| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| The Growing Red Menace |
| 2005-06-01 |
| "One good spy is worth 10,000 soldiers." - Sun Tzu, ancient Chinese military strategist Islamic terrorism is still the greatest threat to our national security, but Chinese espionage against the United States is gaining ground. The FBI says China will be America's greatest counterintelligence problem during the next 10-15 years. China has seven permanent diplomatic missions in the States, staffed with intelligence personnel. But the FBI believes that as many as 3,500 Chinese "front companies" are involved in espionage for the People's Republic of China (PRC) as well. And with the bureau focused on terrorism, the China challenge is overwhelming the FBI's counterintelligence capabilities. The PRC has the world's third-largest intelligence apparatus (after the United States and Russia), and it's targeting America's governmental, military and high technology secrets. China's goal is to replace the U.S. as the preeminent power in the Pacific - even globally. It's using every method possible, including espionage, to improve its political, economic and, especially, military might. A senior FBI official said recently, "China is trying to develop a military that can compete with the U.S., and they are willing to steal to get it." One example: Last fall in Wisconsin, a Chinese-American couple was arrested for selling $500,000 worth of computer parts to China for enhancing its missile systems. Even worse: The PRC recently fielded a new cruise missile strikingly similar to the advanced American "Tomahawk." Chances that the similarities are a coincidence? Slim to none. Naturally, America's hi-tech centers are a potential gold mine for Chinese spies. The FBI claims that Chinese espionage cases are rising 20 to 30 percent every year in Silicon Valley alone. But don't think James Bond. It's all much more methodical - and mundane. Chinese intelligence collection uses numerous low-level spies to painstakingly collect one small piece of information at a time until the intelligence question is answered. Kind of like building a beach one grain of sand at a time. For instance, it took China 20 years to swipe American nuclear warhead designs from U.S. national nuclear weapons labs, according to a 1999 congressional committee China also doesn't rely on "professional" spies stationed overseas to the extent other major intel services do. Instead, it uses low-profile civilians to collect information. The PRC's Ministry of State Security (MSS) often co-opts Chinese travelers, especially businesspeople, scientists and academics, to gather intel or purchase technology while they're in America. The MSS especially prizes overseas Chinese students, hi-tech workers and researchers living in the U.S. because of their access to sensitive technology and research/development that Beijing can use for civilian and military purposes. Of course, not all the 150,000 Chinese students and researchers now in America, or the 25,000 official PRC delegates - or the 300,000 victors - are spies, but they do provide the MSS with a large pool of potential recruits for collecting secrets on U.S. targets of interest. The MSS also recruits in the Chinese-American community, including sleeper agents. Developing personal relationships, invoking a common Chinese heritage, threatening cultural alienation or offering access to powerful people are persuasive in a culture where "guanxi" (connections) are important. An equal opportunity employer, the MSS will, of course, "hire" sympathetic Americans - or any ethnicity - that will further China's cause, including scholars, journalists and diplomats, among others. The United States isn't the only country with a Chinese spy problem. The MSS runs an espionage network against scientific labs and large research universities in several European countries, including the U.K., France, the Netherlands and Germany. In Asia, Taiwan recently arrested 17 of its military officers for working for the PRC. China's spies and their methods aren't the most expedient or efficient in spy-dom, but the tenacity and quantity of Chinese spooks are proving effective. Unfortunately, the openness of American society provides easy access to sensitive information and technology. Sun Tzu said that intelligence is critical to success on the battlefield. It applies to the political and economic "battlefield," too. Accordingly, China is investing heavily in espionage to match its geopolitical aspirations. China will prove to be America's greatest foreign-policy challenge in this century. In recent months, the Pentagon, CIA, Treasury and Congress have voiced concerns about China's rapidly expanding political, economic and military clout. These are words to the wise. We certainly can't take our eye off terrorist threats against the homeland, but neither can we risk not meeting the growing Chinese espionage menace. Both are major threats to our national security and merit significant resources and attention. |
