U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress
Released: 2015-01-05T00:00:00

Summary:
This CRS Report, updated through the 113th Congress, discusses policy issues regarding military-to-military (mil-to-mil) contacts with the People's Republic of China (PRC) and records major contacts and crises since 1993. The United States suspended military contacts with China and imposed sanctions on arms sales in response to the Tiananmen Crackdown in 1989. In 1993, President Clinton reengaged with the top PRC leadership, including China's military, the People's Liberation Army (PLA). Renewed military exchanges with the PLA have not regained the closeness reached in the 1980s, when U.S.-PRC strategic alignment against the Soviet Union included U.S. arms sales to China. Improvements and deteriorations in overall bilateral engagement have affected military contacts, which were close in 1997-1998 and 2000, but marred by the 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait crisis, mistaken NATO bombing of a PRC embassy in 1999, the EP-3 aircraft collision crisis in 2001, and the PLA's aggressive maritime and air confrontations.
Issues for Congress include whether the Administration complies with legislation overseeing dealings with the PLA and pursues contacts with the PLA that advance a prioritized set of U.S. security interests, especially the operational safety of U.S. military personnel. Oversight legislation includes the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY1990-FY1991 (P.L. 101-246) and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2000 (P.L. 106-65). A particular issue is whether the President is required to issue waivers of sanctions. Skeptics and proponents of military exchanges with the PRC have debated whether the contacts achieve results in U.S. objectives and whether the contacts contribute to the PLA's warfighting capability that might harm U.S. and allied security interests. Some have argued about whether the value that U.S. officials place on the contacts overly extends leverage to the PLA. Some believe talks can serve U.S. interests that include risk-reduction or conflict-avoidance; military-civilian coordination; transparency and reciprocity; tension reduction over Taiwan; weapons nonproliferation; talks on nuclear, missile, space, and/or cyber domains; counterterrorism; and POW/MIA accounting.
Policy makers could review the approach to mil-to-mil contacts, given concerns about potential crises and conflicts. U.S. officials have faced challenges in gaining cooperation from the PLA. The PLA has tried to use its suspensions of exchanges while blaming U.S.-only "obstacles" (including arms sales to Taiwan, FY2000 NDAA, and air and naval reconnaissance operations).
The PRC's harassment of U.S. ships and increasing assertiveness in maritime disputes showed some limits to mil-to-mil engagement, similar views, and PLA restraint. The U.S. articulations in 2011-2012 of a strategic "rebalancing" to the Asia-Pacific raised an issue of how to deal with China's challenges. The Administration's "rebalance" entails not only expanded engagement with the PLA, but also increasing exercises. The PLA Navy's invited participation for the first time in the U.S. Navy-led multinational exercise, RIMPAC, based at Hawaii in summer 2014 raised concerns in Congress and elsewhere. The U.S. Navy has increased some "interoperability" with the PLA Navy. The Defense Secretary issued the latest required annual report on June 5, 2014, concerning military and security developments involving the PRC, cooperation, and military-to-military contacts. The report noted that the PLA uses combined exercises to improve capabilities by learning from more advanced militaries and asserted that the Defense Department complies with the FY2000 NDAA in all military contacts with China. The U.S. Pacific Air Forces Commander sent a C-17 transport aircraft to China's Zhuhai Air Show in November 2014.
Legislation in the 113th Congress includes the FY2014 NDAA (P.L. 113-66); FY2014 Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 2397); Asia-Pacific Region Priority Act, H.R. 4495 (Forbes); FY2015 NDAA, H.R. 4435 (McKeon), S. 2410 (Levin), and H.R. 3979 (P.L. 113-291); and H.Res. 643 (Chabot). On December 10, 2014, Representative Randy Forbes wrote to the Defense Secretary with concerns about mil-to-mil contacts with China and to request a review of this policy.

subsections: section_title: Overview of and Options for Policy
paragraphs: U.S. leaders have applied military contacts as one tool and point of leverage in the broader policy toward the People's Republic of China (PRC). The first part of this CRS Report discusses policy issues regarding such military-to-military (mil-to-mil) contacts. The second part provides a record of such contacts since 1993, when the United States resumed exchanges after suspending them in response to the Tiananmen Crackdown in 1989. Congress has exercised important oversight.
subsections: section_title: Cooperation in the Cold War in the 1980s
paragraphs: Since the mid-1970s, even before the normalization of relations with Beijing, the debate over policy toward the PRC has examined how military ties might advance U.S. security interests, beginning with the imperatives of the Cold War. In January 1980, Secretary of Defense Harold Brown visited China and laid the groundwork for a relationship with the PRC's military, collectively called the People's Liberation Army (PLA), intended to consist of strategic dialogue, reciprocal exchanges in functional areas, and arms sales. Furthermore, President Ronald Reagan changed policy in 1981 to remove the ban on arms sales to China. Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger visited Beijing in September 1983. In 1984, U.S. policy makers worked to advance discussions on military technological cooperation with China. There were direct commercial sales to the PLA that included Sikorsky Aircraft's sale of 24 S-70C transport helicopters (an unarmed version of the Black Hawk helicopter) and General Electric's sale of five gas turbine engines for two naval destroyers. Between 1985 and 1987, the United States also agreed to four programs of government-to-government foreign military sales (FMS): modernization of artillery ammunition production facilities; modernization of avionics in F-8 fighters; sale of four Mark-46 anti-submarine torpedoes; and sale of four AN/TPQ-37 artillery-locating radars.
section_title: Suspensions After the Tiananmen Crackdown of 1989
paragraphs: The United States suspended mil-to-mil contacts and arms sales in response to the Tiananmen Crackdown in June 1989. (Although the killing of peaceful demonstrators took place beyond just Tiananmen Square in the capital of Beijing on June 4, 1989, the crackdown is commonly called the Tiananmen Crackdown in reference to the square that was the focal point of the nationwide pro-democracy movement.) Approved in February 1990, the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY1990-FY1991 ( P.L. 101-246 ) enacted into law the sanctions imposed on arms sales and other cooperation, while allowing for waivers in the general U.S. national interest. In April 1990, China canceled the program (called "Peace Pearl") to upgrade the avionics of the F-8 fighters. In December 1992, President George H.W. Bush closed the four cases of suspended FMS programs, returning PRC equipment, reimbursing unused funds, and delivering sold items without support.
section_title: Reengagement and Recovery from Crises
paragraphs: In the fall of 1993, President Bill Clinton began to reengage the PRC leadership up to the highest level and across the board, including the PLA, after suspensions over the crisis in 1989. However, results were limited and the military relationship did not regain the closeness reached in the 1980s, when the United States and China cooperated strategically against the Soviet Union and such cooperation included arms sales to the PLA. Improvements and deteriorations in overall bilateral relations affected mil-to-mil contacts, which had close ties in 1997-1998 and 2000, but were marred by the 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis, mistaken NATO bombing of the PRC embassy in Yugoslavia in 1999, and the EP-3 aircraft collision crisis in 2001.
section_title: Reevaluation
paragraphs: In 2001, President George W. Bush continued the policy of engagement with the PRC, while the Pentagon skeptically reviewed and cautiously resumed a program of mil-to-mil exchanges. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reviewed the mil-to-mil contacts to assess the effectiveness of the exchanges in meeting U.S. objectives of reciprocity and transparency. Soon after the review began, on April 1, 2001, a PLA Navy F-8 fighter collided with a U.S. Navy EP-3 reconnaissance plane over the South China Sea. Upon surviving the collision, the EP-3's crew made an emergency landing on China's Hainan Island. The PLA detained the 24 U.S. Navy personnel for 11 days. Instead of acknowledging that the PLA had started aggressive interceptions of U.S. reconnaissance flights in December 2000 and apologizing for the accident, top PRC ruler Jiang Zemin demanded an apology and compensation from the United States. Rumsfeld limited mil-to-mil contacts after the crisis, subject to case-by-case approval, after the White House objected to a suspension of contacts with the PLA as outlined in an April 30 Defense Department memo. Rumsfeld told reporters on May 8, 2001, that he decided against visits to China by U.S. ships or aircraft and against social contacts, because "it really wasn't business as usual." Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz reported to Congress on June 8, 2001, that mil-to-mil exchanges for 2001 remained under review by Secretary Rumsfeld and exchanges with the PLA would be conducted "selectively and on a case-by-case basis." The United States did not transport the damaged EP-3 out of China until July 3, 2001.
The Bush Administration hosted PRC Vice President Hu Jintao in Washington in the spring of 2002 (with an honor cordon at the Pentagon) and President Jiang Zemin in Crawford, TX, in October 2002. Afterwards, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, in late 2002, resumed the Defense Consultative Talks (DCT) with the PLA (first held in 1997) and, in 2003, hosted General Cao Gangchuan, a Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission (CMC) and Defense Minister. General Richard Myers (USAF), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, visited China in January 2004, as the highest ranking U.S. military officer to do so since November 2000.
section_title: Resumption
paragraphs: Still, mil-to-mil interactions remained "exceedingly limited," according to the Commander of the Pacific Command (PACOM), Admiral William Fallon, who visited China to advance mil-to-mil contacts in September 2005. He discussed building relationships at higher and lower ranks, cooperation in responding to natural disasters and controlling avian flu, and reducing tensions. Fallon also said that he would seek to enhance military-to-military contacts with China and invite PLA observers to U.S. military exercises, an issue of dispute in Washington. In October 2005, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited China, the first visit by a defense secretary since William Cohen's visit in 2000. After Rumsfeld's visit, which was long sought by the PLA for the perceived full resumption of the military relationship, General Guo Boxiong, a CMC Vice Chairman and the PLA's highest ranking officer visited the United States in July 2006, the first such visit since General Zhang Wannian's visit in 1998.
section_title: Reappraisal
paragraphs: China's rising power with greater assertiveness and aggressiveness (particularly in maritime areas), refusal to discuss nuclear weapons, cyber threats, and repeated suspensions of visits showed limitations of the results of mil-to-mil exchanges. Also, a need arose for a review of the U.S. approach of a greater stress on cooperative contacts than the PLA's antagonistic attitude and leveraging of military contacts to influence U.S. policies. The PLA has repeatedly suspended mil-to-mil contacts while blaming U.S. "obstacles" (including U.S. reconnaissance, arms sales to Taiwan, legislated restrictions on contacts with the PLA, and the Pentagon's annual report to Congress on PRC Military Power). At a news conference on March 7, 2007, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said that he did not see China as a "strategic adversary" of the United States, but "a partner in some respects" and a "competitor in other respects." Gates stressed the importance of engaging the PRC "on all facets of our relationship as a way of building mutual confidence."
Nonetheless, U.S. officials expressed concern about inadequate "transparency" from the PLA, notably when it tested an anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon in January 2007. At a news conference in China on March 23, 2007, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine General Peter Pace, said the primary concern for the bilateral relationship is "miscalculation and misunderstanding based on misinformation." Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Richard Lawless testified to the House Armed Services Committee on June 13, 2007, that "in the absence of adequate explanation for capabilities which are growing dynamically, both in terms of pace and scope, we are put in the position of having to assume the most dangerous intent a capability offers." He noted a lack of response from the PLA to an agreement at the U.S.-PRC summit in 2006 to discuss nuclear arms.
In November 2007, despite various unresolved issues, Secretary Gates visited China, and the PLA agreed to a long-sought U.S. goal of a "hotline." Later in the month, despite a number of senior U.S. visits to China (particularly by U.S. Navy Admirals and Secretary Gates) to promote the mil-to-mil relationship, the PRC denied port calls at Hong Kong for U.S. Navy minesweepers in distress and for the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk for the Thanksgiving holiday and family reunions, according to the PACOM Commander and Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Admirals Timothy Keating and Gary Roughead. The Pentagon protested to the PLA. Again after the President notified Congress about arms sales to Taiwan in October 2008 and January 2010, the PLA repeated cycles of suspensions of military exchanges in what the Pentagon called "continued politicization" of such contacts. In spite of its goal of cooperative engagement, the U.S. Navy faced the PRC's dangerous harassment of U.S. surveillance ships in March and May 2009. At the U.S.-PRC Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED) in July 2009 in Washington, President Barack Obama stressed military contacts to diminish disputes with China. Later in 2009, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY2010 ( P.L. 111-84 ) amended the requirement in P.L. 106-65 for the report to Congress on PRC military power to expand the focus to security developments, add cooperative elements, and fold in another requirement to report on mil-to-mil contacts, including a new strategy on such contacts. Meanwhile, Admiral Robert Willard, PACOM Commander, initiated in January 2010 reviews of approaches toward the PRC and toward Taiwan (among other concerns like North Korea) by Strategic Focus Groups (SFGs).
section_title: Rebalancing
paragraphs: The announcements in 2011-2012 of a U.S. strategic "rebalancing" of priorities to the Asia-Pacific prompted a debate in China on how to counter what some portrayed as Cold War-like anti-China "containment" (not used by U.S. officials) and whether U.S. attention to Asia (including allies) would be sustainable given budget constraints. At the start of 2012, President Obama and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta issued new Defense Strategic Guidance on how to maintain U.S. military superiority in the face of budget cuts and to "rebalance" priorities, posture, and presence to stress attention to Asia as well as the Mideast. The Administration added adjustments to its messages about the strategy, including in National Security Advisor Tom Donilon's speeches in November 2012 and March 2013. He explained that the strategy is more a comprehensive (diplomatic, defense, and economic) "whole of government" approach than a defense-dominated initiative and that the strategy includes a constructive relationship with China (partly through expanded engagement with the PLA). The PRC Foreign Ministry welcomed those remarks. Still, the PLA's Defense White Paper of April 2013 negatively assessed that "some countries" have strengthened Asian alliances, expanded the military presence, and "frequently created" regional tensions (an apparent reference to maritime disputes in the East and South China Seas especially involving the PRC, Vietnam, Japan, and the Philippines—with the latter two being U.S. allies).
However, the Obama Administration expanded engagement with the PLA that involves exercises and equipment, a sensitive step raising concerns about showing U.S. military technology, tactics, and techniques. Other issues concern whether there is adherence to U.S. laws, including the FY2000 NDAA, and consistency with U.S. concerns about allies showing U.S.-origin equipment. Defense Secretary Panetta visited China in September 2012 and invited the PLA Navy to participate for the first time in the U.S.-led multilateral, maritime Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise in 2014 near Hawaii. At a press conference on July 19, 2013, the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO), Admiral Jonathan Greenert, called for "interoperability" with the PLA Navy. The Commander of Pacific Air Forces (PACAF) also said he hoped to bring a C-17 to China's air show in November 2014 (in General Hawk Carlisle's interview with Defense News , February 10, 2014). PACAF sent a C-17 transport plane to the Zhuhai Air Show at a cost of $350,000, despite some concerns in the Defense and State Departments, and U.S. objections to the Republic of Korea's proposal to send its T-50 trainers (with U.S. technology developed by Lockheed Martin). The C-17's presence at the air show was limited to a static display. 
section_title: Options
paragraphs: In a reassessment of the U.S. strategy toward and limitations of U.S. leverage in mil-to-mil contacts to resolve disputes, policy makers have a number of options. The PRC's reduced appreciation for mil-to-mil exchanges at times has accompanied its rising assertiveness. Some say China's rising influence has reduced U.S. influence in relative terms. Others say U.S. power and leadership remain dominant and valued by many countries to balance against China, with the potential for the United States to shape China's rise as a peaceful, responsible, and rules-based power. In this context, one option is to stay the course in urging a more mature relationship to reduce miscalculations and misperceptions, while dealing with repeated cycles in which the PLA suspends contacts and then leverages the timing when it chooses to "resume" talks. A critical view questions whether the status quo can be sustainable for long without another confrontation or crisis with China and urges stepping up substantive talks about common concerns and relaxing restrictions on engagement with the PLA. Another critical view recognizes that over the long-term, the military relationship has remained rocky and has reflected realistically not only the antagonistic approach of the PLA but more broadly the PRC toward the United States. In this view, the crux of the challenge for the U.S. military is not misunderstanding or misperception but primarily competing (not common) interests. Alternatively, rather than either a major rise or retrenchment in reaching out to the PLA, the U.S. military could recalibrate by reducing eager requests and placing priority on the safety of U.S. military personnel in the air and at sea.
More specific options include a shift to stress multilateral settings for engagement with the PLA, so that it has to engage with many countries amplifying their common concerns (e.g., about freedom of navigation). However, U.S.-PRC disputes could remain unaddressed and affect any effective cooperation in international contexts. In its first long-distance operation, the PLA Navy has cooperated with the U.S. Navy and others to fight piracy in the Gulf of Aden since December 2008. Such contact could include expanded engagement in Europe between NATO and the PLA, perhaps with coordination between the Defense Department and allied defense ministries. Partly to address concerns of China's neighbors, the U.S. military could engage the PLA along with the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF). The International Institute for Strategic Studies has held the annual "Shangri-la Dialogue" of defense ministers in Singapore since 2002. China's absence from the forum until 2007 and refusals until 2011 to send the defense minister raised questions about China's willingness to engage with others on military matters and at an appropriately senior level. 
