angrychineseblogger - @ 20six.co.uk

Generally speaking, there are three sure fire ways to annoy China:

1) Call its culture backwards
2) Call its military a threat
3) Draw attention to its Human Rights record

Today,
it would appear that the Hudson Institute; an influential conservative
think tank with the ear of the US government, has chosen number (3).

Freedom in China Summit 2006

The
Hudson Institute, in partnership with the Institute of Chinese Law and
Religion, will today be holding a unified one day symposium - entitled
the "Freedom in China Summit 2006" - to discuss various issues
surrounding China and the restrictions that the Chinese government has
beein gincreasingly been placing on human rights.

Among the
issues that will be on the agenda will be the limits that the Chinese
state has placed on freedom of expression, restrictions that it has put
on worship and religious activities, and the use/abuse of Chinese
security and stability laws in to prevent freedom of speech, expression
and association.

Time will also be devoted to discussing how
such restrictions are in violation of the Chinese constitution, which
expressly grants Chinese citizens the right to speak and act freely.

“中华人民共和国公民有言论、出版、集会、结社、游行、示威的自由”

“Citizens
of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the
press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.”

Section 2 - Article 35, Constitution of the People's Republic of China.

Guest Speakers

The event will include 2
expert panels composed of an impressive collection of intellectual,
professionals and human rights campaigners, including.

余杰(Yu Jie); a popular dissident author and critic of the
Chinese system who was awarded the Chan Foundation of Journalism and
Culture Award in 2002.

杨茂东(Yang Maodong); a Human Rights campaigner who writes
under the nom de plume 郭飞熊 (Guo Feixiong) who was detained and tortured
by after he tried to photograph a member of the Chinese state security
forces who was tailing him

李柏光 (Li Baiguang); a human rights lawyer involved in land rights and religious freedoms cases

Bob Fu; President of the China Aid Association and former 'House Church' leader

Wang Yi; a popular Chinese blogger who campaigns on human rights and freedom issues

"this
is a rare opportunity to dialogue with high-profile Chinese activists
and dissidents who participate in this conference despite grave risks
to their personal safety."

Press Release, The Hudson Institute, US

A number of other speakers accepted invitations to the symposium, but were prevented from attending by Beijing.

Those prevented from attending include:

高智晟 (Gao Zhisheng); a Mainland Chinese Human, and critic
of China's approach to history, whose Rights lawyer whose law office
was shut down in 2005 after it took on cases that embarrassed Chinese
authorities.

范亚峰 (Fan Yafeng); an associate researcher with the Institute of Studies on Law at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

张星水 (Zhang Xingshui), a Human Rights Lawyer with a noted
history of defending members of underground churches, who was ordered
to leave Beijing during a recent Visit by US President George W Bush.

"When
the Nazis killed 6 million Jews that was condemned by the surrounding
world. During the reign of The Chinese Communist party 80 million
people has been killed, why has the world around us done nothing?"

高智晟 (Gao Zhisheng)

When and Where?

The symposium will be held
today (Tuesday 2 May) at the Hudson Institutes main office in
Washington, and will commence at 8.30 AM local time.

Hudson Institute
1015 15th Street NW
Sixth Floor
Washington D.C

20005

Its itinerary is as follows

8:30 am – 12:00 pm – Registration and Summit
12:00 pm – 12:30 pm – Media Availability Conference
12:00 pm – 1:00 pm – Complimentary Lunch and Q & A

Weighted Dice?

As
has become traditional in the US, todays proceedings include a broad
range of Chinese disidents, but no representatives from the Chinese
government. Meaning that, while will speakers and pannel members will
be free to criticize China, it will provide the Chinese government with
no opportunity to refute claims that have been made against it, or to
attempt to explain its actions and reactions.

A fact which has lead some observers to criticize 'a profoundly unbalanced', and to label it as being 'little more than a platform to raise anti-Chinese sentiment'.

Although
not officially sponsored by Washington, proceeding will be opened with
a key note speech by James Keith, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
East Asian and Pacific Affairs with the US department of State.

Sponsors

Sponsors for the symposium include:

Freedom House
The Ethics and Public Policy Center
The Becket Fund
The National Association of Evangelicals
The Institute on Religion and Public Policy

Original Article: Baiting the Dragon - Freedom in China Summit 2006

2.5.06 16:18

Permalink / Comment

Leading by Example?: 5 Top Chinese Universities “named and shamed” in global piracy report

While
critisizm of China's lax attitude towards Intellectual Property is
nothing new, things took a more personal turn for five of China's
leading academic institutions this Spring, when they were individually
'named and shamed' in a high level report on piracy which slammed them
for having what observers have called 'an ingrained culture of IP
violation' and for carrying out IP piracy 'on an industrial scale'.

The
were singled out for criticism in “Special 301”; an annual report on
the state of world IP protection released by the International
Intellectual Property Alliance; an influential NGO based in the US.

