As of May 2003，China was still sellingmissile components and technology toIran.The United States responded by placing economic sanctions on China North IndustriesCorporation （NORINCO ），one of China‘s largest arms manufacturers，which directlyhalted over $100million in Chinese exports to the United States.55 On July 3，2003，the Bush Administration im-posed economic sanctions onfive other Chinese firms for assisting Iran‘s weapons programs.As the New YorkTimes noted ，法语论文题目，"it did so even as American officials were meeting with a seniorChinese diplomat，trying to coax Beijing into forcing North Korea to dismantleits nuclear program."56 Again ，on July 30，the State Department an-nounced further sanctions onChinese firms for aiding Iraq‘s nuclear weapons program.The State Department spokesmanexplained ，"we think it‘s the responsibility of the Chinese Government to imposethe kind of controls and regulations to ensure that it stops this kind of activitythat it‘s proliferating."57 News reports said that the State Department had levied additional sanctionson Chinese firms as of September 18.58The CIA‘s most recent public assessment ofChina‘s proliferation behavior says that "Chinese entities remain key suppliersof WMD and missile-related technologies to countries of concern"and adds that theevidence "during the current reporting period continues to show that Chinese firmsstill provide dual-use CW [chemical weapons]-related production equipment and technologyto Iran."59 Beijing‘s support for North Korea also apparently includes nuclear weapons assistance.In October 2002，the New York Times ，Washington Post，Washington Times ，andWall Street Journal published separate articles alleging that China was ，directlyor indirectly ，complicit in the transfer of Pakistani uranium-enrichment technologyto North Korea.60 In fact ，China has been North Korea‘s nuclear enabler for over a decade.Eveninto 2003，Beijing has continued to supply North Korean laboratories with chemicalsneeded to separate plutonium from spent fuel.61The Chinese government also continuesto permit North Korean aircraft to overfly Chinese airspace to deliver dangerousmissile ，nuclear，and chemical contraband to Iran and elsewhere.62 Myth #5：Maritime tensions are easing. For the past half-century ，American naval vessels and surveillance aircraft，in innocent passage ，have patrolled international waters and airspace in the WesternPacific.In recent years，Chinese forces have harassed these U.S.craft.In late1994，the USS Kitty Hawk carrier battle group twice encountered Chinese submarines，and subsequently fighter aircraft ，in international waters in the Yellow Sea，but China resisted U.S.requests to develop rules of engagement or an "incidentat sea"agreement until late 1997after the first Jiang-Clinton summit.63 Yet ，when a U.S.-China Military Maritime Consultative Agreement （MMCA）wasfinalized in 1998，the Chinese continued to ignore it. In April 2001，a Chinese warplane struck an American reconnaissance aircraftflying in international airspace，and China refused all American attempts to opena channel of com-munication as called for in the MMCA.In the summer of 2001，andagain in late 2002，Chinese ships and aircraft harassed the USNS Bowditch and theUSNS Sumner ，two American naval oceanographic ships ，法语毕业论文，in international waters.64Well into 2003，Chinese fighter jets continued to harass American reconnaissanceaircraft，in at least one case coming within 90meters.65In June 2003，Chinesejets shadowed a Japanese antisubmarine warfare plane over international waters.66This behavior undoubtedly reflects a new Chinese policy of assertiveness in theinternational waters of the Western Pacific.In February，Xinhua news agency reportedthat China would "expand its maritime surveillance and control rights from 50nauticalmiles （nm）to 100nm by the year 2010and further expand its jurisdiction to theentire 200nm Exclusive Economic Zone by the year 2020."67It is clear that ，despiteits accession to the United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea（UNCLOS），Chinaconsiders the 200nm exclusive economic zone（EEZ ），rather than waters within12nm of shore，as "territorial seas."68 With the passage of China‘s first national "administrative regulation on uninhabitedislands"on July 1，2003，China served notice that it intended to be more aggressivein asserting its claims to landforms and reefs in the South China Sea.The headquartersof the General Staff of the People‘s Liberation Army announced the regulations onJune 17，along with the warning that "China‘s island administration had ，fora long time ，been relatively weak ，and disorderly exploitation of uninhabitedislands"had "posed a threat to national defense and military security."In otherwords ，the fact that China had not asserted its claims in the past should notbe taken as precedent.69 Even earlier，in January 2003，American press reports said that China hadadopted new statutes prohibiting foreign military "survey and mapping"operationsin the EEZ.In response ，an American official was quoted as saying，"we havecontinued to maintain over the years that our military surveys are a high-seas freedomand are not subject to restrictions placed within any EEZ."70Although the U.S.has not ratified the 1982UNCLOS，it does consider military and non-commercialstate-owned ships immune from foreign jurisdiction（as per UNCLOS ，Articles 58and 59）and considers all surveillance and survey activities for non-commercialpurposes to be legitimate outside foreign territorial waters；i.e.，beyond the12nm limit.71 |
