Order Code RL33001
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
U.S.-China Counter-Terrorism Cooperation:
Issues for U.S. Policy
Updated July 21, 2005
Shirley Kan
Specialist in National Security Policy
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

U.S.-China Counter-Terrorism Cooperation: Issues for
U.S. Policy
Summary
After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States faced a
challenge in enlisting the full support of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in
counter-terrorism. This effort raised short-term policy issues about how to elicit
cooperation and how to address China’s concerns about military action (Operation
Enduring Freedom). Longer-term questions have concerned whether counter-
terrorism has strategically transformed bilateral relations and whether China’s
support has been valuable and not obtained at the expense of other U.S. interests.
The extent of U.S.-China counter-terrorism cooperation has been limited, but
the tone and context of counter-terrorism helped to stabilize — even if it did not
transform — the bilateral relationship.
Congress has oversight over the trend toward closer ties with China as well as
a range of policy options. These options cover law-enforcement cooperation;
designations of terrorist organizations; release of detained Uighurs from Guantanamo
Bay prison; weapons nonproliferation; waivers of sanctions for the 1989 Tiananmen
crackdown to export security equipment (e.g., for the 2008 Olympics in Beijing); the
Container Security Initiative (CSI); military-to-military contacts; and China’s
influence on Central Asia through the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).
On July 19, 2005, the House passed an amendment to H.R. 2601 to express
concerns that China and other SCO countries called for a deadline for U.S.
deployments in Central Asia. The House passed H.R. 2601 on July 20.
This report will be updated as warranted.

---

Contents
Aftermath of the 9/11 Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Policy Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Options and Implications for U.S. Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Summits and Strategic Ties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FBI Office in Beijing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Designations as Terrorist Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Detained Uighurs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Weapons Proliferation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Post-Tiananmen Sanctions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Container Security Initiative (CSI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Military-to-Military Contacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

---

U.S.-China Counter-Terrorism Cooperation:
Issues for U.S. Policy
Aftermath of the 9/11 Attacks
China has seen itself as a victim of terrorist attacks in the 1990s, thought to be
committed by some Muslim extremists (ethnic Uighur separatists) in the northwestern
Xinjiang region. Some Uighur activists reportedly received training in Afghanistan.
China’s concerns appeared to place it in a position to support Washington and share
intelligence after the attacks of September 11, 2001.1 In a message to President Bush on
September 11, PRC ruler Jiang Zemin condemned the terrorist attacks and offered
condolences. In a phone call with the President on September 12, Jiang reportedly
promised to cooperate with the United States to combat terrorism. At the U.N. Security
Council (UNSC) on the same day, the PRC (a permanent member) voted with the others
for Resolution 1368 (to combat terrorism). On September 20, Beijing said that it offered
“unconditional support” in fighting terrorism. On September 20-21, visiting Foreign
Minister Tang Jiaxuan promised cooperation, and Secretary of State Colin Powell
indicated that discussions covered intelligence-sharing but not military cooperation. PRC
counter-terrorism experts attended a “productive” initial meeting on September 25, 2001,
in Washington, D.C. On September 28, 2001, China voted with all others in the UNSC
for Resolution 1373, reaffirming the need to combat terrorism.
PRC promises of support for the U.S. fight against terrorism, however, were
qualified by other initial statements expressing concerns about U.S. military action.
China also favored exercising its decision-making authority at the UNSC, where it has
veto power. Initial commentary in official PRC media faulted U.S. intelligence and U.S.
defense and foreign policies (including that on missile defense) for the attacks. On
September 18, 2001, in a phone call with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, China
reported Jiang as saying that war against terrorism required conclusive evidence, specific
targets to avoid hurting innocent people, compliance with the U.N. Charter, and a role
for the Security Council. Also, observers were appalled at the reported gleeful anti-U.S.
reactions in the PRC’s online chat rooms after the attacks.
In Tokyo, on January 21, 2002, at a conference on reconstruction aid to
Afghanistan, China pledged $1 million, in addition to humanitarian goods worth $3.6
million. But three days later, Jiang promised to visiting Afghan interim leader Hamid
Karzai additional reconstruction aid of $150 million spread over four to five years. Of
this $150 million, China offered $47 million by 2003 and offered $15 million in 2004.2
1 See also CRS Report RL31213, China’s Relations with Central Asian States and Problems
with Terrorism, by Dewardric McNeal and Kerry Dumbaugh.
2 “China to Offer $15m for Afghan Reconstruction,” Xinhua, Apr. 1, 2004.

