Does China's Moon Landing Matter?

“Does China’s Moon Landing Matter?” was the title of a clip on Fox News as a panel of faux space experts bandied about the rhetorical question for around three minutes before coming up with a totally inane conclusion, obvious and not worth repeating here.

Vacuous drivel was not the way others regarded this event. “This is a very big deal indeed,” says lunar scientist Paul Spudis of the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston. “Landing on the moon is not something easily attained—it requires precision maneuvering, tracking, computation and engineering. It is a delicate task and the Chinese success reflects a mature, evolving and capable program.”

After two fly-by missions to the moon, China was successful on its first attempt for a soft landing on the moon surface. They then launched the rover from the lander to roam and explore a part of moon that had not been visited by the Russians or Americans, predecessors who have also landed on the moon.

Space.com, the website that focuses on all matters relating to space exploration, listed China’s Chang’e-3 mission as the latest on the list of most marvelous moon missions from human kind.

"This is a great day for lunar science and exploration, with the first successful soft landing on the surface of the Moon since the Soviet Union did it in 1976," said Clive Neal, a leading lunar scientist from University of Notre Dame.

Not everyone was as effusive. The New Zealand’s Conservative Party leader, Colin Craig, joined the inevitable chorus of conspiracy doubters and publicly questioned whether the moon landing really took place.

While most of world sent their congratulatory messages to Beijing, NASA was conspicuously quiet. "What we have here is a situation where politics is certainly inhibiting good scientific cooperation and discovery because the NASA mission people are not allowed to communicate bilaterally with their Chinese counterparts," Neal said.

Congressman Frank Wolf has been the direct cause for NASA’s silence. Wolf is well known for his rabid anti China posture and because he chairs the House committee with funding authority over NASA, he runs NASA as if the agency is his personal fiefdom. (He also practiced vicious racial profiling against ethnic Chinese that worked as NASA contractors.) He enacted into law in 2011 that specifically forbad NASA from any contact with China’s counterparts, much less any semblance of joint cooperation.

Wolf’s “activism” has turned what should have been a platform for international scientific cooperation into another petty issue of politics. Even Russia and the U.S., heretofore rivals in the space race, have been able to conduct joint space research in the International Space Station, but China was specifically not invited to be among the 14 member nations.

However, instead of China on the outside looking in, soon it will be other nations looking to be invited by China to participate in their explorations. Both the US and Russia are cutting back their financial commitment for space research just when China has plans firmly in place to move forward.

Already, the European Space Agency has become a partner of China’s space agency by providing their deep space tracking stations to track and help monitor Chang'e 3’s lunar descent.  When Chang’e landing succeeded, the crew at Darmstadt Germany broke out in celebration along with their colleagues in Beijing.

Just about the only other nation contemplating an on-going space exploration program is India. On paper, India will put a man on the moon by 2020, about 4 years ahead of China. But that’s on paper, China has already accomplished landing an unmanned spacecraft and dispatching a rover while nada for India. 

After Beijing successfully staged the 2008 Olympics, India aspired to do the same kind of hosting with the 2010 Commonwealth Games, except the outcome became a scandal ridden embarrassment. Some of the vendors even had trouble getting their equipment out of India as the organizers wanted to hold on to scoreboards and other appliances of value for ransom.

Going forward, whether India will deliver remains to be seen but certainly China will continue to ignite the earthling’s imagination as they continue their program for space exploration. What we won’t remember will be the buffoons on Fox, or alleged national leader like Colin Craig of New Zealand and the obstructionist like Frank Wolf.

The Case of Su Haiping vs. The United States

I have frequently written about Chinese Americans victimized due to racial profiling by American law enforcement agencies. Dr. Su Haiping was one such victim. As reported by the San Jose Mercury News, his case has finally come to trial after nearly 6 years. Some of the proceedings in court has been reported by the World Journal, the national daily in Chinese, and I have provided a translation below.

Court Case on (violation of) Privacy Rights Opens, Su Haiping Asking $5.2 Million Compensation.

Lawyers for UCSC agriculture scientist Su Haiping on December 6 accuse US government of invasion of his rights to privacy, pointing out that after FBI concluded that Su represent security risk, the management of NASA Ames reveal the findings to Su’s co-workers and at the same time took away Su’s access to Ames Research Center. (Thus) causing heavy damage to Su’s professional reputation and his psychological wellbeing. Representative for the plaintiff is asking compensation of $5.2 miillion from the federal government.

