockingly high percentage of the cost of the product.

For example, China manufactures the preponderance of the world's DVD players. But DVD is a standard that requires special decoder chips - the rights to which are owned by the DVD license holders - to manufacture. And while Chinese firms could (and probably do) sell their players within China without paying the license fees, attempting to do so abroad would expose them to lawsuits from the license-owning firms. Since license fees can make up as much as half of the production cost of a low-end player - which gives the Chinese electronics industry an overwhelming incentive to develop, and favor, its own standards over all others.

What we are seeing now is the early stage of a high-stakes struggle over technology standards that will last for many years, and analysts are beginning to discern the patterns.

"The Chinese government is establishing high-technology standards that differ from international standards," said Dennis Fernandez, of Fernandez & Associates, a California-based intellectual-property consulting firm. "In effect, foreign high-technology intellectual property rights are not only losing value, but the high-technology standards [that China is creating] are also incompatible with international high-technology standards, [which consequently are] making entry into China's market difficult for foreign companies with intellectual property rights in high technology."

The impact of China's determination to set its own standards and its incompatibility with international standards emerged as a public issue in early 2004, when chip giant Intel came in direct conflict with a Chinese security standard for wireless chips. That January, China suddenly declared that to be able to continue selling integrated circuit chips in the country, all chip vendors' technologies needed to comply with China's newly issued Wireless Authentication and Privacy Infrastructure (WAPI) security standard for wireless local-area networks (WLAN) technology, or else face a ban. That came as a blow to Intel, which realized that its popular Centrino chips were not compliant with the Chinese WAPI standards. The company declared in March 2004 that it had no other alternative but to withdraw from the Chinese WLAN equipment market.

But the battle wasn't over: China suspended the new standard because of pressure from the US government, Intel and other multinational firms. "Had the Chinese not suspended the standard due to international pressure, Intel would have lost the entire Chinese market for its now-popular Centrino chipset," said Fernandez.

Despite this early round apparently going to overseas companies, clearly China's ability to stop a company "as big and strong as Intel from profiting in its market" still looms large on the minds of other technology companies, and many are worried.

Eugen von Keller, head of the Beijing office of the German management consultancy Roland Berger, believes that the prospect of China one day setting the standards for mobile phones, TVs, computers and, indeed, almost everything else is an alarming one for the West. "Companies like Siemens, for example, are already not only manufacturing all their standard phones in China, but have as well put all [their] research and development into China," he said. "The standards will be set [in China], and the consumers will decide on what applications they want to have - the Chinese consumers, not the Germans."

Undoubtedly, there is a growing school of thought that says the Chinese believe their market is so large that they will ultimately be able to force adoption of their standard, and eventually use this structural advantage to take control of the industries in question.

"Technology vendors that misjudge the impact of China's standards revolution could find themselves at a significant disadvantage, with their position in the market increasingly overtaken or encroached upon," said Clarence Kwan, national managing partner of the Chinese Services Group at Deloitte & Touche. "China is able to use the lure of its massive markets and spectacular growth as leverage in the standards war. Global technology and telecommunications companies need to review China's standards initiatives and collaborate, where appropriate, with Chinese companies in standards development."

Indeed, whether the rest of the world is prepared or not, it is already clear that China is using its massive markets and spectacular growth as leverage in the standards war. Markets for the country's electronic-information products have grown from $20 billion in 1999 to more than $85 billion (estimated) in 2005, and according to Vice Minister of Information Industry Lou Qinjian, China's output of several categories of home-made electronic and information products already ranks first worldwide. With consumer-electronics products such as color TV sets and mobile phones witnessing scorching growth, "China has become the world's second-largest consumer-electronics market next to the US," said the minister.

According to the statistics of the Ministry of Information Industry (MII), China produced, sold and exported respectively 82.8 million, 80.4 million and 39.7 million sets of color TV sets in 2005, up 13.02%, 10.69% and 43.36% from the previous year. The output of mobile phones has increased just as dramatically. China manufactured 303 million mobile phones in total in 2005, some 40% of the world's production. The MII predicted that the number is likely to exceed 340 million this year. Statistics for most other electronics products show similar increases.