Indeed, Defense Secretary Gates attended the Shangri-la Dialogue in June 2010 and critically declared that the United States will remain a power in the Pacific and that the South China Sea became an area of growing concern regarding the use of force, challenges to freedom of navigation, and intimidation of U.S. and other companies. Gates chastised the PLA for not following up with the top-level commitment by President Obama and Hu Jintao in 2009 to advance the mil-to-mil relationship. (Hu was the CPC General-Secretary, CMC Chairman, and PRC President.) Gates defended arms sales to Taiwan as part of U.S. policy since 1979 in part because of China's accelerating military buildup that largely has focused on Taiwan. He reiterated that his department sought sustained and reliable military contacts to reduce miscommunication, misunderstanding, and miscalculation. Such contacts would support regional security and a U.S.-PRC relationship that is positive in tone, cooperative in nature, and comprehensive in scope, Gates emphasized. (President Obama has pursued a "positive, cooperative, and comprehensive" relationship with the PRC, but the PRC has translated "positive" with a Chinese word meaning "proactive.") The PLA sent a lower-level official (PLA Deputy Chief of General Staff and Air Force General Ma Xiaotian) to the meeting and declined to host Gates for a visit in China.
By early September 2010, PRC media reported General Ma as saying positive remarks about the U.S.-PRC military relationship, but the Defense Department spokesman cautioned on September 9 that Secretary Gates was not interested in merely "engagement for the sake of engagement." Gates again visited Asia in attending in Hanoi on October 11-12 the first ASEAN Defense Ministers' Meeting Plus (ADMM-Plus) between ASEAN and its partners (Australia, China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Russia, and the United States). This time, the PLA sent a CMC Member and the Defense Minister, General Liang Guanglie, who spoke in a moderate tone even as several countries raised concerns about China's maritime claims. Further, Minister Liang invited Secretary Gates to visit in January 2011. On June 3-5, 2011, the PLA finally dispatched for the first time the Defense Minister to the Shangri-la Dialogue. Defense Secretary Gates held a meeting with General Liang Guanglie. However, the PLA did not send the Defense Minister to attend the Shangri-la Dialogue in 2012, 2013, and 2014. In Hawaii in April 2014, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel held the first U.S.-hosted meeting with ASEAN defense ministers.
Another option is for mil-to-mil to be integrated further into the overall bilateral relationship, pursued by the Obama Administration to shape China's rise as a peaceful, responsible, and rules-based power. As Gates implied a civil-military divide, there could be useful reminders to the PLA to respect the top PRC leadership's commitment to U.S.-PRC military engagement, other aspects of PRC external policies, and international laws and norms. (Also see section below on "Civilian Control over PLA and Civil-Military Coordination.") Before Gates' visit in January 2011, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Schiffer said in a speech on January 6 that mil-to-mil should be a critical component of bilateral engagement. However, any setbacks to the military contacts could result in costs to the overall security, economic, and political relationship. There also could be a risk that military mistrust could drive the bilateral relationship. 
At the S&ED in Washington in July 2009, President Obama stressed that increased ties between our militaries could diminish causes for disputes while providing a framework for cooperation. The Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the PACOM Commander attended that meeting, but the PLA reluctantly sent a lower-level official. For the next S&ED in Beijing in May 2010, the Pentagon sent the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs and the PACOM Commander, even while the PLA suspended some exchanges in claimed objection to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell asserted an "innovation" to include a PLA officer (a Deputy Chief of General Staff) at the 3 rd S&ED in Washington on May 9-10, 2011. Still, the Chief of General Staff planned his visit on May 15-22, days after the S&ED.
Specifically regarding the PLA's objection to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, U.S. options include reconsidering the policy under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) of 1979, P.L. 96-8 , to make available arms for Taiwan's self-defense. Others have called for breaking the cycles since 2008 in which Presidents Bush and Obama waited on pending arms sales to notify them to Congress all on one day, cycles that could have raised expectations in Beijing of changes in U.S. policy leading to escalations in Beijing's demands for compromises. Another option would discuss with the PLA how the United States has responded to the PLA's threat posture against Taiwan.
section_title: Policy Issues for Congress
paragraphs: Skepticism in the United States about the value of military exchanges with China has increased with the experiences in the 1990s; crises like the PLA's missile exercises targeting Taiwan in 1995-1996, mistaken bombing of the PRC embassy in Belgrade in 1999, and the F-8/EP-3 collision crisis of 2001; and China's confrontations over maritime areas. Still, Presidents and some in Congress have striven to increase collaboration with the PLA. One long-standing issue has concerned whether travel to Asia includes visits only to China or visits also to allies.
In 2002, President George W. Bush decided to pursue a closer relationship with the PRC. As the Defense Department gradually resumed the mil-to-mil relationship in that context, policy issues for Congress included whether the Administration complied with legislation and used leverage effectively in its contacts with the PLA to advance a prioritized list of U.S. security interests, while balancing security concerns about the PLA's warfighting capabilities.
President Barack Obama met with Hu Jintao at the G-20 summit in London on April 1, 2009, and they agreed to improve the mil-to-mil relationship and set up the S&ED. The S&ED combined the Bush Administration's Strategic Economic Dialogue chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury with the Senior Dialogue chaired by the Deputy Secretary of State, used the PRC's preferred term of "strategic" instead of "senior" dialogue, and elevated the Secretary of State to a co-chair. Speaking at the 1 st S&ED in Washington in July 2009, President Obama stressed military contacts to diminish disputes with China, starting the integration of military talks in the S&ED and mil-to-mil in the overall relationship. The Administration also has raised attention to a need for the PLA to coordinate with the top leaders or civilian diplomats. Moreover, the Obama Administration expanded engagement with the PLA, including increasing combined exercises. On December 10, 2014, Representative Randy Forbes wrote to the Defense Secretary with concerns about the trajectory of mil-to-mil contacts with China and to request a review of this policy.
subsections: section_title: Congressional Oversight
paragraphs: Congress has exercised oversight of various aspects of military exchanges with China. Issues for Congress include whether the Administration has complied with legislation overseeing dealings with the PLA and has determined a program of contacts with the PLA that advances, and does not harm, U.S. security interests. The Defense Department has asserted that it conducts all military-to-military contacts with China in a manner consistent with the provisions of the FY2000 NDAA.
Section 902 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY1990-FY1991 ( P.L. 101-246 ) prohibits arms sales to China, among other stipulations, in response to the Tiananmen Crackdown in 1989. Section 1201 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2000 ( P.L. 106-65 ) restricts "inappropriate exposure" of the PLA to certain operational areas and requires annual reports on contacts with the PLA. Section 1211 of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2006 ( P.L. 109-163 ) prohibits procurement from any "Communist Chinese military company" for goods and services on the Munitions List, with exceptions for U.S. military ship or aircraft visits to the PRC, testing, and intelligence-collection; as well as waiver authority for the Secretary of Defense. The NDAA for FY2010 ( P.L. 111-84 ) amended the requirement in P.L. 106-65 for the annual report on PRC military power to expand the focus to security developments involving the PRC, add cooperative elements, and fold in another requirement to report on mil-to-mil contacts, including a new strategy for such contacts.
One issue for Congress in examining military engagement with the PRC is the role of Congress, including the extent of congressional oversight of the Administration's policy. Congress could, as it has in the past, consider the following options:
Host PLA delegations on Capitol Hill or meet them at other venues Engage with the PLA as an aspect of visits by Codels to China Receive briefings by the Administration before and/or after military visits Investigate or oversee investigations of prisoner-of-war/missing-in-action (POW/MIA) cases Require reports or briefings from the Pentagon, particularly in unclassified form Review exchanges at PACOM's Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (APCSS) in Hawaii Fund or prohibit funding for certain commissions or activities Pass legislation on sanctions and exchanges with the PLA Assess the Administration's adherence to laws on sanctions, contacts, and reports Obtain and review the Department of Defense (DOD)'s plan for upcoming mil-to-mil contacts, particularly proposed programs already discussed with the PLA Require binding reviews of mil-to-mil contacts by the Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA) and counter-intelligence authorities Examine whether to negotiate any agreements with the PLA, such as an Acquisition and Cross-Service Agreement (ACSA) for logistics support Require periodic (e.g., monthly, quarterly) reports to appropriations and defense committees on the costs of travel and other elements of mil-to-mil exchanges.
subsections: section_title: Foreign Relations Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991
paragraphs: Congress has oversight of sanctions imposed after the PLA's role in the use of force in the Tiananmen Square Crackdown of 1989. Commonly called the "Tiananmen Sanctions," they were enacted in Section 902 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY1990 and FY1991 ( P.L. 101-246 ). The sanctions continue to prohibit the issuance of licenses to export U.S. Munitions List (USML) defense articles and defense services to China, including helicopters and helicopter parts, as well as crime control equipment. Successive Presidents have used the waiver authority, occasionally and on a case-by-case basis. In October 2010, President Obama issued a waiver for temporary export licenses under the USML for the contingency of a landing by a civilian-operated C-130 transport plane in operations for an oil spill at sea, though it was not an export. An issue is whether President Obama is required to issue waivers and consult with Congress concerning the increased exposures of the PLA to U.S. equipment in military exchanges. 
The U.S. ban on arms sales also shores up U.S. credibility and leadership, including opposition to an end to the European Union (EU)'s arms embargo against China similarly imposed for the Tiananmen Crackdown as well as in opposing Israel's certain arms transfers to the PLA. In January 2004, the EU decided to reconsider whether to lift its embargo on arms sales to China. On January 28, 2004, a State Department spokesman acknowledged that the United States held "senior-level" discussions with France and other countries in the EU about the issue of whether to lift the embargo on arms sales to China. He said, "certainly for the United States, our statutes and regulations prohibit sales of defense items to China. We believe that others should maintain their current arms embargoes as well. We believe that the U.S. and European prohibitions on arms sales are complementary, were imposed for the same reasons, specifically serious human rights abuses, and that those reasons remain valid today." At a hearing of the House International Relations Committee on February 11, 2004, Representative Steve Chabot asked Secretary of State Colin Powell about the EU's reconsideration of the arms embargo against China, as supported by France. Powell responded that he raised this issue with the foreign ministers of France, Ireland, United Kingdom, and Germany, and expressed opposition to a change in the EU's policy at that time in light of the PLA's missiles arrayed against Taiwan, the referendums on sensitive political issues then planned in Taiwan, and China's human rights conditions. In prominent cases concerning Israel, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak on July 10, 2000, responded to objections from President Clinton and Congress and told PRC ruler Jiang Zemin in a letter that Israel canceled the nearly completed sale of the Phalcon airborne early warning system to the PLA. Moreover, the PLA procured from Israel some Harpy anti-radiation drones in 2002. In 2004, the United States demanded that Israel not return to China some upgraded Harpy attack drones.
section_title: Arms Export Control Act
paragraphs: In addition, the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) ( P.L. 90-629 ) governs U.S. transfers of defense articles (weapons, etc.) and defense services (training, information, etc.), plus any subsequent third-party transfers without U.S. consent. Section 6 of the AECA prohibits arms sales (through letters of offer, credits, guarantees, or export licenses) governed by the act to any country that is determined by the President to be engaged in a consistent pattern of intimidation or harassment directed against individuals in the United States. The President is required to report any such determination to the House Speaker and Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (For example, as discussed elsewhere, in 2010, PRC diplomats harassed U.S. executives over arms sales to Taiwan, and Defense Secretary Gates objected to PRC intimidation of U.S. firms.)
In April 2013, the PRC's Defense White Paper, "Diversified Employment of China's Armed Forces," acknowledged the use of combined exercises with foreign militaries to "accelerate" the PLA's modernization. In "Military and Security Developments Involving the PRC," the Defense Secretary reported to Congress in May 2013 that PLA participation or observer status in military training exercises of nations in possession of U.S. military equipment, systems, and weapons could have unintended consequences that result in the unauthorized disclosure of defense articles, technical data, or defense services to China. The report cited the "Tiananmen Sanctions" and the AECA for denial of transfers of defense articles (including technical data) and defense services.
section_title: Joint Defense Conversion Commission (JDCC)
paragraphs: In China in 1994, Secretary of Defense William Perry and PLA General Ding Henggao, Director of the Commission of Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense (COSTIND), set up the U.S.-China Joint Defense Conversion Commission (JDCC). Its stated goal was to facilitate economic cooperation and technical exchanges and cooperation in the area of defense conversion.
However, on June 1, 1995, the House National Security Committee issued H.Rept. 104-131 (for the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1996) and expressed concerns that this commission led to U.S. assistance to PRC firms with direct ties to the PLA and possible subsidies to the PLA. The committee inserted a section to prohibit the use of DOD funds for activities associated with the commission. The Senate's bill had no similar language. On January 22, 1996, conferees reported in H.Rept. 104-450 that they agreed to a provision (§1343 in P.L. 104-106 ) to require the Secretary of Defense to submit semi-annual reports on the commission. They also noted that continued U.S.-PRC security dialogue "can promote stability in the region and help protect American interests and the interests of America's Asian allies." Nonetheless, they warned that Congress intends to examine whether that dialogue has produced "tangible results" in human rights, transparency in military spending and doctrine, missile and nuclear nonproliferation, and other important U.S. security interests. Then, in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for FY1997 ( P.L. 104-201 ), enacted in September 23, 1996, Congress banned DOD from using any funds for any activity associated with the commission until 15 days after the first semi-annual report is received by Congress. In light of this controversy, Secretary Perry terminated the JDCC and informed Congress in a letter dated July 18, 1996. Chairman Floyd Spence of the House Committee on National Security had the General Accounting Office (GAO) audit the activities of the JDCC, as reported in GAO/NSIAD-96-230R of September 30, 1996.
section_title: Past Reporting Requirement
paragraphs: Also in 1996, the House National Security Committee issued H.Rept. 104-563 (for the NDAA of FY1997) that sought a "full accounting and detailed presentation" of all DOD interaction with the PRC government and PLA, including technology-sharing, conducted during 1994-1996 and proposed for 1997-1998, and required a classified and unclassified report by February 1, 1997. DOD submitted the unclassified report on February 21, 1997, and did not submit a classified version, saying that the unclassified report was comprehensive and that no contacts covered in the report included the release of classified material or technology sharing.
section_title: Programs of Exchanges
paragraphs: Certain Members of Congress have written to the Secretary of Defense to express concerns that mil-to-mil exchanges have not adequately benefitted U.S. interests. In early 1999, under the Clinton Administration, the Washington Times disclosed the existence of a "Gameplan for 1999 U.S.-Sino Defense Exchanges," and Pentagon spokesperson Kenneth Bacon confirmed that an exchange program had been under way for years. Representative Dana Rohrabacher wrote a letter to Secretary of Defense William Cohen, saying that "after reviewing the 'Game Plan,' it appears evident that a number of events involving PLA logistics, acquisitions, quartermaster and chemical corps representatives may benefit PLA modernization to the detriment of our allies in the Pacific region and, ultimately, the lives of own service members." He requested a detailed written description of various exchanges.
In December 2001, under the Bush Administration, Senator Bob Smith and Representative Dana Rohrabacher wrote to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, expressing concerns about renewed military contacts with the PRC. They contended that military exchanges failed to reduce tensions (evident in the EP-3 crisis), lacked reciprocity, and provided militarily-useful information to the PLA. They charged that the Clinton Administration "largely ignored" the spirit and intent of legislation governing military exchanges with the PLA, including a "violation" of the law by allowing the PLA to visit the Joint Forces Command in August 2000, and, as initiators of the legislation, they "reminded" Rumsfeld of the congressional restrictions.
section_title: Restrictions in the FY2000 NDAA
paragraphs: Congress passed legislation concerning limits to helping the PLA's warfighting capabilities. Enacted on October 5, 1999, and based on an amendment introduced by Representative Tom DeLay, the FY2000 NDAA set parameters to contacts with the PLA. Section 1201(a) of the NDAA for FY2000 ( P.L. 106-65 ) prohibits the Secretary of Defense from authorizing any mil-to-mil contact with the PLA if that contact would "create a national security risk due to an inappropriate exposure" of the PLA to any of the following 12 operational areas (with exceptions granted only to any search and rescue or humanitarian operation or exercise):
Force projection operations Nuclear operations Advanced combined-arms and joint combat operations Advanced logistical operations Chemical and biological defense and other capabilities related to weapons of mass destruction Surveillance and reconnaissance operations Joint warfighting experiments and other activities related to transformations in warfare Military space operations Other advanced capabilities of the Armed Forces Arms sales or military-related technology transfers Release of classified or restricted information Access to a DOD laboratory.
Section 1201(d) of the FY2000 NDAA required the Secretary of Defense to submit an annual written certification by December 31 of each year as to whether any military contact with China that the Secretary of Defense authorized in that year was a "violation" of the restrictions in the law. Options include an alternative determination by an objective observer outside or inside the Defense Department, such as the Defense Technology Security Administration (DTSA). On May 26, 2011, the House passed H.R. 1540 , the FY2012 NDAA, with Section 1071(s) to remove subsection (d) that required the certification. The final bill did not keep the section.
