China – When is the ‘Long View’ too Long?

The Very Long View

by Mustang

“Their [China’s] goal is to exploit America’s academic freedom to instill in the minds of future leaders a pro-China viewpoint.”  —Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) February 2018.

The senator’s comment found its way into an opinion piece by Josh Rogin, writing for the Washington Post.  More than four years ago, Rogin wanted readers to know that China was heavily involved in a “massive” foreign influence campaign in the United States — and has been for a very long time, as part of a program to sow the seeds of pro-Chinese communism in American institutions.

Which is why, he tells us, China is investing so heavily in American institutions of higher learning (and private academies).  In 2018, U.S. officials, lawmakers, and academics began to focus on Beijing’s presence on American campuses — specifically, by “compelling public and private institutions to reconsider hosting Confucius Institutes, the Chinese government-sponsored outposts of culture and language training.

spying, watching, surveillance, privacy, spy, looking, security, eye, technology, secret

The Cypher Brief adds —

China has long engaged in a spying campaign against the United States—from cyber espionage and stealing intellectual property to subtle attempts to infiltrate research laboratories at American universities.

According to the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Beijing is quietly at work gaining access to the trade secrets of U.S. and multinational corporations though ‘academic espionage,’ relying on scholars and researchers as spies.

The FBI and the Department of Justice have called on U.S. colleges and universities to tighten their requirements for their employees to report their financial ties with China.

As the private sector becomes more difficult for Chinese intelligence to operate in with impunity, college campuses have become more attractive as an avenue for obtaining critical U.S. data.

Two years later, Fox News reported, “Top Republicans from a slew of House committees demanded information Monday about what they said is the Chinese Communist Party’s ‘investment in American colleges and universities to further its strategic and propaganda goals’ — an initiative they claimed could be foreign academic espionage.”

Two years after that (2022), The New Yorker asked, “Have Chinese Spies infiltrated American Campuses?”

So far, then, this “concern” has taken the VERY long view.  Because, in 1996, the Buffalo News headlined “Probe widens into role of foreign funds in ’96 election.”  The story continued, “[Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN)] committee and the Senate Government Affairs Committee, headed by Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN), are investigating possible foreign influence in the U.S. election process, including whether Chinese government officials channeled money into the Democratic Party before last November’s presidential election.”

Senator Thompson (now deceased) issued his final report in six volumes on 10 March 1998.  You can read it here.

So, the question is, after so many years of wrangling about foreign espionage, foreign infiltration of American university campuses, office staffs of members of Congress, clandestine meetings of Chinese agents with members of Congress, and Chinese military go-betweens delivering suitcases of cash to political parties — at what point does the long view become too long?

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

Justice Denied and the Colonel Larry Franklin Debacle

On June 30, Colonel Larry Franklin marked the fifth anniversary of his meeting with FBI agents, in which he first learned he was a suspect in what would later be known as “the AIPAC case,” referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Along with Franklin, two of the Washington lobby’s senior officials were charged with violating the seldom-used federal Espionage Act of 1917. Mustang gives us the details of what went wrong.

Justice Denied and the Larry Franklin Debacle

by Mustang

In late November 2020, Israeli journalist Caroline Glick wrote an opinion article for Newsweek that called for justice on behalf of former U. S. Air Force (Reserve) Colonel Lawrence A. Franklin.  Glick described Franklin as a brilliant, fearless intelligence officer who worked in the Department of Defense and whose efforts saved the lives of countless US service members.

Once Labeled An AIPAC Spy, Larry Franklin Tells His Story by the Forward

Image by NATHAN GUTTMAN

In 2003, Franklin worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defense as the Secretary’s expert on Iranian affairs.  Then-Secretary Donald Rumsfeld needed fresh (practical) intelligence on Iran concerning that country’s efforts to undermine US war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan, its terror networks, and information on the Iranian nuclear weapons program.  Within the framework of Franklin’s duties, he was authorized to share intelligence information with US allies — more specifically, Israel — because no other country’s intelligence services know as much about what is going on in Iran as the Israelis.  Franklin had long-standing contacts with Israeli intelligence, including surrogates connected to the pro-Israel lobby, AIPAC.

Typically, the intelligence communities work on a quid pro quo basis: you give me something, I’ll give you something in return.  In return for information about Iran, Israel wanted to know what in the hell George W. Bush was up to.  As it happens, Bush’s policy toward Iran was a series of incomprehensible contradictions.  The State Department and CIA supported appeasing Iran, the White House (Dick Cheney), and some members of the National Security Council did not think it was possible to appease Iran.  What was needed, they believed, was a head-on confrontation with Iran.  President Bush mediated these two sides by opting for incoherence.

