US-China Space Race Ahead

Congress Daily takes a look at concerns in Congress over China's space program:

A space race between the United States and China will emerge in the next five to 10 years and could jeopardize U.S. national security, a key House lawmaker said Friday.

Floridian Tom Feeney, ranking Republican on the Science and Technology Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, made the comment after the Congressional Research Service produced a report on China's space program last month.

The report concluded that the nations currently mistrust one another's space goals. The nervousness is partly due to a surprise anti-satellite weapons test that China executed last January. The test, which destroyed an inactive Chinese weather satellite, polluted the cosmos with debris that will endanger space structures owned by a couple dozen countries, including China, for years.

The report looks at the prospects for cooperation on space between the US and China, and the possibility of lowering costs and improving outcome. The clear and obvious problem however, is the potential transfer of sensitive technologies:

"I would be opposed to transferring any technology to the Chinese that could potentially be used against us," Feeney said. "Almost anything that can help them launch into space and control how a vehicle operates can be used against us."

The People's Liberation Army continues to play a role in both military and civilian space operations. Feeney added: "The stakes are enormous and the Chinese know it. They teach their generals that whoever dominates space dominates the world..."

The referenced CRS report is here. It's a fairly brief read and, typical of many CRS documents, gives the novice a quick overview. It implies that US unilateralism may have prompted China to test its anti-satellite weapon:

How was the decision made to conduct a test that would contradict Beijing’s publicly-held position on the peaceful use of outer space, and that would almost certainly incur international condemnation? Some speculate that the United States’ unilateral positions encouraged China to conduct the test to demonstrate that it could not be ignored. In particular, the U.S. National Space Policy issued in September 2006 declares that the United States would “deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests."

It also cites some possible ways to improve coordination with China, and test whether substantive cooperation may be possible, without risking transfer of sensitive technologies:

• Information and data sharing. Confidence building measures (CBMs) such as information exchange on debris management, environmental and meteorological conditions, and navigation, are widely considered an effective first step in building trust in a sensitive relationship. NASA has done some of this with CNSA in the past, but more is possible.
• Space policy dialogue. Another area of potential exchange could begin with “strategic communication,”an attempt for each side to more accurately understand the other’s views, concerns, and intentions. Dialogue on “rules of the road,” a “code of conduct,” or even select military issues could be included.
• Joint activities. This type of cooperation is more complex and would probably require strong political commitments and confidence building measures in advance. Bi- and multi-lateral partnerships on the international space station, lunar missions, environmental observation, or solar system exploration are potential options. A joint U.S.-Soviet space docking exercise in 1975 achieved important technical and political breakthroughs during the Cold War.

I don't believe that the United States and China are fated to face off in a hostile or semi-hostile manner any time soon. I remain optimistic that the gradual opening of China to western idea will continue, and that as the country grows wealthier it will become more 'normal.'

That said, it seems to me that increased cooperation is a no-brainer, even if you have a very negative view of the PRC. In that case, it has to fall under the 'keep your friends close and your enemies closer' doctrine, right? Given the potential for conflict between the two nations, it makes sense to make every effort to understand them better.

Congress Prompts Yahoo to Settle China Suit

Read it at the Standard.

Is Congress Getting Ready to Pick a Fight with the PRC?

Read it at the Standard.

Will Congress Punish Yahoo, Google, Others for their Actions in China?

There's a very interesting dispute brewing between the House Foreign Affairs Committee and some of the world's leading technology companies. Let's start with legislation introduced by Congressman Chris Smith, which was recently approved by the committee. From Congressional Quarterly:

A House panel Tuesday approved legislation to punish U.S. Internet companies for sharing information with foreign governments that restrict access to the Internet.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee approved the measure by voice vote. The bill would make it illegal for U.S. companies hosting Internet content such as Web pages or e-mail to give users’ personal information to governments that restrict Internet access or cooperate in efforts to restrict access to U.S. government-supported Web content. Violators would be fined up to $2 million for businesses and up to $100,000 for individuals.

Countries restricting Internet freedom would be identified in an annual report to Congress from the president.

The bill is aimed at the actions of leading technology companies in China, including Google, Yahoo, Cisco and Microsoft. The firms have been criticized for sharing information with the Chinese government about the online activities of dissidents, as well as revising their search engines to censor some content for searches originating in China. In particular, Smith and the committee are angry with Yahoo, for allegedly having lied about their company's role in helping China develop evidence to jail dissident Shi Tao:

...At a 2006 hearing on the case, the company had assured Congress that it did not know about “the nature of the investigation” when it handed over the information.

Earlier this year, however, the San Francisco-based Dui Hua Foundation released documents disputing that assertion.

“Our committee has established that Yahoo! provided false information to Congress in early 2006,” Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) said. “We want to clarify how that happened, and to hold the company to account for its actions both before and after its testimony proved untrue. And we want to examine what steps the company has taken since then to protect the privacy rights of its users in China.”

Yahoo spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the committee’s decision to single out the company was “grossly unfair and mischaracterizes the nature and intent of our past testimony.”

The hearing, to which Yahoo’s chief executive, Jerry Yang, and the company’s senior vice president and general counsel, Michael Callahan, have been summoned, is scheduled for Nov. 6.

“Last year, in sworn testimony before my subcommittee, a Yahoo! official testified that the company knew nothing ‘about the nature of the investigation’ into Shi Tao, a pro-democracy activist who is now serving 10 years on trumped-up charges,” Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.) said.

“We have now learned there is much more to the story than Yahoo let on, and a Chinese government document that Yahoo had in their possession at the time of the hearing left little doubt of the government’s intentions," Smith said. "U.S. companies must hold the line and not work hand in glove with the secret police.”