In
its report, the IIPA accused Chinese universities of systematically
pirating textbooks, literary material and academic IP from around the
world, for use in their own internal teaching programs; reproducing
everything from essays to entire textbooks without consent, or the
payment of fees to the writers or original publishers.

“Publishers
are especially concerned to learn that universities throughout China
are actually reproducing books for distribution to students without
authorization from, or compensation to, right holders.”

Special Report 301, IIPA (2006)

The Universities named were

清華大學 (Tsinghua University)
復旦大學 (Fudan University)
武漢大學 (Wuhan University)
中國科學技術資訊研究所 (Institute of Scientific and Technical Information of China)
花南師範大學 (South China Normal University)

Four of whom are considered to be among China's top ten universities.

Industrial Scale?

According
to the IIPA, the level of piracy committed by Chinese universities goes
beyond the casual photocopying of academic material for use as
classroom handouts, and has grown into a 'significant industry' that
allows university presses and external textbook centers to maintain
distinct a warehousing systems and supply chain just for the production
and distribution of pirate textbooks.

“These practices are so widespread and organized as to require bar codes for scanning of inventory.”

Special Report 301, IIPA (2006)

The report also noted that, while many
counterfeit textbooks were produced prior to the start of each
semester, the wiling demand from Chinese universities has become so
strong that it can support both batch production and 'on-demand'
publishing services.

What's Yours is Mine

In
addition to accusing them of direct physical piracy of IP, the IIPA
report also raised the issue 're-branding'. A practice under which
university presses and external textbook centers are supply students
with 'customized' versions of pirate textbook.

Versions of
standard textbooks which have been modified so as to come replete an
institutes's own personalized dustcover, insignia and publication
detail. Essentially allowing them to distribute externally produced
material while giving the impression that it is their own.

“Some of the universities even produce their own covers for the illegal books, bearing the university seal.”

Special Report 301, IIPA (2006)

Additionally, the IIPA laid down
accusations that it is common practice for Chinese groups to illegally
translate material from overseas sources, and to replace the authors
name with a Chinese name so as to give the impression that the piece
was domestically produced, rather than being the work of a foreigner,
and that some Chinese Universities, most notably 中國科學技術資訊研究所 (Institute
of Scientific and Technical Information of China) were scanning entire
sections from subscription based publication onto open access computer
systems, allowing them to be downloaded or distributed with consent, or
payment of fees, to the original authors.

"In
one instance, the Institute of Scientific and Technical Information
[of] China (ISTIC) appeared to be engaging in a practice similar to a
document delivery service for journals, without any permission from
rights owners."

Special Report 301, IIPA (2006)

Bad Example?

Although
providing little new information, the release of “Special 301” has once
again raised the issue of the institutionalized nature of IPR violation
in China, and has lead China watchers to question exactly how a society
can hope to tackle the problem of piracy when it own education system
appears not only to be promoting piracy, but also to be profiting from
it.

As such, some observers have voiced that China's
universities should be made to 'lead by example' and to face strict
penalties from the state if they supply their students with counterfeit
textbooks.

There have also been suggestions that Beijing should
interviene directly and introduce legislation that forbids universities
from using textbooks from sources that have not been specifically
approved by the state as supplying non pirated products.

IPR Violation and China?

As
a country, China has one of the highest levels of IP piracy in the
world, with between 85-95 percent of all media products, including
books, CDs and DVDs violating the rights of IP owners.

Like most
endemic problems, IPR violation in china has several root causes for
its existence and continuation. Many of these causes can be summarized
into three basic categories:

Fiscal
Socio-cultural
Legal

Fiscal

Despite
China's economic boom, overall levels of poverty, and the pronounced
disparity between rich and poor, mean that much of China's population
is not able to afford to maintain a consumer lifestyles without
purchasing pirate or counterfeit products; which are usually several
fold cheaper than the real articles.

The fiscal factor of IP
piracy is also being exasperated by China's slanted currency value
against the dollar; which makes the import of legitimate foreign goods
difficult and the payment of fees for domestically produced good,
containing western IP, overly burdensome on manufacturers and consumers.

Matters
are further exasperated by wester anti-competition and cartel
practices, which serve to artificially inflate the prices of many
consumer goods on the international markets; pushing their prices
beyond the reach of most Chinese consumers.

In China the funds
available for to those providing/receiving education are limited. Thus
pushing many institutions/students to choose between the quality of the
education that they give/receive and the integrity of the materials
that they supply/use.

For most Chinese, the critical importance
attached to gaining a quality education means that this choice exists
only in principle.

Socio-Cultural

Despite
traditionally having a knowledge based culture at its head, most modern
Chinese see the value of a product as being in the materials that it is
made from, not in the idea that it is based on or the images that it
contains.

This attitude has served to create an atmosphere where
the violation of the right of ownership of an intangible product (IP)
are often dissociated from the concept of theft. With the latter being
routinely being viewed as applicable to tangible items only.

