US at a Loss How to Counter China’s Arms Race with it


China’s Arms Race Does Not Aim at Competition with US

Usually a race is a competition among a few runners who compete with one another. There must at least be two runners to compete with each other. China’s arms race with the US is unique. It is a game of China running to catch up the US while the US is running on its own alone without knowing that China has been running hard to catch up with and surpass it. It was until several years later in late 2017 that the US realized that and described China as its major competitor in its National Security Strategy.

Too Late US Realized China’s Arms Race with it

Now, China’s arms race with the US has become an arms competition between China The US regards China as its major competitor but do not know how to compete with China. First of all, for a longtime, the US does not know China has been conducting arms race with it.

As a result, in the period of US ignorance of China’s arms race, US military has been slow in developing advanced weapons and wasted lots of resources in developing Littoral Combat Ships without designed fire power and excessively expensive Zumwalt-class destroyers that use cannon ammunition that the US cannot afford. In the years of China’s arms race with the US, China has made great achievements in upgrading its J-10, J-11 families of fighter jets, developing J-20 stealth fighter jets, Y-20 large freight airplanes, supersonic missiles, advanced ICBMs, etc.. Its navy has developed its homegrown aircraft carriers, J-15 carrier-borne fighter jets, Type 75 helicopter landing dock, Type 055 destroyers, advanced nuclear submarines, etc. In addition, China has upgraded its Beidou Navigation System to expand the area of its services.

US Puzzled by China’s Speed of Military Modernization

When the US became awar of China’s rapid military modernization, it is puzzled and wonders China’s goal of arms race with it. The US always regards China’s military buildup as aiming at achieving A2/AD capabilities in spite of Chinese military experts’ denial and China’s statement in its national defense White Paper that its national defense strategy is active defense. A2/AD (anti access/area denial) is mainly passive defense while active defense stresses attack for defense and even regard attack as the best way of defense. Therefore, for active defense, China is developing weapons to attack the US and at best its homeland. That is why it is developing spaceplanes, long-range bombers, supersonic weapons, advanced nuclear submarines, etc. that are able to attack US mprove relations with Biden Administration and hoping Biden will reverse Trump’s anhomeland.

Now, China is so confident that it will win the arms race and sure that US trade and tech wars attacks are unable to hurt China in the long run so that it does not make big tests of US new Biden Administration as pointed out in Foreign Policy’s article “Stop Looking for Beijing’s Big Test of the Biden Administration” on February 5, 2021. Chinese diplomats have been making efforts to revert America’s anti-China policies but have not softened China’s firm attitudes against Biden’s succession to Trump’s policies.

China’s top diplomat regards such reverting as correction of Trump’s mistakes and told US Secretary of State Antony Blinken to correct the mistakes in his recent phone call with him.

Article by Chan Kai Yee


The Overreach of the China Hawks


Aggression Is the Wrong Response to Beijing

By Michael D. Swaine, Ezra F. Vogel, Paul Heer, J. Stapleton Roy, Rachel Esplin Odell, Mike Mochizuki, Avery Goldstein, and Alice Miller; Aaron L. Friedberg

October 23, 2020

Photo

A man practicing Tai Chi in Shanghai, China, March 2010

Nir Elias / Reuters

In “An Answer to Aggression,” (September/October 2020), Aaron Friedberg argues that the United States and its allies and partners should use aggressive policies to contain China. Friedberg repeatedly offers sweeping, unqualified worst-case statements about China’s views, intentions, and actions—playing loose with the facts and exhibiting a lack of understanding of aspects of the Chinese system—to justify zero-sum policy prescriptions. Coercive “push back” policies alone will not compel Beijing to do the United States’ bidding—as Washington’s Cuba policy demonstrates. To the contrary, such policies would increase the risk of conflict, strengthen chauvinistic nationalism in China, and reduce the chances that the United States can work with China to deal with urgent common problems.

U.S. policymakers must adopt a more careful and considered approach. The United States must coordinate with allies and partners not only to deter and compete with China when needed but also to incentivize Beijing to cooperate in addressing shared concerns such as global warming and current and future pandemics. Washington should aim to diminish the likelihood of nuclear war, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missiles, a costly arms race, and the spread of terrorism. It should seek a stable power balance in the Asia-Pacific region that respects the interests of all countries—including those of China. And it should revise and expand multilateral trade and investment agreements and foster international efforts to better address natural disasters and human rights abuses in all countries.

Such a strategy requires not belligerence and muscle flexing but vigorous and well-funded diplomacy backed by resilient and strategically deployed military forces designed to reinforce stability, not provoke confrontation. Managing the relationship with Beijing is a long-term project that cannot succeed without domestic revitalization, greater unity of national purpose, and a respect for global opinion. But above all, U.S. leaders have to take a much more realistic view of the United States’ relationship with China than is now common in Washington and avoid sliding into Friedberg’s black-and-white vision of confrontation.

A CARICATURE OF BEIJING

Hawkish positions on China often proceed from flawed presumptions. Friedberg claims that the bulk of Beijing’s policy disagreements with the West arise from its authoritarian political system. He ignores the fact that many of China’s international concerns have grown out of long-standing nationalist beliefs and cultural attitudes that long predate communist rule. These include the resentment produced by over a century of predatory Western behavior in East Asia, a profound and at times bristling pride in China’s rise, and deep-seated fears that a more freewheeling domestic political process could jeopardize the stability that has facilitated greater prosperity. Such nationalist attitudes and concerns would prevail even in a democratic China; there is no reason to believe that China’s system of government is what makes Beijing eager to protect what it regards as its territory and reestablish itself as a major power in Asia and the world.

Friedberg’s overzealous reading of the role of ideology in Chinese policy extends to other areas. He argues that China hopes to “divide, discredit, and weaken” democracies, “leaving the United States at the head of what will be, at best, a diminished and enfeebled coalition.” This line of reasoning sees more deliberate intent in China’s behavior than there actually is. As many scholars, including the political scientist Jessica Chen Weiss, have noted, China’s grand strategy is not designed to force acceptance of its political model or undermine democracies. When China grants loans to other countries, for example, it does not distinguish in any discernable way between democracies and nondemocracies, even if its activities at times exacerbate corruption and indirectly erode democratic norms. Friedberg suggests that the United States and many other countries hold a “heightened awareness of a shared danger” coming from China. But in reality, other countries have mixed perceptions of China; they sometimes view the United States, along with China, as threatening their interests. Many countries now carry on more trade with China than they do with the United States, want better economic ties with both Beijing and Washington, and resist being forced to choose between the two powers.

Friedberg contends that the West’s “wager” that diplomatic and economic engagement with China would eventually liberalize the country has “failed to pay off.” Former U.S. officials and others have rebutted the notion that engagement was ever predicated on the political liberalization of China. Closer ties with Beijing have led to Chinese acceptance of international rules in areas such as nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction, arms control, and some aspects of global trade and finance. Engagement also brought China into the global economy and fueled economic growth worldwide.

Hawkish positions on China often proceed from flawed presumptions.