Su’s invasion of privacy case occurred in 2008, at the time when he was working as one of expert analysts for UCSC’s University Affiliated Research Center. The principal source of funding was from NASA. At the time, Su had already been working at the Ames Research Center for nearly 3 years.

Government attorney countered that the difficulty of determining the invasion of a person’s privacy is very high, because such cases involves under what circumstances, to whom and what was said. According to court documents, defendant denied invasion of Su’s rights to privacy. Furthermore, the government attorney believes that disclosures by FBI and NASA were not very harmful to Su, because even though he can no longer go to Ames to work, he remained employed by UCSC.

Su’s case began in July of 2007 when he filled personal information on e-QIP for the purpose of getting NASA approval for facility entry in 2008. After submitting to NSA, he received the entry pass in January 2008 uneventfully. According to Su’s attorney, e-QIP was a new tool used by the government to check on staff after 9-11.

Michael Reedy, Su’s attorney, pointed out that NASA never obtained Su’s permission before turning over the completed e-QIP form to FBI. Defense objected and Davila, the presiding judge, ruled that the hearing does not include the e-QIP matter.

Beginning February 2008, FBI agent Sherman Kwok along with NASA personnel interviewed Su twice, both times in a windowless room at the (Ames) research center.

On March 21, 2008, Su went to Oakland to undertake a FBI administered lie detector test. Su was distraught after the test. According to court documents, FBI agent Kwok told Su that the lie detector results were not good, but there were no means to do a retest. The results were sent on to NASA.

According to Su’s testimony on December 5, June 24 2008 was a unforgettable day in his memory. On that day, Robert Dolci, head of NASA Ames security gave Su a letter signed by Dolci. The letter stated that according to results of investigations, the center considers Su a security risk to NASA’s intellectual property and thus is revoking his access to Ames research center (and the right to work there).

Pleasures of touring Guizhou

I have frequently written about Chinese Americans victimized due to racial profiling by American law enforcement agencies. Dr. Su Haiping was one such victim. As reported by the San Jose Mercury News, his case has finally come to trial after nearly 6 years. Some of the proceedings in court has been reported by the World Journal, the national daily in Chinese, and I have provided a translation below. Court Case on (violation of) Privacy Rights Opens, Su Haiping Asking $5.2 Million Compensation. Lawyers for UCSC agriculture scientist Su Haiping on December 6 accuse US government of invasion of his rights to privacy, pointing out that after FBI concluded that Su represent security risk, the management of NASA Ames reveal the findings to Su’s co-workers and at the same time took away Su’s access to Ames Research Center. (Thus) causing heavy damage to Su’s professional reputation and his psychological wellbeing. Representative for the plaintiff is asking compensation of $5.2 miillion from the federal government. Su’s invasion of privacy case occurred in 2008, at the time when he was working as one of expert analysts for UCSC’s University Affiliated Research Center. The principal source of funding was from NASA. At the time, Su had already been working at the Ames Research Center for nearly 3 years. Government attorney countered that the difficulty of determining the invasion of a person’s privacy is very high, because such cases involves under what circumstances, to whom and what was said. According to court documents, defendant denied invasion of Su’s rights to privacy. Furthermore, the government attorney believes that disclosures by FBI and NASA were not very harmful to Su, because even though he can no longer go to Ames to work, he remained employed by UCSC. Su’s case began in July of 2007 when he filled personal information on e-QIP for the purpose of getting NASA approval for facility entry in 2008. After submitting to NSA, he received the entry pass in January 2008 uneventfully. According to Su’s attorney, e-QIP was a new tool used by the government to check on staff after 9-11. Michael Reedy, Su’s attorney, pointed out that NASA never obtained Su’s permission before turning over the completed e-QIP form to FBI. Defense objected and Davila, the presiding judge, ruled that the hearing does not include the e-QIP matter. Beginning February 2008, FBI agent Sherman Kwok along with NASA personnel interviewed Su twice, both times in a windowless room at the (Ames) research center. On March 21, 2008, Su went to Oakland to undertake a FBI administered lie detector test. Su was distraught after the test. According to court documents, FBI agent Kwok told Su that the lie detector results were not good, but there were no means to do a retest. The results were sent on to NASA. According to Su’s testimony on December 5, June 24 2008 was a unforgettable day in his memory. On that day, Robert Dolci, head of NASA Ames security gave Su a letter signed by Dolci. The letter stated that according to results of investigations, the center considers Su a security risk to NASA’s intellectual property and thus is revoking his access to Ames research center (and the right to work there).

