U.S. Congress Orders Probe of Satellite Loophole China Exploited

American Quislings: China uses U.S.-built satellites to support its police, military, with the help of Carlyle Group and Boeing 
By Brian Spegele and Kate O’Keeffe

AsiaSat 9, a Hong Kong company’s powerful U.S.-made satellite, was prepared for launch in 2017. 

Congress ordered the Commerce Department to examine a loophole in federal law that has allowed China’s government to use U.S.-built satellites to support its police and military, following an investigation by The Wall Street Journal.
The National Defense Authorization Act—a defense-policy bill passed Tuesday by the Senate and earlier by the House—instructs the Commerce Department to investigate the national-security implications of the current system and make recommendations on potential new export rules to prevent China from using U.S. satellites.
The U.S. effectively bars China from buying U.S. satellites outright.
But a Journal article April detailed how Chinese companies, backed by their government, devised a workaround in which offshore firms legally purchased U.S. satellites, then leased their bandwidth to mainland Chinese entities.
While the Commerce Department is responsible for regulating the export of commercial satellite hardware, it doesn’t monitor how foreign customers use the satellites once they are launched.
American satellites from producers including Boeing Co. have been used to boost communications for Chinese troops in the contested South China Sea, the Journal reported.
They also helped ensure connectivity for authorities as they sought to quell protests and riots in the Chinese regions of Tibet and East Turkestan.
The defense-bill provision was put forward in June by Sen. Michael Bennet (D., Colo.) after seeing the April investigation and an earlier Journal story that showed how a Chinese government-backed financial firm secretly funded the construction of an advanced Boeing satellite.
“Reports that satellites produced by U.S. companies are being used to advance the military and intelligence goals of our adversaries, namely China, demand the highest level of scrutiny,” he said.
The April article also prompted inquiries to the State Department by Sens. Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst —both Iowa Republicans—and attracted the attention of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, a bipartisan panel convened by Congress to provide recommendations on China issues.
In July, the State Department responded to the senators, deferring questions regarding satellite regulation to the Commerce Department.
It also called on China in the letter to “immediately end its campaign of repression in East Turkestan.”
The defense bill, which President Trump is expected to sign, reflects lawmakers’ hardened stance on China.
It also will restrict the removal of Chinese telecom giant Huawei Technologies Co. from a Commerce Department export blacklist until certain conditions are met and bar the use of federal funds for Chinese buses and railcars.
The company at the center of the satellite issue is Asia Satellite Telecommunications Holdings Ltd., which is jointly controlled by a Chinese government-owned conglomerate named Citic Group and the U.S. private-equity firm Carlyle Group.
Since the Journal’s report in April, AsiaSat delisted from the Hong Kong stock exchange, making its business less transparent to the public.
AsiaSat, Carlyle, Boeing and the Commerce Department declined to comment on the National Defense Authorization Act provision, which also directs the Commerce Department to assess the “potential harm” to U.S. commercial-satellite producers of any new licensing requirements regulating bandwidth use.

National Security

Senator Rubio targets rogue Huawei over patents

Reuters

Senator Marco Rubio questions witnesses before the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing about Chinese threats on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., January 29, 2019. 

WASHINGTON -- U.S. Senator Marco Rubio filed legislation on Monday that would prevent Huawei Technologies Co Ltd from seeking damages in U.S. patent courts, after the Chinese firm demanded that Verizon Communications Inc pay $1 billion to license the rights to patented technology.
Under the amendment -- seen by Reuters -- companies on certain U.S. government watch lists, which include Huawei, would not be allowed to seek relief under U.S. law with respect to U.S. patents, including bringing legal action over patent infringement.
On June 12, a person briefed on the matter said Huawei had told Verizon that it should pay licensing fees for more than 230 of the Chinese telecoms equipment maker’s patents and in aggregate is seeking more than $1 billion.
It appeared to be a new strategy in Huawei’s ongoing battle with the U.S. government. 