The companies also face an extremely challenging business climate in China, where they apparently confront anti-competitive practices in their efforts to gain market share against Chinese companies -- notably Baidu.com.

If American companies are forced to limit their operations in China, it will hurt the effort to promote western values there. At the same time, the idea that these companies would assist in government efforts to jail people for practicing what we recognize as free speech is distasteful -- even offensive. I think it's undeniable that Yahoo, Google, Microsoft and others must walk a very narrow line.

This debate is likely to get a lot more attention at the scheduled hearing on November 6. It could also wind up being another serious test of Speaker Pelosi's ability to navigate foreign policy debates. While the Chinese hasn't waded into this debate in any serious way before, they didn't have to as long as the bill wasn't going anywhere. If it looks like the House might actually vote on it, that could change. Given the way Pelosi mishandled her trip to Syria, and the debate over the Armenian genocide, she needs to get this one right.

Chinese Weapons Appearing in Bad Places

It's worth paying attention to, but encouraging that the State Department does not believe China is intentionally shipping weapons to our enemies:

A senior US official recently told the FT that Iran appeared to be providing the Chinese-made weapons. He said Washington had no evidence that Beijing was complicit, but stressed that the US would like China to “do a better job of policing these sales”. Mr Lawless said the question of origin was less important than who was facilitating the transfer.

More importantly, it seems that while the US side understands our interest in a better understanding of the Chinese military, China has been reluctant to exchange information:

Mr Lawless said the US military relationship with China was “overall, not bad”, but there was a need for more engagement between the militaries, particularly at the senior levels. “They have been more willing to engage, but it is in millimetres and increments,” he said.

He said the Pentagon was disappointed that China had not given Admiral Michael Mullen, chief of naval operations, the same kind of access that his Chinese counterpart received during a visit to the US. Adm Mullen, who has since been nominated as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ended up not visiting China...

“There is a great shortfall in our understanding of China’s intentions,” said Mr Lawless, referring to the overall Chinese military build-up. “When you don’t know why they are doing it, it is pretty damn threatening . . . they leave us no choice but to assume the worst.”

The Chinese reluctance is undoubtedly attributable at least partly to their difficulty in figuring out what we want from them. We want assistance on a range of security issues and profess friendship, while we reject their investments in the West and criticize their exports and currency policies. It's not quite love/hate, but it is complex.

China to be Largest IPO Issuer in 2007

More signs of the continued growth of China, and its rise to prominence on the world stage:

Capital raised by new listings in China is set to exceed $52bn this year, twice the figure forecast in January, putting the mainland on track to become the world’s leading centre for share offerings this year.

The potential sums raised in primary and secondary listings this year underscore the huge liquidity in China’s domestic stock market and will heighten fears in Hong Kong, London and New York that they will no longer continue to benefit from hosting mainland IPOs.

Forget Iran and Iraq; our next President better know how to handle China. Whoever he (or she) is, let's hope for policies that allow American companies to weave their way deep into the Chinese economy and culture.

Is China Changing?

That's certainly what this appointment is intended to communicate -- particularly in advance of the upcoming Beijing Olympics:

China’s government has appointed a second non-Communist cabinet minister as the party seeks to burnish its reformist credentials before this year’s five-yearly congress and next year’s Beijing Olympic Games.

French-trained scientist Chen Zhu, 54, was named health minister, handing him a difficult and sensitive portfolio at a time when the sector is debating extensive reform.

But the manner of Mr Chen’s appointment underlined the limits of his real powers, even as a minister – in theory, the top job in the health bureaucracy.

In a puzzling move, Gao Qiang, the present minister, was retained both as a vice-minister and as the secretary of the ministry’s Communist party committee, meaning he will continue to outrank the minister...

Mr Chen’s appointment follows that of Wan Gang, a German-trained engineer who worked at Audi for many years who was made science minister this year.

China Hones Lobbying Prowess

Read it over at the Standard.

Tightening the Rules on China Exports

The administration has adopted a final rule for export of items that may contribute to China's military buildup. According to the Financial Times, this represents a 'narrower expansion' of the licensing regime than was proposed in overly-broad early drafts:

The US has tightened restrictions on exports of technology to China in a move aimed at curtailing Beijing’s military modernisation.

The Bush administration has posted on its website its “China Policy Rule”, which would expand the number of military end-use items for which US companies would need licences to export to China. Some industry groups and trade lawyers argue the rule is counter-productive. They say new procedures are very cumbersome and add that the expanded restrictions will hurt US industry by prompting China to buy an increasing number of technologies from Europe.

Any expansion is likely to have the effect of encouraging firms to do business abroad if possible, to avoid a cumbersome regime that other nations do not use.

Update: I note that Business Week presents a better summary of how this will work, including the 'validated end user' concept, which basically involves firms and entities presumed to be 'safe' for export, unless otherwise demonstrated:

Items that will be subject to the new military end-use controls include aircraft and aircraft engines, avionics and inertial navigation systems, lasers, depleted uranium, underwater cameras and propulsion systems, certain composite materials and some telecommunications equipment that can be used for space communications and air defense systems.

A Commerce statement said that the list was developed with input from experts at the departments of Commerce, Defense and State and was designed to target militarily useful items that are not widely available on world markets. U.S. export controls are administered by Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security.

The new validated end-user program will facilitate sales of U.S.-made products to trusted customers in such areas as electronics, semiconductor equipment and chemicals.

This tighter regime for export to China is the sort of thing that might give many conservatives 'warm fuzzies' toward the Bush administration. How fitting that they seem completely unaware of it. Yet another area where the White House has fallen down on their relations with the base.