Fading American Expectation and Exceptionalism

Since the financial tsunami of 2008, I have been monitoring the bilateral currency swap agreements that China has entered into. According to the most recent report, China has 24 such agreements in place, the recent agreements with EU and UK are probably the most significant.

Most significant because EU represents a major portion of global economic activity, second only to the US and because UK is unabashedly and proactively going after opportunities associated with becoming a swap center for Renminbi (along with Hong Kong and Singapore) and bending over backwards to entice Chinese investments into UK.

There was a time when UK was the leading economic power of the world--you know, when the sun never set on the British empire. The pound sterling was at the time the world's reserve currency of choice. That was then.

Since then America has overtaken UK and became a superpower and after the collapse of USSR, the world's only superpower. The dollar has replaced the pound as the reserve currency.

Despite the fact that the financial collapse of 2008 was caused by American greed on Wall Street, the dollar was still considered the safest currency to have and hold. Foreign money piling into the US did its part in keeping the interest rate of US Treasury bills low.

Since that time, however, the US Congress has twice threatened to renege on the national debt which would in effect render the foreign holdings of US Treasury bills worthless. Each time, Congress kept the world watching with abated breath and backed off as the clock was about to strike midnight.

Congress has not offered a permanent fix to the circus revolving around the fiscal budget and debt ceiling but merely kicked the can down the street with yet another deadline looming on December 13. Some wags have suggested that Congress lacked sense of humor and did not select February 2, Ground Hog's Day, for the deadline.

Watching the US fiddle with the prospect of default is no joking matter but the world clearly appreciated that Washington has become one big joke.

As Wall Street Journal, among others, have pointed out, Asian countries in particular are now busy doing their own side deals in bilateral currency swaps to avoid additional dollar exposure. The most prominent next to China has been South Korea. They have been cutting one deal after another with their major trading partners. Their central banker said Korea is following China's lead.

The worldwide trend is obvious to anyone except members of Congress. American exceptionalism is fraying along with the declining desirability of the dollar. When enough countries decide holding on to the dollar is too risky, the American dollar will cease to be the reserve currency of choice.

When China is courageous enough to make the Renminbi freely convertible, the appeal of the dollar could take a quantum dump. When the world ceases to want dollars for their rainy days, the value of the dollar will go kaput. The American taxpayers will rue that day but it will be too late to throw the rascals out of Washington. The damage would be beyond repair.

Does Shutdown Presage Global Meltdown?

An edited version appeared in New America Media.

The mightiest democracy in the world has grounded to a screeching halt by the tyranny of few.

Somehow the Tea Party members, roughly 10% of the House, were able to hold the Speaker of the House of Representative hostage and force him into an impasse with the White House.

The US Federal government can no longer operate because the political leaders of the two political parties cannot find common ground and agree.

Instead the parties are now feverishly engaged in explaining to the public why the other side is to blame. Nobody has a solution.

Befuddled observers around the world watch in morbid fascination even though they are hard put to explain how or why this can happen to the only superpower still standing.

The US is worse off than Italy: not even a person of Silvio Berlusconi’s ilk is around to bail out the American impasse and avert a government shutdown. (Berlusconi “saved” Italy by not bolting from the ruling coalition.)

The people of Lebanon are saying, “Hey, you Americans come and learn from us, we have gotten along without a functioning government for decades.”

To the Egyptians, this was an aha moment, namely how to get rid of a government without bloodshed.

Other western democracies such as France, Germany and U.K. are congratulating themselves for having the parliamentary form of democracy where the prime minister stays in power so long as a majority of the parliament supports him or her.

When the prime minister no longer has majority support and loses the confidence vote, the government falls. But, unlike the U.S. a minority cannot violate the basic tenet of democracy and shut the government down.

The bloggers in China seem to be having the most fun seizing the shutdown as an opportunity for a twofer.