---

CRS-2
In 2002, some news articles reported suspicions that China’s military, the People’s
Liberation Army (PLA), supported the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and sold
anti-aircraft missiles and other weapons to Al Qaeda.3 However, Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld told reporters in August 2002, that Afghanistan is “filled with
weapons” and that “you do find things from China, but you find them from country after
country after country.” He added, “a lot of it is quite old and probably not stable.”4
Policy Analysis
The extent of U.S.-China counter-terrorism cooperation has been limited, but the
tone and context of counter-terrorism helped to stabilize — even if it did not transform
— the bilateral relationship. In the short-term, U.S. security policy toward Beijing
sought counter-terrorism cooperation, shifting from issues about weapons proliferation
and military maritime safety (in the wake of the EP-3/F-8 aircraft collision crisis of April
2001).5 Given the mixed state of bilateral ties after the collision crisis, Beijing’s
diplomatic support met much of U.S. expectations. Testifying to Congress in February
2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell praised Beijing’s diplomatic support, saying
“China has helped in the war against terrorism.”6
Concerning other support, including any cooperation by the PLA, the
commanders of the Central and Pacific Commands, Gen. Tommy Franks and Adm.
Dennis Blair, separately confirmed in April 2002 that China did not provide military
cooperation (nor was it requested) in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan
(e.g., basing, staging, or overflight) and that its shared intelligence was not specific
enough, particularly as compared to cooperation from the Philippines, Singapore, and
Malaysia.7 The Pentagon’s June 2002 report on foreign contributions in the counter-
terrorism war did not include China among the 50 countries in the coalition.8 In
December 2002, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly confirmed intelligence-
3 Bill Gertz, “China-made Artillery Seized in Afghanistan,” Washington Times, April 12,
2002; “China-trained Taliban,” Washington Times, June 21, 2002; Scott Baldauf, “Al Qaeda
Massing for New Fight” and “How Al Qaeda Seeks to Buy Chinese Arms,” Christian
Science Monitor, Aug. 9 and 23, 2002.
4 Department of Defense, news briefing, Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers, August 9,
2002.
5 See CRS Report RL30946, China-U.S. Aircraft Collision Incident of April 2001:
Assessments and Policy Implications, coordinated by Shirley Kan.
6 Senate Foreign Relations Committee, hearing, Fiscal Year 2003 Foreign Affairs Budget,
Feb. 5, 2002.
7 Foreign Press Center Briefing, General Tommy Franks, Commander, U.S. Central
Command, Washington, Apr. 11, 2002; Press Roundtable with Adm. Dennis Blair,
Commander, U.S. Pacific Command, Hong Kong, Apr. 18, 2002.
8 Department of Defense, “Fact Sheet: International Contributions to the War Against
Terrorism,” June 14, 2002.