The PLA has objected to the U.S. law as an "obstacle" to the mil-to-mil relationship, blaming the U.S. side. Under the Bush and Obama Administrations, the Pentagon cautioned that it would not be necessary to change or lift the law to enhance exchanges, while the law contains prudent parameters that do not ban all contacts. A third option would be for Congress or the Secretary of Defense to clarify what type of mil-to-mil contact with the PLA would "create a national security risk due to an inappropriate exposure." At a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on March 9, 2006, Admiral William Fallon, the PACOM Commander, raised with Representative Victor Snyder the issue of whether to modify this law to relax restrictions on contacts with the PLA. At a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on June 13, 2007, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Richard Lawless contended that limitations in the law should not change. The PACOM Commander, Admiral Robert Willard, testified that he agreed with Secretary Gates that "no exchanges today approach the point where the provisions would prohibit the activity," at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee on January 13, 2010. In 2014, however, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, suggested that Congress might relax the restrictions, depending on engagements with the PLA and its participation at RIMPAC.
section_title: RIMPAC 2014
paragraphs: In June 2012, the PLA questioned the visiting PACOM Commander, Admiral Samuel Locklear, about why the PLA Navy was not invited to the U.S.-led RIMPAC 2012 maritime exercise based in Hawaii. The PLA's idea seemed sensitive, partly because of U.S. laws. Moreover, at the time, General Dempsey pointed out that the PLA was not willing to participate at a senior level at the annual Shangri-la Dialogue of defense ministers, like other militaries. The Pacific Fleet Commander, Admiral Cecil Haney, indicated that looking for exchanges with the PLA could include its potential invitation to a humanitarian assistance/disaster relief (HA/DR) part of a future RIMPAC. Nevertheless, by September, Defense Secretary Panetta announced that the U.S. Navy will invite the PLAN to participate in (not just observe) RIMPAC 2014. The U.S. Navy invited the PLA Navy to join at least five warfare areas of RIMPAC 2014: drills on surface warfare (limited to surface gunnery); counter-piracy; HA/DR and military medicine; search and rescue; and dive and salvage involved in explosive ordnance disposal. From June 26 to August 1, RIMPAC 2014 included participation by four PLAN ships (destroyer, frigate, oiler, hospital ship). The PLAN joined a drill led by the U.S. Coast Guard. The PLAN asked for training in opposed boarding of a ship (dropping forces from a helicopter), which the U.S. Navy did not allow. Though invited, the PLAN sent an intelligence-collection ship outside Hawaii's territorial sea.
The PLAN's participation raised some concerns in Congress and elsewhere about protecting U.S. and allied technology, tactics, techniques, and procedures; preventing disclosure of defense articles and services; complying with U.S. laws; and whether to invite Taiwan. Representatives Dana Rohrabacher and Steven Chabot raised objections. The House Armed Services Committee's report of June 7, 2013, on the House-passed FY2014 NDAA, H.R. 1960 , included Representative Randy Forbes' amendment to require the Navy Secretary to brief Congress on the PLAN's participation in RIMPAC 2014 and compliance with laws (including the FY2000 NDAA). On July 24, the House considered an amendment to H.R. 2397 , Defense Department Appropriations Act for FY2014, sponsored by Representative Steve Stockman to ban the use of funds for U.S. military exercises that include PLA participation (including RIMPAC). Representatives Stockman and Rohrabacher spoke in favor. Representatives Visclosky and Frelinghuysen spoke in opposition. The amendment failed (137-286, 10 not voting). On October 21, Representative Forbes led eight Members to send a letter to Defense Secretary Hagel, urging him to invite Taiwan to participate in RIMPAC 2014. 
On June 2, 2014, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported S. 2410 (Levin), FY2015 NDAA, with Section 1212 to express the sense of the Senate that both the PRC and Taiwan should be afforded the opportunity to participate (not just observe) in the HA/DR parts of multilateral exercises, such as RIMPAC. On the eve of RIMPAC 2014, Representative Chabot introduced H.Res. 643 (concerning the Justice Department's indictments of PLA hackers involved in the PRC's cyber-enabled theft of U.S. trade secrets), which called for restrictions on contacts with the PLA in compliance with U.S. laws. Also, Representative Forbes opposed the PLAN's participation in RIMPAC, saying that "given Beijing's belligerent behavior towards its neighbors across the Asia-Pacific in recent months, it gives me pause they would be rewarded with the opportunity to participate in such a prestigious exercise." Later, in December, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees agreed on the language for the FY2015 NDAA ( H.R. 3979 ; P.L. 113-291 ), with Section 1259A to express the sense of Congress that the United States should consider opportunities to help enhance the maritime capabilities and nautical skills of Taiwan's navy to contribute to Taiwan's self-defense and to regional peace and stability; and that the PRC and Taiwan should be afforded opportunities to participate in (not just observe) the HA/DR portions of future multilateral exercises, such as RIMPAC. 
section_title: Major Legislation: Required Reports and Classification
paragraphs: Section 1201(f) of the NDAA for FY2000 ( P.L. 106-65 ) required an unclassified report by March 31, 2000, on past military-to-military contacts with the PRC. The Office of the Secretary of Defense submitted this report in January 2001.
Section 1201(e) required an annual report, by March 31 of each year starting in 2001, from the Secretary of Defense on the Secretary's assessment of the state of mil-to-mil exchanges and contacts with the PLA, including past contacts, planned contacts, the benefits that the PLA expects to gain, the benefits that DOD expects to gain, and the role of such contacts for the larger security relationship with the PRC. The law did not specify whether the report shall be unclassified and/or classified. In the report submitted in January 2001 (on past mil-to-mil exchanges), the Pentagon stated that "as a matter of policy, all exchange activities are conducted at the unclassified level. Thus, there is no data included on the section addressing PLA access to classified data as a result of exchange activities." On June 8, 2001, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz signed and submitted an unclassified report on the mil-to-mil exchanges in 2000 under the Clinton Administration and did not provide a schedule of activities for 2001, saying that the 2001 program was under review by the Secretary of Defense.
However, concerning contacts with the PLA under the Bush Administration, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld submitted reports on military exchanges with China in May 2002, May 2003, and May 2005 (for 2003 and 2004) that were classified "Confidential" and not made public. In July 2006, Secretary Rumsfeld submitted an unclassified report on contacts in 2005. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates submitted an unclassified report in June 2007 for 2006. In March 2008, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England submitted an unclassified report to Congress for 2007. 
Under President Obama, Defense Secretary Gates submitted an unclassified report to Congress on March 31, 2009. On June 25, 2009, the House passed H.R. 2647 , NDAA for FY2010, with Section 1233 to change the requirement in Section 1202(a) of P.L. 106-65 for an annual report (required by Congress by March 1 each year) on "PRC military power" to expand the focus to security developments involving the PRC, add cooperative elements, fold in the separate requirement to report on mil-to-mil contacts (in §1201 of P.L. 106-65 ), and require a new comprehensive and coordinated strategy for such contacts. On July 23, the Senate passed its version that did not include such changes to the reporting requirements. Reconciling differences, the Senate receded. On October 7, 2009, Members issued the conference report that retained the House-passed section and encouraged the Defense Secretary to examine further the implications of China's psychological, media, and legal warfare on U.S. military affairs. In this legislation, enacted as P.L. 111-84 on October 28, 2009, Congress changed the title of the report to "Annual Report on Military and Security Developments Involving the People's Republic of China."
However, the Defense Department was late in submitting the report in 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, while at times citing "inter-agency coordination." The Pentagon also contended that a report with the backing of the full Administration after coordination was a more authoritative U.S. report. Moreover, P.L. 111-84 required consultation with the Secretaries of Energy and State. Still, inter-agency coordination could start earlier for the process to meet the required deadline.
In June 2010, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported ( S.Rept. 111-201 on S. 3454 ) the NDAA for FY2011 that expressed its displeasure with the Defense Department for failing to submit the annual report by the deadline of March 1. In July, five Senators wrote to Defense Secretary Gates to express "serious concern" over the "failure" of the Department of Defense (DOD) to submit the 2010 report on PRC Military Power and to ask him to submit it to Congress immediately with an explanation as to the "significant delay." They noted that the report was then almost five months overdue and that a draft report was already completed with the department several months ago. The Senators stressed that "since the responsibility for this report lies within the DoD alone, we ask for your assurance that White House political appointees at the National Security Council or other agencies have not been allowed to alter the substance of the report in an effort to avoid the prospect of angering China." The Secretary submitted the unclassified report on August 16, 2010, incorporating reports on PRC military power and on military contacts.
Assistant Secretary of Defense Wallace Gregson wrote to Congress on February 25, 2011, that the Pentagon needed additional time for inter-agency coordination of the annual report. On May 3, Representative Randy Forbes of the House Armed Services Committee and Congressional China Caucus wrote to Secretary Gates, expressing concern for the Defense Department's "continued disregard" of the deadline for the annual report on China and that the department failed to inform Congress with timely reports on needs and threats in the Pacific. Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy responded on May 23 and cited "inter-agency coordination" for the continued delay. On August 22, Representative Forbes wrote to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, suggesting that the continued delay was not caused by inter-agency or analytical challenges, but rather the Administration's willingness to let its compliance with laws be superseded by the diplomatic calendar with the PRC. The Secretary finally submitted the report on August 24.
On May 11, 2011, at the markup of H.R. 1540 , the NDAA for FY2012 , the House Armed Services Committee adopted Representative Forbes' amendment to change the name of the report back to "Military Power of the People's Republic of China" and require information on cyber threats to the Pentagon. On May 26, the House passed H.R. 1540 with the language, but on June 22, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported S. 1253 without such language. Enacted as P.L. 112-81 on December 31, 2011, the final legislation required reporting on cyber threats against the Defense Department but did not require the change back to the original title.
In 2012, Defense Secretary Panetta submitted the report late again, on May 17, 2012, after a visit by PRC Defense Minister Liang Guanglie on May 4-10. On July 11, Chairman Howard McKeon of the House Armed Services Committee wrote to Secretary Panetta to express concerns that the annual report was submitted after the statutory deadline, was "wholly inadequate," and "minimizes the uncertainty and challenges posed by China's military build-up." He also called for the Secretary to rescind a policy of limiting the length of all reports to Congress. That day, the Defense Department issued a statement denying an intent to restrict information to Congress. The next day, a spokesman said the department rescinded the guidance to restrict the page limit on reports to Congress. The NDAA for FY2013 (enacted as P.L. 112-239 on January 2, 2013) required reports on the PRC's tunnel sites and nuclear weapons program; and on any critical gaps in intelligence and capabilities to counter challenges from the PRC, North Korea, and Iran. The legislation also required additional reporting to strengthen the annual report on the PLA to include assessments of the PRC's cyber, space, nuclear, anti-access/area denial, C4ISR, and maritime law enforcement capabilities, among other information; and limit funds to no more than $7 million for the Center of Excellence on Nuclear Security in China. 
Secretary of Defense Hagel submitted the annual report late in May 2013. Based on S. 1197 , Section 1242 of the FY2014 NDAA ( P.L . 113-66 ) required the report to cover the PLA's 5 th generation fighters. Also, Section 233 prohibited the Defense Department from using funds to integrate the PRC's missile defense systems into U.S. missile defense systems. (In 2013, Turkey, a NATO ally, considered a purchase of the PRC's HQ-9 system.)
Secretary of Defense Hagel again submitted the annual report late in June 2014, after a visit by PLA Chief of General Staff Fang Fenghui in May. In April, Representatives Forbes and Hanabusa introduced H.R. 4495 , Asia-Pacific Region Priority Act, to support the strategic "rebalance" to the region. Section 205 seeks to add to the annual report some information on developments in the PRC's maritime law enforcement capabilities. The House passed H.R. 4435 , FY2015 NDAA , on May 22, incorporating much of the language in H.R. 4495 . On June 2, the Senate Armed Services Committee reported S. 2410 (Levin), FY2015 NDAA. On December 2, the House and Senate Armed Services Committees agreed on language for the FY2015 NDAA (inserted in H.R. 3979 ). Section 1252 amends the requirement for the annual report to examine China's maritime strategy. Section 1259 requires a report on the Defense Department's maritime security strategy in the Asia-Pacific, including an assessment of how the strategy leverages U.S.-PRC mil-to-mil engagements to reduce the potential for miscalculation and tensions in the East and South China Seas. In addition, the committees, in their Joint Statement on the NDAA, direct the Defense Secretary to brief congressional defense committees, by March 15, 2015, on an assessment of whether the mil-to-mil engagements meet PACOM's objectives and to provide a detailed description of mil-to-mil exchanges for the 12 months after March 15, 2015. Section 1259A expresses the sense of Congress that both the PRC and Taiwan should be afforded opportunities to participate in the HA/DR portions of future multilateral exercises, such as RIMPAC. Section 1265 prohibits the use of funds to integrate a PRC missile defense system into any U.S. missile defense system. Section 1601 requires a study of potential alternative defense and deterrent strategies in response to the existing and projected counter-space capabilities of China and Russia. H.R. 3979 became P.L. 113-291 on December 19, 2014.
section_title: Prohibitions on Defense Procurement
paragraphs: Section 1211 of the NDAA for FY2006 (signed into law as P.L. 109-163 on January 6, 2006) prohibits procurement from any "Communist Chinese military company" for goods and services on the Munitions List, with exceptions for U.S. military ship or aircraft visits to the PRC, testing, and intelligence-collection; as well as waiver authority for the Secretary of Defense. Original language reported by the House Armed Services Committee in H.R. 1815 on May 20, 2005, would have prohibited the Secretary from any procurement of goods or services from any such company. S. 1042 did not have similar language. During conference ( H.Rept. 109-360 ), the Senate receded after limiting the ban to goods and services on the Munitions List; providing for exceptions for procurement in connection with U.S. military ship or aircraft visits, testing, and intelligence-collection; and authorizing waivers.
In May 2011, the House adopted an amendment to H.R. 1540 , the NDAA for FY2012, proposed by Representatives Rosa DeLauro and Frank Wolf, to broaden the ban against procurement of PRC defense articles to include all entities owned or controlled by the PLA, the PRC government, or an entity affiliated with PRC defense industries. Enacted as P.L. 112-81 on December 31, 2011, the final bill did not keep the House's broadened definition of "Communist Chinese military company" but adopted the requirement (in §1243) for a report from the Defense Secretary not less than 15 days before any waiver of the ban in P.L. 109-163 .
In related action, on February 18, 2011, Representative DeLauro introduced H.Res. 106 to express the sense of the House that defense systems, including the Presidential helicopters, should not be procured from a PRC entity. On July 22, Representatives Forbes and Madeleine Bordallo led 17 Members to write to the Secretary of the Air Force to seek an explanation for the procurement of T-53A trainers from Cirrus Aircraft, which was acquired by the Aviation Industry Corporation of China (AVIC). The Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on November 8 on China's counterfeit electronic parts entering the U.S. defense supply chain. The Committee later issued a report on its findings in May 2012.
On April 25, 2013, the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces held a hearing at which Representative Mike Rogers raised concerns about the Defense Department's lease of a PRC-owned commercial satellite (Apstar-7) in May 2012 for the Africa Command (AFRICOM). In May 2013, the Defense Department renewed the contract after adding new higher-level review. On June 14, the House passed the FY2014 NDAA, H.R. 1960 , with Section 1605 to prohibit the Defense Secretary from contracting satellite services with a foreign entity owned by a "covered foreign country" (PRC, Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), or a state sponsor of terrorism). Section 1602 in the final legislation ( P.L. 113-66 ) contains the amended prohibition. Representative Rogers explained the concern that "the military had no other option but to enter into a contract that undermined our military embargo on China and exposed our military to the risk that China may seek to turn off our 'eyes and ears' at a time of its choosing." 
section_title: Foreign Aid
paragraphs: Section 620(f)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 ( P.L. 87-195 ) prohibits assistance to any Communist country, and specifically lists the PRC as a "Communist country" for purposes of the subsection. Section 620(h) requires the President to ensure that U.S. foreign aid is not used to promote or assist the foreign aid projects or activities of a Communist country for purposes of subsection (f). Pursuant to Section 620(f)(2), the President is authorized to remove a country from the application of Section 620(f), along with other provisions that reference it, if the President makes a determination and reports to Congress that such action is important to U.S. national interests. On December 11, 1985, acting pursuant to the authority under Section 620(f)(2), the Secretary of State removed the PRC (and Tibet) from the application of Section 620(f) for an indefinite period. Nonetheless, Section 7071(g) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 ( P.L. 111-117 ) stipulated that Section 620(h) applied to foreign aid projects or activities of the PLA, including those by any entity owned or controlled by or affiliated with the PLA. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2012 ( P.L. 112-74 ) repeated this ban. Section 7043(e)(2) of the FY2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 113-76 ) again repeated the ban. 
section_title: Leverage to Pursue U.S. Security Objectives
subsections: section_title: Objectives
paragraphs: At different times, under successive Administrations, DOD has pursued exchanges with the PLA to various degrees of closeness as part of the policy of engagement in the relationship with China. The record of the mil-to-mil contacts can be used to evaluate the extent to which those contacts resulted in tangible benefits to advance U.S. security goals and deterrence has been effective. Some skeptics say strategy focuses on goals, while the "relationship" is not the end in itself.
The Pentagon's last East Asia strategy report, issued by Secretary of Defense Cohen in November 1998, placed "comprehensive engagement" with China in third place among nine components of the U.S. strategy. It said that U.S.-PRC dialogue was "critical" to ensure understanding of each other's regional security interests, reduce misperceptions, increase understanding of PRC security concerns, and build confidence to "avoid military accidents and miscalculations." While calling the strategic non-targeting agreement announced at the summit in June 1998 a "symbolic" action, it asserted that the action "reassured both sides and reaffirmed our constructive relationship." The report further pointed to the presidential hotline set up in May 1998, Military Maritime Consultative Agreement (MMCA), and Defense Consultative Talks (DCT) as achievements.