Friedberg sees in China’s national security efforts further evidence of an aggressive, ideological state. He dismisses the possibility that China has legitimate defense concerns. For example, in his view, China’s growing military capabilities in the western Pacific are intended solely “to weaken the credibility of U.S. security guarantees and undermine the network of democratic alliances that rests on them.” Imputing this exclusive and sinister political intent to China’s military strategy obscures the more banal reality that China is using its growing military power in large part to defend against perceived threats in its offshore waters, as any country would do, and to resist challenges to its long-standing but often disputed claims of sovereignty.

As for Beijing’s diplomatic campaigns, Friedberg argues that Chinese advocacy of a “community of common destiny” is a sly ruse to dominate developing nations. He misses what it really is: a simplistic propaganda slogan meant to win foreign friends. China has no strong allies that can provide it with substantive support. Its closest relations are with North Korea and Pakistan, countries that don’t offer much that is useful to Beijing (although Islamabad does give China some leverage in dealing with India).

It is true, as Friedberg asserts, that China’s leaders seek to harness economic growth to boost the nation’s international stature and power. But Friedberg insists that this goal overrides all other purposes, ignoring the very real ways in which growth has benefited huge numbers of Chinese citizens. And by characterizing Chinese leaders as purely mercantilist, he also ignores the reality that China’s most productive and successful sectors, such as technology innovation, continue to be driven primarily by capitalist incentives.

Friedberg insists that Chinese diplomacy is bent on prying open Western markets and gaining access to advanced technologies. He dismisses Beijing’s loan policies through the Belt and Road Initiative as nothing more than cunning strategies designed to subjugate and control others. But the scholar Deborah Brautigam has found little evidence that Chinese banks are intentionally structuring foreign deals “to secure strategic advantages for China.” In fact, recipient countries often actively court Chinese investment projects. Numerous academic studies show that Chinese economic aid can have positive effects and in many cases doesn’t appear to be any more motivated by geopolitical designs than comparable Western aid.

THE WRONG WAY

Friedberg and other China hawks argue that the West must actively work to slow China’s growth and influence. By doing so, he claims, Washington could force the Chinese leadership to accept “deeper reforms that will someday change the fundamental character of the regime.” Such an outlook channels the same regime-change impulses that have led the United States down disastrous paths in recent decades. It is also likely to increase domestic Chinese support for the Communist Party. In recent years, antagonistic U.S. actions have turned many people in China against the United States, weakening U.S. influence in the country.

For Friedberg, the “alluring” prospect of cooperation with China must never take precedence over “the urgent necessity of competition.” Yet he calls not for mere competition but for an antagonistic rivalry that minimizes any attempt at cooperation. He contends, for example, that the United States should reestablish military predominance right up to China’s borders and prevent China from controlling the waters along its coasts. Such an effort is nearly certain to result in a destabilizing and prohibitively expensive arms race. A more realistic—and far cheaper—goal would be for the United States and its allies to ensure that neither side can dominate the air and water space along China’s maritime periphery. This would require a more defense-oriented force structure that focuses on ensuring the ability to inflict unacceptable damage to Chinese air and naval assets in an offshore conflict rather than on carrying out escalatory attacks on Chinese territory.

Friedberg troublingly suggests that the United States should jettison fundamental aspects of its long-standing one-China policy (in which Washington remains open to any peaceful, mutually agreed upon resolution of the Beijing-Taipei imbroglio) that has kept a lid on tensions in the Taiwan Strait. By asserting that China cannot be allowed to absorb Taiwan because doing so would give it control over some of the island’s high-tech capabilities, Friedberg in effect rejects this long-standing policy in favor of preventing any reconciliation of cross-strait differences that would include a Chinese role in Taiwan’s economy. Such a shift in policy would be a highly risky gamble, making conflict more—not less—likely. Public opinion polling in Taiwan, moreover, has shown strong public support for maintaining the current status quo rather than incurring the risks of a dangerous U.S.-backed attempt to block any type of unification.

Photo

A boy looking at remote control tank toys in Shanghai, China, May 2019

Aly Song / Reuters

In considering the economic and technological disagreements between the United States and China, Friedberg offers a number of sensible solutions but then proposes to exclude China from global trading and technology systems. He wants to keep China—one of the world’s leading trading countries—outside the rules-based order rather than develop responsible common guidelines among as many countries as possible. In any case, this proposal is unlikely to gain sufficient traction to make it viable, since most East Asian countries conduct more trade with China than with the United States. The United States will only isolate itself if it attempts to decouple entirely from technology-related interactions with China, as Friedberg seems to want, given the strong and likely enduring technology ties between China and many other countries, including many democracies.

With regard to Chinese industrial espionage and influence operations in the United States, Friedberg sensibly calls for prudent limits on Chinese scholars associated with the Chinese military and security bodies. But he fails to mention that policies to enforce those limits need to be carefully crafted to avoid feeding into broader anti-Asian discrimination, committing gross abuses against innocent researchers, and discouraging talented Chinese from studying in the United States and applying their knowledge to the benefit of American society.

Friedberg concludes with the hope that “sustained resistance” will force China’s leaders to reconsider their present path, but his recommended pushback amounts to a concerted effort to undermine the Chinese regime and impede China’s economic and technological development. This outright hostility will make the practical necessity of cooperation with Beijing in the coming years impossible.

A WORKABLE POLICY

U.S. policymakers would err greatly in accepting Friedberg’s view that China is dedicated to undermining democracies worldwide and deterred only by displays of superior force. That conviction will impede diplomacy and isolate the United States, leaving Washington with only costly and dangerous military options and increasing the likelihood of conflict. A more realistic and effective approach would eschew demonizing rhetoric and apocalyptic speculation and seek to strike an appropriate balance between deterrence and cooperation, while making common cause with like-minded countries that share U.S. goals.

Chinese leaders, for their part, have made clear that they foresee an extended period of both “struggle and cooperation” with the United States. From a strategic standpoint, therefore, U.S. policymakers should be willing to settle in for the long haul. To do well in this competition, Washington must concentrate on domestic revitalization. It should craft policies that boost U.S. technological innovation, rebuild infrastructure, invest in education and health care, restructure the military to deal with future threats in a restrained way, and protect workers from the most adverse effects of globalization.

On that stronger footing, Washington should foster a bilateral trade, investment, and technology relationship with Beijing based on realistic expectations and reciprocity, not worst-case assumptions and speculations. A pragmatic policy would recognize the value of economic ties with China and encourage continued Sino-U.S. cooperation in many critical areas, including technology.

That doesn’t mean that U.S. leaders should give up pressing China on issues of human rights and political expression. Washington must work with other countries to counter repressive Chinese policies, including in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Tibet, and Xinjiang. That said, the United States best advances the human and political rights of other nations by serving as a model of decency, morality, and justice at home.

U.S. leaders can work with Beijing and other nations to address current and future issues of mutual concern, including climate change, pandemics, and creating a stable power balance in Asia. Washington has a global network of allies and partners who look for wise U.S. leadership when it comes to China, an advantage it should not squander. Friedberg’s bluntly confrontational, zero-sum approach would make it very hard to build this more workable policy. The United States can do better.