What is China's viewpoint on the standards issue? One might well ask the obvious body, the China Electronic Standards Institute (CESI), which made an interesting argument in a 2003 paper. The CESI said the country has been forced to develop its own standards solely because developed foreign countries, through their own non-tariff trade-barrier tactics, have made it imperative for the country to "change its economic stance from defensive to offensive."

The CESI argued: "During the Chinese World Trade Organization [WTO] membership negotiation process, we were generally concentrating on tariff reduction. However, besides tariff[s], intellectual property barriers have long been established. This scenario has become more serious within the WTO framework. Examples are [the] cigarette-lighter case in Wenzhou [1] and the license fee levied on DVD players. These cases had sounded the alarm for us. It made us aware that under [the] WTO, Trade Related Intellectual Property Security [TRIPS] rules can be used to protect intellectual properties in trade.

"On the other hand, [the] Trade Barrier Treaty [TBT] can be used under the mask of standardization, patents and intellectual-property rights to obtain most world trade advantages. For that, we should research and develop countermeasures. We need to learn from the foundation of the developed countries. We should set our strategy on forming standards and Intellectual property laws within the framework of [the] WTO."

The CESI added: "First, we need to use the patent system to promote our technological advancement. On one hand, we have to have technology breakthrough[s] at the entrepreneur level. We should enable them to apply for timely patents. On the other hand, the government should help companies to innovate, and to apply for patents. Technology barriers are also a race in technology between countries. Due to technology barrier standards, health inspection and quarantine procedures are full of high-tech and intellectual property [issues]. To pay high prices for license[s] is just a short-term solution for the immediate market. For the long term, we should elevate our technology R&D [research and development] level. Owning our own IP is the only way we can cross over the technology barriers set by the developed countries."

That is why Peter Read of Fusion Consulting, a business intelligence consultancy with expertise on the Asia-Pacific markets, feels that China is just trying to save its turf from global dominance. "One of the primary motives behind developing these home-grown standards is to give Chinese companies an advantage in the domestic market in the face of the unrelenting ingress under WTO reforms of foreign companies, with in many cases more market experience and business savvy than their Chinese counterparts," he said.

"In addition to that, the Chinese leadership has been conscious for years that global economic leadership will increasingly be driven by intellectual as opposed to material property, which does not sit well with China's rapidly growing role as the factory of the world. With the domestic market and business as opposed to [the] state becoming more significant in the economy, home-grown standards are one very effective way to redress the balance to some extent and ensure the long-term future success of [the] Chinese economy."

Paul Lee, who heads the technology, media and telecommunications group at Deloitte Research, too feels that the fear that Chinese standards would dominate the high-tech industries in the future is unwarranted. "Their overriding ambition is to achieve top level economic growth," he said. "Like any government in a developing country, China wants to reduce dependence on foreign companies and cultivate its own technology industries. It wants to move its economy away from low-tech commodities to high-tech products based on its own intellectual property so that it products can fetch a premium in the global marketplace."

According to Lee, there's also an economic imperative. As the world's largest producer of consumer electronics, Chinese companies would also like to reduce their royalty payments to foreign vendors. Besides, developing home-grown standards is also "prestigious".

"That China is a low-cost manufacturer is well-known ... defining and owning new global standards also increases the pride and prestige of China's high technology industry as it progresses to leading innovation in high technology," said Lee.

Nevertheless, he said, it is also true that as China's markets grow and its standards take root, "Chinese firms will be better positioned to disrupt global IT markets."

The most likely pattern for the future is that China will first mass-produce in its home market, and then export its new technologies to neighboring developing-country markets in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and other countries that do not have technologies to call their own.

"Chinese products and standards will start at the low end, but will steadily improve to eventually compete in every country and market segment around the world," said Lee. Like Clarence Kwan, Lee said technology vendors who fail to anticipate this long-term trend will find themselves at significant disadvantage.

So what lies ahead? Will China's standards, with the great mass of the Chinese market behind them, grow so overwhelming that they begin to influence the development and use of technologies worldwide?

"No one knows," said Lee. "But China is too important to be ignored." Therefore Lee suggests that global technology companies must formulate a China-centric strategy, the central theme of which should be "collaboration and partnership with standard setters".