| Posted by:Greretle Shuger3573 |
| #19 MD: Check the link on my earlier comment, Frank. If that's fetching, well, let's just say Ms Leung must have a great personality or incredible internal musculature. From that picture, it would appear that looks aren't everything. But to be quite honest, good looks and personality are often inversely proportional in a given person. I guess if you're really good-looking, you don't need to be personable. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-06-01 21:44 |
| #18 Check the link on my earlier comment, Frank. If that's fetching, well, let's just say Ms Leung must have a great personality or incredible internal musculature. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-06-01 20:21 |
| #17 apparently the risk is due to FBI agents unable to keep their pants up and thinking with the big brain whenever fetching asian women are around.... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-06-01 20:05 |
| #16 The angle I'm considering is that they are mainland Chinese who are trained as engineers, have reasonable English, and families still in China. They are recruited and trained as operatives before they leave China and are given Nationalist covers to submit with their H1-B. I agree that anyone who worked his way over here on his own is much less likely to agree to work for them than the aimless Aldrich Ames and Ward Churchills we produce here. That is why most immigrants I have met have impressed me as being more true and dedicated Americans than most native borns. They do understand what's on the other side. |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-06-01 18:44 |
| #15 #4 I don't know, but from what I've read, mentionning "FBI", "chinese", and "penetrations" in the same paragraph is not very tasteful. This is a family blog, after all. Posted by anonymous5089 We probably shouldn't mention possible Chinese support of Milf then, eh? |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-06-01 18:13 |
| #14 Zhang, while I wouldn't over-emphasize Chinese espionage, I don't think its negligible either. In the big picture I think its less significant than entirely legal technology tranfers to build chips, cars or whatever. The big issue with China is what comes after the communists and will democracy make it more like India. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-06-01 17:07 |
| #13 mjh: I respectfully disagree with ZF on the extent and success of Chinese infiltration. In what way? Are you saying that the Chinese are more successful at espionage than the Russians despite having a pool of only ethnic Chinese to recruit from, and having nothing like Chambers, Bloch, Ames, Hansen and Walker under their belt? Not to mention the fact that the Russians got atomic secrets even as the bomb was being constructed? The Chinese would be flattered that they're getting compared to the Russians. mjh: I read an article in the Wash Times recently (the only non moonbat pub I can get in DC) which outlined the conflict between Defense and State on a future threat report for the US military. The gist is that the State rep (a Clinton appointee) wanted to remove all reference to China as a military threat or even global competitor, and emphasize the positive transition that China was undergoing, and that it was intent on being a "peaceful neighbor". I would say this reflects influence of a high degree... The State Department thing you mentioned has nothing to do with spying. State thinks of itself as the world's representatives to the US, rather than America's representatives to the world. That's not a result of Chinese espionage - it's the result of a dysfunctional institution that serves America's enemies. Note that I'm not saying that China isn't a threat. I'm simply saying that a potential Chinese threat comes from the massive expansion of its military capabilities via rapid economic growth combined with its irredentist tendencies with regard to territorial claims. Espionage is simply a sideshow, as the Chinese capability in this regard is negligible. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-06-01 16:52 |
| #12 I respectfully disagree with ZF on the extent and success of Chinese infiltration. I read an article in the Wash Times recently (the only non moonbat pub I can get in DC) which outlined the conflict between Defense and State on a future threat report for the US military. The gist is that the State rep (a Clinton appointee) wanted to remove all reference to China as a military threat or even global competitor, and emphasize the positive transition that China was undergoing, and that it was intent on being a "peaceful neighbor". I would say this reflects influence of a high degree... |
| Posted by: mjh 2005-06-01 16:16 |
| #11 Another first for Zhang Fei! Way to go, Big Z! |