Michael D. Swaine, Ezra F. Vogel, Paul Heer, J. Stapleton Roy, Rachel Esplin Odell, Mike Mochizuki, Avery Goldstein, and Alice Miller

FRIEDBERG REPLIES

Perhaps it should come as no surprise in the current climate, but this multiauthored letter reads more like another overwrought political statement than an attempt at reasoned debate on complex issues. Like many such documents, it is replete with intemperate, derogatory, and dismissive language intended to discredit and marginalize rather than engage with an opponent’s views. (Thus, I am an “overzealous,” “hawkish” “hawk” who plays “loose with the facts,” has a “black-and-white vision,” engages in “demonizing rhetoric and apocalyptic speculation” and advocates a policy of “belligerence and muscle flexing.”)

Worse, the letter is filled with distortions designed to make my arguments appear extreme and thus easier to refute. Because space does not permit a full recitation of these mischaracterizations, a small selection will have to suffice: the authors claim that I support a policy aimed at excluding China from the global economy, when I say explicitly that what is required is “not total decoupling but partial disengagement.” The authors suggest that I harbor “regime-change impulses” despite the fact that I state clearly that the United States and its allies must acknowledge that “China’s future is not theirs to decide.” From the factual observation that China’s power would be enhanced if it took control of Taiwan, the authors infer that I advocate independence for the island. There are people who hold such views, but I am not one of them. To suggest otherwise is not to argue in good faith.

I believe that the authors misunderstand the threat China now poses and understate its severity. That threat is a product of China’s growing material power coupled with the distinctive character of its domestic regime. Whatever else they may believe, Chinese President Xi Jinping and his colleagues are fervent Leninists. They regard all politics as a zero-sum, “you die, I live” struggle. They are determined to crush dissent and to retain the Communist Party’s monopoly on political authority at home, whatever the cost, and to overawe potential opponents and demonstrate the superiority of China’s system by transforming it into the world’s strongest state.

The authors misunderstand the threat China now poses and understate its severity.

As their capabilities and confidence have grown, China’s rulers have started to push back against both the material strength and physical presence of the United States and its democratic allies, as well as the subversive appeal of their liberal democratic ideals. Beijing seeks to undermine the credibility of U.S. security guarantees and to divide democracies from one another while continuing to penetrate and exploit their societies, economies, and information spheres. It has become more open in trying to use economic leverage to pressure the United States’ Asian allies and has recently stepped up the use of force and threats of force against several of its democratic neighbors. At Xi’s direction, the party has intensified its use of covert “united front” political influence operations to try to shape the perceptions and policies of other countries. Beijing is employing a variety of “sharp power” tactics to expand its influence in developing countries and through them in international organizations. And it seeks to redefine existing norms in ways that deny the existence of “so-called Western universal values” and assert the moral equivalence of regimes based on unchecked state power. China may not be trying to force others to adopt its model, but its actions and example are reinforcing trends toward authoritarianism in places where democracy has not yet taken firm root.

The aggressive turn in China’s policies began to emerge during a period in which the United States and other democracies were doing everything possible to accommodate China’s rise. These troubling tendencies have been clearly evident since at least the onset of the global financial crisis in 2008 and have grown more obvious since Xi’s rise to power in 2012. Yet the authors seem not to have updated their assessments of the regime’s intentions and capabilities, nor their prescriptions for how best to respond to its actions. Recent analyses suggest that China’s leaders believe their policies are working and that the tides of history are flowing in their favor. Achieving a more stable relationship will require first persuading them that they are mistaken. Attempting to reassure Beijing or to appease its “legitimate . . . concerns” by adopting a purely defensive posture will have the opposite effect, with potentially disastrous consequences.

MICHAEL D. SWAINE is Director of the East Asia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

EZRA F. VOGEL is Professor Emeritus of the Social Sciences and former Director of the Fairbank Center at Harvard University.

PAUL HEER is a Distinguished Fellow at the Center for the National Interest and a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.

J. STAPLETON ROY is former U.S. ambassador to China, Indonesia, and Singapore and also served as Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research.

RACHEL ESPLIN ODELL is a Research Fellow in the East Asia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.

MIKE MOCHIZUKI is Chair of Japan-U.S. Relations in Memory of Gaston Sigur at George Washington University.

AVERY GOLDSTEIN is David M. Knott Professor of Global Politics and International Relations at the University of Pennsylvania.

ALICE MILLER is a Research Associate at the Hoover Institution and a lecturer in East Asian Studies at Stanford University.

AARON L. FRIEDBERG is Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Source: Foreign Affairs “The Overreach of the China Hawks”

Note: This is Foreign Affairs’ article I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the article’s views.


Goodwill message from Xi to Trump shows major country attitude despite rivalry


By GT staff reporters Source: Global Times

Published: 2020/10/3 18:06:52 Last Updated: 2020/10/3 21:06:52

Chinese President Xi Jinping and his wife Peng Liyuan on Saturday sent a message of sympathy, wishing an early recovery for US President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania from the COVID-19.

Analysts said the message, out of humanitarianism, “shows the decency of a major country,” and it is hoped that it could also serve to kick-start positive interactions between leaders of China and US, allowing a buffer to bilateral confrontations.

Xi said in the message that “my wife Peng Liyuan and I express sympathy, and hope you get better soon.”

After the Trump couple confirmed their infection on Friday, Chinese Ambassador to the US Cui Tiankai and Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Hua Chunying also expressed good wishes on Twitter.

Analysts said the message is humanitarian regards to the couple who suffered from the virus. Kind wishes to the patients are not affected by political frictions or Trump’s hostility.

Chinese netizens said that Xi and the diplomats’ messages show the decency of a major country. “With the goodwill to Trumps, and pledges of making vaccine a public good, China is doing what we should do in the international community,” a net user said on Sina Weibo.

This was the first message between the two leaders in months, amid the continuous spreading of the coronavirus and the US whole-of-government approach against China. Before the message, Xi and Trump’s most recent reported communication was in late March on the phone, after which the US ordered the closure of a Chinese consulate and accelerated oppression of Chinese tech companies on top of its continuous smears on the coronavirus, Hong Kong and Xinjiang affairs. He also attacked China over the pandemic at the UN general assembly in September.

Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times that Xi expressing sympathy and regards to Trump is in line with international norms. “No matter what situation the two governments are in, disease is tragic.”

President Xi said at the general debate of the UN 75th assembly, “major countries should act like major ones.” Lü said sending the message of sympathy is what a leader of a major country should do.

Xi had sent many messages to leaders who fought the pandemic with their people, but a message of sympathy in a personal tone is rare.

Li Haidong, a professor at the Institute of International Relations of the China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times that the message, more in a personal tone, also carries deeper meaning. “It shows goodwill from China’s top leader, and expectations for positive person-to-person interaction with the leader of the US, despite the difficulties between the two countries.”

It is hoped that such goodwill from a leader, if it develops into positive interactions, will smoothen diplomatic relations and allow a buffer as bilateral relations face challenges, Li said.

Li noted that the ball is in Trump’s court, but he is not optimistic about American reactions. It is more likely the Trump administration will continue its hostility, smears and attacks despite Chinese goodwill.

Source: Global Times “Goodwill message from Xi to Trump shows major country attitude despite rivalry”

Note: This is Global Times’ report I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the report’ views.