National security experts say that “back doors” in routers, switches and other Huawei equipment could allow China to spy on U.S. communications. 

Mr. Rubio, one of the Republican party’s leading foreign policy voices, filed the measure as an amendment to the annual National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, a massive bill setting policy for spending by the Department of Defense.
While the measure is several steps from becoming law, lawmakers have successfully used the NDAA in past years to crack down on the Chinese firm.

Cold War

Chinese Media In Vicious Attack On Top U.S. Senator Over Huawei Patent Law

By Zak Doffman

Respected Senator Marco Rubio, R-Fla., has come under attack by Chinese media for his plans to thwart Huawei's patent actions against U.S. companies. 

"Huawei has 56,492 patents," ran the headlines on June 15, "and it’s not afraid to use them." 

Huawei holds patents "on telecommunications, networking and other hi-tech inventions worldwide," and reports have emerged in recent days of "protracted licensing talks" and "disputes" with U.S. companies including Qualcomm, Harris and most notably Verizon, where the patent settlement being sought is reportedly valued at $1 billion.
This has presented the U.S. with something of a dilemma. 

Does it allow the under-fire Chinese telecoms manufacturer to use the U.S. legal system against U.S. companies? 

And, if not, how does it prevent a loss of confidence in U.S. IP protection and rule of law?
Cue national security. 

Two days after those headlines, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio filed legislation to "prevent Huawei from seeking damages in U.S. patent courts." 

Reuters reviewed the amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act which would mean that "companies on certain U.S. government watch lists would not be allowed to seek relief under U.S. law with respect to U.S. patents, including bringing legal action over patent infringement."
It was the latest swipe at China from U.S. lawmakers. 

With its blacklisting preventing Huawei from accessing the world's largest market and causing chaos in its supply chain, this move would essentially remove access to critical parts of the U.S. legal system.
Does China care about this? 

You bet they do.
The response from the official mouthpiece of China's Communist Party, the People's Daily, has been brutal. 

"America's most radical anti-China politician rears his ugly head," ran the newspaper's headline, followed by a stinging attack on the Senator. 

Mr. Rubio personally leveled the patent troll accusation at Huawei, inferring that it was being used to leverage an advantage in the broader ongoing dispute. 

"Huawei is using the tactics of patent trolls to attack U.S. companies," he tweeted, "in retaliation for Trump administration national security actions against them. We should not allow China government-backed companies to improperly use our legal system against us."

Huawei filed a record number of patent applications last year and has become the biggest spender on R&D in its industry. 

In 2017, Huawei's $13 billion R&D budget put the company hot on the heels of Amazon ($22.6 billion) and Alphabet ($16.6 billion), and Huawei has pledged to increase this to $15 to $20 billion. Its path to unassailable 5G market leadership was only thwarted by the U.S. government blacklisting the company over security concerns.
This is a significant moment in the dispute between the U.S. and China's Big Tech. 

If Chinese companies are denied access to the various facets of the U.S. market, then it can only encourage further action from Beijing. 

China's government has already announced new cyber laws, export restrictions and even its own "entity list" to hit back at the U.S. blacklist.

Sina Delenda Est

Defense Budget Shifts Military's Focus From Terrorism To China
By DAVID WELNA

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz., talks with reporters after the National Defense Authorization Act passed 93-1 at the U.S. Capitol in 2015.

It may seem counter-intuitive and head-scratchingly odd, but Congress nearly always approves defense spending bills before the armed services committees — which actually oversee the Pentagon — vote on how the money will be spent.
Not this year.
The John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 was enacted this month well ahead of a still-pending budget bill.
It was also the earliest date on the legislative calendar that the NDAA has been sent to a president for his signature in more than two decades.
The bill sped through Congress as the nation's military continues waging war in Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Niger, Libya, Somalia and an untold number of other global hot spots. 