In March 2008, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England defined these principal U.S. objectives in the annual report to Congress on contacts with the PLA:
support the President's overall policy goals regarding China; prevent conflict by clearly communicating U.S. resolve to maintain peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region; lower the risk of miscalculation between the two militaries; increase U.S. understanding of China's military capabilities and intentions; encourage China to adopt greater openness and transparency in its military capabilities and intentions; promote stable U.S.-China relations; increase mutual understanding between U.S. and PLA officers; and encourage China to play a constructive and peaceful role in the Asia-Pacific region; to act as a partner in addressing common security challenges; and to emerge as a responsible stakeholder in the world.
As discussed above on the required annual report, the NDAA for FY2010, P.L. 111-84 , required the Defense Secretary to address the U.S. strategy for engagement with the PLA . In his report submitted on August 16, 2010, Secretary Gates told Congress that "sustainable and reliable" military-to-military ties are an important component of the overall U.S.-China relationship and are "necessary" for the relationship to be "comprehensive." Gates also cautioned that such military contacts are "not ends in and of themselves" and that "a sustained exchange program has been difficult to achieve." He sought to expand practical cooperation in areas in which U.S. and PRC national interests converge and to discuss candidly those areas in which there is disagreement. He noted the challenges for the risk that "misapprehension or miscalculation" could lead to crisis or conflict. In laying out priorities , the Defense Department identified these:
build cooperative capacity (based on anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden), foster institutional understanding (particular in nuclear, space, and cyber strategies and policies), and develop common views (on international security like nuclear nonproliferation in North Korea and Iran, and stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but also "respectful discussion" of differences over China's claim to Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) and harassment of U.S. ships and aircraft exercising international freedom of navigation, while the United States remains "vigilant" in watching for PRC behavior that puts at risk the safety of U.S. military personnel).
In August 2011, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta submitted an annual report on the PLA, which specified the mil-to-mil relationship as a critical part of the Administration's strategy to shape China's rise in a way that maximizes cooperation and mitigates risks. One policy issue concerns the effectiveness of such a strategy of shaping PRC behavior. In the annual report of June 2014, Defense Secretary Hagel asserted that mil-to-mil engagement supports U.S. objectives of promoting China's development that would be consistent with international rules and norms, and that would serve as a source of security and shared prosperity in Asia.
section_title: Debate
paragraphs: U.S. security objectives in mil-to-mil contacts with China have included gaining insights about the PLA's capabilities and concepts; deterrence against a PLA use of force or coercion against Taiwan or U.S. allies; reduction in tensions in the Taiwan Strait; strategic arms control; weapons nonproliferation in countries such as like North Korea, Iran, and Pakistan; closer engagement with top PRC leaders; freedom of navigation and flight; preventing dangers to U.S. military personnel operating in proximity to the PLA; minimizing misperceptions and miscalculations; and accounting for American POW/MIAs.
Skeptics of U.S.-PRC mil-to-mil contacts say they have had little value for achieving these U.S. objectives. Instead that they contend that the contacts served to inform the PLA as it builds its warfighting capability against the United States, viewed by the PLA as a potential adversary. There was concern that exchanges seemed to reward belligerence. They oppose rehabilitation of PLA officers involved in the Tiananmen Crackdown. They question whether the PLA has shown transparency and reciprocated with equivalent or substantive access, and urge greater attention to U.S. allies over China. From this perspective, the ups and downs in the military relationship reflect its use as a tool in the political relationship, in which the PRC at times had leverage over the United States. Thus, they contend, a realistic appraisal of the nature of the PLA threat would call for caution in military contacts, perhaps limiting them to exchanges such as strategic talks and senior-level talks, rather than operational areas that involve military capabilities.
A former U.S. Army Attache in Beijing wrote in 1999 that under the Clinton Administration, military-to-military contacts allowed PLA officers "broad access" to U.S. warships, exercises, and even military manuals. He argued that "many of the military contacts between the United States and China over the years helped the PLA attain its goals [in military modernization]." He called for limiting exchanges to strategic dialogue on weapons proliferation, Taiwan, the Korean peninsula, freedom of navigation, missile defense, etc. He urged policy makers not to "improve the PLA's capability to wage war against Taiwan or U.S. friends and allies, its ability to project force, or its ability to repress the Chinese people." He also testified to Congress in 2000 that the PLA conceals its capabilities in exchanges with the United States. For example, he said, the PLA invited General John Shalikashvili, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to see the capabilities of the 15 th Airborne Army (in May 1997), but it showed him a highly scripted routine. Furthermore, the PLA allowed Secretary of Defense Cohen to visit an Air Defense Command Center (in January 1998), but it was "a hollow shell of a local headquarters; it was not the equivalent of America's National Command Center" that was shown to PRC leaders.
In 2000, Randy Schriver, a former official in the Office of the Secretary of Defense, discussed lessons learned in conducting military exchanges during the Clinton Administration and argued for limiting such exchanges. Schriver assessed senior-level talks as exchanges of talking points rather than real dialogue, but nonetheless helpful. He considered the MMCA a successful confidence-building measure (before the EP-3 aircraft collision crisis less than one year later in April 2001). He also said it was positive to have PLA participation in multilateral fora and to expose younger PLA officers to American society. However, Schriver said that the United States "failed miserably" in gaining a window on the PLA's modernization, gaining neither access as expected nor reciprocity; failed to shape China's behavior while allowing China to shape the behavior of some American "ardent suitors"; and failed to deter the PLA's aggression while whetting the PLA's appetite in planning against a potential American adversary. He disclosed that the Pentagon needed to exert control over PACOM's contacts with the PLA, with the Secretary of Defense issuing a memo to set guidelines. He also called for more consultations with Congress.
Warning of modest expectations for military ties and the PLA's use of "suspended" exchanges to signal messages or retaliate against a perceived wrong action, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for East Asia and the Pacific (1995-2000) Kurt Campbell contended in late 2005 that security ties can only follow, not lead, the bilateral relationship. After serving as a Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Randy Schriver noted in 2007 that military engagement has continued to pursue the "same modest, limited agenda that has been in place for close to 20 years," despite a visit by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in November 2007. In 2011, Schriver called for reducing military contacts. Later, also as former Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Campbell commented in 2014 that the United States and PRC have divergent objectives in dealing with maritime incidents like the near-collision between the USS Cowpens and a PLA Navy ship in December 2013. U.S. goals include crisis prevention, but the PRC aims to limit U.S. military operations and deployments. Moreover, the United States and PRC differ over deterrence. He wrote that,
America often employs overwhelming displays of military capability – shock and awe – to create apprehension in the minds of potential adversaries or competitors. For China, deterrence – or, perhaps better, doubt – is achieved not through overt displays of power, but through creating uncertainty in the perception of others. So, by this avenue of logic, the less operational intimacy and understanding with PLA forces, the greater the deterrent value.
Proponents of military exchanges with the PRC point out that contacts with the PLA cannot be expected to equal contacts with allies in transparency, reciprocity, and consistency. They argue that the mil-to-mil contacts nonetheless promote U.S. interests and allow the U.S. military to gain insights into the PLA, including its top leadership, that no other bilateral contacts provide. U.S. military attaches, led by the Defense Attache at the rank of brigadier general or rear admiral, have contacts at levels lower than the top PLA leaders and are subject to strict surveillance in China. In addition to chances for open intelligence collection, the military relationship can minimize miscalculations and misperceptions, and foster pro-U.S. leanings and understanding, particularly among younger officers who might lead in the future. Proponents caution against treating China as if it is already an enemy, since the United States seeks China's cooperation on international security issues. There might be benefits in cooperation in military medicine to prevent pandemics of diseases, like avian flu. During the epidemic of SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) in 2003, it was a PLA doctor, Dr. Jiang Yanyong, who revealed the PRC leadership's coverup of SARS cases at premier PLA hospitals. Rather than bilateral exchanges, the U.S. military could engage with the PLA in multilateral venues. On October 28, 2010, the PLA hosted in Beijing the first "Pan Asian-Pacific Conference on Military Medicine." Further, since the early 1990s, Congress and the Defense Department have viewed China as the key to getting information to resolve the cases of POW/MIAs from the Korean War 1950-1953.
Citing a few examples in 1998 (the PACOM Commander's first foreign look at the 47 th Group Army, a U.S. Navy ship visit to Shanghai, and naval consultative talks at Naval Base Coronado), the U.S. Naval Attache in Beijing wrote that "the process of mutual consultation, openness, and sharing of concerns and information needed to preclude future misunderstandings and to build mutual beneficial relations is taking place between the U.S. and China's armed forces, especially in the military maritime domain." He stressed that "the importance of progress in this particular area of the Sino-American relationship cannot be overestimated."
Two former U.S. military attaches posted to China maintained in a report that "regardless of whether it is a high-level DOD delegation or a functional exchange of medical officers, the U.S. military does learn something about the PLA from every visit." They advocated that "the United States should fully engage China in a measured, long-term military-to-military exchange program that does not help the PLA improve its warfighting capabilities." They said, "the most effective way to ascertain developments in China's military and defense policies is to have face-to-face contact at multiple levels over an extended period of time." Thus, they argued, "even though the PLA minimizes foreign access to PLA facilities and key officials, the United States has learned, and can continue to learn, much about the PLA through its long-term relationship."
Another former U.S. military attache in Beijing (from 1992 to 1995) acknowledged that he saw many PLA drills and demonstrations by "showcase" units and never any unscripted training events. Nonetheless, he noted that in August 2003, the PLA arranged for 27 military observers from the United States and other countries to be the first foreigners to observe a PLA exercise at its largest training base (which is in the Inner Mongolia region under the Beijing Military Region). He wrote that "by opening this training area and exercise to foreign observers, the Chinese military leadership obviously was attempting to send a message about its willingness to be more 'transparent' in order to 'promote friendship and mutual trust between Chinese and foreign armed forces.'" However, in a second PLA exercise opened to foreign observers, the "Dragon 2004" landing exercise at the Shanwei amphibious operations training base in Guangdong province in September 2004, only seven foreign military observers from France, Germany, Britain, and Mexico attended, with no Americans (if invited).
A retired admiral and PACOM Commander, Dennis Blair, co-chaired a task force on the U.S.-China relationship. Its report of April 2007 recommended a sustained high-level military strategic dialogue to complement the "Senior Dialogue" started by the Deputy Secretary of State in 2005 and the "Strategic Economic Dialogue" launched by the Secretary of the Treasury in 2006. After visiting China in 2011 as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen argued for sustained dialogue in the face of disputes and potential common interests.
After visiting China in 2013, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and Commander of Pacific Air Forces wrote that "distrust and increasing misperception have made the need to improve lines of communication between our two governments and militaries all the more urgent." They argued that the two countries have "shared security interests." Moreover, they contended that, because of the growing frequency and proximity at which the U.S. and PRC militaries operate in international waters and in the airspace above the maritime domain, it is important to maintain the highest levels of safety and professionalism in military interactions and for "managing friction."
section_title: Perspectives
paragraphs: Aside from a debate about how to engage with the PLA, some officials and observers warn about challenges that stem from the different perspectives between the U.S. military and PLA. A still-salient study prepared for the Defense Department's Office of Net Assessment in 1997 focused on a long-standing concern about China's misperceptions that could pose dangers to U.S. security interests. In particular, the study focused on five "dangerous misperceptions:" (1) over-estimating U.S. hostility; (2) over-estimating U.S. weakness; (3) over-estimating U.S. decline; (4) under-estimating costs of war; and (5) under-estimating fears of neighbors to China's rising military power. As implications for U.S. contacts with the PLA, the study suggested that the Defense Department review past exchanges and plan future exchanges to rebut more directly and effectively the most dangerous misperceptions held by China's military. Nonetheless, the study cautioned that while U.S. engagement with China softened its hostility and suspicion of the United States in the 25 years after the "Shanghai Communique," it was remarkable how little China's fundamental perceptions of world politics changed. U.S. policy makers would have to consider prudently that another 25 years of "strategic dialogue" and military exchanges would not eliminate completely the PRC's dangerous misperceptions. U.S. policy might need to anticipate the persistence of such misperceptions and potential miscalculations (including China's use of force) that could surprise the United States and the failure of U.S. efforts to deter the PLA. 
In 1999, the Center for Naval Analyses found in a study that U.S. and PRC approaches to military exchanges were "diametrically opposed," thus raising tension at times. While the United States has pursued a "bottom-up" effort starting with lower-level contact to work toward mutual understanding and then strategic agreement, the PRC has sought a "trickle-down" relationship in which agreement on strategic issues results in understanding and then allows for specific activities later. The study said that "the PLA leadership regards the military relationship with the U.S. as a political undertaking for strategic reasons—not a freestanding set of military initiatives conducted by military professionals for explicitly military reasons. Fundamentally, the military relationship is a vehicle to pursue strategic political ends." While recognizing that using the military relationship to enhance military modernization is extremely important to the PLA, the study contended that "it is not the key motive force driving the PLA's engagement with DOD." The report also argued that because the PLA suspects the United States uses the military relationship for deterrence, intelligence, and influence, "it seems ludicrous for them to expose their strengths and weaknesses to the world's 'sole superpower.'" It noted that using "reciprocity" as a measure of progress was "sure to lead to disappointment."
In August 2011, the Defense Intelligence Officer for East Asia and a former Army Attache in Beijing wrote about multiple lessons learned that the PRC's cultural approach to relations or friendships treats them as tough business negotiations. He warned U.S. officials that "the key is to conclude all negotiations with a true win-win solution, not the promise of favor in the future."
After decades of U.S. efforts to engage the PLA, including increasing "habits of cooperation," the U.S. military has continued to face challenges in mil-to-mil engagement with the PRC. Perspectives of the U.S. military and the PLA have remained critically divergent. Contrary to some expectations in the 1990s, mil-to-mil engagement has failed to deter the PRC from robust, rapid PLA modernization and what some officials have observed as assertive actions in maritime areas of dispute. Some participants in the mil-to-mil engagement have observed that the PLA has reduced the value placed on engaging with the United States, even as the PLA's modernization, roles, and interaction in the world increased. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, issued strategic guidance for 2011 that placed priority on U.S. security interests in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Still, he noted an increased focus on Asia-Pacific in balancing risks from an "aggressive" North Korea and a "more assertive" China and in defending international freedom of navigation. Others, however, have noted that China has been assertive in various cycles over many years. (See the Appendix on confrontations with the U.S. military.) Even if the PLA has not increased assertive actions, its capabilities and range have improved.
Even on relatively innocuous and cooperative efforts such as the parallel anti-piracy naval operations in the Gulf of Aden since late 2008, the PLA has not described them as useful for mil-to-mil engagement or cooperation with the U.S. Navy (at odds with U.S. goals and views). U.S. engagement with the PLA in anti-piracy included hosting the commander of the PLA Navy's task force at the Headquarters of the U.S. 5 th Fleet in Bahrain in December 2010. In February 2011, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, issued the National Military Strategy in which he stated the goals of a deeper military relationship to "expand areas of mutual interest and benefit, improve understanding, reduce misperception, and prevent miscalculation" as well as promotion of "common interests through China's cooperation in countering piracy and proliferation of WMD, and using its influence with North Korea to preserve stability on the Korean peninsula." However, on March 31, 2011, the PLA issued its 2010 Defense White Paper which included a new discussion of the PLA Navy's anti-piracy operation but did not portray this area as one for U.S.-PRC military cooperation. Indeed, the Defense White Paper did not even mention contact with the U.S. military in discussing contacts with various foreign navies. In July 2012, the commander of the PLAN's "naval escort" task force held only an "informal exchange" in Oman at the "temporary request" of the multinational Combined Task Force (CTF) 151. 
At the release of that Defense White Paper, a key researcher of the PLA's Academy of Military Science (AMS), Chen Zhou, candidly highlighted a key difference between China and others. He said that unlike "Western" militaries that seek transparency as the premise for military mutual trust, the PLA saw trust as the requirement for transparency. He called for first developing common interests and respecting each other's strategic interests.
Recognizing the challenges in cooperation and divergent perspectives with the PLA, the Obama Administration has tried to apply lessons learned to mil-to-mil engagement with China. While the United States has sought to build confidence in avoiding crises, the PLA has avoided giving confidence. On the eve of Secretary Gates' visit in January 2011, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Schiffer acknowledged some distance before achieving a deep and real "strategic understanding" between our two countries. He presented the U.S. view that mil-to-mil should be a "critical component" of the U.S.-PRC relationship; mil-to-mil should be sustained, reliable, and continuous; mil-to-mil should not be used as a "reward or favor" or "punishment or a penalty" to the United States; and mil-to-mil should not be viewed as separate from the overall bilateral relationship. The U.S. approach sought a framework to institutionalize mil-to-mil and integration of the PLA into the stated goal of "comprehensive" cooperation with China.
section_title: U.S. Security Interests
paragraphs: With lessons learned, a fundamental issue in overall policy toward China is how to use U.S. leadership and leverage in pursuing a prudent program of military contacts that advances, and does not harm, a prioritized list of U.S. security interests. The Pentagon could pursue such a program with focused control by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD); with consultation with Congress and public disclosures; and in coordination with allies and partners, such as Japan, South Korea, Australia, Singapore, and Taiwan. Such a program might include these objectives.
subsections: section_title: Communication, Conflict Avoidance, and Crisis Management
subsections: section_title: Confrontations and Safety
paragraphs: The various crises of direct confrontation between the U.S. military and PLA might call for greater cooperation with China to improve communication, conflict avoidance, and crisis management. Given confrontations in the maritime areas (particularly in 2001 and 2009), some stress that the foremost U.S. interest would be to safeguard the safety of U.S. military personnel. There are increasing concerns that options pursued thus far still leave critical challenges. 