In
addition to this, China also maintains a strong victim mentality in
regards to foreign companies and IP holders. Under this mentality, many
Chinese believe that they are only taking 'what is rightfully theirs'
from groups who are purposefully acting to either keep them down or to
extract the maximum possible money from them.

A similar
situation exists in the west with music piracy. With many western music
fans drawing a distinct line between the physical act of theft and the
act of downloading a song from a Pier to Pier music swapping service,
and arguing that the actions of pirates are largely a result of
multi-national companies seeking to charge 'top dollar' for mediocre
products.

Legal

Although China has pledged to give protection to IPR, words are rarely equalled by actions.

One
reason for this is that China has no single body to take charge of IPR
protection, and predominantly relies on a combination of local and
regional bodies to carry out enforcement, and different set of local
and regional bodies to bring forward any subsequent prosecutions.

“there
is not one Ministry that takes responsibility for criminal copyright
enforcement, including the raid, arrest, seizure, and transfer of a
case file for prosecution.”

Special Report 301, IIPA (2006)

This high level of separation not only
makes raids difficult to organize and co-ordinate, but also makes the
bringing violators before the courts a complex process that involve
cases being passed 'up the ladder' from one agency to the next until a
it reaches the level where a prosecution can be made.

Owing to
this complexity, most violations never reach the criminal level, and
instead stop at the civil level, where token fines are imposed but
little else.

“Retailers, distributors, warehouse owners, and even pirate producers know that administrative
raids will rarely if ever be transferred for criminal prosecution”

Special Report 301, IIPA (2006)

Another issue is hampering the
protection of IP is that most anti piracy actions in China must be
carried out at the local level. Meaning that they are hampered by two
distinct problems.

Firstly, most local authorities in China lack
the facilities to carry out both their regular duties and sustainable
IP protection activities. Meaning that they are only able to act in
high profile cases, or when ordered to redirect time and resources by
higher level of government.

Secondly, local authorities, both at
the provincial and city levels, are reluctant to move against IP
violators because such actions could potentially put local retailers
and manufacturers out of business and make their region less attractive
to future investment. Thus, enforcing IP right would putting them at a
strong economic disadvantage to cities and provinces with laxer
attitudes towards IP protection.

Though a critical point, this second reason is rarely accepted by western bodies as being valid.

Face?

While
a great many, some would argue most, Chinese universities commit a
broad range of IPR violations on a regular basis, and do little or
nothing to keep this fact a secret, the way in which the five
institutes were named by the IIPA, and the public highlighting of their
transgressions, remains an extreme loss of face.

Traditionally,
China considers the highlighting of its faults by foreign organizations
as being both an interference in its internal affairs and a hostile
gesture.

Original Article: Leading by Example?: 5 Top Chinese Universities “named and shamed” in global piracy report

7.5.06 18:57

Permalink / Comment

Exaggerated Threat: The truth about China's Nuclear Arsenal?

Even
before it detonated its first nuclear bomb in 1964, the idea of a
nuclear armed China has been of extreme concern to the West.

However,
if a recently released report is to be believed, West powers may not
only have significantly overestimated the extent of China's nuclear
stockpile, but also misinterpreted its intent.

Chinese Nuclear Forces, 2006?

According
to a recently published report, issued by the Natural Resources Defense
Council; an internationally renowned NGO, China's nuclear stockpile may
be up to 50 percent smaller than previously though.

“Past U.S. predictions about China's nuclear arsenal have repeatedly proven to be highly unreliable.”

Chinese nuclear forces, 2006, Natural Resources Defense Council (2006), US.

Growing Threat?

In
its report, Titled:Chinese nuclear forces, 2006, the NRDC contests
repeated assertions from both the defense and intelligence communities
that China has been steadily expanding its nuclear capabilities through
a program of sustained modernization. Instead, it suggests that
Beijing's nuclear development program is not only moving at a far
slower rate than had been thought, but that it is also primarily
concerned with taking old weapons systems out of service and replacing
them with more reliable systems, rather than expanding the countries
overall strike capabilities.

“Rather
than continue to grow, China's stockpile appears to have leveled out at
approximately 200 warheads in the mid-1980s and remained at about that
level ever since.“

Chinese nuclear forces, 2006, Natural Resources Defense Council (2006), US.

This comes in stark contrast to
previous reports from groups such as the CIA which previously had
indicated that China's nuclear arsenal was set to increase
significantly over the next decade due to a pronounced expansion
program.

“The Intelligence Community projects that Chinese ballistic missile forces will increase several-fold by 2015 “

"Foreign Missile Developments and the Ballistic Missile Threat Through 2015" National Intelligence Council, (December 2001)

China - Warheads

While
Pentagon estimates put China's nuclear arsenal at 400+ warheads, NRDC
figures indicate that China currently possess only 200 nuclear
warheads. 130 of which it believes to be ready for deployment, with the
remaining 70 in long term storage.

