' Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
Clicking on banner ads enables JWR to constantly improve
Jewish World Review Aug. 13, 2002 / 5 Elul, 5762

Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
David Limbaugh
Michelle Malkin
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Trading with the 'enemy'

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | As America grapples with a two-front challenge -- the global war on terror and the need to reinvigorate the U.S. economy -- its leaders are hoping that expanded international trade can help solve both problems. Unfortunately, if the machinations of the Chinese conglomerate Hutchison Whampoa are any indicator, an indiscriminate approach to trading with potential enemies could cost the United States dearly on both fronts.

Recent debates over granting President Bush Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), according Communist China permanent "Normal Trade Relations" status and permitting taxpayer subsidized trade with Cuba have all implicitly, if not explicitly, shared a dubious conviction: Since overseas commerce is an inherently good thing, the more of it the better.

This sentiment takes an extreme form among those who favor what might be called a "trade uber alles" philosophy. These advocates tend to be less than sensitive, to put it charitably, to the potential national security risks associated with putting their philosophy into practice. Even the relatively tangible repercussions -- such as the loss of indigenous industrial capability and the attendant, increased reliance on foreign suppliers for key components of weapon systems -- are typically dismissed, or at least subordinated to the perceived greater good of developing globalized relationships with trading partners.

To be sure, the most doctrinaire of Free Traders typically try to conceal their insouciance about the defense implications of their policies. They often assert that trading with authoritarian regimes that are either our enemies today or that might become foes in the future can be safely undertaken since it will inexorably transform them by creating a middle class imbued with capitalist impulses and, in due course, with irresistible democratic aspirations.

This thesis may even be true in the long run. The problem is that in the short- to medium-term, ill-advised trading with potential adversaries can serve not only to prop up their regimes, but afford them opportunities to do us great harm.

A case in point would appear to be Hutchison Whampoa, a Hong Kong-based commercial empire founded and largely owned by a Chinese multi-billionaire named Li Ka-shing. Li, who U.S. intelligence believes is closely tied to the Communist leadership in Beijing, has turned Hutchison into a global colossus described in a recent company press release as having "over 120,000 employees worldwide, operat[ing] and invest[ing] in five core businesses in 37 countries: telecommunications; ports and related services; property and hotels; retail and manufacturing; and energy and infrastructure."

As noted in this space last month, one of Hutchison's subsidiaries secured long-term leases at either end of the Panama Canal two years ago and is currently hard at work acquiring a presence for China at other strategic "choke points" around the world, including notably the Caribbean's Bahamas, the Mediterranean's Malta and the Persian Gulf's Straits of Hormuz. At a moment inconvenient to the United States, such access could translate into physical or other obstacles to our use of such waterways.

An even more troubling prospect arises from a bid Hutchison Whampoa and two partners (one an American company called Savi Technology) are making to win U.S. government contracts to enhance security at American ports. The lack of such security is widely understood to be one of the most serious vulnerabilities facing those charged with homeland defense. Turning over the design of a cargo-monitoring system to a company closely tied to the regime in Beijing could mean affording the latter insights into how that system can be defeated.

It would be decidedly in the interest of the Chinese People's Liberation Army and its clients -- which include all the world's terrorist-sponsoring states -- to know how to circumvent the techniques used by the United States to protect American harbors from deadly attacks using containers and/or the vessels that transport them. But it is certainly not in our interest.

The same probably can be said of Hutchison Whampoa's just-announced purchase of a 61.5 percent majority interest in the bankrupt Bermuda-based telecommunications firm, Global Crossing Ltd. Global Crossing was the original winner of a 10-year, $450 million contract to operate a high-speed classified research network for Pentagon scientists. After the company went belly up, WorldCom got the deal last April.

Even before the latter's corporate financial meltdown, however, Global Crossing and other telecommunications companies were demanding that the award be reconsidered. With Li Ka-Shing's infusion of $250 million into Global Crossing, it may be seen as a viable competitor, assuming security considerations are not allowed to get in the way. And why should they? If Li and his friends are considered a safe enough bet to be put in charge of monitoring what is coming into our ports, how could anybody object to fiber optic cables he controls being used as the conduit for classified Defense Department secrets?