Analysts in China have studied the government's strengths and weaknesses in crisis management in light of the EP-3 crisis in 2001. Nonetheless, the crisis over the EP-3 aircraft collision and subsequent confrontations have shown the limits in benefits to the United States of pursuing personal relationships with PLA leaders, the consultations under the Military Maritime Consultative Agreement ( MMCA ), as well as the presidential hotline. From the beginning of the crisis, PRC ruler Jiang Zemin pressed the United States with a hard-line stance, while PLA generals followed without any greater inflammatory rhetoric.
section_title: Telephones
paragraphs: During his second visit to China as PACOM Commander in December 1997, Admiral Prueher said that "I remember wishing I had your telephone number," in response to a PLA naval officer's question about Prueher's thinking during the Taiwan Strait crisis in 1995-1996. After becoming ambassador to China in December 1999, Prueher was nonetheless frustrated when the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the PLA would not answer the phone or return phone calls in the immediate aftermath of the EP-3 collision crisis in April 2001. Personal ties were not useful in crises.
Still, some continue to believe there could be benefits in fostering relationships with PLA officers, both at the senior level and with younger, future leaders. While in Beijing in January 2004, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers, said that "it's always an advantage to be able to pick up a telephone and talk to somebody that you know fairly well. The relationship that I have with General Liang [Chief of General Staff], the relationship that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has with his counterpart, General Cao, is going to be helpful in that regard." Likewise, visiting Beijing in September 2005, Admiral William Fallon, PACOM Commander, hoped for the value for his regional responsibilities to "pick up the telephone and call someone I already know." During his visit to Beijing in July 2011, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, still said he wished that he could "pick up the phone" in a crisis.
section_title: Maritime Disputes and International Freedom of Navigation and Overflight
paragraphs: Much attention has been on the MMCA for resolving tension and preventing crisis or conflict. The MMCA, initialed at the first DCT in December 1997 and signed by Secretary Cohen in Beijing in January 1998, only arranged meetings to discuss maritime and air safety (i.e., to talk about talking). There was no agreement on communication during crises or rules of engagement. Despite the 2001 crisis, the U.S. military encountered difficulties with the PLA in discussions under the MMCA, including simply setting up meetings and PLA objections to U.S. activities in China's claimed 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) (beyond the territorial sea up to 12 nautical miles from the coast). In spite of the MMCA meetings since the late 1990s, the U.S. Navy and Air Force have faced challenges to operational safety and freedom of navigation. The Defense Secretary told Congress in a report in August 2010 that "the United States and China continue to have differences over the rights of coastal states in their exclusive economic zones, and the appropriate response to such differences." It also stressed that "the United States remains vigilant in its watch for behavior that puts at risk the safety of U.S. soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines, or is in clear violation of international norms. The Department will continue to use all available channels, in particular an invigorated MMCA and Defense Policy Coordination Talks process, to communicate the U.S. government position on these and other matters to the PLA, while taking advantage of opportunities for the two sides to discuss practical ways to reduce the chances for misunderstanding and miscalculation between our armed forces."
However, another assessment is that not only have dangerous confrontations occurred despite the MMCA but that the tension have been based on different national interests rather than any misperception or misunderstanding. The PLA has tried purposefully to keep U.S. military operations farther from China and restrict them even beyond the PRC's territorial seas. The Defense Secretary reported to Congress in August 2010 that his department did not observe a resurgence of harassment by PRC fishing vessels of U.S. naval auxiliary ships conducting routine and lawful military operations beyond the PRC's territorial seas that occurred in spring 2009. Still, he warned that such harassment could occur again. Moreover, two months after the Secretary's report to Congress, at a meeting of the MMCA in Honolulu in October 2010, the U.S. military raised concerns to the PLA about several incidents involving unsafe and unprofessional actions by PRC ships as well as aircraft that risked the lives of U.S. sailors and airmen in the Navy and Air Force. The PLA repeated complaints about U.S. maritime and air reconnaissance by U.S. ships and planes. Critically, the PLA rejected the possibility of accidents, blaming continued U.S. operations for any risks, so that another collision would be only the United States' fault. The PLA also has limited its primary representation to the PLAN in attending MMCA meetings, while the U.S. side has interacted with the PLA at a joint level led by PACOM. In 2010, PLA fighters conducted unusually close intercepts of U.S. military aircraft operating in international airspace, in addition to harassment by PRC ships of U.S. survey ships operating outside of PRC territorial seas, reported the Secretary of Defense to Congress in August 2011. The 7 th Fleet Commander said in February 2011 that the PLAN ignored ship-to-ship communication in Asia, even if it made such contact in anti-piracy operations in the Gulf of Aden (that the PLA calls "escort missions").
At other times, the PLA indicated generally that it can understand the escalating dangers of accidents and collisions. In 2010, General Liang Guanglie (a CMC Member and PRC Defense Minister) acknowledged the risk of accidents. He used the phrase "an accidental discharge of gunfire in cleaning a gun" to refer to inadvertent accidents that could lead to military tension.
On June 29, 2011, Taiwan's F-16 fighters flew to intercept PLA Air Force Su-27 fighters that crossed a "median line" for the Taiwan Strait to confront a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft. Then, on July 22, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued a statement that stressed respect for freedom of navigation as well as overflight in the South China Sea, and three days later, met with PRC State Councilor Dai Bingguo in Shenzhen and stressed freedom of navigation. In August, the two sides held an MMCA working group meeting in Qingdao and discussed disputes over the PLA's complaints against U.S. reconnaissance flights. Again, there was no MMCA plenary in 2011. 
Policy issues include how to reinvigorate the MMCA talks and how to include the actions of the PLAAF and the PRC's official maritime law enforcement ships and aircraft that have coordinated with those of the PLAN and PLAAF. The PLAN has shifted ships to maritime law enforcement. 
As the PLAN sails farther from China's coast on long-distance training or operations, the PLAN could pay more attention to freedom of navigation for its ships as well as foreign ships in a manner consistent with international law, instead of contradictory stances for PLAN ships and for foreign ships. The PLAN conducted military activities in the EEZs of other nations without their permission, including several operations in the U.S. EEZs of Hawaii and Guam in 2012 (including during the RIMPAC 2012 exercise). On November 28 and December 10, 2012, the official Xinhua agency reported that PLAN ships sailed through straits near Japan's islands to and from training in the Western Pacific Ocean, arguing that other countries should respect the PLA's freedom of navigation and overflight in accordance with international law. In May 2013, the PLA's spokesman acknowledged that submarines may navigate freely in international waters. Despite its invited participation at RIMPAC 2014, the PLAN again sent an auxiliary general intelligence (AGI) ship in Hawaii's EEZ though not in the 12-nm territorial sea. The PLA then sent an AGI ship to the U.S. EEZ of Guam during the Valiant Shield 2014 exercise. 
PACOM Commander, Admiral Samuel Locklear, testified to the House Armed Services Committee on March 5, 2013, that there continued to be instances in which the PLA conducted unsafe or unprofessional maneuvers to impede U.S. forces operating legally in international air and maritime areas. On July 3, PRC media showed a video of a CMS ship that confronted the USS Impeccable on June 21 as operating outside its rights, even though it was about 100 miles from China's coast in the East China Sea. Later in July, Admiral Locklear said that U.S. and PLA forces have conducted operations around each other in an increasingly professional manner. Still, Locklear acknowledged continued disagreement about interpretations of activities in EEZs, while he argued against nations trying to control EEZs that cover one-third of oceans. Interceptions of U.S. aircraft have raised concerns, particularly after the PLA's announcement of an "East China Sea Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ)" in November 2013 and dangerous confrontation with a U.S. Navy P-8 plane over the South China Sea in August 2014. Still, the Commander of Pacific Air Forces (PACAF), General Hawk Carlisle, said most of such encounters were safe.
The U.S. military and the PLA could discuss the PRC's straight baselines drawn around islands, such as the baselines published for Hainan Island and Paracel Islands in the South China Sea in May 1996 and the Senkaku Islands in the East China Sea in September 2012. In March 2013, the United States protested to the PRC for its use of straight baselines around the Senkaku Islands as inconsistent with international law and impinging on the rights, freedoms, and uses of the sea under the Law of the Sea, while not taking a position on the ultimate sovereignty of the islands. Since the PRC is not an archipelagic country, it is not allowed to draw straight archipelagic baselines. The U.S. Navy may conduct operations to assert freedom of navigation (FON) to show that the United States does not recognize claims that are inconsistent with international law. In the annual report submitted to Congress two months later, the Defense Department criticized the PRC for using improperly drawn straight baselines around the Senkaku Islands and adding to the PRC's network of maritime claims that are inconsistent with international law.
Some progress might have resulted from the U.S. and other foreign pressure on the PLA to stress safety and prevention of collisions. In September 2012, even as a plenary meeting of the MMCA was held, the PLAN blocked adoption of a Code for Unalerted Encounters at Sea (CUES) at the Western Pacific Naval Symposium ( WPNS ) in Malaysia. At the WPNS in China in April 2014, the PLAN and other navies finally approved CUES (changed to Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea) to set procedures for safety (e.g., to avoid collisions) and communication at sea. The CUES stated that navies are expected to comply with the 1972 Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea ( COLREG s ). PLAN Commander Wu Shengli spoke to commanders of foreign navies at WPNS and commended the new CUES for preventing incidents at sea and in the air but did not mention the COLREGS. CMC Vice Chairman, General Fan Changlong, met with WPNS attendees but did not cite the CUES. Issues remain about the PLAN's and China Coast Guard's adherence to the COLREGS, UNCLOS, as well as CUES and how U.S. and foreign militaries respond to PRC violations of international rules of behavior.
In August 2013, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel hosted the PRC Defense Minister, General Chang Wanquan, and announced agreement with Xi Jinping's proposal to President Obama at their summit in June for new Working Groups on notifications of major military activities and rules of behavior for air and naval activities. Issues included whether to follow the PLA's mode of negotiating over "security" rather than safety, and over bilateral, new "codes of conduct," rather than adhering to established international laws and rules of behavior. From July to November 2014, the Working Groups met five times to negotiate two Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) . At a U.S.-PRC summit in Beijing in November 2014, Presidents Obama and Xi Jinping announced the military-to-military confidence-building measures (CBMs). On November 12, the two sides issued two MOUs on the Notification of Major Military Activities and Rules of Behavior for Safety of Air and Maritime Encounters (expanded from militaries to also coast guards). The MOU on Rules of Behavior refers to UNCLOS, COLREGs, and CUES, rather than concluding new binding rules or agreements. The two sides issued an Annex on surface-to-surface encounters but did not complete an annex on air-to-air encounters (expected in 2015). The MOU does not prejudice either side's perspective on military activities in the EEZ. The U.S. side stated that it would prioritize a mechanism for informing the other party of ballistic missile launches as an annex to the MOU on the Notification of Major Military Activities. U.S. officials contend that the MOUs offer talks about safety with PLA operational officers and top leaders.
section_title: Defense Policy Coordination Talks (DPCT)
paragraphs: In early 2005, U.S. defense and PLA officials held a Special Policy Dialogue to discuss policy disputes and end an impasse in talks over safety and operational concerns under the MMCA. The separate discussions continued in the first Defense Policy Coordination Talks (DPCT) held in Washington in December 2006. The first combined exercise held under the MMCA, a search and rescue exercise (SAREX), did not take place until the fall of 2006, after eight years of talks. By 2007, the MMCA's status and value were in greater doubt, and no MMCA working groups or plenary meetings took place that year.
On February 25-26, 2008, in Qingdao, PACOM's Director for Strategic Planning and Policy (J-5), USMC Major General Thomas Conant, and PLA Navy Deputy Chief of Staff Zhang Leiyu led an annual meeting under the MMCA, the first since 2006. The PLA sought to amend the MMCA. The U.S. side opposed PLA proposals to discuss policy differences at the MMCA meetings and to plan details of future military exercises. The PLA and U.S. military have clashed over the PRC's disputes with foreign countries over the freedom of navigation in the high seas.
By 2011, the PLA seemed to downgrade the DPCT as merely "working-level" talks between the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense and the Director of the PLA's Foreign Affairs Office. The practice was at odds with the reaffirmation during Secretary Gates' visit in early 2011, when Defense Minister Liang Guanglie agreed that the DCT, DPCT, and MMCA were important talks.
section_title: Incidents at Sea (INCSEA) Protocol
paragraphs: For his nomination hearing to be the PACOM Commander on March 8, 2007, Admiral Timothy Keating answered questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee by claiming that a dangerous incident similar to the EP-3 crisis would be "less likely." He also proposed negotiating with the PLA an "Incidents at Sea" (INCSEA) protocol, like the 1972 one with the Soviet Union. 
After the Pentagon reported in March 2009 that PRC ships were aggressively harassing U.S. ocean surveillance ships (including the USNS Impeccable) in the Yellow Sea and South China Sea, some observers raised again the issue of whether to agree with the PLA on an INCSEA. For example, retired Rear Admiral Eric McVaden suggested that an INCSEA could compel China's top leaders to agree to avoid collisions or escalations of tensions, as well as provide rules and a safety valve. However, skeptics said that the question was not whether there was an agreement or dialogue. For example, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Randy Schriver pointed out that the MMCA would have been called an INCSEA (but the United States wanted to avoid "Cold War connotations") and that the MMCA had limited usefulness because China has more interest in stopping U.S. reconnaissance than any interest in the agreement that it had signed. Thus, he contended that the MMCA already has provided the mechanism for dealing with incidents at sea. The problem has been that the PLA is not interested in a "rules-based, operator-to-operator approach to safety on the high seas." In early 2011, Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) Gary Roughead explained another opposition to an INCSEA. Admiral Roughead said that an INCSEA with only the PLAN would result in a separate and exclusive agreement, set the PLA apart when all militaries ought to adhere to the same international "rules of the road," and define the relationship with the PLA as abnormal, aggressive, and a specter of that with the Soviet Union.
section_title: Hotline, or Defense Telephone Link (DTL)
paragraphs: After staff-level preliminary discussions in 2003, Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith formally proposed a hotline for crisis management and confidence building with the PLA at the DCT in February 2004. However, the PLA did not give a positive signal until a defense ministerial conference in Singapore in June 2007, when Lieutenant General (LTG) Zhang Qinsheng, Deputy Chief of General Staff, said that the PLA would discuss such a hotline. During Defense Secretary Gates' visit to China in November 2007, the PLA agreed in principle to set up a defense telephone link (DTL) with the Pentagon. The two sides signed an agreement in February 2008. In May 2008, PACOM's Commander, Admiral Keating, used the hotline in its first operational use to communicate with PLA Deputy Chief of General Staff Ma Xiaotian about the U.S. Air Force's use of two C-17 transports to deliver earthquake relief supplies to Sichuan.
However, during the confrontation in March 2009 when PRC ships aggressively harassed the U.S. surveillance ships, Secretary Gates told reporters on March 18, 2009, that he did not use the hotline. Indeed, not until May 2011 did the PLA agree to actually use the DTL, as promised by visiting Chief of General Staff Chen Bingde, according to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mullen's remarks on July 10, 2011. Further, some observers urged PACOM and the Pentagon to prepare transcripts of all uses of the DTL as records of communication with the PLA. Issues include whether to use the DTL for regular communication (e.g., about visits), transparency, and consultations with Congress and U.S. allies about these discussions. The Obama Administration shifted to use the "hotline" for routine discussions, not only in times of crises. In March 2013, General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, talked on the phone with General Fang Fenghui, Chief of General Staff. The next month, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel spoke on the phone to General Chang Wanquan, PRC Defense Minister. In May, General Dempsey again talked on the phone with General Fang. Defense officials have used the DTL at other times. In May 2014, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey discussed with visiting Chief of General Staff Fang Fenghui a U.S. proposal to upgrade the DTL to video teleconference. 
section_title: Air Traffic Control (ATC)
paragraphs: Another area for possible improved communication and prevention of accidents is air traffic control in China, which is controlled by the PLA Air Force. In December 2006, the PLA suddenly shut down the busy Pudong International Airport near Shanghai and at least three other airports under the Nanjing Military Region, ostensibly for training. In December 2010, PRC media revealed the establishment of a new national air traffic control system and that it was one of the high-priority, militarily-significant, and centrally-directed "863 Projects."
section_title: Sanya Initiative and Other Informal Talks
paragraphs: Some believe that more dialogue, even unofficial talks involving U.S. retired senior generals and admirals or nongovernmental "track two" researchers, could be useful to build understanding and avoid conflict with the PLA. Others question the use of private channels that could undermine or influence U.S. policies, send mixed messages, and confuse unofficial with official work, particularly since the PLA would have only ostensibly unofficial representatives. In January 2010, a delegation from the China Foundation for International and Strategic Studies (CFISS) visited Washington with a delegation that included PLA major generals and other officers. They got meetings with Under Secretaries of Defense, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Asian and Pacific Security Affairs, Deputy Secretary of State, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and National Security Council officials.
Even for dealing with possible crises, Admiral Keating revealed in 2007 that he used an unofficial network of retired Admirals who had commanded PACOM and met with PLA commanders. The PLA has pursued this track, including a visit to Beijing in November 2010 of a group led by retired PACOM Commander and Admiral Thomas Fargo. Their host, General Li Jinai, a CMC Member and Director of the GPD, asked the visitors to use their "personal influence" on mil-to-mil ties. The China Association for International Friendly Contact (CAIFC) sponsored the group.