“we
estimate that China deploys approximately 130 nuclear warheads for
delivery by land-based missiles, sea-based missiles, and bombers.
Additional warheads are thought to be in storage for a total stockpile
of approximately 200 warheads.”

Chinese nuclear forces, 2006, Natural Resources Defense Council, US.

China -Delivery Systems

Pentagon
figures from 2002 estimated that China would have approximately 30 long
range missiles capable of delivering 'multiple nuclear warheads' to the
Continental United States by 2005, with additional projections going on
to state that China could have 60 such missiles by 2010.

“This number will increase to around 30 by 2005 and may reach 60 by 2010”

The Military Power of the People's Republic of China (2002), DoD, US

These figures were restated in 2003
and 2004, and included estimates that a missile force of that size
could be used to deploy between 75 and 100 warheads against both US
militarily targets and population centers.

In contrast, NRDC
estimates suggest that China currently possesses only 20 missiles with
the capacity to strike at the Continental United States, and that none
of these platforms yet has the capacity to carry more than a single
warhead. Giving China the capacity
to deploy only 20 warheads against the US, and making it highly likely
that it would target strategic locations only.

China
deploys approximately 80 land-based, nuclear-capable ballistic missiles
of four types: the Dong Feng (DF)-3, DF-4, DF-5, and DF-21 ......
Despite frequent claims to the contrary, none of the missiles carries
multiple warheads.

Chinese nuclear forces, 2006, Natural Resources Defense Council, US.

Noting that it has been relatively slow
to deploy long ranged systems, but instead has concentrated on short
and medium range missiles, the NRDC also suggests that China's current
activities indicate that Beijing is primarily concerned with offering a
deterrent against military threats from Russia and India, with a
tertiary goal of striking at US forces stationed on Guam and
Japanese-Okinawa in the event of an active conflict breaking out
between Mainland China and Chinese-Taiwan.

Current US defense doctrine states that China's nuclear program is primarily aimed at striking against the US.

Resources

Chinese Nuclear Forces, 2006 – PDF Click to Download (Source blocked in China)

State of Play?

The US currently possesses 10,000 nuclear warheads of varying yield, but plans to reduce this number to 6,000 by 2012.

As
of 2005, 480 of these warheads were officially deployed in Europe, with
the largest single deployment being in England, where 110 US warheads
are currently deployed.

“The United States currently deploys approximately 480 nuclear weapons
in Europe. The weapons are stored at eight bases in six countries,
mainly located in northeastern Europe.”

US Nuclear Weapons in Europe, Natural Resources Defense Council, US

European bases currently used to store and deploy US nuclear weapons include:

Kleine Brogel Airbase - Belgium
Büchel Airbase - Germany
Ramstein Airbase - Germany
Aviano Airbase - Italy
Ghedi Torre Airbase - Italy
Volkel Airbase - Holland
Incirlik Airbase - Turkey
RAF Lakenheath - England

Unlike both Russia and China, which have
signed "no first strike" accords, the US reserves the right to launch
unilateral pre-emptive nuclear strikes against any opponents.

According
to current US nuclear doctrine, this includes the right to strike
against non nuclear states, and to use nuclear weapons against states
who are not engaged in any form of military hostilities with the US.

Original Article: Exaggerate threat: The truth about China's Nuclear Arsenal?

15.5.06 09:32

Permalink / 2 Comment(s) / Comment

Exaggerated Threat: The truth about China's Nuclear Arsenal?

“Past U.S. predictions about China's nuclear arsenal have repeatedly proven to be highly unreliable.”

Chinese nuclear forces, 2006, Natural Resources Defense Council (2006), US.

“This number will increase to around 30 by 2005 and may reach 60 by 2010”

The Military Power of the People's Republic of China (2002), DoD, US

European bases currently used to store and deploy US nuclear weapons include:

Kleine Brogel Airbase - Belgium
Büchel Airbase - Germany
Ramstein Airbase - Germany
Aviano Airbase - Italy
Ghedi Torre Airbase - Italy
Volkel Airbase - Holland
Incirlik Airbase - Turkey
RAF Lakenheath - England

15.5.06 09:35

Permalink / Comment

Protection Racket: - Movie making, graft and the Environment collide in China

While
traditional architecture, an abundance of natural beauty, and rich
culture of story telling have long made China a desirable location in
which to make a motion picture, bureaucracy, a pronounced lack of
transparency, not to mention an ingrained culture of bribery, have
meant that getting permission to film in China has never been a simple
task.

As of this month though, the process has just become .....much more complicated.

In
response to growing concerns over the damage that unregulated filming
has been doing to some of China's most historic and scenic sites,
Beijing has, late last week, announced a new raft of environmental
protection legislation designed specifically to minimize impact that
film crews have on the locations that they shoot, and to ensure that
production companies are held accountable for repairing any damage that
they might cause the local environment.