---

CRS-3
sharing, saying “we are sharing [counter-terrorism] information to an unprecedented
extent but making judgments independently.”9
China’s long-standing relationship with nuclear-armed Pakistan was an
important factor in considering the significance of Beijing’s support, especially with
concerns about the viability of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s government.
Some said that Pakistan’s cooperation with the United States must come with PRC
acquiescence, pointing to a PRC envoy’s meeting with Musharraf on September 18,
2001. However, on September 13, 2001, Musharraf had agreed to fight with the
United States against bin Laden.10 The PRC has reportedly provided Pakistan with
nuclear and missile technology. China could provide intelligence about Pakistan’s
nuclear weapons and any suspected technology transfers out of Pakistan to countries
like North Korea, Iran, and Libya.
In the long term, counter-terrorism could hold strategic implications for the
U.S.-PRC relationship. It has remained debatable as to whether such cooperation has
fundamentally transformed the bilateral relationship. Policymakers have watched to
see whether Beijing’s leaders have used the opportunity to improve bilateral ties,
especially on weapons nonproliferation issues. In his State of the Union speech on
January 29, 2002, President Bush expressed his expectation that “in this moment of
opportunity, a common danger is erasing old rivalries. America is working with
Russia and China and India, in ways we have never before, to achieve peace and
prosperity.” Nonetheless, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified to
Congress in February 2002, that the 9/11 attacks did not change “the fundamentals”
of China’s approach to us.11
The PRC’s concerns about domestic terrorism, U.S.-PRC relations, China’s
international standing in a world dominated by U.S. power (particularly after the
terrorist attacks), and its image as a responsible leader helped explain China’s
supportive stance. However, Beijing also worried about U.S. military action near
China, U.S.-led alliances, Japan’s active role in the war (as quickly promised by
Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi), greater U.S. (and Russian) influence in Central
and South Asia at PRC expense, and U.S. support for Taiwan — all exacerbating
long-standing fears of “encirclement.”
China issued a Defense White Paper in December 2002.12 It said that major
powers remained in competition but that since the September 2001 attacks against
the United States, countries have increased cooperation. Although this paper
9 Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, “U.S.-East Asia Policy:
Three Aspects,” Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, Dec. 11, 2002.
10 First reported by Dan Balz, Bob Woodward, and Jeff Himmelman, “Thursday, September
13,” Washington Post, Jan. 29, 2002; and confirmed in the 9/11 Commission’s report, Final
Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, July 22,
2004.
11 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, hearing, Worldwide Threats: Converging
Dangers in a Post-9/11 World, Feb. 6, 2002.
12 PRC State Council, “China’s National Defense in 2002,” December 9, 2002.

---

CRS-4
contained veiled criticisms of the United States for its military buildup, stronger
alliances in Asia, and increased arms sales to and enhanced military ties with Taiwan,
it did not criticize the United States by name as in the Defense White Paper of 2000.
However, the Defense White Paper of December 2004 again criticized the United
States by name.13
Options and Implications for U.S. Policy
Summits and Strategic Ties. The counter-terrorism campaign helped to
stabilize U.S.-PRC relations up to the highest level, which faced tensions early in the
Bush Administration in April 2001 with the EP-3 aircraft collision crisis and U.S.
approvals of arms sales to Taiwan. According to the Final Report of the 9/11
Commission issued in July 2004, President Bush chaired a National Security Council
meeting on the night of September 11, 2001, in which he contended that the attacks
provided a “great opportunity” to engage Russia and China. President Bush traveled
to Shanghai in October 2001 for his first meeting with then PRC President Jiang
Zemin at the Leaders’ Meeting of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
forum. Bush called the PRC an important partner in the global coalition against
terrorists but also warned Jiang that the “war on terrorism must never be an excuse
to persecute minorities.”14 On February 21-22, 2002, the President visited Beijing
(a trip postponed in October), after Tokyo and Seoul. The President then hosted
Jiang at Bush’s ranch in Crawford, TX, on October 25, 2002, and Bush said that the
two countries were “allies” in fighting terrorism.15
FBI Office in Beijing. On December 6, 2001, Francis Taylor, the State
Department’s Coordinator for Counter-terrorism, ended talks in Beijing that
reciprocated the September 25 meeting in Washington, D.C. He announced that the
PRC agreed to give “positive consideration” to a long-sought U.S. request for the FBI
to set up a Legal Attaché office at the U.S. Embassy, that counter-terrorism
consultations would occur semi-annually, and that the two sides would set up a
Financial Counter-Terrorism Working Group. He reported that Beijing’s cooperation
has entailed coordination at the U.N., intelligence-sharing, law enforcement liaison,
and monitoring of financial networks.16 The PRC approved the FBI office in
February 2002, and the first semi-annual meeting on terrorist financing was held at
the Treasury Department in late May. The FBI attaché arrived at the U.S. Embassy
in Beijing in September 2002.
Designations as Terrorist Organizations. Further questions concern the
U.S. stance on the PRC’s policy toward Uighur people from Xinjiang and claims against
what it calls “East Turkistan” terrorist organizations. Although Taylor confirmed that
there are “people from western China that are involved in terrorist activities in
Afghanistan,” he rejected the view that “all of the people of western China are indeed
13 PRC State Council, “China’s National Defense in 2004,” December 27, 2004.
14 White House, “U.S., China Stand Against Terrorism,” Shanghai, China, October 19, 2001.
15 White House, “President Bush, Chinese President Jiang Zemin Discuss Iraq, N. Korea,”
Crawford, Texas, October 25, 2002.
16 Department of State, press conference, Beijing, Dec. 6, 2001.