‘Vast’ U.S. business expansion in China may threaten U.S. tech leadership: report


July 2, 2020

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A “vast expansion” in U.S. multinational business activity in China since 2000 may threaten American industrial competitiveness and long-term tech leadership, a new report by a congressional U.S.-China advisory commission found on Wednesday.

The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission warned that rapid moves by U.S. companies away from manufacturing in China and into higher-value activities such as research and development could be “unwittingly enabling China to achieve its industrial policy objectives.”

The commission said its analysis of nearly two decades of U.S. economic and trade data showed a 15-fold increase in U.S. commercial assets in China. U.S. companies now employ 1.7 million people in China, an increase of nearly 600% since 2000, when U.S. firms employed just 252,000 people there.

It said U.S. companies had leveraged China’s cheap labor force, large economies of scale, low transportation costs, and concentration of global supply chains, with much of the activity focused on meeting demand from China’s growing consumer class.

U.S. manufacturing in China was mainly focused on production of computers, electronic products and, increasingly, chemicals, but there was also increased investment in research and development, often at the insistence of China.

These industries … may indirectly erode the United States’ domestic industrial competitiveness and technological leadership relative to China,” it said, urging Congress to take steps to preserve U.S. innovative capacity and leadership.

The report comes amid rising tensions between the United States and China, the world’s two largest economies, despite the signing of a Phase 1 U.S.-China trade agreement in January.

The Trump administration has restricted visas and ended exports of defense equipment in response to a new national security law cracking down on Hong Kong’s independence, and on Wednesday warned U.S. companies about the risks they face from maintaining supply chains associated with human rights abuses in China’s western Xinjiang province.

Reporting by Andrea Shalal and David Lawder; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Jonathan Oatis

Source: Reuters “’Vast’ U.S. business expansion in China may threaten U.S. tech leadership: report”

Note: This is Reuters’ report I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the report’ views.


China, US planning to hold top-level talks in Hawaii, source says


  • US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo expected to lead American delegation, with Politburo member Yang Jiechi set to head Chinese team, insider says

  • Meeting would be first face-to-face talks between top officials from the two sides since January and comes as tensions near boiling point

Teddy Ng and Laura Zhou in Beijing

Published: 2:43pm, 13 Jun, 2020

Updated: 11:41pm, 13 Jun, 2020

Chinese Politburo member Yang Jiechi and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are set to lead their respective sides in high-level talks in Hawaii. Photo: AFP

Top diplomats from China and the United States are set to meet in Hawaii, a source said, as the two sides seek to ease soaring tensions that have pushed their relationship to its lowest point in decades.

The Chinese side is expected to be led by Yang Jiechi, a state councillor and member of the Communist Party Politburo, while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo will head the US team, the person said on condition of anonymity.

The exact details and date of the meeting had yet to be decided, the source said.

Political media firm POLITICO reported on Saturday that Pompeo was planning a trip to Hawaii to meet Chinese government officials, though the arrangements had yet to be finalised.

The report, which cited two unnamed sources, did not specify which officials Pompeo would meet.

Should the meeting go ahead it would be the first involving top officials from the two sides since their relationship was hit by fresh pressures over the Covid-19 pandemic, Hong Kong, the protests linked to the killing of George Floyd, and their mutual military activity in the Taiwan Strait and South China Sea.

The last high-level face-to-face meeting was on January 15 in Washington when Chinese Vice-Premier Liu He and US President Donald Trump signed a phase one trade deal, although Chinese President Xi Jinping and Trump have spoken twice over the telephone, on February 7 and March 27.

Beijing’s plan to introduce a national security law in Hong Kong is just one of the topics on which the US and China have clashed in recent months. Photo: Sam Tsang

China-US tensions have been rising steadily in recent weeks. In early June, Trump threatened to revoke Hong Kong’s special status after China’s National People’s Congress endorsed a resolution to enact a national security law in the city, a move critics said would curtail its autonomy.

Beijing hit back by accusing Washington of meddling in its internal affairs.

The Trump administration has also lambasted Beijing for allowing the coronavirus to become a pandemic, which has so far killed more than 425,000 people around the world, though Beijing has accused Washington of trying to pass the buck to hide its own failings in dealing with Covid-19 in the US.

China’s state media has directly attacked Pompeo, describing him as the worst US secretary of state ever, while he has hit back by accusing Beijing of politicising the Black Lives Matter protests.

Observers from both sides have appealed for calm from Beijing and Washington, with Chinese analysts saying the efforts of “Wolf Warrior” diplomats to defend Beijing had backfired and more effort was needed to avoid a total breakdown in China-US relations.

China is facing a hostile international environment as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, with many nations criticising Beijing’s initial handling of the health crisis and trying to cover it up.

In his annual press conference last month, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said Beijing and Washington should find ways to work together, and that decoupling would only do harm to both sides.

Video

With tensions between China and the US close to fever pitch, Lu Xiang, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the time was ripe for their senior officials to meet.

No matter how hostile they are to each other, communication is essential so they can make their positions clear, especially with Pompeo pointing the finger at the Chinese Communist Party, which is something that’s been rare since the Cold War ended,” he said.

If the two sides can meet at this moment, officially or otherwise, I think there’s a need for that.”

Lu said that Hong Kong and Xinjiang could be high on Pompeo’s agenda if a meeting were to take place.

And the Chinese side will take the opportunity to clarify its own position [on the issues].”

Shi Yinhong, an international relations professor at Renmin University of China, said that while a meeting of top officials would be a positive development, he doubted if a single round of talks would be enough to turn the tide of bad feeling.

If the meeting goes ahead, it means high-level communications between China and the US have not been devastated by the war of words,” he said. “But it is unlikely to defuse the tensions that have been building up on almost every front.”

Shi said America’s increased military activity in the Indo-Pacific region, including naval patrols by its aircraft carriers and flights over Taiwan – as well as Beijing’s plans for a national security law and Washington’s attacks on the Communist Party, were likely to be high on the agenda.

[But] Almost every issue of Sino-US relations is significant,” he said.

Source: SCMP “China, US planning to hold top-level talks in Hawaii, source says”

Note: This is SCMP’s report I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the report’ views.


Hounded Out of U.S., Scientist Invents Fast Coronavirus Test in China


A crackdown on scholars with ties to China has triggered a reverse brain drain

By David Armstrong, Annie Waldman, and Daniel Golden (ProPublica) March 18, 2020

This article is co-published with ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power.

On the fourth floor of the University of Florida cancer-research building, the once-bustling laboratory overseen by professor Weihong Tan is in disarray. White lab coats are strewn over workbenches. Storage drums and boxes, including some marked with biohazard warnings, are scattered across the floor. A pink note stuck to a machine that makes copies of DNA samples indicates the device is broken.

No one is here on this weekday afternoon in February. On a shelf, wedged next to instruction manuals and binders of lab records, is a reminder of bygone glory: a group photo of Tan surrounded by more than two dozen smiling students and employees.

As the Florida lab sat vacant, a different scene unfolded half a world away in China, where a team of 300 scientists and researchers worked furiously to develop a fast, easy test for Covid-19. The leader of that timely project? Tan, the former Florida researcher.

