Fear of Chinese nontraditional collectors strikes again

This blog is slightly modified from the original that appeared in Asia Times.

At a recent US Senate hearing, Christopher Wray, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was asked how China conducts spying in the United States. “With non-traditional collectors,” he said.

Lest anyone think Wray had discovered something new and novel, he hadn’t.

He was merely perpetuating the institutional racial bias the FBI held against Chinese-Americans since the inception of the agency founded by J Edgar Hoover.

During the hysteria in the late 1990s when Dr Wen Ho Lee, a scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, was accused of spying for China, so-called FBI sinologists – meaning they were supposed to be experts on China – explained to the American public that China did not spy by traditional means. “They spy by grains of sand.”

At the FBI, “grains of sand” was shorthand for all ethnic Chinese living in the US. The alleged conflicted loyalty between the motherland and adopted homeland leads each grain to collect and send every conceivable tidbit of useful information back to Beijing.

The speculation was that some super-duper computer in the basement of some ministry programmed with powerful artificial intelligence would crunch these random submissions, and out would come the designs for America’s latest top-secret weaponry.

Grains of sand now non-traditional collectors

This is patently ludicrous, of course. But this deeply rooted bias within the FBI gives cover for racial profiling of Chinese-Americans. Wray, with a smirk, wink and a nod, had simply upgraded “grains of sand” as “non-traditional collectors.”

Wray’s testimony came out of the US Senate Intelligence Committee open hearing on global threats and national security. Six heads of agencies in charge of protecting national security were summoned to testify – the most familiar being the Central Intelligence Agency and the FBI.

Unlike their counterparts in the House of Representatives, this Senate committee and its hearing were class acts. Members of the committee were civil, courteous and respectful to one another and to the witnesses.

But despite a collegial air of non-partisanship, the class act was defiled by the xenophobia of Republican Senator Marco Rubio. When it was his turn to question the panel, he began with a diatribe that China represented the biggest threat to the US.

Marco Rubio’s xenophobia

Then he asked Wray how the FBI monitors the many Chinese students studying in the US. Wray’s verbatim response was as follows.

“The use of non-traditional collectors, especially in the academic setting – whether it’s professors, scientists, students – we see in almost every field office that the FBI has around the country.

“It’s not just in major cities. It’s in small ones as well, it’s across basically every discipline. And I think the level of naiveté on the part of the academic sector about this creates its own issues.”

In Wray’s view, the problem is pervasive, and he suggested that the solution required a societal response, which I interpret to mean that every American has a duty to keep an eye out for the Chinese in the US.

A few years after the Wen Ho Lee fiasco – Dr Lee was put in solitary confinement without charge for 10 months and then released with an apology from the embarrassed presiding judge – the British Broadcasting Corp asked the special agent in charge of the FBI’s Silicon Valley field office about Chinese espionage. He said something to the effect that he had to watch some hundred thousand Chinese professionals running around the valley, and they were all potential spies.

More recently, the FBI broke a door down early one morning and charged into the home of Professor Xi Xiaoxing and arrested him for spying for China. Much to the embarrassment of the FBI, the head of the physics department at Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, who is a US citizen, had been “caught” exercising normal international academic exchanges of information belonging in the public domain.

The FBI simply did not have the knowhow to judge the technical content of the e-mails they were spying on. But if their suspect was Chinese – US citizen or not – then presumption of guilt without due process was justified.

So long as the FBI is soaked in racial bias against the Chinese, its director is a perfect foil for the likes of Rubio or any politician with an ax to grind against China. They can confidently make baseless accusations and won’t be challenged.

Fortunately, Rubio seemed to be the exception among his fellow members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Other members in their questions expressed serious concerns on more concrete issues such as opioid overdoses, cybersecurity and Russian interference in the US election process.

National debt seen as top security threat

Dan Coats, director of national intelligence, made the opening remarks on behalf of the entire panel of witnesses. He declared that the actual and greatest threat to US security was the national debt, now exceeding US$20 trillion. In other words, if the dollar collapses, everything else will not be worth worrying about.

Democratic Senator Jack Reed asserted that technologically China is way ahead of the US in quantum computing and artificial intelligence. Senator Mark Warner, another Democrat, pointed out that the total Chinese investment in those fields was less than the cost of one advanced fighter plane,

Indeed, Senator Warner observed that while the US is investing heavily in the best weapons of the 20th century, America’s rivals are investing for the 21st century.