In addition, a "Sanya Initiative" (named for the first such informal dialogue at the Sanya resort on Hainan Island) began in February 2008. Xiong Guangkai (President of the China Institute for International Strategic Studies and former Deputy Chief of General Staff in charge of intelligence) led the PLA side. Bill Owens (retired admiral and former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) led the U.S. side. The PLA side asked the U.S. participants to help with PRC objections to U.S. policies and laws: namely the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), Pentagon's report to Congress on PRC Military Power, and legal restrictions on military contacts in the NDAA for FY2000. A second meeting was held on October 16-22, 2009, at PACOM in Honolulu, Washington, and New York. Despite the unofficial talks, PACOM Commander (Admiral Tim Keating), Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Admiral Mike Mullen), Vice Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff (General James Cartwright), Deputy Secretary of Defense William Lynn, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Assistant Secretary of State Kurt Campbell met with the Sanya group. Afterwards, Bill Owens published an opinion to oppose the TRA as harming the relationship with China that has rising wealth and influence. Observers noted Owen's business interests in China as a Managing Director of AEA Investors in Hong Kong. In May 2010, Owens told the press that he was "grieved" by mil-to-mil suspensions over arms sales to Taiwan, including postponement of another meeting of his Sanya Initiative, when he met with CMC Vice Chairman Xu Caihou in Beijing. Owens and his group went to Beijing for a third round of the Sanya talks in October 2010, and they met with CMC Member and GPD Director Li Jinai. In June 2012, Owens led six retired generals and admirals to meet with retired PLA generals (without Xiong Guangkai) in Annapolis and Washington. They met with Senators Carl Levin and John McCain of the Senate Armed Services Committee; Representatives Charles Boustany and Rick Larsen of the U.S.-China Working Group; Assistant Secretary of Defense Mark Lippert and Lieutenant General (LTG) Terry Wolff; and Assistant Secretary of State Campbell.
On December 20, 2012, Bill Owens and three retired Generals (Kevin Chilton, Michael Moseley, and Peter Pace) visited Beijing for another round. They met with CMC Vice Chairman Xu Qiliang, and CMC Member and GPD Director Zhang Yang. Owens again visited Beijing in June and December 2013, meeting with GPD Director Zhang Yang.
section_title: Civilian Control over PLA and Civil-Military Coordination
paragraphs: Related to the U.S. security interest in preventing inadvertent or predictable conflict or crises with China, the Obama Administration has sought "comprehensive" engagement and bilateral dialogues that advance coordination between the PLA and the PRC's top leadership or its civilian officials in foreign affairs, including through the structure of the S&ED (as discussed above on " Options "). Another goal has been the expansion of cooperation in overlapping interests. 
As mentioned above, when the PLA declined to host Defense Secretary Gates in 2010, he implied a divide between the PLA and the top PRC leadership. Then, on July 20, 2010, the United States and Republic of Korea (ROK) announced combined military exercises in the seas to the west and east of the ROK, commonly called the Yellow Sea and Sea of Japan, in response to North Korea's attack on the South Korean naval ship Cheonan on March 26 that killed 46 sailors. However, even before the announcement and even though the exercises were not about China, PLA General Ma Xiaotian on July 1 expressed "opposition" to the expected U.S.-ROK exercises in the Yellow Sea. A week after that, the Foreign Ministry shifted from "concern" to "opposition" to any foreign military ships and aircraft entering or flying over the Yellow Sea. The PRC especially objected to the aircraft carrier USS George Washington joining exercises in the Yellow Sea, even off the coast of South Korea. Still, while more assertive in its voice on policy, the PLA's resistance or opposition might not be a constant or dominant voice in PRC policymaking, as seen in the belated invitation to Gates for his visit in January 2011. After North Korea again attacked South Korea on November 23, 2010, launching artillery on Yeonpyeoung Island that killed two South Korean Marines and even two civilians, the PLA was relatively quiet in public after the U.S. and ROK announcement the next day that the USS George Washington would exercise with the ROK navy in the Yellow Sea from November 28 to December 1, as first indicated back in July. Meanwhile, the PRC Foreign Ministry shifted its stance from "taking note" of the U.S.-ROK exercise to "opposing" any military action in "China's" EEZ without China's permission. Secretary Gates pointedly asked Hu Jintao about a test of a J-20 stealth fighter conducted during Gates' visit in January 2011, and Gates said that Hu seemed surprised when asked about the test. Gates clarified on June 2 that he did not believe that the PLA was not responsive to PRC leaders. He said that the PLA did not seem to go out of its way to inform regularly the political leadership.
In the two U.S.-PRC Joint Statements of November 2009 and January 2011, top PRC leader Hu Jintao agreed to state with President Obama that "China welcomes the United States as an Asia-Pacific nation that contributes to peace, stability, and prosperity in the region." In contrast, the PLA in March 2011 issued the 2010 Defense White Paper that did not include that sentiment but did print implied and explicit criticism of the United States. The Joint Statement of January 2011 did not note a "strategic dialogue" that Gates proposed earlier that month during his visit.
However, questions were not new about the PLA's actions separate from top PRC policymaking. A more crucial concern about Hu Jintao's command of the PLA already was raised after the summit in April 2006 at which he discussed with President Bush about starting a strategic nuclear dialogue, but the Commander of the PLA Second Artillery has declined to visit. Then, in January 2007, the PLA conducted its first successful, direct-ascent anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon test, but the Foreign Ministry remained silent to the world about it for 12 days. There could have been a division of labor where PLA and CPC leaderships pursued parallel relationships with foreign countries, not only with the United States. For example, in May 2003, PLA General Cao Gangchuan (a CMC Vice Chairman and Defense Minister) and PRC President Hu Jintao simultaneously visited Moscow, Russia, but PRC media reported their visits separately with no joint meetings. There could have been a lack of coordination between the PLA and civilian officials in the weaker Foreign Ministry, though the CMC Chairman and CPC General-Secretary remained in ultimate control of the PLA. Moreover, the PRC's priority programs for military modernization, including ASAT weapons, have existed for many years and have been coordinated and controlled by a top-level military-civilian Central Special Committee (CSC) in line with the PRC's long-standing stress on "Military-Civilian Integration." Another assessment focused on the lack of military-civilian coordination at the lower levels, especially on foreign policy. In any case, by 2010, U.S. officials noted the PLA's stronger voice and capabilities, raising concern about the PLA's influence on China's adherence to established international laws and norms.
The PLA can coordinate with civilian authorities when it chooses to do so. In March 2009, PRC Y-12 maritime surveillance aircraft, a PLAN frigate, PRC patrol and intelligence collection ships, and trawlers coordinated in increasingly aggressive and dangerous harassment of unarmed U.S. ocean surveillance ships, the USNS Victorious and USNS Impeccable , during routine operations in international waters in the Yellow Sea and South China Sea. In January 2011, Wu Shengli, CMC Member and PLAN Commander, spoke at a meeting on the PLAN's "escort" mission (vs. U.S. counter-piracy operations) in the Gulf of Aden and referred to "close coordination" between the PLAN and shipping companies, and Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Transportation. In another example, in April 2011, the PLAN held a military-civilian exercise in the South China Sea. The next month, the Deputy Director of the civilian China Marine Surveillance (CMS) forces referred to facing foreign "naval exercises" in 2010 in the Yellow Sea. The Defense White Paper of March 2011 noted coordination and control between the PLA and other agencies. 
Secretary of State Clinton gave a speech on April 10, 2012, stressing that "China is not the Soviet Union," "we are not on the brink of a new Cold War in Asia," and "this is not 1912 when friction between a declining Britain and a rising Germany set the stage for global conflict." Apparently responding positively at the S&ED on May 3 in Beijing, PRC leader Hu Jintao called for a "new type of great power relationship" that is reassuring to both countries and to others. General Liang Guanglie, as the Defense Minister, visited the United States on May 4-10, where he echoed Hu by saying that "China and the United States should build a new type of state-to-state relationship that is not in the stereotype that the two major powers are predestined to engage into confrontation or conflict." The PLA supports a positive tone for U.S.-PRC ties, in line with top CPC leaders. 
Unlike Hu's visit to Moscow 10 years before, Xi Jinping visited in March 2013 and Defense Minister Chang Wanquan joined him, at least in a military meeting. However, that change could have been because Xi paid the first visit by a PRC head of state to the Russian Defense Ministry.
section_title: Transparency, Reciprocity, and Information-Exchange
paragraphs: Critics of military exchanges with China have charged that the United States gained limited information about the PLA, while granting greater access to the PLA than the access we received. A related question in the debate has concerned the extent to which the issues of reciprocity and transparency should affect or impede efforts to increase mutual understanding with the PLA.
According to the Pentagon's report to Congress of January 2001, in 1998, the PLA denied requests by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF) to fly in an SU-27 fighter, see integration of the SU-27s into units, and learn about development of the F-10 fighter. Also in 1998, the PLA denied the Defense Secretary's request to visit China's National Command Center. Still, the PLA requested access to U.S. exercises showing warfighting capabilities, with two cases of U.S. denial in 1999: PLA requests to send observers to the U.S. Army's National Training Center (NTC) at Fort Irwin, CA, and to the Red Flag air combat training exercise at Nellis Air Force Base, NV.
Regarding controversial access to the U.S. Army's NTC, visits by the PLA in the 1990s included those in November 1994 and December 1997. Then, in December 1998, the Army reportedly resisted a PLA request for greater, unprecedented access to the NTC in 1999, because the PLA asked for access greater than that granted to other countries, the PLA would gain information to enhance its warfighting, and the PLA was unlikely to reciprocate with similar access for the U.S. military. The PLA wanted to observe, with direct access, the 3 rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) and the 82 nd Airborne Division in a training exercise. Army officials reportedly felt pressured by Admiral Prueher at PACOM and Secretary Cohen to grant the request. In the end, the Pentagon announced on March 17, 1999, that it denied the PLA's request.
The Defense Department's 2003 report to Congress on PRC military power charged that "since the 1980s, U.S. military exchange delegations to China have been shown only 'showcase' units, never any advanced units or any operational training or realistic exercises." However, a Rand study in 2004 argued that the DOD's statement "appears to be inaccurate." Rand reported that between 1993 and 1999, U.S. visitors went to 51 PLA units. (PLA delegations visited 71 U.S. military units between 1994 and 1999.) The report recommended that "the best way of dealing with the reciprocity and transparency issue is to remove it as an issue." It called for proper planning and a focus on educational exchanges. Still, reciprocal exchanges at military educational institutions has been challenged by the PLA's separation of foreign military and PLA students, with foreign students grouped in their own classes and facilities, while U.S. schools tended to integrate U.S. and foreign students. It was not until March 2009, that the PLA reportedly started to follow international practice to mix foreign and PLA students in the same class, at the Air Force Command College of the PLAAF.
In 2005, the PRC did not allow U.S. forces to observe the major combined PLA-Russian military exercise, "Peace Mission 2005," and prohibited U.S. participation in the multilateral humanitarian exercise in Hong Kong, in which U.S. forces had joined for years in the past. Still, PACOM Commander, Admiral Fallon, invited PLA observers to the U.S. "Valiant Shield" exercise that brought three aircraft carriers to waters off Guam in June 2006. In August 2007, U.S. observers were not invited to monitor the PRC-Russian combined exercise "Peace Mission 2007."
Nonetheless, U.S. participants in contacts with the PLA have reported gaining insights into PLA capabilities and concepts. The record of military contacts since 1993 (in the Appendix of this report) showed some instances when the PLA allowed U.S. officials to be first-time foreign visitors with first-time " unprecedented access ." These examples included the following:
Satellite Control Center in Xian (1995) Guangzhou Military Region headquarters (1997) Beijing Military Region's Air Defense Command Center (1998) 47 th Group Army (1998) Armored Force Engineering Academy (2000) Training base in Inner Mongolia (2003), with multinational access Zhanjiang, homeport of the PLAN's South Sea Fleet (2003) Beijing Aerospace Control Center (2004) 2 nd Artillery (missile corps) headquarters (2005) 39 th Group Army (2006) FB-7 fighter at 28 th Air Division (2006) Su-27 fighter and T-99 tank (2007) Jining Air Force Base (2007) Song-class submarine and Luzhou-class destroyer (2007) CSS-7 (M-11) short-range ballistic missile and Yuan-class submarine (2011) GZMR's 121 st Infantry Division of the 41 st Group Army (2012) Aircraft carrier ( Liaoning ) at Qingdao (2014).
section_title: Tension Reduction over Taiwan
paragraphs: There have been concerns about the PRC's growing threat to Taiwan's security since the early 1990s. In April 2004, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly testified to Congress that U.S. efforts at deterring China's coercion "might fail" if Beijing becomes convinced that it must stop Taiwan from advancing on a course toward permanent separation from China. Kelly also noted that the PRC leadership accelerated the PLA buildup after 1999. The Pentagon reported to Congress in May 2004 that the PLA has "accelerated" modernization, including a missile buildup, in response to concerns about Taiwan.
Under the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), P.L. 96-8 , that has governed U.S. policy toward Taiwan since 1979, Congress has oversight of the President's management of the cross-strait situation under the rubric of the "one China" policy. While considering contacts with the PLA, the United States, after the 1995-1996 Taiwan Strait Crisis, has increased arms sales to and ties with Taiwan's military. Policy considerations include offering arms sales and cooperation to help Taiwan's self-defense; securing leverage over Beijing and Taipei; deterring aggression or coercion; discouraging provocations from Beijing or Taipei; and supporting cross-strait dialogue and confidence-building measures (CBMs). In educational exchanges with the PLA, questions have concerned whether to allow PLA officers to attend U.S. military academies, colleges, or universities, and how that change could affect attendees from Taiwan's military; and whether to allow attendees from Taiwan at PACOM's Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies (APCSS).
Concerning the APCSS courses in Honolulu, the Bush Administration's policy change to allow attendance from Taiwan affected the PLA's attendance and interactions among the U.S., PRC, and other Asian militaries. In November 2001, the Department of Defense directed APCSS to allow people from Taiwan to participate in courses and conferences. Acknowledging the potential difficulty for continuing participation by the PLA, the policy called for alternating invitations to the PRC and Taiwan. In the summer of 2002, three fellows from Taiwan attended the Executive Course, the first time that Taiwan sent students to APCSS. Ostensibly objecting to alternating attendance with Taiwan's representatives, the PLA stopped sending representatives to APCSS, after attending courses from 1999 to mid-2002. Nonetheless, by 2010, the U.S. military assessed that Taiwan's attendance was a convenient excuse and complaint, even as the PRC has sent non-PLA students to APCSS since 2008 (and APCSS has complied with the PRC's goals and control of attendance by a PRC organization). Moreover, the PLA's NDU had set up its own International Symposium Course (ISC) in 1999 modeled after APCSS to "train" foreign military officers such that the PLA controls discussions between its officers and foreign counterparts.
There is a question about the extent of the U.S. role in supporting cross-strait dialogue. In Shanghai in July 2000, visiting Secretary of Defense Cohen said that the Clinton Administration viewed the newly elected President Chen Shui-bian of Taiwan as offering hope for cross-strait reconciliation. Cohen stepped out of the narrow mil-to-mil context and met with Wang Daohan, chairman of the PRC's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS). This meeting raised questions about the U.S. role in more actively encouraging cross-strait talks. Cohen said that Chen showed flexibility after becoming president and that there was a window of opportunity for changes. In contrast, in Beijing in February 2004, visiting Under Secretary of Defense Feith said he did not discuss the contentious issue raised by PLA leaders "at length" concerning referendums in Taiwan—an issue over which the PRC threatened to use force. Feith said he did not discuss the issue because it was not defense-related.
There are complications in consideration of the question of Taiwan in the U.S.-PRC military relationship. Not discussing Taiwan leaves the primary dispute subject to misperception or miscalculation. However, linking the Taiwan question can raise tensions and frustrations over a disagreement that military exchanges cannot solve. A 2007 study co-authored by former PACOM Commander Dennis Blair called for discussion of the PLA's missile buildup against Taiwan and greater efforts to reduce tensions across the Taiwan Strait.
The PLA has suspended military exchanges in retaliation for steps in U.S. policy toward Taiwan, especially continued arms sales. However, even as the PLA signaled its displeasure and urged U.S. cooperation in "peace and stability" in the Taiwan Strait, cutting off exchanges played a counterproductive role by raising U.S.-PRC tension. Moreover, the PRC's implicit linkage targeted the U.S. Navy in particular, precisely the service advocating engagement with the PLA.
After Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian proposed in June 2007 that Taiwan hold a referendum on membership in the U.N. under the name "Taiwan" on the day of the next presidential election (scheduled for March 22, 2008), Beijing opposed it as a step for Taiwan's de jure independence. While joining the PRC in opposing the referendum, the Bush Administration continued the U.S. policy of providing some security assistance to Taiwan. After notifications to Congress of arms sales to Taiwan in September and November 2007, the PRC protested by refusing to hold military-to-military exchanges, including an annual MMCA meeting scheduled for October 2007. The PRC also denied port visits at Hong Kong in November 2007 by U.S. Navy minesweepers in distress ( USS Patriot and USS Guardian ) and by the carrier group led by the USS Kitty Hawk for Thanksgiving and family reunions, leading to official protests by the Pentagon to the PLA.