In that context, Siemens' decision to partner with Datang - a Chinese telecom company - jointly to develop the TD-SCDMA technology is a good example. Experts say Siemens took a risk by sharing its technology, but gained the first-mover advantage in the world's largest telecommunications market in return. And taking that cue, now even Japanese telecom companies have started partnering with Chinese companies to develop fourth-generation (4G) mobile-phone technology.

According to Lee, the other elements of the China strategy should be competing selectively, focusing on areas where standards are harder to mandate; specific innovation for the Chinese market; and entering those segments of the Chinese markets where standards have yet to take root, to establish early control.

"Companies that do not follow these rules may find themselves locked out of the world's largest growing market or worse, unable to compete in a global marketplace increasingly defined by standards that originate in China," Paul Lee warned.

Chinese standards initiatives at a glance
Technology International standard
Proposed or adopted Chinese standard
Notes

Digital television (DTV)
Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC);High Definition Television (HDTV);Standard Definition Television (SDTV);Digital Video Broadcasting-Cable (DVBC)
Digital Multimedia Broadcasting-Terrestrial (DMBT); and Advanced Digital Television Broadcast-Terrestrial (ADTBT)
Though the ATSC has been seen primarily as the American standard setter for DTV, many countries have adopted the standards set by the group. DVBC is the European standard, which China has chosen to adopt until its proposed standards are ready for deployment.

Mobile telephony
Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA - European); Code Division Multiple Access 2000 (CDMA-2000 - US)
Time Division-Synchronous Code Division Multiple Access (TD-SCDMA)
China has its own globally approved standard for 3G and as the world's largest market for mobile communications, is well positioned to take a lead role in defining the 4G standard. TD-SCDMA phones have the capability of being dual mode, thus able to handle other 3G technology based phones such as WCDMA and CDMA-2000. Major companies involved include: Siemens AG, Agilent Technologies, Huawei Technologies, Motorola, Nokia, LG Electronics, and many other cell phone manufacturers.

Wireless Local Area Networks (LANs)
Existing 802.11 Security Standards Including: Service Set Identifier (SSID); Media Access Control (MAC); Wired Equivalent Privacy (WEP)
Wired Authentication and Privacy Infrastructure (WAPI)
After months of dealing with the newly adopted security standard for Wi-Fi chips within China, Intel decided in 2004 it would not ship Wi-Fi chips to China once the standard was adopted. China decided to suspend adopting the standard.

Video discs
Digital Versatile Disk (DVD)
Enhanced Versatile Disk (EVD)
Development of the EVD technology was triggered by high royalty costs for the DVD technology. Chinese companies are constrained by hefty DVD royalties, which range from US$15 to $22 on players that today often retail for less than $60. A consortium of China's leading makers of DVD players holds the EVD patents and collects royalties. EVD is currently based on MPEG-2, but a switch to AVS is expected - allowing Chinese manufacturers to produce state-of-the-art video players based entirely on Chinese technology standards.

Home networking
Digital Home Working Group (DHWG)
Intelligent Grouping and Resource Sharing (IGRS)
China's Ministry of Information Industry uses IGRS rather than the established DHWG which includes Intel, Microsoft, Sony and Samsung. The IGRS currently has 15 member companies with 11 newly applying.

Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) tags
Electronic Product Code Network (EPC)
Undecided
China established a working group to draft and develop national standards for RFID tag technology. Some reports indicate the group is adhering to international standards, while others suggest the group is planning to go its own way. The rumor is that China will likely set a different standard than EPC.

Audio/video compression
Moving Picture Experts Group (MPEG) 4; H.264
Audio Video Coding Standard (AVS)
China is developing its own standard technology - AVS - for compressing audio and video. AVS is competing with MPEG-4 and H.264 to replace the current worldwide compression standard, MPEG-2.















































































































































Sources: Osama Hussain, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law; Dennis Fernandez, managing partner of Fernandez & Associates, LLP; "Changing China" (research paper), by Paul Lee of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu.

Note
1. This referred to a 2002 case in which the European Union, in an apparent response to soaring numbers of imported Chinese cigarette lighters, adopted an EU-wide standard for cigarette lighters that included a patented technology. This confronted the Chinese cigarette makers with a choice between developing their own substitute for the technology, which would result in lost sales opportunities during the development phase assuming a competitive substitute was even possible, or paying the license fees to use the EU technology, which would result in a loss of cost competitiveness.