All arise from what's been the Pentagon's main post-Sept. 11 focus: fighting terrorism.
But this new NDAA reflects Defense Secretary Jim Mattis' pivot away from those prolonged and inconclusive battles with insurgencies, to what he says should be the Pentagon's main concern: the United States' growing competition with the world's two other great powers, Russia and China.
Big majorities in the House and Senate approved the NDAA. 

Among the 10 senators who opposed its final passage were three Democrats — Kamala Harris of California, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York — who are all considered potential contenders in the 2020 presidential race.
The $716 billion in spending authorized by the bill is $16 billion more than what Congress approved for fiscal year 2018. 

In real terms, this 2.23 percent increase amounts to a reduction in defense spending, given the 2.46 percent rise in inflation over the past year. (Exceeding that inflation rate was the bill's 2.6 percent raise for the uniformed military, the largest pay hike it's had since 2010.)

U.S. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis.
Congress matched dollar-for-dollar what the Pentagon asked for. 

Yet, the NDAA mandates doing more with less. 

It calls for adding 15,600 troops to the country's 1. 3 million active duty forces, an expansion also sought by the Pentagon. 

It adds another aircraft carrier and two littoral combat ships that the Pentagon did not request. 

A total of 13 new ships for the U.S. Navy are authorized — exactly half as many new ships as Russia plans to build this year.
The Republican-controlled armed service committees backtracked and bowed to several significant policy changes the Trump administration sought during the merging of the House and Senate versions of the NDAA.

Turkey
Mattis convinced Congress to strip the Senate's tough talk on Turkey from the final version of the bill.
That version instructed him to draw up plans for suspending delivery of 100 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters ordered by Turkey as well as Turkey's participation in an international consortium producing the radar-evading warplane.
It was retaliation for the Turkish government's arrest and detention, following a failed coup attempt two years ago, of Andrew Brunson, an American Presbyterian minister; as well as this longtime NATO ally's intention to buy the Russian-made S-400 missile defense system.
Mattis wrote Congress in July asking that Turkey's access to the F-35s not be blocked. 

In its place is language from the House bill, which simply requires that Mattis submit a report "on the status of the United States relationship with the Republic of Turkey" by Oct. 31.

China
The White House prevailed in its quest to exclude from the NDAA language approved by the full Senate blocking the sale of American technology to Chinese telecommunications giant ZTE.
Such a trade restriction had already been imposed by the Trump administration, but it was lifted after Trump spoke with Chinese dictator Xi Jinping and tweeted that he was looking for a way to get ZTE back in business because "[t]oo many jobs in China [were] lost."
The final NDAA does nothing specific to restrict the sale of American technology to ZTE and Huawei, another Chinese telecommunications and video surveillance giant. 

But it does tighten overall U.S. national security reviews of American exports of sensitive technology by issuing stricter guidelines for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S., or CFIUS.
The NDAA also bars the purchase or use by the federal government and its contractors of technology sold by ZTE and Huawei. 

That restriction would not, however, apply for sales to the general public.
There is also a ban in the bill on Pentagon spending for any Chinese language instruction provided by the Confucius Institute, which is operated by an entity associated with China's education ministry.

Russia
Mattis also prevailed in dissuading Congress from requiring enforcement of a 2017 sanctions law for countries that purchase Russian-made weapon systems or parts.
"Some nations who now actively seek a security relationship with the United States still rely on Russia for spare parts and other material," Mattis wrote, citing India and Vietnam as examples.

President Trump meets Putin in Helsinki in July.

Otherwise, the new NDAA carries a spate of policy measures likely to irritate Russia. 