The 59-year-old Tan is a stark example of the intellectual firepower fleeing the U.S. as a result of a Trump administration crackdown on university researchers with ties to China. Tan abruptly left Florida in 2019 during an investigation into his alleged failure to fully disclose Chinese academic appointments and funding. He moved to Hunan University in south-central China, where he now conducts his vital research.

Tan, a chemistry professor whose research has focused on diagnosing and treating cancer, quickly pivoted to working on a coronavirus test when the outbreak began in China. Boosted by a Chinese-government grant, he teamed up with researchers at two other universities in China and a biotechnology company to create a test that produces results in 40 minutes and can be performed in a doctor’s office or in non-medical settings like airport screening areas, according to a 13-page booklet detailing the test’s development and benefits. It has been tried successfully on more than 200 samples from hospitals and checkpoints, according to the booklet, which Tan shared with a former Florida colleague. It’s not clear how widely the test is being used in China.

Epidemiologists say that testing is vital to mitigate the spread of the virus. But the U.S. has lagged well behind China, South Korea, and Italy in the number of people tested. It’s hard to know if Tan’s test would have made a difference. The slow U.S. ramp-up has been blamed largely on bureaucratic barriers and a shortage of chemical agents needed for testing.

A star researcher funded by the National Institutes of Health, Tan taught for a quarter century at Florida and raised two sons in Gainesville. He was also a participant in the Thousand Talents program, China’s aggressive effort to lure top scientists from U.S. universities, and had been working part time at Hunan University for even longer than he had taught at Florida. Last year, alerted by the NIH, Florida began investigating his outside activities.

Tan declined to answer questions about his departure from Florida or his new test, but he provided documentation that his department chairman at Florida was “supportive” of his research in China as recently as 2015. He is one of three University of Florida researchers — along with others from the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center and the University of Louisville — who relocated to China while under investigation for allegedly hiding Chinese funding or affiliations with universities there.

Such nondisclosure may well be pervasive. A ProPublica analysis found more than 20 previously unreported examples of Thousand Talents professors who appear not to have fully revealed their moonlighting in China to their U.S. universities or the NIH.

The NIH has contacted 84 institutions regarding 180 scientists whom it suspects of hiding outside activities or funding, and it has referred 27 of them for federal investigation, said Michael Lauer, the agency’s deputy director for extramural research. “There’s no reason why the U.S. government should be funding scientists who are engaged in unethical behavior. It doesn’t matter how brilliant they are,” said Lauer, who declined to discuss specific professors under scrutiny. “If they don’t have integrity, we can’t trust them for anything. How can we be sure that the data they’re producing is accurate?”

Yet the government’s investigations and prosecutions of scientists for nondisclosure — a violation previously handled within universities and often regarded as minor — may prove counterproductive. The exodus of Tan and his colleagues highlights a disturbing irony about the U.S. crackdown; it is unwittingly helping China achieve a long-frustrated goal of luring back top scientific talent.

Thousand Talents aimed to reverse China’s brain drain to the West by offering elite Chinese scientists premier salaries and lab facilities to return home permanently. Finding relatively few takers, it let participants like Tan keep their U.S. jobs and work in China on the side.

Are U.S. universities failing to protect their Chinese faculty? “When the pressure comes down, they throw the researchers under the bus.”

By investigating Tan and other Chinese researchers for nondisclosure, the U.S. government is accomplishing what Thousand Talents has struggled to do. None of the professors identified in this article have been charged with stealing or inappropriately sharing intellectual property. Yet in the name of safeguarding American science, federal agencies are driving out innovators, who will then make their discoveries and insights in China instead of the U.S. The potential drawbacks hark back to an episode in the McCarthy era, when a brilliant rocket scientist at the California Institute of Technology was deported by the U.S. for supposed Communist sympathies and became the father of China’s missile program.

John Brown, the FBI’s assistant director of counterintelligence, told the U.S. Senate in November that participants in Thousand Talents and other Chinese talent programs “are often incentivized to transfer to China the research they conduct in the United States, as well as other proprietary information to which they can gain access, and remain a significant threat to the United States.”

A spokesperson for the Chinese Embassy in Washington, D.C., disputed such characterizations. “The purpose of China’s ‘Thousand Talents Plan’ is to promote talent flow between China and other countries and to galvanize international cooperation in scientific and technological innovation,” Fang Hong said. While firmly opposing any “breach of scientific integrity or ethics … we also condemn the attempt to describe the behaviors of individual researchers” as “systematic” intellectual-property theft by the Chinese government. “It is extremely irresponsible and ill-intentioned to link individual behaviors to China’s talent plan.”

Steven Pei, a University of Houston physics professor and former chair of the advocacy group United Chinese Americans, said that both countries have gone too far. “The Chinese government overreached, and the American government overreacted,” Pei said. “China tried to recruit, but it was unsuccessful. Now we help them do what they cannot do on their own.”

Pei added that U.S. universities are failing to protect their Chinese faculty: “When the pressure comes down, they throw the researchers under the bus.”

The NIH has long viewed collaborations with China as a boon for biomedical research, even initiating a formal partnership with China’s National Natural Science Foundation in 2010. But it became concerned in 2016 when it learned from the FBI that an Asian faculty member at M.D. Anderson had shared federal grant proposals he was reviewing with researchers at other institutions — a violation of NIH rules.

Examining the grant applications of its federally funded researchers, the NIH found many undisclosed foreign ties, particularly with research institutions in China. Some researchers were accepting dual appointments at Chinese universities and publishing results of U.S.-funded research under their foreign affiliation. Often, these foreign positions were not reported to the NIH or even the researchers’ own American universities.

In August 2018, the NIH launched an investigation to ensure that its researchers weren’t “double dipping” by receiving foreign funds for NIH-funded work or diverting intellectual property produced by federally backed research to other countries. The NIH found at least 75 researchers with ties to foreign talent programs who were also responsible for reviewing grant proposals. In some cases, Lauer said, Thousand Talents scientists with access as peer reviewers to confidential grant applications have downloaded them and emailed them to China. Other researchers have disclosed consulting or teaching in China but haven’t acknowledged that they’ve signed an employment contract with a Chinese university or are heading a lab, he said. The NIH gave the names of “individuals of possible concern” to the researchers’ institutions but did not make them public.

To gauge the extent of the problem, ProPublica matched Thousand Talents recipients identified on Chinese-language websites with their disclosures to their universities and grant applications to the NIH, which we obtained through public-records requests. We found at least 14 researchers who apparently did not disclose foreign affiliations to their U.S. universities, which included the University of Wisconsin, Stony Brook University, and Louisiana State University. We couldn’t determine if these researchers were also on the NIH’s confidential list.

Of 23 Thousand Talents recipients in our survey who have sought NIH funding, none reported conflicts of interest with Chinese universities to the agency. Just three revealed these positions in the bio sections of their grant applications. Because the NIH redacted foreign funding from the applications it provided to us, citing personal-privacy restrictions, we couldn’t tell if the researchers reported any grants from institutions in China.

It’s not always easy to define or prosecute theft of intellectual property in academe, especially if the research is considered basic and doesn’t require a security clearance. Unlike corporations that protect trade secrets, universities see science as an open, global enterprise and promote international collaborations. Practices such as photographing another research team’s specially designed lab equipment may be considered unethical by some, but they aren’t necessarily unlawful. Thus the U.S. government is trying to clamp down on suspected intellectual-property theft by targeting nondisclosure.

