| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: WoT | |
| US in move that may bar foreign researchers | |
| 2005-11-25 | |
| The US government is poised to propose rules that could restrict the ability of Chinese and other foreign nationals to engage in high-level research in the country, a plan that is generating fierce opposition from companies and universities. The move comes amid growing fears in the US that its relatively open rules allowing foreign nationals to work with sensitive technologies leave the country open to espionage.
In a few weeks, the commerce department is expected to respond to a report by its inspector-general, which warned of the espionage risks last year. The inspector-generalâs proposal called for an expansion of the rules that restrict the sharing of advanced technologies with foreign nationals. Under existing law, companies or universities are required to seek a government export licence if they allow citizens from controlled countries, most prominently China, to engage in research involving technologies with potential military uses. But licences are not required if a Chinese national becomes a citizen or a permanent resident in another country â such as Canada or the UK â which is not subject to stringent US export controls. There are particular concerns about the tens of thousands of Chinese who have taken out citizenship in countries that exchange technology freely with the US. The proposal under consideration would expand the so-called âdeemed exportâ requirement to cover anyone born in China or other controlled countries such as Iran and North Korea, even if they had taken out citizenship in another country. The idea has particularly angered US universities, which have seen the enrolment of foreign students drop sharply owing to the stricter visa requirements imposed after the September 11 2001 terror attacks. International student enrolment at US colleges and universities has fallen by 1.3 per cent in the last academic year, following a 2.4 per cent fall the year before. âThe most alarming outcome of this proposed rule will be the substantial negative impact on attracting the best and brightest people from round the world to participate in the conduct of basic and applied research, which is of extraordinary social and economic value to the nation,â wrote Robert Goldston, director of the Princeton Plasma Physics laboratory, in one of hundreds of comments sent to the commerce department in the past six months. Lawyers and lobbyists following the debate in the US government say the administration might opt for a less restrictive rule than that proposed in the inspector-generalâs report. A senior commerce department official said that whatever rule was adopted would âstrive to protect national security while meeting the needs of industry and academiaâ. âControls on the release of technology to foreign nationals in the US must â and can â protect national security while allowing business and the academic research community to employ the worldâs best minds, no matter their nationality.â | |
| Posted by:lotp |
| #14 well, Ed, remember they started 20 yrs ago.....she mighta been Lucy Liu-like at the time |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-11-25 17:56 |
| #13 I know a guy, with access to really top secret stuff who has a chinese girlfriend that he enjoys photographing with other women. It's not really a secret from those who work with him and they like sharing their pictures. I'm sure he just thinks he's a fun and sexy guy. Nobody seems to put two and two together on this one - and I'm not in any position to do anything about it cause I heard it all second and third hand. But it just amazes me that something so obvious can hide in plain sight. Sigh. Security clearances are a joke too. We need to take this stuff much more seriously. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-11-25 17:17 |
| #12 Now, this is not so extreme as talking about concentration camps or things like that, but the same principal applies. Yep. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-11-25 17:00 |
| #11 Someday Frank, you and I are gonna have a long discussion on the meaning of "hot chinese babes". That and vision test standards for FBI agents. Katrina Leung |
| Posted by: ed 2005-11-25 16:43 |
| #10 Shipman: it is the same ugly problem that was presented at the start of the WoT. That is, that enemy combatants and the people who support them cannot be allowed to proceed through the normal judicial system. It is too hard to prove criminal acts quickly enough to prevent disaster. That is why we have Gitmo and other such places. Now, this is not so extreme as talking about concentration camps or things like that, but the same principal applies. Call it racial profiling if you like, but when the US absolutely, positively needs security in tens of thousands of critical jobs overnight, we do not have the resources to constantly and intently survey perhaps hundreds or thousands of people who might be spies, just because they are Chinese. And, as opportunity presents itself, only a tiny handful of Chinese spies would not be ethnically Chinese. So by removing ethnically Chinese people from just certain jobs for the duration of hostilities, we get much better national security. Now, this does not mean that they would be forbidden to work, or even to work in their field. Just that they could not work in particular, sensitive jobs, or at critical, essential facilities. Now, for the tiny number of ethnically Chinese whose only expertise is in nuclear submarine electronic countermeasures, or anti-satellite ground based high energy weapons, things are just tough all over. And unless they are so irreplaceable that we are willing to have them spied upon constantly, which in some cases we just might be willing to do, they need to cross-train their specialty anyway. I wrote that there would be a need for several security levels. This is just the harshest. The next level, that of naturalized American citizens of Chinese ethnicity, could on the surface be seen as far more reasonable from a security standpoint, and yet, practically speaking, how different is it from the most stringent job exclusions? Not very. If there is a slow build-up to hostilities, America will be a very different place. The vast number of Chinese students attending school in the US will drop to nothing. "Chinatowns" around the country, and Americans who are ethnically Chinese will be under a lot of pressure. There will be crackdowns on Chinese "Cultural Centers" and businesses that front for Chinese "concerns". China, for its part, will be far more repressive in those times and circumstances. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-11-25 16:20 |