They include:
— $6.3 billion for the European Deterrence Initiative, the largest U.S. infusion yet for this effort — started during the Obama administration — that's aimed at bolstering defenses in European nations near Russia.
— A requirement that Secretary Mattis send Congress by March 2019 a feasibility report on permanently stationing in Poland U.S. Army brigade combat teams that are currently cycling through nine-month rotations there. Russia maintains that the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act prohibits the establishment of permanent NATO bases in former Warsaw Pact nations, including Poland. NATO and the U.S. disagree, but have nonetheless held off establishing new bases in those countries during the 21 years since the act was signed.
— A directive that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin brief Congress on all assets known to be held by Vladimir Putin, his "oligarch" associates and other high officials in Russia.
— A strengthening of a ban on funding anything that recognizes the sovereignty of Russia over Crimea.
— A labeling of Russia as a violator of the Chemical Weapons Convention, based on Russia's role in chemical attacks in Syria and Kremlin-linked assassination attempts in the United Kingdom.
— A requirement for certification that Trump has imposed sanctions on Russia for violations of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, as he had been directed to do in the 2018 NDAA; the bill also calls for the administration to submit plans to Congress for additional sanctions. A House provision was dropped that had called for considering INF treaty obligations nonbinding if Russia is not in compliance with the treaty.
— A ban on extending the New START nuclear arms limitation treaty (which expires in Feb. 2021) unless Congress receives a report from the administration on Russia's new strategic weapons determining whether Russia is in compliance with the treaty.
— Authorizes $65 million "for developing and producing a low-yield warhead to be mounted on a submarine-launched ballistic missile," according to a summary of the bill. Proponents say this would deter Russia from using tactical, lower-yield weapons; opponents say such weapons increase the likelihood of nuclear war.

Yemen
— Prohibits funds being spent on in-flight refueling of Saudi aircraft or members of the Saudi-led coalition conducting missions over Yemen, until the U.S. secretary of state certifies that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are seeking a diplomatic resolution of the conflict in Yemen and respecting the humanitarian needs of that country's inhabitants.
— Requires that the Trump administration brief Congress on what the U.S. strategy is in Yemen.

U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, left, at the Demilitarized Zone in the border village of Panmunjom in Paju, South Korea in October 2017.

South Korea
— Bars funding for the reduction of U.S. troops stationed in South Korea below 22,000, unless the secretary of defense certifies such a draw-down is in the national security interest of the U.S., and both South Korea and Japan have been "appropriately consulted."

Syria
— Renews the Syria train-and-equip program, but limits any expenditure of funds until Trump submits to Congress the Syria strategy report mandated by the 2018 NDAA.

Afghanistan
— Extends the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund through the end of next year. This continues the effort to stand up the Afghan military and police forces, which has become the main focus of the U.S. in Afghanistan.
— Authorizes $25 million to promote recruitment, training and integration of women in the Afghan National Defense and Security Forces.
— Requires that the secretary of defense designate a senior civilian official focused on civilian casualties associated with U.S. military operations. That official would regularly inform Congress on civilian casualties and work to improve reporting on noncombatant casualties.

Guantanamo
— Renews congressional bans on transferring any of the 40 remaining detainees to U.S. prisons and on building facilities in the U.S. to hold them.
— Denies the $69 million requested by the Trump administration for building a new "high-value detainee complex." That would replace a top-secret structure there known as Camp Seven which currently holds 15 detainees.

Outer Space
— Establishes a U.S. Space Command as part of the U.S. Strategic Command, but does not authorize funds for creating the space force that Trump has directed the Pentagon to create.

U.S. Defense Bill Seeks to Counter China

Beijing’s increased military activity in South China Sea, pursuit of U.S. technology among issues
By Kate O’Keeffe and Siobhan Hughes

Republican Rep. Robert Pittenger of North Carolina has helped lead an effort to tighten U.S. national-security reviews of Chinese business deals. 

Congress is preparing to enact a defense-policy bill that some lawmakers say is tougher on China than any in history, as a bipartisan movement to confront Beijing gathers steam.
The measure, an annual policy bill that will authorize $716 billion in total defense spending for the coming fiscal year, seeks to counter a range of Chinese government policies, including increased military activity in the South China Sea, the pursuit of cutting-edge U.S. technology and the spread of Communist Party propaganda at American institutions.
The House of Representatives approved the legislation last week, and President Trump is expected to sign the bill into law after the Senate approves it as soon as Wednesday.
This year’s National Defense Authorization Act is a reflection of a growing bipartisan consensus in Congress and among national-security officials that the world is entering a new era of great power rivalries in which the U.S. must do more to compete with China and Russia.
“The central challenge to U.S. prosperity and security is the reemergence of long-term, strategic competition,” according to an unclassified summary of the U.S.’s 2018 National Defense Strategy. “China is leveraging military modernization, influence operations, and predatory economics to coerce neighboring countries to reorder the Indo-Pacific region to their advantage,” the document says.
The Chinese Embassy didn’t return a request for comment.
Some of the defense bill’s most notable provisions concern Chinese economic activity. 