Indrajit Basu is a Kolkata-based equity analyst turned journalist with more than 12 years of experience in business/finance and technology journalism. Besides writing for Asia Times Online, he also writes for US-based publications, as well as IT companies.

(Copyright 2006 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
Snuffysmith
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/HD13Ad01.html
Beijing, the Vatican and the Zen factor
By Francesco Sisci

BEIJING - Spring has sprung in the Northern Hemisphere, yet a wintry chill has fallen over the relationship between China and the Vatican since the appointment of Joseph Zen as cardinal of Hong Kong. Still, there are spring-like signs of hope, developments and budding breakthroughs as both sides in recent days have expressed their willingness to come to an early agreement for the normalization of ties.

In Beijing, people who have been following the Vatican issue for the past few years are shaking their heads. They feel frustrated once again at the new setback in their effort to normalize ties with the Holy See. To them the Zen appointment is more complicated than the decision by the late pope John Paul II in 2000 to canonize 120 Chinese saints on October 1, China's National Day.
Beijing had then told the Vatican to choose any other day, considering that October 1 was a date reserved for national pride. Chinese Catholics, too, did not want to be forced to choose between celebrating their state and celebrating their religion on October 1. In other words, state and religion had to be kept separated. But Rome did not budge. For years afterward, China cut all contacts with the Vatican.

The reaction this time has been different, but there is great wonder and puzzlement in Beijing. "The holy war that the Vatican didn't want to unleash against Islamic fundamentalism was instead declared against China? Does the Holy See want to topple the Beijing government just as it contributed to undermining the governments of the former Eastern Bloc, starting with Catholic Poland? Does the Vatican consider China just the last brick in the old communist wall?"

So far these questions are without answers. But nobody is losing their head in Beijing.

On April 3, the official China Daily reported that Ye Xiaowen, director of the state Administration of Religious Affairs, suggested some flexibility on the thorny issue of the appointment of the bishops. "We have always been appointing and consecrating our bishops; this is what we must stick to," said Ye. But he added that the Chinese side was open to consultations.

Ye was responding to statements released by Vatican Foreign Minister Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo. On March 25 he declared to the Hong Kong press that Pope Benedict would not hesitate to travel to Beijing to show his "admiration for the great Chinese people" and all he was waiting for was an invitation from Beijing and the fulfillment of necessary conditions.

Still, it is not clear to Beijing what the Vatican really wants to do about normalizing ties. In fact, Lajolo's statement was a response to a semi-official declaration from the Beijing-sponsored Chinese Catholic Patriotic Association, which comprises Catholics loyal to Beijing as opposed to the underground church, which partly or totally does not recognize Chinese government authority over it.

On March 8, Liu Bainian, vice chairman of the association, said many Chinese believed Zen's promotion showed the Church wanted to challenge Beijing just as the late pope John Paul II confronted Soviet communism in Poland. "If China's bishops were all like him, then it would be dangerous like Poland," Liu told Reuters. "Bishop Zen is widely known as an opponent of communism."

On March 7, Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing reprimanded the Vatican, warning it not to interfere with Chinese internal affairs.

The bone of contention between the Vatican and China is not over Taiwan; it is agreed that Beijing's, not Taipei's, jurisdiction will be recognized. The issue is the appointment of bishops, and whether the state has authority over the Church or vice versa. Here the two worlds seem unable to connect.

Certainly the differences between today's China and the Soviet bloc of 25 years ago are enormous. But just as enormous is the difference in influence between Catholics in China and those in Poland.

In Poland, Catholics were the majority; indeed, there were Christians of various sects all over the Soviet bloc, and the pope had at least some influence. But in China, Christians are a tiny minority. There are about 10 million Catholics, less than 1% of the Chinese population. Furthermore they are divided, with two-thirds "underground", with a hostile or at best gray relationship with Beijing, and one-third loyal to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

There are a lot more Protestants, maybe as many as 100 million, but they are very disorganized, divided into all kinds of congregations, mostly of a Chinese type that is very unorthodox, and all paying little or no attention to the pope.

Based on this, Beijing should have no reason to worry about the appointment of the new cardinal in Hong Kong. But the Chinese, who believe that power comes from knowledge (as defined and distributed by an effective propaganda machine), take more seriously than even Josef Stalin the potentially divisive power of the pope.

