If this is true, U.S. law requires that China be sanctioned. The task force's six-month deadline is thought to be in late May or June. Helms, a long-time hawk on proliferation and a skeptic on Chinese intentions, wouldn't let President Bill Clinton do nothing. Washington has long acknowledged that China transferred missile components to Pakistan, and in response has already sanctioned China twice. But more sanctions could devastate the U.S.-China political relationship.
Political relations are already fragile.
In China, memories remain fresh of Nato's bombing of China's embassy in Belgrade one year ago. Since the March election of a formerly pro-independence president on Taiwan, moreover, Chinese have been dwelling anew on the possibility of a military confrontation with the United States over China's claims to the island. Sanctions would likely undermine U.S. efforts to engage with China on a range of subjects, from Taiwan to a forthcoming presidential decision on development of a National Missile Defense system for the U.S., which China vociferously opposes. However, sanctions would satisfy the U.S. intelligence community, which has long argued that the State Department has willfully ignored evidence that China transferred full missiles to Pakistan. Intelligence officials say that because U.S. law requires sanctions in such situations, the State Department undermined the law's credibility by failing to acknowledge the existence of a sufficiently high standard of evidence to trigger stronger sanctions against China.