Perhaps Warner had in mind the 2019 fiscal budget President Donald Trump has proposed to Congress. The largest increment of the budget increase was allocated to defense, in part to render the world’s deadliest weapons even more powerful.

The New York Times has projected that Trump’s budget would add another $7 trillion to the national debt over a 10-year period. Given the sentiment at the hearing, increasing the national debt and thus endangering national security seemed wrong headed.

It’s time for cooler heads to re-evaluate the madness of Americans competing with themselves for more advanced weapons. If the US instead stops considering China as an adversary, it can spend less on defense and thus strengthen its financial balance sheet and step away from the debt precipice.

It’s important to be reminded that after World War II, many students from Hong Kong and Taiwan and later from mainland China came to the US and elected to remain. Their contribution to US technology and the nation’s economy far exceeded the expectation based on their numbers.

To convey the xenophobic bias that students from China are not to be trusted and welcomed is to hurt US national interest through stupidity of Americans’ own making.

In conclusion, it makes no sense to raise the military budget and increase the national debt so as to put national security at far greater risk than perceived threats based on xenophobia. If we Americans find ways to get along with China, we will find common ground and actually be more secure.

If I were to tweet

If Donald Trump is such a pathological liar and can't help himself but perjure himself, why then did he agreed to testify before Mueller under oath? Because he was lying that he would, that's why.

Elon Musk just sent one new Tesla into outer space on one of his super booster rocket. A lot of customers are still waiting for their long delayed delivery but Musk just send one into space.

America first president wants a mother of all military parades. Why should Kim Jong-un have all the fun? To save money, skip the hardware and marching bands. Just fix the camera on numero uno standing on the reviewing stand for three hours and Trump will be happy.

Two Schools of International Relations, me vs we

This piece was posted on Asia Times.

From recent global summits, contrasting messages from the leaders of China and the US clearly define the two schools of international relations — “me first” versus “we first.”

The “me first” school consists of a majority of one, namely the United States of America. President Donald Trump summarizes the principle of this school simply as America first.

The dailyReport

 

Must-reads from across Asia - directly to your inbox

In the world of “me first,” the US makes the rules and the rest follow. If there are exceptions to the rules, only the US gets to make and take them. All the followers must be content to play second fiddle.

One unmistakable example that boggles any reasonable mind is the Trump declaration: “We are going to build the wall and you [Mexico] are going to pay for it.”

Many nations find ‘we first’ a sensible option

China has been vocal in promoting the “we first” school of international relations but they are not the only voice. Leaders from many other nations find the “we first” idea sensible and have joined in support of its principles.

“We first” means let us build bridges, pave highways and lay high-speed rail together because we know infrastructure improvements will be good for the economies of those involved.

The principle of fairness undergirding the concept of “we first” is why most countries have signed on.

Nobody has to play second fiddle and there is no conductor calling the shots. Every member-nation belongs to the community of “we first” countries. The principle of fairness undergirding the concept of “we first” is why most countries have signed on.

The railroad in Kenya built with Chinese help is an example of “we first” in practice. Kenyans laid the tracks with the assistance of technical advisers from China and were trained in track maintenance.

The new railroad replaced the old line between Mombasa and Nairobi built in the colonial era. Chinese trained the locals as conductors and engineers. The Chinese also helped to select and design stations along the major economic lifeline of Kenya to maximize the benefits of the new railway.

China has included the Kenya project in its ambitious Belt Road Initiative. To facilitate and expand the scope of such BRI projects around the world, China created the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank to finance selected projects.

In the first 18 months, AIIB has provided more than US$4.6 billion spread among a dozen countries and entities. Interestingly, India has been the largest recipient with nearly 20% of all AIIB funding.

‘We first’ nations ignore Washington warnings

But the bank did not suit the American “me first” policy and the Obama administration actively advised second-fiddle nations to stay away. In this case, nearly every major nation ignored Washington and jumped to become a member.

Leading the charge into AIIB was the UK with then-prime minister David Cameron. That was before Brexit. Since Brexit, Cameron as a private citizen has brokered a private-equity fund to invest in Belt Road projects.