Franklin agreed with Cheney (and others) that a hardline approach was the correct position, and, concerned that Bush was insufficiently aware of Iran’s intentions relating to US involvement in Iraq, Franklin opened a discussion with AIPAC officials to have them communicate his concerns to their NSC friends, who in turn, would convey them to President Bush.  There was nothing particularly unusual in Franklin’s actions.

What Franklin did not realize at the time was that the policy disagreements in the Bush administration involved more than a mere dispute over a certain measure of distrust of Israeli intelligence information among some of the doves;  an FBI inquiry about Franklin’s contact with AIPAC officials soon followed.  Glick contends that these concerns by Bush administration doves were predicated on their inherent anti-Semitism.  Whether that argument has any merit is impossible to know.  One of the DIA investigators, however, according to Franklin, was known to have sympathies for the Hezbollah organization, which makes one wonder why an Islamicist would be working in the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Franklin willingly spoke with investigators to explain his actions.  He did not feel that he needed an attorney present during any of these interviews.  In any case, as the inquiry continued, Franklin realized that investigators seemed more interested in Jewish employees in the Pentagon than with any discussion Franklin had with his AIPAC contacts — that is until they informed Franklin that he was suspected of being a “closet Jew” and opened an espionage case against him.  Ultimately, the FBI charged Franklin with spying for Israel; he pled guilty to taking “classified information” home as homework and having an “unauthorized discussion” with members of AIPAC.  The case against the two AIPAC individuals was later dismissed, which reduced Franklin’s sentence from 12 years in prison to ten months of house arrest.

Franklin’s conviction, however, resulted in the loss of his civil service pension and his Air Force pension.  He now lives on the edge of poverty in West Virginia.  Despite his appeal to President Trump for a pardon, which would have restored his pension, the President denied his request.

It is difficult for me to imagine that someone like Franklin or Michael Flynn, mature, experienced officers and/or civil servants, would ever agree to an FBI/DIA/CIA interview without the presence of an attorney.  It is also unseemly that a 35-year veteran intelligence officer would have failed to cover his ass with a memorandum for the record governing his actions, with page initials by his immediate superiors.  That’s just nuts.

It also seems bizarre that President Trump could find it in his heart to pardon a Memphis cocaine dealer while refusing to entertain a pardon for someone like Franklin (although Franklin is white), who was only trying to serve his country.  Errors in judgment, most certainly … criminal or treasonous conduct, hardly … and the impact of his conviction, for being open and upfront with FBI investigators, has far exceeded his trivial misstep.  Who in their right mind would want to join the US military today, or become an intelligence officer/analyst with the Defense Department, or join the police force?

Today, Lawrence Franklin is an area expert writer for Gatestone Institute.  He writes almost exclusively about Sino-American relations.

For the best of the swamp push the button

The China Watchers

 

The China Watchers

Keeping Americans Informed

by Mustang

Americans have been “watching” China for a very long time.  In 1784, when the dust and debris of the American Revolution were barely settled, the United States sent its first flagged ship to China.  It was the merchant ship Empress of China, bound from New York to the city of Canton.  What prompted American interests was, of course, trade — the search for new markets, driven in part by the fact that the British had little interest in trading with their former colonies.  China welcomed the Empress because the Americans were interested in buying things from China, while the Europeans only wanted to sell items to China.

In keeping with our traditions, trade also meant an opportunity for American ministers to save the barbarians from damnation.  The first American missionaries went to China in the 1830s — and did so even when it was illegal to do so.  We all know what rebels the Americans were back then, but it was the missionaries who first took an interest in Chinese culture, language, and history.  These were the men (and some women) who helped shape America’s perceptions of Imperial China.  As with the people of other lands, the Chinese saw the United States as a land of opportunity.  Thousands of Chinese migrated to the United States; there may have never been a transcontinental railway without them.

Some Chinese leaders were so impressed by the United States’ political achievements that they became inspired — Sun Yat-sen, who borrowed the “Three Principles of the People” from President Lincoln’s belief in a government of, by, and for the people.  Sun Yat-sen helped to overthrow the Qing Dynasty in 1911 and founded the Republic of China.

Thus, for most of the United States’ history, relations between Americans and Chinese were quite positive.  When Japan and the European powers began to break up China into their spheres of influence, the United States argued that the whole was greater than the sum of its parts and, therefore, supported a united and independent China.

This belief was the genesis of America’s “Open Door” policy. In this condition, China would continue to welcome foreign trade but retain its unique form of government and cultural identity.  The United States maintained adherence to this policy through the end of World War II — and it may have saved China from being gobbled up by competing European powers.

When Japan attempted to exploit China and expand its empire throughout East Asia in the 1930s, the United States stood in the way. Japan’s behavior prompted the United States to establish a credible naval fleet in the Pacific.  American volunteer pilots served China against the Imperial Japanese Army as part of the famed “Flying Tigers” operations; it led President Roosevelt to provide war materials to China to defend themselves against the Japanese hordes.