There is surely a place for genuinely free and fair trade in America's war on terror. Those who are truly, as President Bush put it, "with us" in that war should be among the beneficiaries of our efforts to maximize reciprocal access to markets. However, some thirty years of ever-expanding Chinese opportunities to sell in the United States have yet to translate into comparable opportunities for American companies in the PRC -- let alone transformed the government in Beijing into one that is reliably on our side in the present global conflict, to say nothing of democratic.

Trade uber alles means, by definition, subordinating national security considerations to the ambitions of those who seek profits through commerce. In a time of war like the present, we simply cannot afford to pursue such a policy to its illogical, and potentially highly destructive, conclusion.

Enjoy this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. heads the Center for Security Policy. Send your comments to him by clicking here.


07/30/02: Who's trashing Ashcroft?
07/23/02: Wall Street's 'poisoned apples'
07/16/02: Back on the China front
07/09/02: See no evil?
07/02/02: Rethinking peacekeeping
06/25/02: Political moment of truth on defense
06/19/02: Inviting losses on two fronts
06/12/02: Make missile defense happen
06/04/02: The next 'Day of Infamy'?
05/29/02: Bush's Russian gamble
05/21/02: The 'next war'
05/15/02: Ex-presidential misconduct
05/07/02: When 'what if' is no game
05/02/02: Careful what we wish for
04/24/02: The real 'root cause' of terror
04/02/02: First principles in the Mideast
03/26/02: 'Renounce this map'
03/20/02: The inconvenient ally
03/12/02: Adults address the 'unthinkable'
03/05/02: The Saudi scam
02/26/02: Rumsfeld's 'now hear this'
02/19/02: Where's the outrage?
02/12/02: Post-mortem on 'Pearl Harbor II'
02/05/02: Spinning on the 'Evil Axis'
01/29/02: A challenge for the history books
01/22/02: Who pulled the plug on the Chinese 'bugs'?
01/15/02: No 'need to know'
01/08/02: Sentenced to de-nuclearize?
12/18/01: Missile defense mismanagement?
12/11/01: Is the Cold War 'over'?
12/04/01: A moment for truth
11/29/01: Send in the marines -- with the planes they need
11/27/01: 'Now Hear This': Does the President Mean What He Says?
11/20/01: Mideast 'vision thing'
11/13/01: The leitmotif of the next three days
11/06/01: Bush's Reykjavik Moment
10/30/01: Say it ain't true, 'W.
10/23/01: Getting history, and the future, right
10/16/01: Farewell to arms control
10/05/01: A time to choose
09/25/01: Don't drink the 'lemonade'
09/11/01: Sudan envoy an exercise in futility?
09/05/01: Strategy of a thousand cuts
08/28/01: Rummy's back
08/21/01: Prepare for 'two wars'
08/14/01: Why does the Bush Administration make a moral equivalence between terrorist attacks and Israel's restrained defensive responses?
08/07/01: A New bipartisanship in security policy?
07/31/01: Don't go there
07/17/01: The 'end of the beginning'
07/10/01: Testing President Bush
07/03/01: Market transparency works
06/27/01: Which Bush will it be on missile defense?
06/19/01: Don't politicize military matters
06/05/01: It's called leadership
06/05/01: With friends like these ...
05/31/01: Which way on missile defense?
05/23/01: Pearl Harbor, all over again
05/15/01: A tale of two Horatios
05/08/01: The real debate about missile defense
04/24/01: Sell aegis ships to Taiwan
04/17/01: The 'hi-tech for China' bill
04/10/01: Deal on China's hostages -- then what?
04/03/01: Defense fire sale redux
03/28/01: The defense we need
03/21/01: Critical mass
03/13/01: The Bush doctrine
03/08/01: Self-Deterred from Defending America
02/27/01: Truth and consequences for Saddam
02/21/01: Defense fire sale
02/13/01: Dubya's Marshall Plan
02/05/01: Doing the right thing on an 'Arab-Arab dispute'
01/30/01: The missile defense decision
01/23/01: The Osprey as Phoenix
01/17/01: Clinton's Parting Shot at Religious Freedom
01/09/01: Wake-up call on space
01/02/01: Secretary Rumsfeld
12/27/00: Redefining our Ukraine policy
12/19/00: Deploy missile defense now
12/12/00: Sabotaging space power
12/05/00: Preempting Bush
11/28/00: What Clinton hath wrought
11/21/00: HE'S BAAAACK
11/14/00: The world won't wait

© 2001, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.