After sailing away from the denied port call in Hong Kong toward Japan, the USS Kitty Hawk sailed through the Taiwan Strait, raising objections in China with claims in PRC media of the strait as China's "internal waterway." When asked at a news conference in Beijing on January 15, 2008, visiting PACOM Commander, Admiral Keating said, "we don't need China's permission to go through the Taiwan Strait. It's international water. We will exercise our free right of passage whenever and wherever we choose as we have done repeatedly in the past and we'll do in the future." Two days later, when asked whether ships need the PRC's permission to sail through the Taiwan Strait, China's foreign ministry spokesperson did not reject the idea of permission from Beijing while claiming the strait as a "highly sensitive area."
After the Bush Administration notified Congress of some pending arms sales to Taiwan on October 3, 2008, the PLA suspended some but not all military exchanges and nonproliferation talks. The Defense Department spokesman said that the PRC canceled or postponed several meetings in "continued politicization" of the military-to-military exchanges.
After tentative support in 2008 in both Beijing and Taipei for cross-strait CBMs, PACOM's Admiral Keating raised the question of a U.S. role when he offered in February 2009 to host talks between the PLA and Taiwan's military. However, Reagan's "Six Assurances" to Taiwan in 1982 included one of not "mediating" between Beijing and Taipei.
Meanwhile, President Obama did not notify Congress of any major Foreign Military Sales (FMS) to Taiwan in 2009. After President Obama's five notifications on January 29, 2010, the PRC threatened the next day to respond in four ways: postpone "partial" military-to-military exchanges; postpone deputy ministerial level meetings on international security, arms control, and weapons nonproliferation; impose sanctions on U.S. defense firms involved in the arms sales to Taiwan; and react in interactions on international and regional problems. The State Department issued a statement, regretting that the PRC government announced plans to curtail military-to-military and other security-related exchanges and to take action against U.S. firms that supply defensive articles to Taiwan, because U.S. policy contributes to stability and security. The PRC's immediate response was the postponement of Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg's meetings in Beijing in February (that later took place in early March). The threat to U.S. firms was new in public but already existed and remained vague (with possible, partial impact on two companies, Boeing and General Electric) and risked backfiring on Beijing (in trade or other ties). Further, the PRC Embassy in Washington even called at least one U.S. defense firm's executive directly on a personal phone on a weekend in early February with an implied warning. The company countered that the PRC already had a "blacklist" against some U.S. firms, the embassy's contact was highly inappropriate, and the senior diplomat should direct the PRC's messages instead to the State Department. The firm informed State of the harassment of U.S. executives.
The impact on mil-to-mil meetings was mixed, since there were tentative major mutual visits in discussion but they were not scheduled and then canceled by the PLA. As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen said at a press conference on February 22, he was not aware of any mil-to-mil activities that had been ongoing and then called off. The PRC allowed a port visit (by the USS Nimitz ) in Hong Kong in February. In the spring, there were minor meetings at which the PLA declined to participate (such as a conference at the Naval War College) or host (such as visits by the students of the National War College and CAPSTONE class for flag/general officers). Yet, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for POW/MIA Personnel Affairs Bob Newberry visited Beijing in April to discuss with PLA officials accounting for missing personnel. In May, PACOM Commander Admiral Robert Willard and Assistant Secretary of Defense Wallace Gregson visited Beijing for the Strategic and Economic Dialogue and met with PLA Deputy Chief of General Staff Ma Xiaotian (Air Force General) and Rear Admiral Guan Youfei who blasted the U.S. side for numerous faults. In June, when Secretary Gates traveled to Singapore for the "Shangri-la Dialogue" of defense ministers, the PLA sent a lower-level official (Ma) to the meeting and declined to host Gates for a visit. Still, while the PLA and others pointed to U.S. arms sales as the reason for the PLA's snub, another factor could have been the timing of a visit, right after South Korea announced on May 20 the finding that North Korea sank the South Korean naval ship Cheonan on March 26. The PRC continued to support North Korea and could have found it useful also to blame U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. Defense Minister Liang Guanglie later attributed timing difficulties in not hosting Gates in June. Also in June, a PLA attaché with the rank of Senior Colonel based in Washington spoke officially and in uniform at the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) in Virginia. Finally, if the PLA believed that U.S. arms sales to Taiwan actually countered PRC interests, the PLA or the broader PRC authorities have not retaliated against Taiwan for requesting or buying defense items. PRC threats or steps have been directed against the United States but not Taiwan.
Meanwhile, the Obama Administration resurrected an approach from the Clinton Administration, as discussed above, whereby the mil-to-mil relationship involved PRC/CPC officials on Taiwan. In September 2010, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Michael Schiffer visited Beijing to discuss military exchanges but also included a meeting at the Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO). At the same time, the PLA expressed the desire to resume all military-to-military exchanges.
After President Obama notified Congress of major arms sales to Taiwan on September 21, 2011, the PLA postponed the visits of the PACOM Commander (Admiral Robert Willard) and U.S. Army Band (to reciprocate for the PLA band's visit); a combined anti-piracy naval drill in the Gulf of Aden; and a combined medical rescue exercise with the PLA's naval hospital ship. That PLAN ship, named "Peace Ark," conducted an emergency medical drill in the Pacific Ocean on September 22, as it sailed to visit Latin American countries. Nonetheless, by December 2011, the PLA hosted in Beijing the 12 th round of the Defense Consultative Talks (DCT).
section_title: Weapons Nonproliferation113
paragraphs: Despite long-term engagement with the PLA to seek cooperation in weapons nonproliferation, the United States continues to have concerns about and has imposed sanctions on PRC entities. China has close relationships with Pakistan, Iran, and the DPRK. China did not join in the U.S.-led Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) announced in May 2003 (to interdict dangerous shipments).
There are concerns that China expanded nuclear cooperation with Pakistan, supported the DPRK, and could undermine sanctions against Iran (including in the oil/gas energy sector). In 2002-2008, the U.S. approach relied on China's influence on North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons. Beijing hosted the "Six-Party Talks" (last held in December 2008) with limited results. Since 2006, China's balanced approach has evolved to vote for some U.N. Security Council (UNSC) sanctions against missile or nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran. Some called for engaging more with Beijing to use its leverage against Pyongyang and Tehran. However, North Korea's nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, and 2013 have prompted greater debate about how to change China's calculus and the value of its role. Moreover, on December 11, 2012, North Korea conducted its first apparently successful test of the three-stage Taepo Dong-2 long-range missile, whose first stage fell into the Yellow Sea and second stage fell into the Philippine Sea and which launched an object into orbit. China agreed to sanctions in a balanced, incremental way, and questions remain about its implementation of agreed sanctions. China's approach has not shown fundamental changes toward Iran and North Korea. In a phone call in April 2013 with Defense Minister Chang Wanquan, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel sought cooperation on North Korea's "growing threat" to the United States and our allies. In August, a member of the visiting PRC Defense Minister's delegation and the PLA's Director of Foreign Affairs, Rear Admiral Guan Youfei, spoke to selected reporters and called for the U.S. side to be "flexible" toward North Korea and spoke against sanctions to deal with its nuclear weapons program. At the DCT the next month, however, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy James Miller called on the PRC to maintain and increase pressure on North Korea to achieve denuclearization. 
There is a challenge in engaging the PLA in comprehensive U.S. and international efforts to deal with the threat posed by North Korea's nuclear and missile programs. China hosted the first round of Six-Party Talks in August 2003 that also included Japan, South Korea, and Russia. The following month, PLA units replaced paramilitary People's Armed Police (PAP) units along China's border with North Korea, apparently to signal to Pyongyang the seriousness of the tensions and warn against provocative actions. China has stated a goal of a nuclear-free Korean peninsula and demonstrated its displeasure with North Korea after its missile and nuclear tests in 2006, including when CMC Vice Chairman Guo Boxiong visited Washington in 2006. However, China has shifted from pressuring North Korea with the military relationship to buttressing the DPRK regime's security and survival for stability. A related issue has arisen about how to discuss the PRC's military relationship with the DPRK, including any PLA contingency planning in the event of a crisis or collapse of the DPRK regime. Another issue concerns the challenge in talking with the PLA about contingencies that also could involve the U.S. and allied militaries. Other key questions concern the PLA's knowledge of the DPRK's missile and nuclear programs, plans to secure weapons and nuclear material, willingness to share intelligence with the United States and U.S. allies, and aim to exert control that could complicate U.S. and Republic of Korea (ROK) operations. The PLA has seen the DPRK as a "buffer," keeping U.S. and ROK forces below the 38 th parallel. China supported the DPRK even after it attacked South Korea's naval ship and island in 2010. PLA General Ma Xiaotian, in July 2010, expressed "opposition" to even U.S.-ROK exercises in the Yellow Sea, in deterrence of the DPRK's belligerent threats. 
Involving potential cooperation in nuclear nonproliferation, nuclear security, and counter-terrorism, the Departments of Energy and Defense agreed to establish a Center of Excellence on Nuclear Security in China during the visit of PRC leader Hu Jintao in January 2011. The PRC agency in implementing the agreement is the China Atomic Energy Authority (CAEA). One issue concerns compliance with restrictions in the FY2000 NDAA.
section_title: Strategic Nuclear, Missile, Space, and Cyber Talks
paragraphs: As for a strategic nuclear dialogue, the Clinton Administration had included nuclear forces as a priority area for expanded military discussions, including during the visits to China in 1998 of Secretary of Defense Cohen and President Clinton. In his visit to China in 1998, President Clinton announced a bilateral "agreement" not to target strategic nuclear weapons against each other. However, the short statement was symbolic and lacked implementation.
Since then, concerns have increased about China's modernizing strategic nuclear force and its "No First Use" policy, including whether it is subject to debate or change. The Defense Department's 2011 report to Congress on the PLA noted that "some PLA officers have written publicly of the need to spell out conditions under which China might need to use nuclear weapons first; for example, if an enemy's conventional attack threatened the survival of China's nuclear force, or of the regime itself. However, there has been no indication that national leaders are willing to attach such nuances and caveats to China's 'no first use' doctrine."
Moreover, there has been a challenge to engage with the Second Artillery. The PLA apparently views the Second Artillery as an operational unit with no role in discussions about nuclear policy and that China's nuclear deterrence rests partly on uncertainty. The PLA also has concerns about U.S. missile defense. Still, when Secretary Rumsfeld visited China in October 2005, the PLA accorded him the honor of being the first foreigner to visit the Second Artillery's headquarters. Its commander, General Jing Zhiyuan, assured Rumsfeld that China would not be the first to use nuclear weapons. General Jing later hosted the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Ike Skelton, at the Second Artillery's headquarters in August 2007.
The Bush Administration invited General Jing to visit the Strategic Command (STRATCOM), as discussed during a summit between Presidents Bush and Hu Jintao in Washington in April 2006. Two months later, Assistant Secretary of Defense Peter Rodman visited Beijing for the DCT and discussed the invitation to the 2 nd Artillery Commander. In October 2006, STRATCOM Commander General James Cartwright (USMC), expressed interest in engaging with the PLA on space issues, including how the two sides could avoid and handle collisions or interference between satellites, and perceptions of attacks on satellites. However, General Jing declined to schedule a visit. On January 11, 2007, the PLA conducted its first successful direct ascent anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons test by launching a missile with a kinetic kill vehicle to destroy a PRC satellite. On June 13, 2007, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Richard Lawless testified to the House Armed Services Committee that the PLA would not set a date to hold a dialogue on nuclear policy, strategy, and doctrine. Lawless said that PLA strategic forces have improved the capability to target the U.S. mainland. The PLA's refusal raised questions about China's intentions and Hu Jintao's control over the PLA.
Still, the PRC reportedly has pursued ASAT programs for many years. The House's "Cox Committee" reported in 1999 that the PRC was believed to be developing space-based and ground-based ASAT laser weapons. The Departments of Defense and State reported in 2012 that China has improved its ability to track and identify satellites, a prerequisite for counter-space operations. The report told Congress that "the Departments are aware that some countries are pursuing advanced missile and space-related technologies for use against U.S. national interests. ... For example, China implements active and effective technology acquisition techniques that target U.S. space-related technologies and, therefore, warrants special scrutiny." (After the ASAT test in 2007, in January 2010 and January 2013 the PLA carried out land-based mid-course missile interception tests. In May 2013, the PRC conducted another suspected ASAT test, using a missile that reached over 6,200 miles above Earth. The PLA announced a land-based "missile defense" test on July 23, 2014. That test was "indeed an ASAT test," Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Arms Control, Verification, and Compliance Frank Rose said in September. He warned that, "ASAT weapons directly threaten satellites and the strategic and tactical information those satellites provide, and their use could be escalatory in a crisis or conflict.")
The PLA took more modest steps in December 2007, when the PLA delegation to the 9 th DCT included 2 nd Artillery Deputy Chief of Staff Yang Zhiguo. In April 2008, the PLA and the Defense Department held talks on nuclear strategy at the "experts" level, indirectly involving the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). The DTRA-sponsored Track 1.5 talks have continued. The PLA proposed to change the Pentagon-PLA defense policy talks into a "Strategic Dialogue," that would include nuclear policy. In early 2009, the National Security Council's Senior Director for Asia, Dennis Wilder, said that the PLA was intentionally being mysterious to have an advantage and expressed concerns about miscalculation and doubts China would engage in arms control. 
At a summit in Beijing in November 2009, President Obama repeated what President Clinton said about non-targeting of nuclear arms. In the first U.S.-PRC "Joint Statement" since 1997, President Obama and Hu Jintao reaffirmed the U.S-PRC "commitment" of June 27, 1998, "not to target at each other the strategic nuclear weapons under their respective control." The two countries also claimed "common interests" in promoting the peaceful use of outer space. 
While in India in January 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the United States sought to start a routine, in-depth dialogue with the PRC on strategic intentions and plans, in order to avoid miscalculations or misunderstandings and safeguard global stability. In April, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell also lamented that lagging behind a number of dialogues with the PRC has been the military dialogue, and lagging further beyond overall military talks has been a nuclear dialogue. The next month, Campbell said that the U.S. side proposed that Defense Department officials going to the S&ED in Beijing brief the PLA on the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) (of February and April 2010). However, the PLA did not accept such DOD briefings on the agenda of the S&ED. The NPR called for a dialogue with China on " strategic stability " as a mechanism for each side to communicate its views about the other's strategies, policies, and programs on nuclear weapons and other strategic capabilities, thereby enhancing confidence, improving transparency, and reducing mistrust. A model for U.S.-PLA discussion could be the PRC-Russian agreement of 2009, on mutual notifications of missile and space launches. As of the end of 2014, the United States still called on China to initiate a dialogue on "strategic stability" for a "more stable, resilient, and transparent security relationship with China," according to Frank Rose.
The Defense Secretary reported to Congress in August 2010 that after the first round of talks on nuclear policy and strategy in April 2008, the PLA has not agreed to further talks. Secretary Gates raised this concern with CMC Vice Chairman General Xu Caihou, when he visited in October 2009. General Chilton hosted General Xu for a brief visit at STRATCOM. Further, the report named as a priority a strategic dialogue in nuclear, space, and cybersecurity.
During his visit in early 2011, Secretary Gates again proposed a strategic dialogue and invited General Jing to visit. The PLA agreed to "study" the proposal. However, even before Gates met with Jing, the PLA issued a press statement to "sum up" Gates' visit. The U.S.-PRC Joint Statement of January 19, 2011, issued at Hu Jintao's state visit did not note a "strategic dialogue" or a PLA visit to STRATCOM. Indeed, on April 27, the PLA's spokesman failed to acknowledge even consideration of a strategic dialogue or a visit by General Jing. Also, the PLA Navy developed the JIN-class submarines for its first nuclear deterrence patrol expected in 2014.
At the 3 rd S&ED on May 9-10, 2011, the Defense and State Departments started the first Strategic Security Dialogue (SSD) that brought together the PLA and the Foreign Ministry. The Defense Department contended that this SSD stemmed from Gates' proposal for strategic talks. The SSD discussed cyber and maritime disputes. The U.S. side faced a challenge in continuing the SSD without the annual S&ED (until an "interim" SSD in early 2014). The Defense Secretary's 2011 report on the PLA told Congress that the PLA's writings have covered cyber warfare. 
Since the first SSD, the Defense Department issued, in July 2011, the first Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace. In the fall of 2011, the National Counterintelligence Executive (NCIX) submitted the first unclassified report to Congress since 2008 on economic espionage and the first to focus on cyber espionage. The NCIX reported that China's actors are the world's most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage and that there has been an onslaught of computer network intrusions that originated in China, though that report claimed an inability to confirm the attackers. However, a private research organization reported on the PLA's suspected cyber organizations. A later news report stressed that the National Security Agency (NSA) indeed has tracked cyber threats to groups connected to the PLA and that such attacks have targeted U.S. defense programs. A former Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Secretary of Homeland Security, and Deputy Secretary of Defense wrote that the PRC has a national policy of economic espionage in cyberspace. The PACOM Commander, Admiral Robert Willard, testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 28, 2012, that China's active development of cyber and space capabilities fell within its military modernization. In May, visiting Defense Minister Liang Guanglie denied that cyber intrusions originate from China but offered to talk about cybersecurity. U.S. officials cited cyber activities that appeared to originate in China. 