Of course, by that time, Chinese communists and Chinese Nationalists were engaged in a great civil war, making Japan’s timing particularly keen. As a ploy to help unify Chinese efforts against the Japanese, Roosevelt provided war materials to both communists and nationalists in more-or-less equal measure.  The communists accepted these gifts, of course, but rather than using them against the Japanese, stored them away in caves until they could be used against the Nationalists — which they did between 1945-49.

Of course, there were glitches along the way that caused some challenges to American diplomats, not the least of which was the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882 and then the unhappy episode with the Boxers in 1899.  Nor could the United States have made a worse choice in its decision to back an absolute crook and tyrant in the form of Chiang Kai-shek.

The Chinese, or so it would appear, have long memories.  When the communists defeated the Nationalists in 1949 (with US arms and ammunition — some of which was used against US troops during the Korean War), China and the United States stopped talking to one another for over twenty years.

In fact, following the Korean War, which poised the US/UN against China as much as North Korea and the Soviet Union, paranoia led the Chinese to manipulate the United States into the Viet Nam War. If the Americans were kept busy in Southeast Asia, there would be no cause for alarm in Northeast Asia.  The United States (then controlled by Democrats) naturally fell into that trap without much cajoling.

President Nixon re-opened Sino-American relations n 1972; China was receptive because, at that time, the Soviet Union posed a real threat to Chinese sovereignty along their shared border.  Following Mao, Deng Xiaoping wanted closer economic ties to the United States but was determined to retain a communist state.

In its post-Imperial state, a communist state was the best method of controlling a billion people.  When the Chinese government killed protestors at Tiananmen Square in 1989, the United States feigned shock and dismay — Americans have been destroying their protestors since around the 1850s.  The Chinese no doubt looked at this as “goose/gander.”

Today, China and the United States have a robust trade relationship — but neither side trusts the other, and has not since 1949.  Now enters stage left the China Watchers, who tells us all we need to know about China.

During the Cold War, China Watchers assembled in Hong Kong, where they had a bird’s eye view.  Some of these watchers worked for Western intelligence agencies, universities, and news agencies.  If journalists, British government censors previewed reports to prepare for potential diplomatic fallout from publication.

Most China Watchers were Americans — who had limited access to Chinese government officials, press briefings, and interviews.  So what these American China Watchers would do is parse government announcements for hidden meanings, keep track of Chinese officials’ movements reported in press agencies, and analyze photographs taken of public appearances.  China Watchers would also interview refugees or copy the analyses written by others in Taiwan or the Soviet Union — which some folks would call plagiarism.  Well, it wasn’t entirely their fault because none of them could speak Chinese.

Despite all these factors, the China Watchers continue to keep us advised of events in China.  Some of them publish exhaustive papers about China, but these are mostly the academicians, who mostly prepare documents because it advances their academic status.  Most of them appear live on CNN or some other propaganda arm of the Democratic Party.

They spend a few moments of precious air time to regale us with their in-depth knowledge, their warnings about the strength or fallacy of U. S. policy, and of course — for no extra charge; they offer us their dire predictions.

Does anyone pay attention?  I mean, does anyone who matters pay attention?  I think not.  Our geniuses in the State Department do not require the assistance of China Experts; members of Congress do not, for they are already in the back pocket of Chinese officials (the movers and shakers of Beijing), no one in the economic sector requires the expertise of the China gurus … for they already have the answers (which is that national debt doesn’t matter).  Actually —and this is merely an opinion— the morons on the Weather Channel have greater credibility than the China Experts.  For example:

  1. In the 1950’s we were blessed with A. Doak Barnett, who styled himself a Pekingologist, which, insofar as I can tell, is two steps below a garbologist — and a Jesuit Priest named Le Dany, who circulated the China News Analysis to 48 countries around the world.  Experts … both.
  2. Michael Pillsbury, a Rand Corporation analyst, called for closer ties with China during the Cold War.  Of course, Michael also encouraged Reagan to arm Afghanistan’s Mujahedeen.  A real genius.
  3. Min-xin Pei, a professor at Claremont McKenna College, was convinced that China’s adherence to communism would stifle the Chinese economy.  Prescient.
  4. Susan Thornton … a former Under-Secretary of State who speaks fluent Russian and Mandarin Chinese, retired in 2018 because Sen. Marco Rubio publicly stated that he could guarantee Thornton would never be confirmed as a permanent appointee.  Rubio claimed she was too soft on China.  The China experts proclaimed that Thornton was steady and effective in matters relating to China.
  5. Elizabeth Economy (no, really) was a prominent voice on China policy … because she wrote a book predicting that China’s global economic dominance was much overblown.  She was wrong in 2014, and she’s probably wrong now, as well.
  6. Henry Kissinger created the Institute for China at the Wilson Center.  I guess enough has been said about that.