The legislation seeks to both tighten U.S. national-security reviews of Chinese deals under the Committee on Foreign investment in the U.S. and to revamp export controls governing which U.S. technologies can be sent abroad.
Though the Cfius provisions, spearheaded by Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) and Rep. Robert Pittenger (R., N.C.), and the export rules, led by Rep. Ed Royce (R., Ca.), are expected to affect a wide array of American businesses, many supported the measures because of a growing concern over Chinese policies.
“Three years ago if you talked about doing things against China, the business community would push back,” said James Lewis, senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C. 

“They don’t push back anymore.”
“We have multiple nations out there that are threatening our national security from an economic-espionage perspective, and none of them equal China,” said Bill Evanina, Director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center, at an event last week.
The defense bill also requires an annual report on China to include information on efforts by the Chinese government to influence U.S. “media, cultural institutions, business, and academic and policy communities” to fall in line with its security strategy.
Another provision limits Department of Defense funds for Chinese language programs at U.S. universities that host Confucius Institutes. 

These centers, funded by the Chinese government, have been criticized by Republicans—including Sens. Marco Rubio of Florida, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Ted Cruz of Texas, as well as Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina—for peddling propaganda.
The bill also contains provisions to bolster defense ties with India and Taiwan, a self-ruled island that China claims as its own. 

And it bans China’s participation in Rim of the Pacific naval exercises—which involve 26 nations in a display of international military cooperation—until it stops militarizing islands in the South China Sea.
“It’s a signal to our allies and partners in the region—particularly Australia, Japan and Taiwan—that China’s activities in the South China Sea are not accepted as normal,” said Rachael Burton, deputy director at the Project 2049 Institute, a Virginia-based think tank.
One area in which a bipartisan group of lawmakers thought the defense bill fell short was with respect to Chinese telecommunications giant ZTE Corp. 

The Commerce Department in April banned U.S. companies from selling to ZTE for failing to honor an earlier U.S. agreement to resolve its sanctions-busting sales to North Korea and Iran. 

Because ZTE depends on U.S. suppliers, the ban was effectively a death knell.
But, in a surprise tweet on May 13, Mr. Trump said he and Chinese dictator Xi Jinping were “working together” to find a way to save ZTE.
The Commerce Department then struck a new deal with ZTE on June 7 that required the Chinese firm to put $400 million into an escrow account, pay a $1 billion fine, replace its board of directors and senior leadership, and fund a team of U.S. compliance officers to monitor the company for 10 years in exchange for being allowed to resume business with U.S. suppliers.
Dissatisfied with Mr. Trump’s deal, the Senate on June 18 voted to reinstate the initial Commerce penalty on ZTE by wrapping the measure into the defense bill. 

But Senate and House negotiators removed the language from the final text. 

The company didn’t return a request for comment.
Mr. Rubio has in recent tweets blasted the outcome as a “cave” by congressional negotiators.
“We got played by China again,” he said in a July 24 tweet. 

“This can’t continue.”

Senate blocks ZTE deal in rebuke of Trump deal

The move comes less than a week after Trump entered into an agreement with telecom giant. 
By Leigh Ann Caldwell

In a major rebuke to Donald Trump, the Senate has adopted a measure that would block the administration's deal with Chinese telecom giant ZTE, pitting the president against Congress on what many senators say is an issue of national security.
The Senate's move comes less than a week after the administration struck an agreement with ZTE that would have kept the telecom company engaged in the U.S. market.

