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).

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.

The U.S. Senate Hog Wild over the Chinese Bid for Smithfield Pork

When Shuanghui, China’s largest pork producer, made an offer to buy Smithfield, it should have been a straightforward business transaction. Smithfield is America’s largest pork producer.  By acquiring Smithfield, Shuanghui would be positioned to fill China’s rising demand for more pork.

Chinese living in America have been long familiar with the premium priced Smithfield country ham; the cured meat reminds them of the taste of “Jinhua” ham famous throughout China. Through Shuanghui’s distribution channels, America stands to export a lot of pork to the most dynamic growing market in the world—not incidentally, exporting is an activity encouraged by President Obama for job creation.

What should have been a simple win-win deal is becoming a lot more complicated thanks to Congressional review. As presented at the hearing, the humble bacon has suddenly risen to become an ominous threat capable of imperiling the security of the United States.

According to the testimony of one alleged expert on China, Usha Haley, pork is a strategically important industry for China. Therefore even if heretofore pork consumption is declining in the US, suddenly because the Chinese desires American pork, the US should think hard about denying them access.

Then Daniel Slane, a member of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, artfully blackened the Chinese tycoon behind Shuanghui by labeling Mr. Wan Long a high-ranking member of the Chinese Communist Party at the beck and call of the Beijing government. The day after Mr. Slane’s testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee, the Wall Street Journalran a profile on Mr. Wan that supported none of his allegations.

While the per capita American consumption of beef is around 7 times that of per capital Chinese consumption, China’s per capita consumption of pork is roughly 20% higher than in the US. Since China’s population is more than four times greater, the claim that China consumes a lot of pork is not in question. As China’s middle class continues to swell, demand for their favorite meat will only increase.

Hogs in China are raised mostly in small family-owned farms and could never match the productivity of factory farms in the US. Thus demand will continue to exceed domestic supply. That the Chinese hog farmers won’t be swamped by the import of American pork is only because some Chinese consumers prefer the more robust flavor of “free range” pork than the more consistent but blander tasting meat from the US.

There isn’t any question that Smithfield represents the standard that Shuanghui aspires to attain. Without a significant economic comparative advantage, there wouldn’t be any reason for Shuanghui to tender for the American company.

Part of the motivation for acquiring Smithfield would be to learn from the Americans in raising healthier hogs and producing more consistent quality of meats. Even if the Chinese improve their productivity using American technology, why should the US object to having more pork to go around? It’s not as if pork has suddenly become a material for the weapons of mass destruction.

In fact, such a development would be a good thing for the world as a whole. Americans may eat more than that’s good for them, but the rest of the world wouldn’t mind having a bit of meat once in a while. In a world of burgeoning population facing perpetual hunger, for the august members of the US Senate to look at this deal as a zero sum game—where Chinese dietary gain is somehow equated to America’s loss--reflects small minds of petty consequences.

But leave it to the politicians to make a pig of themselves and raise the threat of national security at every imagined shadow even when cast by a dangling ham. “Shuanghui” could be loosely translated from Chinese as “both win.” If Senator Debbie Stabenow and her committee have their way, it seems only a “both party lose” outcome can satisfy their proclivity for xenophobic paranoia.

A version appeared in New America Media and China-US Focus.

Could North Korea Become the Breakthrough in the US-China Relations?

This entry is an revision of the previous blog entry to reflect that the summit between Obama and Xi had taken place and was first posted on China-US Focus.

=========

The informal summit between the leaders of China and the US concluded pretty much according to most expectations, namely no breakthroughs or unpleasant surprises.

According to some reports, Presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping did agree to work together on keeping North Korea in check and the Korean peninsula nuclear free. 

Indeed there have been some recent developments to suggest that North Korea is apparently yielding to China’s pressure to behave. The North Koreans have approached the South Korean government to renew a dialogue that has gone on for years, more off than on.

Of course historically nothing about North Korea has been predictable or dependable. The Pyongyang government has always been able to exploit the difference in the policies regarding North Korea between Beijing and Washington, a difference that gives Pyongyang room to alternatingly test the patience of the two powers.

Despite or because of vocal protests from the US, North Korea has apparently gone ahead with an underground nuclear detonation—“apparently” because no one seems to know for sure.

Despite consternation from Japan and South Korea along with pressure from the US, North Korea has test-fired ballistic missiles in the direction of neighboring South Korea and Japan. Some supposed intercontinental range missile turned out much shorter range than expected and some were outright duds.

Each time after the government has misbehaved on the international stage, it would offer to begin the six party talks, provided of course the US will agree to preconditions that the North Koreans know the US will not accept.

The only recourse Washington seems to have is to lean on Beijing to get the North Korea to behave, since the regime is completely dependent on the food and energy aid from China, without which the regime would certainly collapse.

But China is equally frustrated, if not more so, by the North Koreans. Each time Beijing sends a special envoy to Pyongyang to ask the government not to build a bomb or not to fire a missile, the Pyongyang would assure the envoy and then goes ahead and reneges a few days after the envoy leaves. Sometime, the misbehavior takes place a couple of days ahead of the arrival of the visiting delegation just to rub it in.

Most recently, after the most recent missile test and after finally releasing Chinese fishermen held by the North Koreans—as this has happened more than once—Pyongyang promptly sent their highest ranking military official to Beijing to again express proper contrition and again promise to participate in the much desired six party talks.

North Korea’s seemingly erratic behavior has been deliberate and carefully calibrated. It continues to push and test the boundary of what China will tolerate, because Pyongyang knows that China will not allow the regime to totally implode.

China has two major reasons not wanting to see the Pyongyang regime collapse. First it would have to deal with a massive refugee problem as Koreans flee north into China. Second, presumably the Seoul government will take over and unify the entire peninsula. This would mean potential American military presence all the way to the border of China.

Up to now, Washington has been badgering Beijing to fix the problem and make Pyongyang behave but has offered nothing that would help Beijing get out of the conundrum.

But there is something the US can offer to China that would help China exert pressure on North Korea more effectively. Namely, the US can promise to immediately withdraw all its troops from the Korean peninsula when and if the Pyongyang government collapses and the South Korea government were to unify the peninsula.

It would take a lot more mutual trust in the bilateral relations than currently exists between China and the US before Beijing would accept the promise of American withdrawal as realistic. However once confidence has been established, the Pyongyang government would find much less room to be the bad actor. It would either have to behave or face extinction.

Obama could point out to Xi that since China normalized its relations with South Korea (to the consternation of the North) in 1992, South Korea has become an important economic partner of China and the bilateral relations have been cordial without one-sided demands like those from the North.

If the Korean peninsula were to unify under Seoul, China would have a friendly neighbor and enjoy a stable relationship. With peace and stability being the common goal of China and the US, there would be no further reason for an American military presence.

In order to convince Xi and his Zhongnanhai colleagues that Obama is sincere, he would have to take steps to build trust. The most prominent step would be to change his pivot to Asia, which China regards as military containment, into a platform for joint high sea patrols and exercises with the PLA Navy.

When realized, there are two important benefits for Obama in addition to reining in North Korea. First, with sequestration, Obama is facing a shrinking defense budget. He still has a war budget on al Qaeda that needs to be fed. He does not have the funds to deploy troops in the Pacific where the US faces no threat.

More importantly, Obama should be thinking about his legacy to history. By brokering a lasting peace with China and become partners in developing a stable Asia Pacific, Obama would be remembered for altering the disastrous warpath toward self destruction embarked by the previous Bush administration and putting America back on a path to prosperity.