Gordon G. Chang, of the New Jersey Chang’s, is one of our more recent China experts. He’s been kind enough to warn us about Chinese spying at our colleges and universities, China’s interest in American technology, the pending collapse of China, and China’s conspiring with North Korea against Japan’s interests.

Of course, unless we’ve been in the time-out corner for the past 40 years, we know this stuff already.  We should probably expect our adversaries to spy on us — Israel does, and we pay them $40 billion a year for their friendship.  No, the question should be why the FBI allows them to get away with it.  Is it to prove that we’re more tolerant than they are?  I think the Chinese are being silly.  They could save a lot of Yuan by not spying on the United States — members of Congress and White House staff will tell them what they want to know for next to nothing — a small donation here, a small donation there.

Mr. Chang even went so far as to lay responsibility for Covid-19 at China’s doorstep.  That was a hell of an exposé — and gutsy.  The American press responded to this revelation with gusto — by attacking anyone who used the words Wu Flu — even as American seniors were dropping like flies in a French pasture.

President Joe, meanwhile, wants us to know that China is our friend.  You know, like the neighborhood cop who always begins a conversation by warning us of our Constitutional rights.  We know China is our friend, not by their words, but by their actions — such as infiltrating Central and South America, funding massive projects in Africa, garnering influence with Moslem countries who want Americans dead, providing support to North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, and stealing General Motors.

I would have mentioned that the Chinese also obtained our top-secret undersea technology and copied the F-35 from stolen blueprints, but then I’d have to say that they obtained those technologies from Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and I don’t want to besmirch anyone’s character.

Meanwhile, or so I’m told by my many contacts in Chinese fast-food restaurants, the Chinese government is laughing itself silly on an almost daily basis since early November.  And I have to say that were it not for Mr. Chang’s predictions, and I would never have stocked up on Chinese Noodles that only require the addition of hot water to activate the powdered cyanide.  So, I owe him for that.

 

Mustang also blogs at Fix Bayonets and Thoughts From Afar

Obama prosecuted more officials for leaks than all predecessors combined

The legal beagles go back and forth splitting hairs as to whether “intent” occurred as Hillary waltzed about with her blackberry and other assorted devices, reading her Emails. The wonks question whether intent was required to put Pant Suit in the slammer over this Email debacle. What the Daily Caller has done is collect the factoids that can’t be disputed. This administration doesn’t like people leaking info. I added in a clip for some fun. It is an old Hillary visit to the Jimmy Fallon show back in 2015 as she explains what is in her classified Emails. Just good hearted funarama.

So here we go with a collection of the cases:

Barack Obama’s Justice Department has prosecuted more government officials for alleged leaks of information under the World War I era Espionage Act than all his predecessors combined — yet Hillary Clinton managed to avoid becoming part of that statistic Tuesday morning.

The Justice Department swiftly prosecuted six federal government officials between 2009 and 2012 under the Espionage Act, Bloomberg News first reported noting the administration’s number of record-high prosecutions under the law. By 2014, nine people were prosecuted under the spy law. Four others were prosecuted under Nixon, Reagan, and George W. Bush. One of those four cases, under Nixon, was dismissed two years later.

One of the five who was convicted was Stephen Kim, a former State Department contractor who served a 13-month prison sentence for violating the spy act. The case lasted for five years until he pleaded guilty to leaking information about North Korea’s nuclear program to Fox News reporter James Rosen.

Read more: Daily Caller

No need to watch more than the first couple if minutes-

Pentagon contracted out code writing to Russians

Where to even start with a comment on this one. Writing the code for the Pentagon was probably as serious as having them shoot a missile at us. Where are the headlines? Where is the media? This regime is out to destroy us, and the ticking bomb has been planted. Does anyone think that Hillary wasn’t hacked? Where are the prison terms? Here we go:

The Pentagon was tipped off in 2011 by a longtime Army contractor that Russian computer programmers were helping to write computer software for sensitive U.S. military communications systems, setting in motion a four-year federal investigation that ended this week with a multimillion-dollar fine against two firms involved in the work.

The contractor, John C. Kingsley, said in court documents filed in the case that he discovered the Russians’ role after he was appointed to run one of the firms in 2010. He said the software they wrote had made it possible for the Pentagon’s communications systems to be infected with viruses.

Greed drove the contractor to employ the Russian programmers, he said in his March 2011 complaint, which was sealed until late last week. He said they worked for one-third the rate that American programmers with the requisite security clearances could command. His accusations were denied by the firms that did the programming work.

More at the Daily Beast