---

CRS-5
terrorists” and urged Beijing to deal politically with their “legitimate” social and
economic challenges and not through counter-terrorism means. Taylor also stated that
the United States did not agree that “East Turkestan” forces are terrorists. He confirmed
that the U.S. military captured PRC citizens from western China who were involved with
Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Nonetheless, while in Beijing on August 26, 2002, Deputy Secretary of State
Richard Armitage announced that, after months of bilateral discussions, he designated
the East Turkistan Islamic Movement (ETIM) as a terrorist group that committed acts
of violence against unarmed civilians. China had issued a report on January 21, 2002,
saying that “East Turkistan” terrorist groups launched attacks with bin Laden’s support
since the 1990s, and ETIM was one of the groups in the report. The U.S. Embassy in
Beijing suggested that ETIM planned to attack the U.S. Embassy in Kyrgyzstan.17 The
State Department designated ETIM as a terrorist organization under Executive Order
13224 (to freeze assets) but not as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (under the
Immigration and Nationality Act). In December 2002, Assistant Secretary of State James
Kelly defended the action taken against ETIM as a step based on U.S. evidence that
ETIM has links to Al Qaeda and committed violence against civilians, “not as a
concession to the PRC.”18
Detained Uighurs. A related question pertains to the fate of Uighurs captured
during U.S. fighting with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, but whom are claimed by the
PRC as its citizens for legal action in China and whom PRC authorities might seek
to interrogate. In May 2004, Amnesty International said that, in 2002, the United
States allowed PRC officials to participate in interrogations and mistreatment of
ethnic Uighurs held at the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Then, in July 2004,
Amnesty International urged the United States not to turn the 22 detained Uighurs
over to China, where they would face torture and execution in China’s campaign to
repress the Uighur people in the name of “counter-terrorism.”19 Other options
include sending them to a third country and resettling them in the United States. By
2004, U.S. officials said they determined that the Uighurs detained at Guantanamo
Bay have no more intelligence value, but the United States cannot find a third
country to accept them, while ruling out their return to China.20 In August 2004,
Secretary of State Colin Powell confirmed the dilemma, saying that “the Uighurs are
not going back to China, but finding places for them is not a simple matter, but we
are trying to find places for them.”21 The United States unsuccessfully approached
a number of countries, including Germany, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Italy,
17 Philip Pan, “U.S. Warns of Plot by Group in W. China,” Washington Post, Aug. 29, 2002.
18 James Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, “U.S.-East
Asia Policy: Three Aspects,” Woodrow Wilson Center, Washington, Dec. 11, 2002.
19 “Group Says Chinese Saw Detainees,” Washington Post, May 26, 2004; Amnesty
International, “China: Fleeing Uighurs Forced Back to “Anti-Terror” Torture and
Execution,” July 7, 2004.
20 Guy Dinmore and James Kynge, “China Torture Fears Curb Guantanamo Releases,”
Financial Times, June 23, 2004; and David Cloud and Ian Johnson, “In Post-9/11 World,
Chinese Dissidents Pose U.S. Dilemma,” Wall Street Journal, Aug. 3, 2004.
21 Secretary of State Colin Powell, “Roundtable with Japanese Journalists,” Aug. 12, 2004.

