Forbes Still Calling for Investigation Into GE’s China Deal

Below you’ll find the text of Rep. Randy Forbes’ (R-VA) latest letter to Defense Secretary Leon Panetta asking for the Pentagon to reveiw a proposed joint-business venture between American defense giant GE and China’s state-owned aircraft company, AVIC to develop avionics for China’s new COMAC 919 airliner (shown above). Forbes is concerned that the technolgy could end up being used in Chinese military jets despite GE’s insistence that the technology has no connection to U.S.  military systems

The threat of American companies inadvertently helping China develop advanced military tech is something we’ve written a ton about lately. One expert I’ve talked to goes so far as to say such deals “have the potential to give the Chinese aerospace industry a 100 piece puzzle with 90 of the pieces already assembled.” Remember, with the Western economy mired in crisis while China’s economy continues to grow we can expect more of these deals.

Forbes’ office sent DT his letter and the Pentagon’s response to his earlier request for an inquiry into the matter this morning.

Click through the jump to read his letter.

November 18, 2011
The Honorable Leon Panetta
Secretary of Defense
1300 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1300Dear 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.


J. Randy Forbes
Member of Congress

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

  • sdog

    the fact that GE is trying to justify this is borderline treasonous. China is our enemy, period. they can’t even build a jet engine on their own. GE is looking out for their bottom line, as usual. Watch the GE interview from the 60 minutes program, GE could care less about the rampant stealing of information, or about the defense of American intellectual property. The Chinese rep’s in this “partnership” are ALL from the military and intelligence services, still wondering if this is a “civilian only” project?

    • gunslinger6

      I agree sdog this is a very bad idea. We should not be giving our technology to the Chinese, especially now when they are selling us defected and used microchips that have found there way into our military. They Chinese do not trust us, and we should not trust them.

      • Chops

        GE should be banned from doing business w/China-they claim that what they do is inspired by honoring their commitment to their shareholders but that is pure B.S.—They move their corporate HQ. out of the U S to avoid the higher taxes all the while they are reaping outrageous profits from the US taxpayer.IMO I think that GE will sell any technology they have as long as they greedy treasonous ***es make a porofit.

    • Mike Nguyen

      ge already loss the leadership wind turbine business to china…stole their tech…FOOLs!

    • Mike Nguyen

      Chinese gov’t go shopping once a years in US so everything is forgiving….the problem is chinese see economic as war… in a war law does not apply…

      • blight_

        They’re exploiting the greed of American companies, who in cost-benefit analysis do not do the long term due diligence that shows that giving the PRC a leg up means they will be cranking out your stuff and pocketing the change in a few years.

  • Pedro

    “China is our enemy, period.”

    Why is China your enemy?? They may sit across the big pond and compete with you for raw materials and have a different outlook on life but that hardly makes them your enemy.

    They don’t want your territory, they don’t sponsor terrorist acts and they never threaten you militarily.

    Sure they have territorial issues (having regained Tibet that had been conned out of them by the British while they were militarily weak) and there’s occasional friction with neighbouring states that you consider friendly but that hardly makes them ‘enemy’ material.

    • jumper

      You apparently don’t keep up on current events…. Might want to look into the economic stand off, recent electronic attacks on our military and financial institutions, etc, etc.

      They may not rate the term “enemy” yet in the traditional sense but they certainly are not our friends.

    • Alton Voss

      They steal. They are dishonest about their intentions. They have attacked our cyber systems by hacking into them and disrupting them. They are comunists and have a completely diffrent agenda than we do, not even mentioning the human rights issues. You probably think the muslems are your friends too.Their only job to kill you infidels.

      • Matt

        How is Islam even remotely relevent here?

  • Morty

    no is a counter world power which means there our opposite not our enemy

  • sdog

    so the widespread theft of our technology is not threatening? do you think they are going to use that information to build playground equipment?

    • gunslinger6

      Dont for get all the cyber spying and hacking they have done lately

      • BILL

        Not to forget the fact that Russia has problems with them also as China steals their aircraft and engine tech just to name a few things.

    • itfunk

      Paranoia about IP is really just a symptom of an inability to compete. Competitive economies thrive on openness.

      Whether you keep IP secret or give the it away, it matters little because you cant compete anyways.

      • Mitch S.

        Guess that’s why Apple went out of business… wait a minute!

  • gunslinger6

    *forget, sorry for typo

  • Uranium238

    Let’s just cut our imports from them, tell them we will pay off our debt, cut the outsourcing to them, and then leave them alone so we can start focusing on our own domestic growth. The fact that GE is in cahoots with China over ANY project related to aviation is a serious red flag.

    • justsaying

      >paying off debt
      lol no. History has shown, that’s not how the western world operates. Rest assured, it will seek to start a war and then claim all debts as void. Iran will be invaded soon enough by Israel, and it will give the people on this website a new wardrum to beat. Expect more countries to get involved and WWIII to begin.

  • John

    We should not be helping or supporting the Chicoms in anyway shape or form they never have and never will be Americas friend our ideaologys just dont mesh and the worst part is that we have been sold out by our fellow counrtymen and politicians all in order to get cheap products and to outsource our labor in the name of making a big profit!!

  • Morty

    As long as we still owe them money there not going to attack us

  • Lance

    Easy give GE a ultimatum… Work here in the USA with us and get military deals and bid on competitions. OR work with China and be cut off from all US defense work period.

    • Jazzism

      Well said and couldn’t be put in more plain English. Screw with us then we’ll take our money elsewhere.

      • joe

        Which then just leaves the question of what happens to every USAF and USN aircraft with a GE engine…I’m sure the DOD would love to pay to refit them all. And then you have to find a new engine manufacturer to meet the inevitable ‘alternate engine’ mandates - and the manufacturers will lace their bid with massive risk pots because they don’t trust you not to do the same to them if you decide they’re not playing ball.

        The problem with throwing toys out of the pram is some of those toys are necessary.

        • Matt

          I’m sure another company would love to get into the engine bussiness if GE was no longer allowed
          Better to take a monetary hit now than to have a PLA with American tech

  • P.J. Busche

    All of this give-away of U.S. technology and outsourcing of labor to foreign countries can be credited to former GE CEO Jack Welch. He has sold out the U.S. economy and technology to foreign countries to the unconditional loyalty of his stock shareholders so that his corporate peers can prosper at the cost of american jobs. Jack Welch has turned capitolism in our country into corporatism - political & industrial power ruled by corporate greed.

  • SJjjjjjjjjjjj

    Does it bother anyone that GE owns NBC?

  • SJjjjjjjjjjjj

    Hmm. GE owns NBC…And, they sell technologies to China (useful for war) at profit. Then, GE sells advertising for you, its viewers to consume, as you sit back and watch your cities burn by weapon’s technologies provided by GE. Oh, and, the “talkingheads”, at NBC, ALWAYS fail to mention the how/why/who…this happens. Just sit back and enjoy the sho………bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt…………..BOOM!!!!!!! yer dead.

  • CaptSausage

    Money rules. America should know this better than anyone. Now the money is Chinese. They haven’t overtaken you yet but it is inevitable. You had your time, hope you enjoyed it.

  • PrometheusGoneWild

    Boeing needs to make a phone call.
    “Do you want to sell engines to us? Then cut the crap with the Chinese”

  • IKnowIT

    You guys know the CEO of GE is Obama’s buddy, right?

  • Oudin

    I think US lack of competitive with China, every company in US to invested in China cause very competitive and productive labour, low electric bill, fairly market.

  • Slug0

    Isnt Al Gore in bed with GE…..