Beijing considers Zen the principal inspiration of opposition in Hong Kong against the central government. Yet it wanted to play ball with him and was showing it was willing to compromise. Two years ago Beijing appointed Donald Tsang chief executive of Hong Kong, getting rid of his predecessor Tung Chee-hwa before the end of his term.

Tsang is a devout Catholic, going to mass every day, and for this reason he represents an enormous opening for the CCP, which even today prohibits its members from joining a religious affiliation. For Beijing, Tsang's appointment was a friendly hand offered to then-bishop Zen and the Vatican, an offer of collaboration. Moreover it signaled that even in mainland China more doors might open for Catholics. But the offer was not accepted, if it ever was understood, and neither were other offers for diplomatic normalization - possibly similarly misunderstood - extended to the Vatican in 2005.

Now the central issue is the role of Cardinal Zen in Hong Kong. At the end of January he signed a public statement asking for constitutional reforms in Hong Kong and an early election for the territory's chief executive through democratic suffrage. In Beijing some people think that Cardinal Zen's signature on the document had nothing to do with religious matters, that it was purely political, and that independently of whether the document was right or wrong it signals a dangerous trend of religious interference in political issues.

Cardinal Zen's was the second signature in the document; the first was that of Anson Chan, a likely candidate against Donald Tsang in an election. It was as if, people in Beijing argue, the Democratic presidential candidate in the US produced a public statement first signed by the candidate himself and then by the head of Catholics in the United States. How would the Republican candidate feel? Wouldn't public opinion in the US explode over this "papal" interference?

Of course there are many political naivities in Hong Kong, and Cardinal Zen is an idealist, not a political manipulator. But certainly the role of the cardinal in Hong Kong is in uncharted waters on the mainland, those of relations between state and religion, and even in the West these are dangerous waters for any country jealous of state prerogatives against religious interference. In this case the "communist stigma" further complicates the matter because Beijing's moves are second-guessed as "communist reactions", while the Vatican's moves can be equally second-guessed as "anti-communist reactions".

With everybody second-guessing everybody, nobody gets anything across.

Both critical events, the canonization issue in 2000 and now the appointment of Cardinal Zen, occurred just before ties were on the verge of being normalized between Beijing and the Vatican. Was it a conspiracy concocted by people in the Vatican against the normalization of relations? Was it a trap by the Vatican, which never wished for normal ties to happen and wanted only to drag things out with Beijing and make it lose face? Or was it only the devil that interfered? Or was it just not God's will?

Whatever the case, not everything is lost. Beijing knows that enemies can become friends. Anti-communists Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger were the people who opened the United States up to China; similarly, Cardinal Zen could help to solve many issues. He could contribute to reconciliation with the Catholic Church, and many people in Beijing wish for it. The doors are not closed. Liu Bainian attacked Cardinal Zen but praised the pope, and Zen himself took a very prudent, conciliatory tone with Beijing in an interview with the Asian Wall Street Journal on March 17.

Zen is also concerned with the unity of his Church. He and the Vatican do not want to break with the official Church loyal to the CCP, and also do not want to create a schism with the underground church. Here there are major problems of orthodoxy. The old generation of underground priests groomed in the loyalty to Rome and the pope is dying out, and a new generation has come about that has been used to living without masters. But the official Church, though it is in a gray area with the pope, is used to obedience both to the Chinese state and to the pontiff. In a way the official Church, being on the border of apostasy, has to be more observant.

In contrast, the underground church does not obey the state and for decades has grown used to having nobody from Rome telling it what to do. In reality the underground church is largely out of control, with priests obeying neither Beijing nor Rome. Beijing cannot be obeyed because it is the government of the communist enemy, while Rome is far away, doesn't know exactly what is going on, and does not have its people in the field so it can issue orders.

Therefore, there are 7 million to 8 million people and, more important, there are hundreds of priests who do not obey anybody - they are out of control. Moreover they have blackmailing power with the Holy See: if they decided to leave the Church, the Vatican would be without people in China, or rather the only believers would be the ones in the official Church loyal to the CCP.

But do these underground Catholics have an interest in reconciliation between the Vatican and Beijing? Probably no