The president’s deal with ZTE would have forced the company to pay a $1 billion penalty, reorganize its company and allow U.S. compliance officers in exchange for being able to sell its products inside the U.S.
But the bipartisan senate amendment, which has been added to the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act, would essentially kill that agreement by retroactively reinstating financial penalties and continuing the prohibition on ZTE's ability to sell to the U.S. government.
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., who is one of the co-sponsors of the measure, said that the amendment would likely put ZTE out of business.
“ZTE said they couldn’t remain in business, or at least not remain anything other than a cell phone hand-held business, if the denial order from March was in effect. And this would essential put the denial order back into effect,” Cotton told reporters.
The telecom company is a mechanism for espionage by, in part, selling phones in the U.S. that can be tracked and enabled to steal intellectual property.
The U.S. slapped sanctions on ZTE in 2016, prohibiting the company from doing business in the U.S. for seven years, when it violated U.S. sanctions against Iran and North Korea. 
The Commerce Department placed additional sanctions on the company after it failed to follow through with its reorganization plan and lied to the U.S. government about it.
A bipartisan group of senators praised the amendment, saying it protects the U.S.’s national security.
“The fact that a bipartisan group of senators came together this quickly is a testament to how bad the Trump administration's ZTE deal is and how we will not shy away from holding the president's feet to the fire when it comes to keeping his promise to be tough on China,” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement.
The amendment was added just as Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross was on Capitol Hill briefing senators about a component of the president’s ZTE deal.
Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, left the meeting saying he was supportive of the Senate’s effort.
The NDAA still has to pass the Senate and the House of Representatives must still agree to the defense bill with the measure included before it can advance.
Trump would then face a choice: Veto a critical defense bill to save the ZTE deal or allow the administration's deal to collapse.
Sen. Cotton said the president won’t veto the bill “because the bill pertains many other critical priorities.”

War of Words

China, Taiwan spar over Chinese invasion threat
Reuters

BEIJING/TAIPEI -- A threat by a senior Chinese diplomat to invade Taiwan the instant any U.S. warship visits the self-ruled island has sparked a war of words, with Taipei accusing Beijing of failing to understand what democracy means.
China considers Taiwan to be a wayward province and has never renounced the use of force to bring it under its control. 

The United States has no formal ties with Taiwan but is bound by law to help it defend itself and is its main source of arms.
Beijing regularly calls Taiwan the most sensitive and important issue between it and the United States. 

In September, the U.S. Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act for the 2018 fiscal year, which authorises mutual visits by navy vessels between Taiwan and the United States.
Diplomat Li Kexin said at a Chinese embassy event in Washington on Friday he had told U.S. officials that China would activate its Anti-Secession Law, which allows it to use force on Taiwan if deemed necessary to prevent the island from seceding, if the United States sent navy ships to Taiwan.
“The day that a U.S. Navy vessel arrives in Kaohsiung is the day that our People’s Liberation Army unifies Taiwan with military force,” Chinese media quoted Li as saying at the weekend, referring to Taiwan’s main port.
Taiwan’s Foreign Ministry said late on Saturday that, while Chinese officials seemed to want to try and win over hearts and minds in Taiwan, they also had been repeatedly using threats that hurt the feelings of Taiwan’s people.
“These methods show a lack of knowledge about the real meaning of the democratic system and how a democratic society works,” the ministry said.
China suspects Taiwan President Tsai Ing-wen, who leads the independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party, wants to declare the island’s formal independence. 

Tsai says she wants to maintain peace with China but will defend Taiwan’s security.
Influential Chinese tabloid the Global Times, published by the ruling Communist Party’s official People’s Daily, said on Monday China would never back down over Taiwan.
“The Chinese mainland has never given up the option of Taiwan reunification by force, which is clear to people across the Taiwan Strait,” it said in an editorial.