Yet the link between hiding Thousand Talents affiliations and stealing research secrets may be tenuous. Universities bear some responsibility for the nondisclosure, because they are supposed to certify the accuracy of information supplied to the NIH. Until recently, many schools were lax in enforcing disclosure rules. “It’s fair to say, at some universities, they have not really been paying attention to how their faculty spend their time,” Lauer said. One professor was away for 150 days a year and the university didn’t notice, he said.

Non-Chinese scientists, including doctors paid by pharmaceutical companies, also underreported outside income. Nor did universities want to restrict partnerships with Chinese universities; in the prevailing culture of globalization, they encouraged foreign collaborations and sought to open branches in China to boost their international prestige and attract outstanding, full-tuition-paying students.

Now times have changed, and Chinese scientists at U.S. universities are trapped in the backwash. Even those who rejected overtures from China have been hounded. Xifeng Wu, an epidemiological researcher, worked at M.D. Anderson for nearly three decades and amassed an enormous dataset to help cancer researchers understand patient histories. She twice turned down invitations to join Thousand Talents. But she collaborated with and accepted honorary positions at research institutions in China, where she grew up and attended medical school. Although she said she earned no income from these posts, the NIH identified her as a concern, and M.D. Anderson found that she did not always fully disclose her Chinese affiliations.

In early 2019, she left M.D. Anderson — one of at least four researchers who were pushed out of the center in the wake of the federal investigations. She has become dean of the School of Public Health, with a well-equipped laboratory, at Zhejiang University in southeast China.

Dong Liang, Wu’s husband and the chair of the pharmaceutical and environmental health sciences department at Texas Southern University, felt that M.D. Anderson buckled under pressure from the NIH, which provided the institution with more than $145 million in federal grants in 2018.

“A few years back, they wanted the collaborations [with China],” said Liang. “And now, they take it back.” The disclosure rules, said Liang, weren’t clear, “and now it becomes a violation.”

Professors who were in the process of being fired could have exercised their rights to a hearing before a faculty panel as well as “several rounds of peer discussions,” but they instead left “on their own volition,” M.D. Anderson spokeswoman Brette Peyton said. “As the recipient of significant NIH funding,” M.D. Anderson had a responsibility to follow up on the agency’s concerns or risk losing federal money, she said.

Baylor College of Medicine, in Houston, Tex., took a less punitive approach than M.D. Anderson. When the NIH alerted the Baylor College of Medicine that at least four researchers there — all ethnically Chinese — erred in their disclosures, Baylor corrected the documents and allowed them to continue working.

China began sending students to the U.S. in the late 1970s in the hope that they would return with American know-how and foster China’s technological prowess. But, especially after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989, many of the students stayed in the U.S. after earning their degrees.

Established in 2008, Thousand Talents was intended to lure prominent scientists of Chinese ethnicity under age 55 back to China for at least half the year with generous salaries and research funds and facilities, as well as perks such as housing, medical care, jobs for spouses, and schools for children. Some Thousand Talents employment contracts require members to sign nondisclosure agreements related to their research and employment with Chinese institutions, according to a November 2019 report by the U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

“The Chinese government has been the most assertive government in the world in introducing policies targeted at triggering a reverse brain drain,” David Zweig, a professor at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and Huiyao Wang, director general of the Center for China and Globalization in Beijing, wrote in 2012.

The program succeeded in attracting 7,000 foreign scientists and researchers as of 2017, the Senate subcommittee reported. But it had trouble enticing professors at elite U.S. universities, who were reluctant to uproot their families and leave their tenured sinecures. It created a second tier for recruits who were “essentially unwilling to return full time,” Zweig and Wang wrote. They could keep their U.S. jobs and come to China for a month or two. Complaints arose in China about “fake returnees” who “work nominally in China for six months” but “in fact, most of them are still abroad,” according to a 2014 op-ed on the BBC News Chinese website.

Scandals marred the program’s reputation in the U.S. In 2014, Ohio State contacted the FBI about engineering professor Rongxing Li, who had fled to China. Li, a Thousand Talents member, allegedly had access to restricted NASA information. The U.S. attorney’s office did not bring charges against Li, who is teaching at Tongji University, in Shanghai.

Another Thousand Talents member, Kang Zhang, a professor of ophthalmology at the University of California at San Diego, resigned last year after reports that he failed to disclose being the primary shareholder of a Chinese company that’s focus overlapped with his UC research. No charges were filed against Zhang, now a professor at Macau University of Science and Technology.

Struggling to attract top researchers, Thousand Talents also reached out to non-Chinese scientists, like Charles Lieber, the Harvard chemistry chairman charged in January with making false statements to the U.S. government by denying his involvement with Thousand Talents and with Wuhan University of Technology. His three-year Thousand Talents contract called for Wuhan to pay Lieber $50,000 a month plus more than $1.5 million for a research lab, according to the Department of Justice. Lieber has not yet entered a plea. His attorney, Peter Levitt, declined comment.

“In the last five years, there has been a definite deliberate move toward targeting non-ethnic Chinese,” said Frank Figliuzzi, a former FBI assistant director for counterintelligence. “They’ve been getting so many rejections from their own people who don’t want to go back home and have fallen in love with their Western culture and their life. Or their wife won’t go back. Or their kids won’t go back.

“The other thing that we’ve seen, which I think is very troubling, ‘Hey, you don’t have to come back home full time.’ In the intel community, we call that a RIP, recruitment in place.”

Staying in the U.S. meant that Thousand Talents recipients had to report their Chinese positions to their American universities. Some didn’t. Richard Hsung, a professor of pharmaceutical sciences at the University of Wisconsin, affirmed annually on disclosure forms that he had “no reportable outside activities.” He acknowledged in an interview that, from 2010 to 2013, he was in Thousand Talents and worked part time as a visiting professor at Tianjin University, which has 25,000 students and is 70 miles southeast of Beijing.

He said that he didn’t mention the Tianjin position because the disclosure forms confused him. He includes “National Thousand Talent Distinguished Visiting Professor at Tianjin University” among his honors on the faculty website. “I was not flaunting it, but I was not hiding it,” he said.

His stints in China helped the University of Wisconsin, he said. “When there’s an opportunity such as this one, you take it, it expands the visibility, it expands interacting with more students in training, and they come here to help us.”

Also unreported was Hsung’s relationship with a biotech company in Shanghai. In corporate records, Shanghai Fangnan Biological Technology Co. says that it “was founded by the national ‘Thousand Talents Plan’ specially invited experts,” and it names Hsung as a director. Hsung said he was unaware of being listed as a board member and is asking the company to remove his name. He has consulted for the company “from time to time” but is compensated for expenses only, he said. “I have not been involved in any of their projects nor have they supported my research here,” he added in an email.

University of Wisconsin spokeswoman Meredith McGlone said that Hsung should have reported his job at Tianjin on outside activities forms, as well as an “unexpected honorarium of less than $5,000” from the Shanghai biotech firm. He has since updated his disclosure form to reflect the honorarium, she said. While the university has no “uniform penalty” for nondisclosure, she said, the appropriate response in cases, like Hsung’s, where there is no “evidence of intent to mislead” would be “additional training and perhaps a letter to the personnel file.”