Given Britain’s likely economic isolation after Brexit takes effect, current Prime Minister Theresa May is understandably eager to strike a free-trade pact with China. Yet during a three-day visit to Beijing this week, she was reluctant to endorse BRI.

Some say May is being pressured by Trump not to endorse BRI. A “me first” nation simply doesn’t have room for a “we first” community of nations.

It’s not as if Trump doesn’t understand the importance of a first-rate infrastructure. He has asked Congress for US$1.5 trillion to upgrade America’s failing infrastructure.

Where will the funds come from? Easy. From the printing presses of the Federal Reserve. What about nations that follow the “me first” nation if they need assistance? Sorry, you second fiddles are out of luck.

US ‘big-stick’ threat aimed at defiant countries

How does the US keep the followers in line if not with lending an economic hand? With the world’s largest arsenal of weapons and military might, that’s how. Lately, the Trump White House has been hinting that even a preemptive nuclear strike is an option.

Obviously, the two schools of international relations are not in conflict and can co-exist. Countries can belong to both schools. A good example is India which looks to the US as a counterweight but also works with China for their participation in infrastructure spending.

However, there will come a day when the “we first” nations have so many members all intertwined in cross investments and overlapping interests. They would no longer feel that their security is tied to the fortunes of the “me first” nation.

A

Chinese Investments in the US, Toxic or Tonic?

This was the topic of a panel discussion sponsored by the Committee of 100 with the Commonwealth Club, held at the Club on January 29, 2018.

Pin Ni, CEO of Wanxiang USA, spoke about his experience in building Wanxiang's US investments to a conglomerate with 18,000 employees and annual revenue of $4 billion.

Dr. Yukon Huang, author of "Cracking the China Conundrum," commented on the economics of foreign direct investments as well as other issues related to US China relations.

I was the moderator of this panel. A video of this event can be found at

https://www.commonwealthclub.org/events/archive/video/chinas-investments-us-toxic-or-tonic

Can Trump Reverse Global Disapproval of the US?

This piece first appeared in Asia Times.

The recent Gallup poll reported that worldwide approval of China’s global leadership role has surpassed the approval rating for the US. The difference while small suggests a trend in the world perception that the two great powers are heading in opposite directions. China is moving up and the US down.

That the US approval rating is down can be directly attributed to President Trump’s “America first”—and to hell with everybody else—approach. It’s no surprise that neighboring countries that know him best, Canada and Mexico, show the biggest drop in approval of the US.

All the other traditional allies of the US, namely western European countries, Australia, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea and Latin America are the major countries/regions that responded with more than 10% decline in approval.

In fact the global approval rating of America, at an average of 30%, has hit an all time low, below even the strong disapproval evaluation of the George W. Bush regime. The same poll indicates that China has risen behind Germany as the second most admired great power.

It’s appropriate to compare the contrasting approaches of the US and China internationally as a way of understanding this trend and what might presage for the future.

Trump has not expressed any vision for America or for the world nor any policy or strategy going forward other than to increase defense spending. He has said he will make America great again but he hasn’t said anything specific that the public can point to, “aha that’s how we going to get to that greatness.”

President Xi of China on the other hand has carefully outlined his domestic and international agenda. Domestically, he wants to leave no one behind and lift those remaining below the poverty line out of poverty. Trump doesn’t care about those making below minimum wage; he just wants to send them back to wherever country they came from.

China has—at last—embarked on pollution abatement and remediation of past environmental damages. They not only believe in the science behind climate change but are actively taking steps to reverse green house gas emissions.

To Trump, science is voodoo hocus-pocus and he won’t take any steps that he thinks would hurt the economy. (One can question whether Trump’s grasp of economics is any better than of science.) Thus he withdrew from the Paris Accord and by default China has taken over the leadership in combating climate change.

Internationally, Xi has pointed to the Belt Road Initiative (BRI) as an important part of China’s diplomatic toolkit. Virtually any country interested in working with China, can. China has financed and helped construct highways in Central Asia, new railroads in Africa, harbors in Africa, Asia and Europe.

A number of projects are under feasibility study in Latin America. These programs are not handouts but with financing provided by development banks mostly via competitive bids; albeit China has won most of the projects.