Members of Congress have raised concerns about China's use of cyber espionage to advance the PLA's power as well as the economy's growth. In May 2012, the Defense Department's annual report on the PLA reported to Congress that PRC telecommunications companies, such as Huawei, Datang, and Zhongxing (ZTE), have ties to the PRC government and PLA entities. Moreover, on October 8, after an investigation and hearing, the House Intelligence Committee warned of risks to U.S. national security from using Huawei or ZTE products. The next day, the State Department's spokesperson confirmed that concerns were raised at the SSD about cyber threats. Days later, Defense Secretary Panetta warned in a speech about a "cyber Pearl Harbor." He said he raised concerns when he was in Beijing in September about communication and transparency to avoid miscalculation or misunderstanding about advanced cyber capabilities. 
On February 18, 2013, a private firm, Mandiant, issued a report that pointed to cyber threats from the PLA's Unit 61398 in Shanghai (the 2 nd Bureau of the 3 rd Department of the GSD). The next day, the State Department's spokesperson confirmed that the Administration raised at the highest level the substantial and growing concerns about China's cyber threats to U.S. economic and security interests that involved the PLA. At the same time, the Administration reportedly and quietly provided Internet service providers the suspected Internet Protocol addresses linked to the PLA unit to protect U.S. networks from malicious cyber activity. However, at the end of February, the PLA's spokesperson criticized Mandiant's report as unprofessional and not factual, insisted that PRC law prohibits cyber "attacks," denied that the PLA supported hacking, and called China a victim of cyber "attacks." Still, the PLA's spokesperson did not deny the alleged activities of Unit 61398, saying that he could not reveal the secret missions of specific units. 
The Administration has shifted to raise concerns about cyber threats with the PRC publicly and at a higher level, including threats against national networks and critical infrastructure. National Security Advisor Tom Donilon said in a speech on March 11 that concerns about cyber threats, not ordinary cyber crime or hacking, moved to the forefront of the agenda with China (up to the level of the President). The next day, DNI James Clapper presented an assessment of worldwide threats to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, stressing cyber threats before other global threats to the United States and calling China and Russia "advanced cyber actors." In a phone call with top PRC leader Xi Jinping on March 14, President Obama raised cyber threats as a "shared challenge." In May, the Secretary of Defense's annual report on the PLA told Congress that there were some cyber intrusions in 2012 against U.S. government computer systems that were attributable directly to the PRC government and PLA. The report also noted the PLA's use of cyberwarfare. At the Shangri-la Dialogue in June, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel expressed U.S. concerns about the growing threat of cyber intrusions, including from the PLA. However, some skeptics, such as former Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, warned that diplomacy would not end China's cyber threats. Others argued that China's sense of its own vulnerabilities in nuclear, space, and cyber domains could result in mutual restraint. 
The PRC shifted slightly in public from outright denials, counter-accusations, conflating various cyber activities, rejection of laws of warfare in cyberspace, promotion of sovereign control over cyberspace, and expressions of victimization to a stance of some willingness to talk about cooperation in cybersecurity. In April 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry announced in Beijing that the PRC agreed to a new Working Group on Cybersecurity . In his visit to Beijing, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dempsey, urged collaboration and transparency since both countries have strong economies, rely on technology, and share cyber vulnerabilities. At the summit with Xi at Sunnylands Retreat, CA, on June 8, President Obama asserted that they both recognize the need for international rules and common approaches to cybersecurity in the bilateral relationship, and Xi said that cybersecurity could be a positive area of cooperation.
However, the next day, complications arose with Edward Snowden's revelations of his presence in Hong Kong and allegations of NSA surveillance of computer systems, including in Hong Kong and China. In an interview on PBS on June 17, President Obama distinguished between common intelligence collection by many governments versus the PRC government's or the PLA's cyber-enabled theft against U.S. companies. On June 23, Hong Kong allowed Snowden to fly to Moscow. Moreover, China used Snowden's case to protest to the United States about conflated "cyber attacks," despite the PRC's suspected surveillance against its own citizens (especially resulting in reported monitoring of Tibetans and imprisonment of Uighurs for their allegedly illegal Internet activities). The next day, the White House warned that the deliberate decision to release the U.S. fugitive presented a negative impact on the U.S.-China relationship.
Still, in July 2013, both sides held another S&ED, and U.S. and PRC civilian and military officials held the first meeting of the Cyber Working Group under the SSD on July 8, with U.S. goals of reducing the risks of miscalculation, misinterpretation, and escalation. Both sides agreed to talk more about international cyber norms and principles. President Obama reiterated U.S. concerns about cyber-enabled theft of trade secrets to Vice Premier Wang Yang and State Councilor Yang Jiechi. President Obama also expressed disappointment and concern with how the PRC handled Snowden's case. Defense Secretary Hagel stressed to Yang the need to cooperate in cyberspace, but PRC official media did not mention any remarks on cyber security by Yang to Hagel. The Cyber Working Group held a second meeting on December 3, 2013, in Beijing. 
Even after those meetings and before the Justice Department's indictments against PLA hackers, the PLA spokesman, on March 27, 2014, charged U.S. "hypocrisy" with no mention of cooperation. By early 2014, the Defense Department, reportedly worried about potential escalations in cyberattacks and counter attacks, briefed the PLA for the first time on the U.S. doctrine for cyber capabilities, but the PLA did not reciprocate with its briefing. In Beijing in April, Defense Secretary Hagel said the U.S. side has been more open about cyber capabilities, including an "approach of restraint," and has urged China to brief in return. On May 19, Attorney General Eric Holder announced indictments against five hackers of the PLA's Unit 61398 for economic espionage through cyber theft to steal trade secrets of U.S. companies for commercial advantage from 2006 to 2014. Thus, the PLA's cyber theft continued despite the Working Group. The PRC suspended the Cyber Working Group after the indictments. On June 9, a cybersecurity company, CrowdStrike, reported that another group of hackers has worked in the PLA's Unit 61486 (12 th Bureau of the 3 rd Department of the GSD) in Shanghai. The Senate Armed Services Committee, in September 2014, reported on its investigation, which found that cyber hackers working for the PRC government successfully intruded into the computer systems of contractors for the Transportation Command (TRANSCOM).
section_title: Counterterrorism
paragraphs: The PRC's cooperation in counterterrorism after the attacks on September 11, 2001, has not included military cooperation with the U.S. military. The U.S. Commanders of the Central and Pacific Commands, General Tommy Franks and Admiral Dennis Blair, separately confirmed in April 2002 that the PLA did not provide cooperation (nor was it requested) in Operation Enduring Freedom against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan (e.g., basing, staging, or overflight) and that China's shared intelligence was not specific enough. Also, the Pentagon issued a report in June 2002 on the international coalition fighting terrorism and did not include China among the countries providing military contributions. China has provided diplomatic support, cited by the State Department. U.S.-PRC counterterrorism cooperation has been limited, while U.S. concerns have increased about the PRC's increased influence in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and its call for U.S. withdrawals from Central Asia, and about PRC-origin small arms and anti-aircraft missiles found in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Some have urged caution in military cooperation with China on this front, while others see benefits for the U.S. relationship with China and the war on terrorism. Senator Bob Smith and Representative Dana Rohrabacher wrote Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in late 2001, to express concerns about renewed military contacts with China. In part, they argued that "China is not a good prospect for counterterrorism cooperation," because of concerns that China has practiced internal repression in the name of counterterrorism and has supplied technology to rogue regimes and state sponsors of terrorism. In contrast, a report by Rand in 2004 urged a program of security management with China that includes counterterrorism as one of three components.
As preparations intensified for the summer Olympic Games in Beijing in 2008, a policy issue concerned the extent to which the United States, including the U.S. military, should support security at the games to protect U.S. citizens and should cooperate with the PLA and the paramilitary PAP. With concerns about internal repression by the PRC regime in the Tiananmen Crackdown of June 1989 and after, U.S. sanctions (in §902 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FY1990-FY1991, P.L. 101-246 ) have denied the export to China of defense articles/services, including helicopters, as well as crime control equipment. Presidential waivers are authorized. A precedent was set in 2004, when various U.S. departments, including the Department of Defense, provided security assistance for the Olympic Games in Athens, Greece, in 2004. On June 22, 2006, at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, Brigadier General John Allen, the Principal Director for Asian and Pacific Affairs at the Office of the Secretary of Defense, testified that the Pentagon started discussions with China regarding security cooperation for the 2008 Olympics. However, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Richard Lawless testified to the House Armed Services Committee on June 13, 2007, that China did not accept offers from the Defense Department to assist in Olympic security.
In February 2009, U.S. policy makers proposed a non-lethal supply route from China to Afghanistan, partly due to worry about the vulnerable route through Pakistan. The proposal did not see progress, but seemed less urgent after Kyrgyzstan in June reversed its threat in February to evict U.S. forces from Manas air base. Speaking at the annual Shangri-la Dialogue in Singapore in May 2009, Defense Secretary Gates said that he would welcome China's help in Afghanistan, including for security assistance of civilian efforts there. 
Any military cooperation with China would involve stark differences about human rights. The United States takes into account the role of the PRC's Armed Forces, including the paramilitary PAP, in internal security (including against Tibetan and Uighur peoples in the western regions). After an earthquake in Port-Au-Prince, Haiti, in January 2010, the Army's 82 nd Airborne had soldiers conduct the first U.S. combined patrol with U.N. peacekeepers there. However, the U.N. unit was a PAP unit deployed in police uniforms of the Ministry of Public Security (MPS).
In September 2014, as President Obama led an international coalition to fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria ( ISIS ), or Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant ( ISIL ), National Security Advisor Susan Rice visited Beijing for talks that included whether China would join the coalition. PRC officials did not respond with "no." However, PRC top leader Xi Jinping spoke at a SCO summit on September 12, two days after President Obama's speech on the fight, but Xi did not mention the threat. Meanwhile, the PLAN sent ships in the first port call in Iran and held a naval exercise. Moreover, the State Department did not include China among countries in the coalition. Further, in defiance of U.S. and other foreign calls for the release of Uighur professor Ilham Tohti, the PRC sentenced him to life in prison for "separatism" on September 23. 
section_title: Accounting for POW/MIAs
paragraphs: For humanitarian reasons or to advance the broader U.S.-PRC relationship, the PLA has been helpful in U.S. efforts to resolve POW/MIA cases from World War II, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War. In February 2001, the Defense Department characterized PRC assistance to the United States in recovering remains from World War II as "generous," citing the missions in 1994 in Tibet and in 1997-1999 in Maoer Mountain in southern China.
However, for 16 years—even as the survivors of those lost in the Korean War were aging and dying—the United States faced a challenge in securing the PLA's cooperation in U.S. accounting for POW/MIAs from the Korean War. Despite visits by the Director of the Defense POW/MIA Office (DPMO) and other military officials to China and improved bilateral relations, the United States was not able to announce progress in obtaining cooperation from the PLA until 2008.
In April 1992, a military official in Eastern Europe supplied a report to then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, alleging that "several dozen" American military personnel captured in the Korean War (1950-1953) were sent to a camp in the Northeastern city of Harbin in China where they were used in psychological and medical experiments before being executed or dying in captivity. In May 1992, the State Department raised the issue of POW/MIAs with the PRC, saying it was a "matter of the highest national priority," and in June 1992, the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs received information from the Russian government indicating that over 100 American POWs captured in the Korean War were interrogated by the Soviet Union and possibly sent to China. The United States also presented to the PRC a list of 125 American military personnel still unaccounted for since the Korean War, who were believed to have been interrogated in the Soviet Union and then sent to China. China responded to the United States that it did not receive anyone on that list from the former Soviet Union. But that response apparently did not address whether China received American military personnel from North Korea or China itself transferred them.
Upon returning from North Korea and Southeast Asia in December 1992, Senator Robert Smith, Vice Chairman of the Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, disclosed that officials in Pyongyang admitted that "hundreds" of American POWs captured in the Korean War were sent to China and did not return to North Korea. According to Smith, North Korean officials said that China's PLA operated POW camps in North Korea during the Korean War and the Cold War and detained Americans in China's northeastern region. Moreover, North Korean officials told Smith that some American POWs could have been sent to the Soviet Union for further interrogations. Smith advocated that the U.S. government press the PRC government for information on POWs rather than accept the PRC's denials that it had POWs or information about them, saying "this is where the answers lie." (The Senate created the Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs in August 1991, chaired by Senator John Kerry. It concluded in December 1992, after gaining "important new information" from North Korea on China's involvement with U.S. POWs.)
Secretary of Defense Cohen visited China in 1998 and stressed cooperation on POW/MIA cases one of four priorities in exchanges with the PLA. After visiting China in January 1999 to seek the PLA's cooperation in opening its secret archives on the Korean War, the Director of DPMO, Robert Jones, said that "we believe that Chinese records of the war may hold the key to resolving the fates of many of our missing servicemen from the Korean War." DPMO's spokesman, Larry Greer, reported that the PRC agreed to look into the U.S. request to access the archives.
In March 2003, DPMO Director Jerry Jennings visited China and said that PRC records likely hold "the key" to resolving some POW/MIA cases from the Korean War. Just days after the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers, visited Beijing in January 2004, PRC media reported on January 19, 2004, that the government declassified the first batch of over 10,000 files in its archives on the PRC's foreign relations from 1949 to 1955. However, this step apparently excluded wartime records, and General Myers did not announce cooperation by China in providing information in its archives related to American POW/MIAs from the Korean War. The PRC later announced in July 2004 the declassification of a second batch of similar files. In February 2005, DPMO acknowledged that PRC cooperation on Korean War cases remained the "greatest challenge."
Visiting Beijing with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in October 2005, Pentagon officials again raised the issue of access to China's Korean War archives believed to hold documents on American POWs. In July 2006, General Guo Boxiong (the top PLA officer) visited the United States and agreed to open PLA archives on the Korean War. However, in his June 2007 report to Congress on military contacts, Secretary Gates reported that the PLA's help "yielded mixed results." PLA cooperation with DPMO was "limited" in 2006, despite General Guo's promise.
There was some progress in February 2008, when China finally agreed to allow access to the PLA archives on the Korean War. However, the PLA did not grant direct U.S. access to the records, as asked by the Defense Department. The DPMO would have to request searches done by PRC researchers at the archives, and the PLA would control and turn over deemed acceptable records. The two sides also had to negotiate the frequency, amount, and expenses of the PLA's searches. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for POW/MIA Affairs Charles Ray signed an initial Memorandum in Shanghai on February 29, 2008, which was followed by a detailed memorandum on April 24, 2008. Despite the PRC's refusal to cooperate for many years, a PRC Foreign Ministry spokesman claimed China agreed out of "humanitarianism." The United States also has had a challenge in seeking information on POW camps run by the PLA in North Korea.
DPMO agreed to pay the PLA for its research in the amount of $75,000 semi-annually, at no more than $150,000 each fiscal year. Under the agreed arrangement, the two sides have held annual meetings in the United States and the PRC, and the PLA has provided progress reports and annual reports. On July 10, 2008, the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel held a hearing on POWs and MIAs, with discussion of POW/MIAs taken to China during the Korean War, including Sergeant Richard Desautels who was buried in China in 1953. In mid-2009, the PLA finally provided to the DOD initial information, but that report consisted of 25 pages of summaries of supposedly classified documents on U.S. POW/MIAs from the Korean War (and not the documents), after the United States paid the PLA $150,000. Still, DPMO has gotten some progress from the PLA in its willingness over cooperation since 2008. During CMC Vice Chairman General Xu Caihou's visit in October 2009, he provided information to Defense Secretary Gates about a site in Guangdong province where a U.S. aircraft crashed, part of new insights for the Defense Department which had thought the plane crashed into the sea. The PLA also provided new information on five cases of aircraft that crashed in China and North Korea. The PLA Archives Department provided its second annual report in 2010, but there was a gap of five months (April-September 2009) between the first and second reports. The DPMO has continued to rely on the PLA's reporting of its archival research, with a third written report submitted to the U.S. side in September 2011, again for $150,000, but with no meeting. The Memorandum signed in April 2008 expired in April 2011 and required a revised agreement. The DPMO signed a new technical arrangement on May 17, 2012, for a period until May 16, 2015. The arrangement agreed to the same amount of $150,000 per year and expanded coverage of the PLA's archival research to include World War II, Cold War, and Vietnam War. The DPMO still would not have direct access to the archive. The PLA submitted the fourth and fifth reports. The fifth report, transferred in April 2014, discussed the PLA's own investigations at the sites of two cases of the Korean War (that involved the crashes of U.S. RB-29 and F-86 aircraft).
subsections: section_title: Appendix. Major Military Contacts and Incidents Since 1993
paragraphs: The scope of this record of mil-to-mil contacts focuses on senior-level visits, strategic talks, functional exchanges, agreements, commissions, and training or exercises. This compiled record does not provide a detailed list of all mil-to-mil contacts (that also include confidence building measures (CBMs), educational exchanges that include visits by faculty or students to and from U.S. military colleges (such as the Air War College), the Capstone educational program for new U.S. general/flag officers, the numerous port visits in Hong Kong that continued after its hand-over from British to PRC control in July 1997, disaster relief, and multilateral meetings). There is no security assistance, as U.S. sanctions against arms sales have remained since 1989. Sources include many official statements, reports to Congress, documents, news stories, consultations, and observations. Specific dates are provided to the extent available, while there are instances in which just the month is reported. Text boxes summarize major bilateral tensions in crises or confrontations as a context for the alternating periods of enthusiastic and skeptical contacts.