---

CRS-6
France, Portugal, Austria, and Turkey, and the State Department reportedly might
consider sending the Uighurs back to China, about 15 of whom the Defense
Department determined are not enemy combatants.22
Weapons Proliferation. In his 2002 State of the Union speech, President
Bush stressed the twin threats of terrorism and weapons proliferation, indicating a
strong stance on proliferation issues with China. PRC entities have reportedly
transferred missile and/or chemical weapons technology to countries that the State
Department says support terrorism, like Iran, North Korea, and Libya. On numerous
occasions, the Administration has imposed sanctions for weapons proliferation by
PRC entities. China has not joined the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI)
announced by President Bush on May 31, 2003. In its Final Report issued on July
22, 2004, the 9/11 Commission urged officials to encourage China to join the PSI.23
Post-Tiananmen Sanctions. Additional policy options have included
selectively or permanently waiving sanctions imposed after the 1989 Tiananmen
crackdown (Section 902 of P.L. 101-246), denying exports of defense
articles/services, crime control equipment, and satellites. On January 9, 2002, the
President issued a waiver of those sanctions (to export a bomb containment and
disposal unit for the Shanghai fire department to prevent terrorist bombings) and
again on January 25, 2002 (to consider export licenses for equipment to clean up
chemical weapons in China left by Japan in World War II). More presidential
waivers might be considered for exports of equipment for security of the Olympics
in Beijing in 2008, with concerns about internal suppression. Indeed, China held its
first exhibition on counter-terrorism equipment, and over 200 U.S. and other foreign
companies displayed their “advanced” weaponry and equipment, reported China’s
Xinhua news agency on May 10, 2005.
Container Security Initiative (CSI). The Bush Administration also sought
China’s cooperation in the Container Security Initiative (CSI) of U.S. Customs.
Launched in January 2002, CSI included PRC ports (Shanghai and Shenzhen) among
the top 20 foreign ports proposed for U.S. inspections of containers before U.S.-
bound shipping. On July 29, 2003, China agreed to join the CSI. Only after this
U.S.-PRC agreement did the Administration discuss an agreement with Taiwan to
cover the last of the 20 ports: Kaohsiung (ranked fourth behind Hong Kong,
Shanghai, and Singapore).
Military-to-Military Contacts. While there has been no counter-terrorism
cooperation with the PLA, the Pentagon has cautiously resumed military-to-military
contacts with China, limited after the EP-3 crisis and subject to review by Secretary
Rumsfeld. For the first time under the Bush Administration, the Pentagon and the
PLA again held Defense Consultative Talks (DCT) on December 9, 2002. There
were visits by China’s Defense Minister, General Cao Gangchuan, in October 2003
22 Demetri Sevastopulo, “U.S. Fails to Find Countries to Take Uighurs,” Financial Times, Oct. 28,
2004; “Uighurs Face Return to China from Guantanamo,” Financial Times, March 16, 2005;
“Detention Dilemma,” Washington Post (editorial), May 3, 2005.
23 See CRS Report RL31555, China and Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and
Missiles: Policy Issues, by Shirley Kan.

---

CRS-7
and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, in January
2004. Congress has oversight of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2000
(P.L. 106-65), which limits contacts with the PLA to prevent its “inappropriate
exposure” to operational areas.24
Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). Pertaining to China’s
suspicions about U.S. military deployments in Central Asia, the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization issued a declaration on July 5, 2005, that called for a
“deadline” for the counter-terrorism coalition’s “temporary” use of facilities and
military presence in SCO countries, because major military operations against
terrorists ended in Afghanistan, they claim. (The SCO was founded in Shanghai in
June 2001 by China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
China’s influence in the SCO increased after the 9/11 attacks raised attention to
counter-terrorism. U.S. armed forces are deployed at bases in Uzbekistan and
Kyrgyzstan.) PRC ruler Hu Jintao also argued that Central Asian countries can
handle their own internal and regional affairs. General Richard Myers, Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, responded on July 14 that China and Russia were “trying
to bully” the Central Asian countries. A week later, China’s official People’s Daily
accused Myers of showing U.S. intentions to “permanently meddle” and be
“strategically dominant” in Central Asia.
On July 19, 2005, the House passed an amendment (offered by Representative
Tom Lantos) to the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for FYs 2006 and 2007
(H.R. 2601). The language expressed Congressional concern that the SCO’s
declaration called for a deadline for deployments in those countries and called on the
President and Secretaries of Defense and State to open a dialogue with SCO
countries about the use of bases there. The House passed H.R. 2601 on July 20.
24 See CRS Report RL32496, U.S.-China Military Contacts: Issues for Congress, by Shirley
Kan.

---