On the one hand, the bloggers are praising the American civil society to the sky for its ability to go about business as usual, in contrast to China where a shutdown would assuredly lead to chaos and disorder.

On the other, some slyly suggested that a shutdown of the Chinese government wouldn’t be such a bad thing.

Tourists visiting the U.S. do not find the shutdown amusing. Many from China left for the US around October 1, China’s national holiday and the beginning of China’s Golden Week.

For many that scrimped for the trip of their lifetime, they will be going home without the customary photos of Yosemite and Statue of Liberty and other popular icons from the land of the free.

The bad taste of disappointed tourists is hardly the only damage to international relations for the U.S.

Because of the shutdown, Obama had to cancel his visit to Malaysia and Philippines and possibly the entire trip to Southeast Asia just to pivot back to Washington—further shaking the confidence of the region in the leadership of the U.S.

In contrast, China’s President Xi Jinping went to Indonesia and became the first foreign leader to address Indonesia’s parliament where he spoke for nearly an hour (and then he went on to Malaysia).  

The Taiwan based Apple Daily made a fuss over one of the phrases Xi used in his speech. He said jilidangjitianxiali, which the English China Daily has translated as, “The interests to be considered should be the interests of all.”

The cause of the excitement is because the same exact phrase used to be one half of the operating motto belonging to Chiang Ch’ing Guo when he succeeded his father, Chiang Kai Shek, and became the second president of Republic of China in Taiwan.

Indonesia would seem to be an unlikely venue to send a coded message to Taiwan. More likely Xi was using a phrase in common usage to emphasize the principle that one should consider the greater good over the narrow interest of a select few.

This, of course, is the very message that the political leaders of the U.S. are ignoring, namely, total focus on their individual agenda and not at all on national interest.

The gridlock continues and the U.S. is expected to hurtle over the fiscal cliff around October 17.  Without a Congress to work with the White House and raise the debt ceiling, the U.S. will have to default.

When the world sees the full faith of the U.S. Federal Government as worthless, there will be a worldwide financial Armageddon. Perhaps the crazies in Congress relish the idea of an Armageddon, but no one else will.

The self-inflicted wounds to American prestige will take time to recover. But if the United States actually defaults, the damage will be fatal and the world will never trust the U.S. ever again.

Book Review: The Chinese Dream by Helen H. Wang

For three decades, since China began its reform in 1978, its economy amazed the world by growing in double digits, doubling roughly every seven years. When it first doubled, most pundits pooh-poohed the growth as coming from a small base. When the economy doubled again, some say it couldn’t possibly go on. Then it doubled and some predicted a pending collapse. Despite the dire forecasts, it doubled yet again.

Finally, China’s economy stopped growing in double digits, but it was not because of any of the reasons given by the western pundits and economists. The economy slowed to below 10%/year because of the global slowdown triggered by the bubble created by America’s Wall Street in 2008.

The credit default obligations and repackaged subprime mortgages brought the American economy to a virtual ruin while the European and Japanese economies actually contracted. China managed to grow at “only” around 8% per annum, which means doubling every ten years instead of seven.

Suddenly, the world’s equity markets began to take notice of China’s economy, by now the second largest, second only the U.S. Today when China’s manufacturing indices decline slightly, all the stock markets take a tumble. Conversely when China’s indices changed positively, all the world’s equity markets brightened.

Despite the obvious linkage of China’s economy to the well being of the global economy, there remain naysayers that maintain their skepticism and believe that so long as China does not become a democracy, its economy cannot defy gravity indefinitely. It would be terribly tactless, of course, to point out that so-called democracies were the first to tumble during the crisis triggered by the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

Many mainstream economists now share the widespread belief that not enough of China’s economy is coming from consumption, that China needs to rebalance economic priorities away from too much dependence on fixed assets investments such as infrastructure building and to spend more and save less.

On the other hand, retail sales in China’s cities have been increasing at a rate nearly double that of GDP. We see young urban professionals living the life of conspicuous consumption; travelling overseas and sweeping the luxury goods clean off the shelves of high-end, name brand shops.

How can we reconcile the seeming contradiction of China’s need to have more of its GDP coming from consumption and the obvious over the top consumption behavior of certain socio-economic groups? One explanation comes from “The Chinese Dream” written by Helen Wang.