The university convened a working group last year to “consider policies and practices intended to bolster security without sacrificing the free exchange of ideas,” McGlone said. It then added a question to the disclosure form: “Do you have an ongoing relationship with a foreign research institute or foreign entity?”

Each year, the University of Florida’s chemistry department evaluates its 40 or so faculty members by criteria that include amounts raised for research funding and the number and impact of studies published. Weihong Tan, who joined the department in 1996, was usually ranked among the top three professors every year, said a department official who asked not to be identified.

Tan’s research group developed a new way of generating molecules that bind to targeted cells, as a possible approach to identifying and treating cancers. He collaborated with researchers in other departments and became close with top deans and research officials on campus. He was popular with students. Each week, dozens of graduate and postgraduate researchers lined up in the hall outside his office, waiting to meet with him. He also won prestigious chemistry awards and developed an international reputation.

While at Florida, Tan maintained a connection to Hunan University, in China, where he studied as an undergraduate. His curriculum vitae states he was an adjunct professor at the school from 1993 through at least 2019, when he left Florida. The part-time teaching job is the CV’s only reference to any professional work in China.

In his annual disclosures to Florida, Tan did report positions and income in China, but not everything alleged by university investigators. In 2017, he said he was working 10 hours a week at Hunan for a salary of $30,000. In 2018, he said his hours had doubled to 20 a week, for $50,000. In 2019, he reported working a total of 20 hours a week for Hunan and the Institute of Molecular Medicine at Renji Hospital in Shanghai. His combined pay from the positions was $120,000, according to his form.

The association with Hunan began during a gap in Tan’s resume — between receiving a 1992 doctoral degree from the University of Michigan and starting postdoctoral work in 1994 at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Ames Laboratory.

In recent years, according to colleagues, Tan’s work in China intensified. He was making frequent trips there, sometimes traveling twice a month from Gainesville, one said. Tan told colleagues that his research in China complemented his Florida work, and that it was easier to conduct testing on people in China than in the U.S. His research in Florida focused on basic science testing that didn’t involve patients.

Tan knew his increasing workload in China was putting a strain on his full-time position in the U.S. He told a colleague he was considering asking for a leave of absence from Florida. It’s unclear if he did request a leave.

In January 2019, the NIH notified Florida that Tan might have undisclosed affiliations with foreign institutions as well as foreign research funding. The university then launched its own inquiry. It provided investigator notes regarding Tan and two other researchers allegedly involved in Chinese talent programs to a special state legislative committee reviewing foreign influence on publicly funded research. Those notes do not name the faculty members under investigation, instead referring to them by numbers such as “Faculty 1.” The details for Faculty 1 — including date of hire, area of research, department, and Chinese affiliations — match those of Tan.

Faculty members two and three appear to be Lin Yang, an NIH-funded professor of biomedical engineering, and Chen Ling, an up-and-coming pediatric cancer researcher.

Florida hired Yang from the University of Kentucky in 2014 as part of a “Preeminence Initiative” to boost its ranking among public universities. Yang traveled to Beijing for a Thousand Talents interview in 2016, according to the university’s investigative notes. The following year, he was selected for the program at a Chinese university.

Yang resigned his Florida position last year after the university began looking into his alleged failure to disclose his association with China’s Thousand Talents program. University investigators also allege that he hid being chief executive, founder, and owner of an unidentified China-based company.

The Chinese government has been the most assertive government in the world in introducing policies targeted at triggering a reverse brain drain.”

In an email, Yang said he disputes many of Florida’s findings. He said he applied for a talent program but then turned it down. He said he never had any foreign grants or academic appointments in China while employed by Florida. Yang’s attorney, Peg O’Connor, said the University of Florida began a push in 2010 to encourage overseas collaborations. “To be punished for doing what the university called on you to do doesn’t make sense to me,” she said. “The effect of this is universities are bleeding good people.”

Ling, a part-time research associate professor, won multiple grants to study gene-therapy techniques that target the most common pediatric liver cancer. “Early in a very promising career, Ling is already making great strides in the development of innovative therapies for cancer,” the chairman of the medical school’s pediatrics department said in a 2012 press release.

Ling left Florida last year. The university investigative notes that appear to refer to Lin allege that he failed to inform the NIH that he was participating in a Chinese government-sponsored talent program, and that he received an unreported research grant from a Chinese foundation.

However, Ling did report working at Fudan University, in Shanghai, to University of Florida officials in 2018. His disclosure, which can be viewed at ProPublica’s Dollars for Profs website, shows that Fudan paid him $53,732 for activities that included “establishing a regular molecular biological laboratory, conducting gene therapy research, teaching curriculum, publishing manuscripts.” He indicated that the activity would require eight months of work each year. It’s unclear if Florida officials relayed this information to the NIH.

Ling, who did not respond to emails seeking comment, is continuing his research as a professor at Fudan. A former Florida colleague described him as “very smart” but somewhat naïve in dealing with conflict of interest issues. “I don’t think he did anything with malicious intent,” said the colleague. “He paid a heavy price for this.”

In 2015, when Weihong Tan was up for election to the Chinese National Academy of Sciences, his chemistry chairman at the University of Florida recommended him and lauded his ongoing research in China.

“We are very happy to see his great success at Hunan University in research and education,” William Dolbier wrote in the letter provided by Tan. “We are very supportive of his research and educational activities there.”

Tan’s positions were also publicly listed on the web before the NIH notified the University of Florida that there might be an issue.

The English-language website of Hunan University, beginning in at least March 2018, listed Tan as a vice president and director of a chemistry lab. According to the site, Tan had run the lab since 2010 and had been a vice president of the school since August 2017. The school also indicated Tan was a full professor there and supervised doctoral students. Tan appeared in an English-language video in 2017 to promote a textbook he edited and described himself as a distinguished professor of chemistry at both Florida and Hunan.

On several occasions, Hunan University publicly lauded Tan. In 2017, when he was named an associate editor of the Journal of the American Chemical Society, both the University of Florida and Hunan University put out press releases announcing the appointment. Florida officials at the time were apparently unaware of Tan’s positions in China, and the school’s release makes no mention of them. Hunan, on the other hand, lists his position in Florida.

Tan was also named an “honored professor” in 2017 at the East China University of Science and Technology. A story about a ceremony marking the appointment on that university’s website includes photographs of Tan touring school labs and meeting with faculty. It lists him as holding several academic posts in China as well as his University of Florida professorship.

After the NIH notified Florida at the beginning of 2019 about a potential problem with Tan, the university’s office of research began reviewing Tan’s emails. In correspondence, Tan acknowledged his Hunan jobs, according to the notes. He also allegedly used his Florida email account to conduct Hunan business.

The investigators found evidence that Tan had significant ties to Chinese government-sponsored talent programs and helped recruit U.S. researchers to those programs. The emails also indicated Tan received at least four research grants from Chinese government programs and didn’t tell the NIH about them. Of all of Tan’s extensive university and government ties with China, the only item he appears to have disclosed to the NIH and Florida was an adjunct teaching position at Hunan.