America Just Backed Down Against China Again

When China complained about a plan for the Navy to make port calls in Taiwan, Congress listened.
BY JULIAN G. KU 

Three Taiwanese submarines at the Tsoying navy base in Kaohsiung, southern Taiwan, on Jan. 18. 
In June, the Senate Armed Services Committee passed an amendment to the fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that would require U.S. Navy warships to conduct port calls in Taiwan — that is, to regularly dock, contrary to current practice, at Taiwanese ports for extended visits. 

The Chinese government quickly indicated its opposition: The amendment drew “solemn representations” from the ministry of foreign affairs, which denounced the U.S. government’s “erroneous actions on Taiwan-related issues.”
I have previously written about how, as a matter of law, Congress almost certainly lacks the constitutional authority to require the president to send the U.S. Navy on port calls to particular countries. 

But on merit, such port calls are a good idea since they would reassure Taiwan of the U.S. commitment to its security while placing China, which claims Taiwan is part of its own sovereign territory, on the defensive. 

A U.S. aircraft carrier visiting a Taiwanese port for an extended visit would be a tangible demonstration of the U.S. Navy’s commitment to maintaining a presence in and around Taiwan in the face of growing Chinese naval strength.
So there was plenty of reason to support a House version of the 2018 NDAA that would have simply required the secretary of defense to submit a report by fall 2018 on the feasibility of such Taiwan port calls. 

Such a provision is perfectly constitutional and would send a useful signal to China that the United States takes Taiwan port calls seriously.
But China’s opposition may have led to Congress further dilute the already watered-down House version of the “port calls” language. 

The Senate recently passed a final version of the 2018 NDAA that no longer requires a report but merely expresses the “sense of Congress” that the U.S. should “consider the advisability and feasibility of reestablishing port of call exchanges between the United States navy and the Taiwan navy.” 

A sense-of-Congress statement is not nothing, but it represents a substantial climb-down from mandating port calls or requiring the Pentagon to report on a plan for them.
Port calls in Taiwan are not going to make or break U.S.-Taiwan policy. 

But it’s notable that Chinese government opposition may have convinced Congress to back off its more aggressive support for this idea; it should remind us of the difficulty of managing foreign policy from the legislative branch. 

As I observed earlier this year, Congress has usefully intervened on Taiwan policy with several bills, including the Taiwan Travel Act and the Taiwan Security Act. 

But given Congress’s many legislative priorities, these bills are likely to languish in committee. 

The NDAA, by contrast, must pass every year to authorize military operations, which is why it is so disappointing the more aggressive port call provisions were removed.
On the other hand, just as Congress backs off its effort to manage Taiwan policy and push port calls, the Trump administration’s China team may finally be coming together behind the idea. 

After all, the individual most responsible for promoting the idea of U.S. Navy port calls in Taiwan, Randall Schriver, is likely to soon be confirmed to the position of assistant secretary of defense for Asia-Pacific affairs. 

In prepared answers to policy questions at his confirmation hearing in November, Schriver reiterated his support for port calls in Taiwan, even though the Pentagon has been neutral on this issue so far:
Since we reserve for ourselves the right to define our own One China Policy, commencing U.S. ship visits to Taiwan and vice versa can be included. 

The benefits of U.S. port calls to Taiwan would fall into the traditional justification for port calls to any other friendly country in the world — rest and relaxation for the sailors (which aids in recruitment and retention); minor repair and maintenance; port familiarization to assist in planning for a known contingency; and to support our political goals of supporting Taiwan and deterring China. 

If there are alternate views in the Department of Defense, I look forward to learning more about the counter arguments.
We will see whether Schriver’s views prevail within the U.S. government, where the pro-China State Department is likely to provide an opposing view in deference to what are likely to be vigorous Chinese government protests. 

But the baton on port calls, and Taiwan policy as a whole, is probably being handed over to the executive branch. 

For those of us outside the administration, whether such port calls happen will be an interesting signal of Schriver’s influence in shaping U.S.-China policy — and the ultimate direction of that policy in the Trump administration.