This book is an intensive study of China burgeoning middle class and how it came to be. The bulk of the book is devoted to personal interviews in China, from migrant workers to entrepreneurs, from laid off workers to those that got the jump start by taking over parts of state owned companies in the process of being privatized. By way of examples, the author illustrated that China’s private sector “is really neither private nor public” but a peculiar blend of capitalism with Chinese characteristics.

It’s not possible to explain the complexity of today’s China in any single book, but by her wide-ranging interviews and personal stories along with careful research and extensive footnotes, Ms. Wang has made an important contribution to understanding the attitudes and mindsets of upward and mobile young Chinese.

By understanding this social and trend setting group of largely urban professionals, it is possible to project China’s consumer behavior into the future. Just as China has become an integral part of the global economy, the Chinese customer will become an increasingly important buyer for all kinds of goods and services.

Whether you are interested in understanding today’s China as part of business planning exercise or for personal enlightenment, this book would be an excellent primer and starting point. 

China’s Minister of Defense Visits the U.S. to Build Common Ground but Japan Stands in the Way

This commentary was first posted on New America Media.

How will Japan’s recent policy shift to offensive weaponry affect the U.S.-China ongoing dialogue between their respective defense chiefs?

General Chang Wanquan’s visit to the US this week as minister of defense is the latest of a continuing series of exchanges between China and the U.S, aimed at building trust between the military of both countries. Both sides agree that sharing information and discussing issues of common interests will enhance understanding and cooperation.

Whether meeting on common grounds will lead to recognition and mutual respect for the differences still outstanding between the two counties remains unanswered. Moreover, aside from existing differences that have bedeviled the bilateral relations, a new development has come to the fore: Japan’s pronounced shift to militarism.

The newly elected Abe government, elected on a platform of nationalism, is threatening to revise Japan’s constitution and disavow the peace covenants that were inserted to remind the people of Japan of the atrocities committed by their military--hideous acts of inhumanity that repelled the people in Asia. At the end of WWII, Japan was to never again mount offensive military capabilities but limit to pacifist self-defense forces.

The Abe government picked August 6, the anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, to launch a new super destroyer, named “Izumo,” big enough to launch helicopters and, with a bit of modification, fighter planes. The deck was festooned with the war flag of the old imperial army and the helicopters were emblazoned with the number 731.

Much of the symbolism associated with this launch went over the heads of the American public but certainly had the desired affect by arousing the anger of the people in China.

Japan’s official position has always been to point to Hiroshima as a reminder to the Japanese people that they were victims of WWII and American aggression, contrary to the idea that Japan was the aggressor.

Unit 731 was the secret research station located in the outskirts of Harbin where live human beings were subject to injections of toxins such as bubonic plague and anthrax and then cut open while alive to monitor progress of the ravages of the diseases—all without administration of anesthesia. Use of anesthesia, the reasoning went, may distort the test results of the trial weapons of germ warfare.

The victims of these biological experiments were not just Chinese civilians but included American POWs captured from the Bataan death march in Philippines. In the waning days of the War, most of the biological testing camp was destroyed.

General Shiro Ishii, the commandant of Unit 731, secretly negotiated with the American occupation force to turn over the research data in exchange for escaping from prosecution for himself and his research team. The Americans accepted Ishii’s terms and thus the activities of Unit 731 were never exposed to the limelight of a military tribunal and prosecution.

Thanks to Ishii and America complicity, members of his research team died of natural causes and never felt the sting of having to explain their heinous activity and the disgrace of public condemnation; some even walked tall in their post-war careers as respected members of society.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki that ended the war was just a bit too soon for Ishii. He was experimenting with the use of high altitude balloons to drop germ-laden bombs on the west coast of the U.S. Had he succeeded, America would surely not be so ready to forget Japan’s role in the war.

President Obama likes to tell despots that they are standing on the wrong side of history. In siding with Japan on any disputes Japan has with China, the U.S. is clearly on the wrong side and perhaps the blind side of history.

Hard to know if General Chang would have the opportunity to discuss with the Secretary Hagel of the significantly different attitude about Japan between China and the U.S. America has been quick to forgive Japan but China could not because Japan has yet to own up to their role in the war and make a heart felt apology and amends.

China and the U.S. were wartime allies when Japan was the mortal enemy. Japan should not now become an obstacle to China and the U.S. becoming partners to world peace.