Press Release

RSS Feed

Forbes Again Questions DoD on National Security Implications of GE-AVIC Deal

f t # e
Washington, D.C., Nov 18, 2011 | Joe Hack ((202) 225-6365) | comments

Congressman J. Randy Forbes (VA-04), Chairman of the House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee, announced today that he has received a timely, yet incomplete response from Undersecretary of Defense Michele Flournoy to his recent letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta regarding the proposed joint venture between General Electric (GE) and state-owned China Aviation Industry Corporation (AVIC). 

Flournoy's letter does not directly address Forbes' concerns that the transfer of advanced avionics technology initially developed for U.S. military applications by GE poses a risk to U.S. security as a result of inadequate due diligence by the federal government.  A copy of Undersecretary Flournoy's letter is available here.

In response, Congressman Forbes has again written Secretary Panetta calling for the Department of Defense to ensure that the technologies developed under Department of Defense contracts for military purposes are not later diverted in any form or purported civilian iteration to strategic competitors such as China.  Moreover, Forbes requested Secretary Panetta to review the GE-AVIC joint venture in light of the CLASSIFIED October 7, 2011 Defense Intelligence Digest entitled “Civilian Aircraft Industry Likely to Transfer Foreign Technology to Military”  as well as the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) 2011 Annual Report, which notes that "[c]ontinued improvements in China’s civil aviation capabilities, enhance Chinese military aviation capabilities because of the close integration of China’s commercial and military aviation sectors."

"Numerous government sources indicate that there is little question that commercial ventures with state-owned Chinese companies like AVIC result in the flow of advanced technology to the Chinese military.  It is incumbent upon the Department of Defense to examine the national security risks inherent in such transfers prior to their occurrence and it is my hope that Secretary Panetta will use every resource and authority at his disposal to maintain the U.S. military's technological edge," said Forbes.

Congressman Forbes' concerns were also recently echoed by Congressman Frank Wolf (VA-10), who wrote Secretary Panetta making similar inquiries.  A copy of Congressman Wolf's letter is available here.

A copy of Congressman Forbes' most recent letter to Secretary Panetta is available here, and the text of the letter is below.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

November 18, 2011

The Honorable Leon Panetta
Secretary of Defense
1300 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1300

Dear Secretary Panetta,

Thank you for your Department’s response to my recent letter regarding my concerns about the proposed joint venture between General Electric (GE) and China Aviation Industry Corporation (AVIC) and your continued attention to maintaining the technological superiority of the United States military. 

I firmly believe it is your responsibility, as Secretary of Defense, to ensure that the technologies developed under Department of Defense contracts for military purposes are not diverted in any form to strategic competitors such as China and I look forward to working with you to protect United States’ interests in this regard.

I understand that neither GE nor the Department of Commerce have asserted the necessity for an export control license for the joint venture between GE and AVIC and  that the Department of Defense may not have independent authority to pose a binding objection or block the transaction.  However, this does not abrogate the Department of Defense from advising Congress, U.S. defense contractors, and the general public of the potential national security hazards of such technology transfers. 

As a result, I request that you review the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) article in the October 7, 2011 Defense Intelligence Digest entitled “Civilian Aircraft Industry Likely to Transfer Foreign Technology to Military.” Please state if the conclusions of this briefing have any impact on the Department of Defense’s intentions regarding a review of the GE-AVIC joint venture.  Additionally, please state upon review of the DIA article that you reaffirm that it “remains the policy of the U.S. Government to deny exports to any Chinese military end-users or associated end-uses.”  

While Undersecretary Flournoy’s response to my previous letter provided valuable insight into the export control process, my primary concerns are for the potential foreign use of technology initially developed under Department of Defense contracts with American taxpayer funding, the continued superiority of the U.S. military, and ultimately, the future national security of the United States.  Given these concerns, I ask that you clarify the Department of Defense’s intentions with respect to the following questions:

  • Does the Department of Defense intend to conduct a formal review of the GE-AVIC joint venture that would examine the nature of the technology involved in the proposed joint venture and how it would be of benefit to the People’s Liberation Army Air Forces as well as the compliance and enforcement mechanisms of the proposed joint venture?  If not, why not?
  • Has the Department of Defense determined that they do not possess the authority necessary to initiate such a review because GE has self-determined they need not apply for an export license for this technology?  If so, what other authorities does the Department of Defense have that would allow them to formally review transactions between foreign entities and companies that routinely contract with the Department of Defense for national security implications?  What authorities does the Department of Defense need that they do not currently have?
  • To date, what reviews – formal or informal - of the GE-AVIC joint venture have been conducted by the Department of Defense or subordinate agencies?  To date, what guidance – formal or informal - has the Department of Defense provided either directly to GE, to the Department of Commerce, or to any other agency or subordinate? 
  • Please provide a briefing to my staff on the details of any reviews or guidance provided.
  • While I understand that the Department of Treasury acts as the chair of CFIUS, it is also my understanding that the Department of Defense has the authority to request a review for covered transactions and certain joint ventures.  Does the Department of Defense intend to request a CFIUS review of this transaction?  If not, why not?
  • Regarding your commitment to audit other joint ventures between PRC entities and defense contractors to the Department of Defense, please provide an expected timeline for the review as well as the terms of reference of the review.  I also ask that you keep my office appraised of the progress of this review process.  Further, please ensure that when the review is completed, a cross reference is provided that details the U.S. defense contracts the specified defense contractors are involved in.

Finally, I also wanted to draw your attention to the recently completed nonpartisan U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) 2011 Annual Report which states that "Continued improvements in China’s civil aviation capabilities enhance Chinese military aviation capabilities because of the close integration of China’s commercial and military aviation sectors."  They also state that “As part of its indigenous innovation policy, China incentivizes foreign companies to transfer technology in exchange for market access.”  Please provide your assessment of these conclusions and their influence on the Department of Defense’s intended actions.

Thank you for your continued concern for protecting the U.S. military’s technological superiority.  I look forward to continuing to work with you in this regard.

Sincerely,

J. Randy Forbes
Member of Congress

CC: Secretary of the Treasury
       
Secretary of Commerce
      
Director of National Intelligence

f t # e
Tags: Defense