Of course, not all the completed projects have worked out satisfactorily. The best known debacle was Sri Lanka.  The Colombo government agreed to nearly $15 billion in Chinese financing for the construction of large infrastructure projects such as a power plant, a new airport, improvement of existing port as well as a new port.

Unfortunately, the completed projects did not boost the economy to the projected level such that the government receipts could service the debt. The country development model used to finance the Sri Lanka projects is the same as the one used by World Bank and Asian Development Bank. In this case, the model didn’t work.

Critics from the west have been quick to label the Sri Lanka experience as an example of China’s exercise of “sharp” power. Since no military force is involved, a new belittling term had to be coined to disparage China’s image.

Notwithstanding what happened in Sri Lanka, others are undaunted by China’s supposedly sharp elbows. Soon a ministerial meeting will take place between Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) representing 33 countries and China to explore broader and deeper cooperation. 

National leaders of the member states of Lancang-Mekong Cooperation met Premier Li Keqiang just last week to discuss not only economic cooperation but also how China can provide increasing training and scholarships to the students of the other member states. In addition to China other members are Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Thailand and Vietnam.

At the same time parliament leaders from seven Nordic and Baltic countries were calling on President Xi in Beijing, a first time for these countries to come as a group. From their visit, they expressed admiration for what China has achieved, the technological innovations they have seen and the potential to cooperate with China as part of the BRI.

Other than countries that see themselves as rivals of China, such as the U.S., Japan and possibly India, there are few if any other countries that have not expressed the desire to enhance good will and develop a closer relationship with China. Despite hostile views from American politician and pundits, China is simply not perceived as a threat.

Recently at a public forum on Stanford campus, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was quoted as saying the American military presence around the world is necessary to combat terrorism. If that’s really the case, he should convince his boss in the White House to stop thinking about China as a possible adversary and think about recruiting China as a partner.

China shares common interest in counterterrorism and possess some new weapons to add to the fight. Advances in artificial intelligence (AI) coupled with high quality security cameras have enabled China’s public security to identify fugitives, criminals and terrorists in real time.

The American military could use such systems in combat zones in the Middle East. The system could also monitor passersby around embassies and scan arriving passengers at the airport immigration—a much more practical alternative to enacting blanket bans of travelers from selected countries.

There are other developments where the US can profit by learning from China. To maintain their hold on manufacturing, China is developing and relying on robotics and automation. China is not trying to hold on to low end manufacturing with low paid workers; China is instead developing manufacturing for high valued products that can do without any workers on the factory floor.

 Somebody should be advising Trump that high end and high precision manufacturing is the future—not the labor intensive, low value products he is trying to wrestle back to America.

As a matter of fact, there is so much to be gained for the two powers to collaborate rather than resort to pointless confrontation. Clearly, China is determined to make friends globally one project at a time. They could even apply their infrastructure expertise to help Trump make America great.

China is not seeking to win at the expense of the US, nor should the US look for vice versa. If both were to cooperate, tension would ease and world approval can only go up for both powers.

Era of fake news begat a phony president

What makes a phony president? He tweets but does not lead. He doesn't read. He doesn't make any effort to understand any sides of issues. He has no patience with complexity. He takes outrageous and outlandish positions. If his positions find resonance with his so-called base, he stands by them. If the outcry and criticism far overwhelm the support from his base, he simply deny ever making those positions.

Take the most recent example where he labeled certain 3rd world countries where the citizens are mostly dark-skinned as sh*thole places. The public reaction was swift and the outraged was overwhelming. The phony president on the next day promptly denied ever expressing sentiments of bigotry.

The senator from the opposition party at the meeting when Mr. Phony uttered racist statements claimed that the president did so more than once. Other senators of his own party allowed as how he really did make those offensive remarks. Then there were two loyal senators that plead suffering from dementia and "could not" recall hearing those remarks.

Is the phony president's show of racism designed to please his constituents and solidify his base? Or he simply doesn't care if Americans think of him as a racist? As if to double down, he also praise the Norwegians as the kind of immigrants he would welcome. Perhaps he thinks such praise will get him the Nobel Peace prize--said prize is awarded by Norway.

It must gall him that his predecessor, whose father was African, was given the Peace prize. Why not him?

See "Shithole Nationalism" for a superb analysis from Africa.