Under this new
legislation, no production company may film at any historic sites or
beauty spot in China without first obtaining both an environmental
impact report from provincial construction authorities, and an official
filming permit from the national Ministry of Construction

New legislation will compel film companies to avoid where possible, and repair if not:

Damage to slopes, embankments, pathways and lawns caused by the movement of camera dollies and other filming equipment
'modifications'
performed to a location; including the construction or alteration of
buildings and landscapes to fit in with the look of different areas and
time periods
Littering or the releasing of chemicals and other man made substances.
All forms of accidental damage caused to locations by film crews

Failure to obtain a permit, or to return
any filing location to its original condition, will result in heavy
fines or legal penalties.

Similar restrictions will also apply
to 'live commercial performances' including concerts and festivals held
in historical site or environmentally sensitive locations.

New Deal?

Prior
to this months introduction of new regulations, China had no unified
legislation to prevent environmental damage caused to historic or
scenic locations by film crews. Making last weeks announcement a key
move in the protection of China's heritage and natural resources.

"The
environmental impact of cultural and entertainment industries has long
been an area covered by no laws and no regulations. Although they are
mostly temporary projects, whether shooting a movie or having a
festival celebration, they tend to subject the environment to risks”

Wang Ping, (Department of Environmental Engineering, Beijing University
of Industry and Commerce), Representative, Chinese People's Political
Consultative Conference

The Trigger?

Considered
to be 'long overdue' by some observers, this new round of legislation
follows on from an earlier incident in which a film crew that was
working for Warner Independent Films is alleged to have caused
'extensive environmental damage' to number of Chinese heritage sites,
including the Bigu Temple in Han occupied Tibet, and the Yuanmingyuan
Garden, which form part of the Old Sumer Palace in Beijing.

The Accusation?

Media
reports hold that Warner Independent badly damaged the Bigu Temple site
during an extended filming season by constructing artificial roads,
used to move equipment, through the temples gardens, as well as by
abandoning a large prefabricated concrete movie-set, and approximately
100 wooden stake which were driven into a lake bed at the site, in
order to create the base of a bridge.

Media reports also claim
that Warner Independent's prop department damaged 60 trees in the
Yuanmingyuan Garden by painting them yellow to simulate Autumn leaves.

Many of the trees are since said to have become withered and sick.

A prefabricated concrete construct left by Warner International at
Tibet's Bigu Temple, during the filming of "The Promise"

A ruined bridge construct left by Warner International at
Tibet's Bigu Temple, during the filming of "The Promise"

(Pictures may not be visible in China)

Additionally, media reports claim that
both the Temple and Garden sites were 'festooned with litter and
detritus' left by members of the film crew.

The Response?

In
response to the accusations made against it, representatives from
Warner Independent acknowledged that they had left set materials and
prop at the two sites. However, they strongly deny that they are
responsible for any long term damage, instead voicing that, before they
left, they had reached an agreement with local authorities to restore
the sites to their original condition, and that they had provided them
with sufficient funds to cover all cleanup costs.

Dissatisfaction?

Despite
Warner Independent's claims to have provided for a cleanup effort, many
observers remain dissatisfied, including sources within the Chinese
media who have voiced that the western film company remains responsible
for the damage, even if they paid for it to be rectified, because it
failed to properly oversea cleanup efforts.

"Even
though they said they had spoken to local authorities about the matter,
it remains to be explained what on earth they spoke about in the first
place. They should at least see to it that the site is indeed cleaned
up."

Jiang Xiaoyu, Film Critic, CCTV

In contrast to this, other observers
have however voiced that Warner appears to have acted in good faith,
and so should not be held responsible for environmental damage that
they paid to be rectified. Instead putting forward that that those who
took the money, but neglected to do the work, should instead be held
responsible.

Whether any actual clearance or restoration work
actually took place after Warner International departed is not
currently clear. Though report indicate that the Bigu Temple site was
at least partially restored after public outcry lead to state
intervention.

Filming took place during late 2004 and early 2005.

Graft?

Though
welcomed by environmental activists and preservation interests, the
announcement of the new environmental protection initiative has raised
some eyebrows among seasoned China watchers, some of whom have
questioned whether a permit and permission based scheme would have many
real benefits - given China's ingrained culture of corruption.

As
such, some observers have voiced that, unless significant work is done
to remove corruption from the system, the new scheme might simply
become a new revenue source. With local officials charging both foreign
and domestic film crews large fees in exchange for 'favorable'
environmental impact reports, and national officials issuing permits
based on a production companies willingness to pay the 'additional
administration fees' that have become synonymous with doing business in
China, rather than based on their intention to minimize/repair any
environmental damage that they cause.

It has been suggested that
a substantial portion of the money paid out by Warner Independent, for
site clearance and restoration, may have been lost through corruption.