| #9 moosey cut way down on the msg plz. |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-11-25 15:35 |
| #8 Geez! How are FBI agents gonna meet hot chinese babes now? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-11-25 10:56 |
| #7 The government must create a very long list of sensitive positions in government, industry and academia. Prioritized, the top of the list is marked "no ethnic Chinese", plain and simple. The next level is "no naturalized Chinese". The third is "no Chinese citizen". The fourth just excludes ethnic Chinese without typical security clearances, like everybody else. Highest level is No Slopes? Come on 'moose. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-11-25 09:13 |
| #6 But I think that dividing your own citizens between trustworthy and untrustworthy classes is the best way possible to ensure that the latter *truly* become such. A self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Yep, each time a gas station makes me pay in advance, I never shop there again, I notice that now that prices are coming down, those stations are deserted while the other "Honest" stations are buisy. Looks like others feel the same way I do. You think like thieves, you lose. |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2005-11-25 08:30 |
| #5 General prejudice is useless. A Chinese used-car dealer is no threat now, and almost certainly wouldn't be a threat even if and when the US gets into a conflict with China. Chinese people will invariably suffer because of idiots after hostilities, though. Unjust, but unavoidable. That being said, however, the Chinese government has built enclaves in many US cities, often under the guise of "cultural centers", that are only thinly veiled espionage centers. We are also aware of *hundreds* of Chinese front companies, who are legitimate businesses, but are also used to glean restricted information. These have got to be supressed. And while there are a vast number of Chinese students in the US, several reasonable changes have to be made. First of all, academic exclusion of non-Chinese by Chinese is as repugnant and unacceptable as any other racist exclusion. It is highly unlikely that *every* acceptable graduate student for a program has been Chinese for 10 years. The government must create a very long list of sensitive positions in government, industry and academia. Prioritized, the top of the list is marked "no ethnic Chinese", plain and simple. The next level is "no naturalized Chinese". The third is "no Chinese citizen". The fourth just excludes ethnic Chinese without typical security clearances, like everybody else. A separate list must also be created for removal of Chinese from sensitive positions in the event of projected hostilities. Again prioritized, but based on degree of hostility, and anticipated timetable for hostile action. If it is a slow build up, then only slowly act; if hostilities commence quickly, with little warning, then pink slips go out immediately, passwords and door locks are changed. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-11-25 08:02 |
| #4 Everyone is given the benefit of the doubt... That is, everyone without a criminal record or some other discrepancies in their background. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-11-25 03:08 |
| #3 dividing your own citizens between trustworthy and untrustworthy classes It's done all the time and should be done all the time. Do you think a person who keeps failing polygraph tests should be handling top secret documents at the CIA? In addition, there are those supposedly *trustworthy* citizens who would sell their country for 30 pieces of silver. The problem is, how do you separate the two classes? You don't. Everyone is given the benefit of the doubt...until they screw up. |
| Posted by: Rafael 2005-11-25 03:05 |
| #2 and if only a convert, 1st gen, or even 2nd gen, they would be heavily monitored continously something that if they are real patirots would not mind It seems to me that it might irk the real "patirot" even more, when their "patirotism" is questioned in such a degree as to discriminate against them and against their children, and against their children's children. Restrictions against non-citizens, okay. But I think that dividing your own citizens between trustworthy and untrustworthy classes is the best way possible to ensure that the latter *truly* become such. A self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-11-25 02:00 |
| #1 WTF this is definatley one of those rules that you just thought was already on the books becuase it is "common sense". I would hope that common sense would say for any scientist working on sensitive tech would be US citizen and if only a convert, 1st gen, or even 2nd gen, they would be heavily monitored continously something that if they are real patirots would not mind everyone gots to do thier time right. I also believe the ones that are citizens even many generations should be heavily checked out and also with random checks and monitoring. |
| Posted by: C-Low 2005-11-25 00:21 |