| Posted by: mac 2005-06-01 14:38 |
| #10 Are you sure you not a Chinese spy on a mission for stealing Rantburg's renowned anti-moonbat and troll control technologies? 'E's a witch! Burn 'im! |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-06-01 13:57 |
| #9 MD: There are lots of ethnic Chinese coming over on H1-Bs. Some of them could easily be plants. Whether they would remain loyal after 5 years exposure to our decadent lifestyle is questionable, but there is risk, especially as so many end up in Silicon Valley. I would expect most Chinese immigrants to remain loyal to China. The question isn't loyalty of each individual Chinese, which is likely to be with the Chinese government. The question is whether he would be susceptible to Chinese recruitment - something that would risk everything that he has achieved in this country, potentially subjecting him to imprisonment or even execution. Just as the average Muslim (or leftist) will express extremely anti-American views to people he trusts, the average Chinese will express the same sentiments. But the reality is that just as the average Muslim (or leftist) will not act on his sentiments, the average Chinese will avoid doing things that could have potentially life-changing consequences. It takes a huge amount of effort for a Chinese national to come to the United States. Just how many would jeopardize their status for the Chinese government? I think very few. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-06-01 13:52 |
| #8 Supposedly the east germans used to have great spies -- it didn't help them much in the end |
| Posted by: mhw 2005-06-01 12:36 |
| #7 Well, I think technically, the ChiComs are the "Yellow Peril", the "Red Menace" being the old USSR and it's running dogs... To use the ChiCom parlance. |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-06-01 12:28 |
| #6 The test will be whether they can steal our nation's most closely guarded documents: John Kerry's service records. |
| Posted by: Matt 2005-06-01 12:08 |
| #5 JFM: Are you sure you not a Chinese spy on a mission for stealing Rantburg's renowned anti-moonbat and troll control technologies? I guess that would make me the first non-Chinese Chinese spy. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-06-01 11:59 |
| #4 I don't know, but from what I've read, mentionning "FBI", "chinese", and "penetrations" in the same paragraph is not very tasteful. This is a family blog, after all. |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2005-06-01 11:24 |
| #3 What you say is correct, as always, Zhang, some buts. There are lots of ethnic Chinese coming over on H1-Bs. Some of them could easily be plants. Whether they would remain loyal after 5 years exposure to our decadent lifestyle is questionable, but there is risk, especially as so many end up in Silicon Valley. Second and a greater risk is that there are lots of George Galloway/Ward Churchills in academia who hate America so much they will be the fifth column for any enemy, ideological purity is no longer a requirement. There are many more of these than there ever were fellow travellers in the 30s-50s. Fortunately most are in disciplines that are irrelevan to almost everything. But they do create a reality distortion field that directs the tone of discussion on campuses. Finally, there's a lot more of them. If they have a quarter the rate of success the Russians had, they'll have twice the absolute number of penetrations. And speaking of penetration, how did the Chinese get into the FBI? |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-06-01 11:08 |
| #2 Zhang Fei Are you sure you not a Chinese spy on a mission for stealing Rantburg's renowned anti-moonbat and troll control technologies? |
| Posted by: JFM 2005-06-01 10:59 |
| #1 In comparison to the Soviets, the Chinese don't rate. Big heaping chunks of Western academia are leftists. The Rosenbergs handed over the crown jewels to the Soviets even as A-bombs were being developed. The Chinese are way, way behind. The Soviets had ideological affinity aiding them - they could recruit among native-born American leftists of any ethnicity. China does not have anything like this kind of edge - China is not viewed as a model socialist state, given its mix of fascist corporatism (state-owned industries) and unregulated capitalism, meaning that its ideological purity is in question. There is also the ethnic component - the Chinese can only recruit among ethnic Chinese in America, who really stick out, especially in defense-related industries. With the Soviets, you never really knew who to look for, since their agents-in-place could be of any ethnicity. When the Chinese are able to replicate the Soviets' successes in recruiting people like Hansen, Walker, Ames and Bloch, I'll start getting worried. In the interval, it's much ado about nothing. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2005-06-01 10:04 |