When Tan suddenly resigned his position in Florida last year, he told colleagues he was going to work full time in China but was vague about the reasons for leaving after almost a quarter century on campus. Administrators scrambled to find new mentors for the more than dozen graduate and postgraduate students working in his two labs on campus. The move was so abrupt that Tan’s wife stayed behind in Gainesville, according to colleagues.

Tan didn’t answer questions sent to him by email, although he did acknowledge receiving them. A federal investigation of Tan’s relationships in China is ongoing, according to the investigative summary provided by the university to state legislators.

The University of Florida said in a statement that it has taken steps to prevent other professors from joining Thousand Talents and concealing foreign positions. As a result of a new risk assessment process for detecting foreign influence that it introduced in 2018, it said, Florida is denying most requests from faculty to participate in foreign talent programs.

The university said it “maintains a robust and vigilant program to safeguard our technology and intellectual property from undue foreign influence, and to extend appropriate oversight to UF activities (and those of its faculty members) in connection with foreign organizations.” A spokesman declined to answer questions about individual professors, citing ongoing investigations.

Dolbier, the former chemistry chairman at Florida and now an emeritus professor, said Tan’s departure could have been avoided if he had disclosed all of his work in China. “He was not a money guy,” Dolbier said. “He was not out to steal from the United States. The development of these drugs was his primary focus and goal.” Dolbier added that Tan told him he would be glad to try to make his Covid-19 test available in the U.S.

David Armstrong is a senior reporter at ProPublica. Annie Waldman is a reporter at ProPublica covering education. Daniel Golden is a senior editor at ProPublica and the author of Spy Schools: How the CIA, FBI, and Foreign Intelligence Secretly Exploit America’s Universities (Henry Holt, 2017).

Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education “Hounded Out of U.S., Scientist Invents Fast Coronavirus Test in China”

Note: This is The Chronicle of Higher Education’s article I post here for readers’ information. It does not mean that I agree or disagree with the article’s views.


China’s World Underwater Surveillance Network to Protect Its Interests Abroad


SCMP says in its report “China’s underwater surveillance network puts enemies in focus along maritime Silk Road” yesterday, “A new underwater surveillance network is expected to help China’s submarines get a stronger lock on targets while protecting the nation’s interests along the maritime Silk Road, from the Korean peninsula to the east coast of Africa” and “The system, which has already been launched, works by gathering information about the underwater environment, particularly water temperature and salinity, which the navy can then use to more accurately track enemy vessels as well as improve navigation and positioning.”

SCMP is correct that China develops its surveillance network and navy in order to protect its interests and investment abroad, but having said that, it describes the establishment of the network as a military expansion “fuelled by Beijing’s desire to challenge the United States in the world’s oceans”. But facts have proved precisely the contrary.

China has been making great efforts to develop win-win cooperation with the US. The US has already fallen into Thucydides Trap. Challenging it may give rise to trade and even military war with the US. China certainly shall not do that as it will greatly ham China’s interests. Only win-win cooperation can benefit both nations.

Moreover, even if China does have the desire to challenge the US, it shall be wise to see that China is far from being strong enough to do so. China has to make great efforts to grow much stronger than the US if it has the stupid desire to challenge the US.

Comment by Chan Kai Yee on SCMP’s report, full text of which can be found at http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2126296/chinas-underwater-surveillance-network-puts-enemies.


US President Trump Tweets His Satisfaction in Beijing


SCMP gives full text of Trump’s first tweet from Beijing on his first day in Beijing in its report “Donald Trump tweets from Beijing about his ‘unforgettable afternoon’ with Xi Jinping and Peng Liyuan” today as follows:

“On behalf of @FLOTUS Melania and I, THANK YOU for an unforgettable afternoon and evening at the Forbidden City in Beijing, President Xi and Madame Peng Liyuan. We are looking forward to rejoining you tomorrow morning!”

I have already reblogged SupChina’s report on Trump’s first day of State Visit + to China. Footages of the visit can be found in YouTube

Obviously, Chinese President Xi Jinping has shown his earnest desire for friendship with the US and got enthusiastic response from US President Donald Trump so that there shall be bright future for US-China ties. However, there are lots of influential Americans falling deep in Thucydides Trap. They are certainly unhappy with Trump and will try their best to change or even remove Trump. We have to wait and see what they can do. Anyway, with his wisdom, Xi will be able to maintain peace even if they have removed Trump.

Comment by Chan Kai Yee on SCMP’s report, full text of which can be found at http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/2119016/trump-tweets-beijing-about-his-unforgettable-afternoon-xi-jinping


The US Switches to Indo-Pacific to Contain China’s Rise


Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi, left, meets Vietnamese Foreign Minister Pham Binh Minh in Hanoi on Thursday. Photo: Xinhua

I have described in my previous posts the unqualified failure of Obama’s pivot to Asia in containing China:

Its intervention with China’s disputes with China’s neighbors resulting in China’s construction and militarization of artificial islands and winning over the Philippines. Now, the South China Sea can be regarded as China’s lake.

America’s only hope of having Vietnam confronting China has been lost as Vietnam has mended fence with China.

SCMP says in its report “Beijing and Hanoi try to ease South China Sea tensions as Xi Jinping prepares for tussle with Trump for influence in region” yesterday that China and Vietnam have reached agreement to manage their disputes in the South China Sea.

SCMP quotes China’s Assistant foreign minister Chen Xiaodong as saying, “Both sides will uphold the principle of friendly consultations and dialogue to jointly manage and control maritime disputes, and protect the bigger picture of developing Sino-Vietnam relations and stability in the South China Sea.”

What he said was confirmed by the Vietnamese side.

SCMP says, “In a meeting with Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Hanoi on Thursday (November 2), Vietnam’s Deputy Prime Minister Pham Binh Minh said both sides should avoid actions that would complicate the dispute.

It is only natural for Vietnam to do so, given its close economic relations with China.

“China’s Vice Commerce Minister Wang Shouwen said on Friday that China would seek to deepen economic cooperation with Vietnam, adding that its investments in the country had reached US$150 billion this year, ” said SCMP in the report.

Previously, Vietnam wanted to diversify its economic reliance through Obama’s TPP, but Trump has scrapped TPP and dashed Vietnam’s hope to pieces.

Judging by what White House Chief Staff John Kelly said about China in his interview with Fox’s Laura Ingraham, Trump seems to have no intention to contain China. However, lots of influential Americans are deep in Thucydides Trap and want very much to contain China.

Trump’s Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has visited India to establish alliance with India to contain China, especially to counter China’s Belt and Road initiative.

That is why according to SCMP, the US has begun to use the term “Indo-Pacific”. Yes, containing China in the South China Sea has failed but US and Indian navies can cut China’s trade lifelines in the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

That will force China to conduct arms race with the US in earnest as China regard it as a threat. However, the US regards China’s efforts to make its military strong as a threat so that the two countries will be engaged in arms race in earnest. Can Xi Jinping and Trump replace the arms race with win-win cooperation?

Comment by Chan Kai Yee on SCMP’s report, full text of which can be found at http://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy-defence/article/2118315/beijing-and-hanoi-try-ease-south-china-sea-tensions-xi.