Original Article: Protection Racket: - Movie making, graft and the Environment collide in China

21.5.06 10:38

Permalink / Comment

Enemy of the State: Congress brands IBM Computers 'a Potential Threat' to National Security

Hopes that antiquated Cold War attitudes might soon be banished from the modern Sino-American equation were dealt a crippling blow this week, with the announcement that the US Department of State, under extreme pressure form Congress, has agreed to downgrade the security status of almost 1000 Personal Computers, because of fears that they may have been compromised by Chinese intelligence services.

Enemy At The Gate?

At issue are 900 IBM personal computers, which were earlier branded 'a potential threat to national security' by the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission; a powerful congressional committee charged with safeguarding US interests in the face of a rising China..

According to the USCC, IBM's ties to Mainland China render its products 'unsuitable' for use in sensitive areas of the Government, because of the risk that Beijing might attempt to install intelligence gathering hardware or software in them.

“We believe that Chinese intelligence services are capable of doctoring computer systems”.

Larry Wortzel, USCC

The Computers, part of an order of 16,000 PCs and Laptop, have not yet been installed in the DoS, but were destined for use in areas where sensitive information might be stored or processed.

It is thought that they will now be reassigned to duties in less restricted areas of the Dos. It is not known what they will be replaced with, if they will be replaced at all. Or what the cost of the decision will be to tax payers.

Precautionary Measures

The PCs are believed to have been reassigned based on 'concerns' over security, rather because the existence any specific security threat from IBM, whose ailing PC division was taken over, in 2005, by 聯想 (Lenovo); one of Mainland China's most successful electronics manufacturers. As is standard practice, the PCs had already been certified as safe by the DoS.

"Lenovo products sold to US government customers all have been certified for security and integrity as required to qualify for government procurement"

Spokesperson, Lenovo

There is no suggestion that IBM computers are unsafe for home or business use.

Miexed Reception

The Dos's decision, to downgrade the security status of the disputed PCs, has been broadly welcomed by Conservative groups, who have hailed it as being a case of 'common sense' prevailing over 'commercial pressures', and as being 'a move in the right direction' for national security.

"The State Department has now taken the appropriate steps [to protect national security]”

Frank Wolf (Republican-Va), Chair, Appropriations Committee, House of Representatives.

However, not all observers have been so welcoming, with some deriding the decision as being 'unfair', and questioned its legality. Asking whether the Government could legitimately bar certain companies from sections of the procurement process without any evidence of wrongdoing, or even intent.

Others have also gone on record to accuse Congress of maintaining 'a cold war mentality', and to voice concerns over claims that the Government is maintaining an unrealistic view of China based on 'Doom sayers' and Cold War prejudices, rather than modern realities.

"[Some US leaders] have an excessively heightened view of China as a national security threat"

Joseph Massey, Assistant US Trade Representative for Japan and China (1985-92)

Concerns have also been raised as to where this latest announcement is the end of the IBM-DoS saga, or the start of a new wave of anti-Chinese/anti-Foreigner sentiment from an administration which has become increasingly hostile to foreign businesses operating, or seeking to operate, within US territory. Particularly those from 'the wrong type of country'.

“Dell has many clients in the Chinese government, yet you see how difficult it is for us to develop clients in the US government"

Spokesperson, Lenovo (2005)

IBM?

For their part, IBM reacted to the decision with disappointment, having earlier offered reassurances that, while the their ownership had changed, their products had not.

"These systems are exactly the same systems, with the same software loads, that IBM would have sold them a year ago"

Jeffrey Carlisle, Vice president for government relations, IBM

Made in the USA

Ironically, while the disputed computers at the heart of the IBM-DoS controversy carry a Chinese owned brand name, they are not products of China, and are not subject to Mainland Chinese jurestiction.

As with IBM machines manufactured prior to the Lenovo takeover, the disputed computers are produced in either Monterrey, Mexico, or Raleigh, North Carolina, and are built from components manufactured in Chinese-Taiwan; which is nominally considered to be Chinese territory at a diplomatic level, but which remains independent in all but name.

As is standard procedure, these facts were disclosed to Washington prior to the signing of the original purchase deal.

"the sourcing of the units were all disclosed and discussed with the State Department"

Spokesperson, Lenovo

These reassurances however failed to appease critics.

“Even if these computers were put together in the United States, software, operating systems or hardware could still be modified. Therefore, we were very concerned that if Chinese intelligence could target the diplomatic communications of the State Department, it would do so.”

Larry Wortzel, USCC

Realistic Threat?

Despite there having been numerous recorded incidents of electronic espionage being carried out against the US, a number of influential conservative think-tanks have already gone on record to dismiss fears that companies could successfully infiltrate the Federal Government using doctored Personal Computers.

When called to discuss the issue with the USCC, expert witnesses previously testified that it would be almost futile for a company to purposefully engineer their products for espionage.

According to the testimony of these experts, the level of scrutiny that government computers are put under, as part of the purchasing and quality assurance process, makes the fear that a foreign power could successfully install espionage hardware in Government all but redundant.

Experts additionallyy testified that the potential for an intelligence gathering device inside a PC to fail, due to incompatibility with other components, was likely to be so high as to make it uneconomical to even attempt in any serious manner.

“the malicious component may not work as planned once it is integrated with components from other sources. Even if it works when it leaves the factory, it may fail later when it is integrated into a larger network.”

James A. Lewis, (Effect of U.S.-China Trade on the Defense Industrial Base), 23 June 2005

Far from worrying about 'rigged hardware', experts stated that the security issues that the US should be most concerned with are so-called 'Trojan horse' programs; software that has been hidden on a computer in order to perform deviant functions, such as the gathering and transmission of passwords and other confidential information.

“the current threat lies in the use of viruses and spyware that exploit software vulnerabilities rather than in malicious changes to hardware or software. “

James A. Lewis, (Effect of U.S.-China Trade on the Defense Industrial Base), 23 June 2005

However, the same experts also voiced that even if companies, such as IBM, were to attempt to plant deviant software on DoS computers, it would unlikely to pose a threat to national security because Government agencies routinely erase all information on newly purchased PCs. Deleting the Operating System and all factory installed software, in order to replace it with a standard - pre configured - suit that has been built to government specifications and cleared by state security forces.

This operation, known as "ghosting", is designed to assist in computer servicing and maintenance by ensures that all government computers have identical settings and contain identical software packages. However, it is also a key security measure as it results in the destruction of any covert intelligence gathering software that may have been installed.

In this line, observers have voiced that the largest threat to internal security probably comes from commercial 'spyware'; programs written by civilians and designed to harvest passwords and other personal information for sale to Spamming companies and Identity Thieves, which can be installed remotely through email attachments and infected websites, or from intelligence gathering software installed on computers by traitors and spies already within the US establishment.

The former of which would be a threat regardless of whom the computers were purchased from, and the latter of which is minimized by the fact that the only people who would be able to install software after installation would be employees of DoS itself, or certified PC Engineers, most of whom are America technical staff retained from when Lenovo took over IBM.

The Delivery?

At the heart of the issue are 16,000 personal computers which were ordered from 聯想 (Lenovo), -previously known as Legend.

According to public records, the deal is worth an $US13 Million and consists of:

15,000 Lenovo ThinkCenter M51 desktop PCs with high resolution monitors flat panel LCD monitors - $11.7 million.
1,000 ThinkCenter M51 'mini-tower' PCs with support with LCD monitors and removable 'caddy' hard drives. - $1.4 million.

The units are to be installed in batches of 500 PCs, over a period of approximately 6 Months.

Preliminary information suggest that a November date was has been set for the first installations.

21.5.06 10:39

Permalink / Comment

The Drone Wars: Israel Strikes Back

Two of the world's more 'awkward' political relationship have one again been brought into the international spotlight this week, with the announcement that an Israeli defense contractor has been placed under investigation, on suspicion of conspiring to export advanced technologies to a strategic competitor of its primary international benefactor.

Though details remain sketchy, the Israeli Defense Ministry has announced that it has launched a full scale investigation of Emit (sometimes written Amit); an Israeli aviation technology company, after several of its executives were detained on suspicion of attempting to illegally export advanced pilotless aircraft, known as UAVs or drones, to China.

Emit has been under surveillance for some months, but arrests were not made until 22 May.

Photograph of the Emit UAV Factory, Israel

A spokesperson working for Emit denied all charges.

"[Emit's] CEO denies all of the incidents ascribed to him, and especially the way in which they were presented in the press."

Devora Hen, Attorney and Legal Spokesperson, Emit

If proven to be true, this would be the fourth drone sales scandal to hit China, the third involving Israeli technology.

The Accusation

According to Israeli authorities, Emit stands accused of entering into a fake development deal, with an unnamed third party in South East Asia, with the express intent of using the deal as a front to sell military drones to China.

Emit is also accused of attempting to use the 2006 Asean Aerospace International Arms exhibition, held in Singapore in February, as a cover to transfer “Sparrow” drones and command and control equipment to Chinese clients.

“According to suspicions, in attempts to circumvent the [export restrictions], the managing director transferred to a Far Eastern nation Sparrow UAVs and their supporting equipment, claiming their capabilities would be demonstrated at an arms exhibition”

Police Spokesperson, Israel

On top of charges that they conspired to export military technology to China, executives at Emit have been accused of 'forging contracts and export permits' in an effort to cover their tracks and are being investigated for income tax violations.

Tip of the Iceberg?

Though current charges relate to the "Sparrow"; a reconnaissance UAV with an endurance of 5+ hours and a maximum speed in excess of 60 knots Emit is also known to produce the more "Blue Horizon 2" drone; an unmanned reconnaissance UAV capable of remaining aloft for over 10 hours, and using an advanced navigation system to flying at a service ceiling of 18,000+ feet without human intervention.

Photograph of an Emit Sparrow UAV

Both the “Sparrow and the “Blue Horizon 2” mount modern advanced optical packages, and can be retro- fitted with radar or laser targeting systems capable of directing guided munitions fire from a strike platform outside of the combat zone.

Sparrow UAV Demonstration Video

It is not known if Emit also intended to sell more advanced technology to China at a later date.

Attack of the Drones

Prior to the announcement of the China-Emit incident, Israel was found to have exported approximately 100 Harpy 'Hunter Killer' drones to China, in a deal worth an estimated $US50 million.

Like the Emit product drones, the Harpy is equipped with advanced optical systems, allowing it to be used for spotting and forward scouting missions. Similarly, it can also be fitted with radar/laser designation system to allow it to direct remote fire.

However, unlike Emit's range, the Harpy has a range of 500KM and a far more advanced on board guidance system which allows it to operate far more effectively in the field. It can also be factory equipped with an internal sensor package capable of independently locking on to a ground target and launching a suicide attack against it using a 48 pound warhead. Allowing the Harpy to locate and destroy and opponent without human intervention, and to operate in an offensive role without the need for remote fire support.

In a related scandal, Israeli was later found to have entered into a drone maintenance contract with China, and to be actively participating in upgrading the exported Harpies to carry more advanced systems.

The discovery of these facts lead to the US Undersecretary of Defense for Policy demanding that Amos Yaron, the Director General of the Israeli Defense Ministry, step down, and to Washington temporarily suspending exports of sensitive technology to Israeli

In a separate incident, early in 2006, the Japanese manufacturing giant Yamaha was placed under investigation for breaching export laws, after a one of its consumer brand UAVs was seen on a Chinese website, painted in the colors of an civilian group that is a known front for the Chinese military.

It was later confirmed that Yamaha had sold 16 "RMAX L181" remote operated helicopters to China since 2001, and that it was planning to export further UAVs in the future.

Under Japanese law, UAVs that are capable of autonomous flight, and are able to carry more than 20 Litters of fluid, are considered to be 'duel use' technology – technology with the potential to be used for military or terrorist purposes – and require a permit to export. Yamaha had not applied for export permits for any of the helicopters, and it is unclear if a permit would have been granted had Yamaha applied.

Yamaha officials however denied that they had broken any laws, stating the opinion that the RMAX range fell outside of export restrictions because it required a human operator, and thus was unable to fly autonomously.

"We have carried out the proper procedures for exports and have not violated the law"

Spokesperson, Yamaha Motor Limited, Japan

Despite this Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry officials contended that, because some RMAX models are capable of limited navigation, using a pre programed GPS system, they RMAX series has potential to be converted for autonomous flight. Bring it within export restricting.

Unlike the Israeli drones sold to China, the RMAX was purpose built for the civilian market. It has a maximum service ceiling of 10 meters and models are largely designed to be operated from the ground by a human controller who remains within line of site at all times.

The RMAX was originally developed to allow elderly or disable farmers, a symptom of Japan's aging population, to spray crops with insecticide.

The Sino-Israeli-American Factor

While the western powers tend to shy away from exporting military technology to China, Tel-Aviv has a long standing relationship with Beijing, and is China's second largest supplier of munition and military technology. A fact which has put considerable strain on the US-Israeli relationship for two key reasons.

Competition

Firstly, despite the strong economic relationship that exists between the two countries, China and the US remain strategic competitors. For this reason Washington is not enamored to any international moves which hold the potential to shift the balance of power in the Asia-Pacific region. Particularly moves involving the sale of high technology weapons systems that could make any future conflict between China and the US far more costly for Washington, both in fiscal terms, and in loss of life.

In the past America has issued a number of threat against Israel if it continues to 'endanger US lives' by selling arms to China, including a 2000 threat to withhold $US2.8 billion in reparations payments if Israel went ahead with plans to sell a $US250 Million Phalcon airborne early warning system to Beijing.

Had it been installed, the system would have significantly enhanced Beijing's ability to repel US attacks against civilian population centers and strategic targets on the Mainland, and to better direct attacking forces of its own, in the event of a conflict breaking out over the disputed island of Chinese-Taiwan.

Israel eventually pulled out of the deal, and was forced to offer China 'significant compensation'

At the time, Israel denied that it had been bowed to US pressure, and called the eventual scrapping of the Sino-Israeli radar deal a 'Good will gesture' from Tel-Aviv to Israel.

"Israel will not do anything to harm the United States"

Gadi Baltiansky, Spokesperson, Israel

Similarly, Congress threatened to cut the EU off from high military exports from American if France, Britain and Germany moved ot resume arms trading with China.

Observers and arms groups in China, Israel and EU have denounced pressure the the by Washington, and have accused it of 'interfering in the rights of other nations to conduct business as they see fit', and of harboring a 'Cold War mentality'.

Strong concerns have also been voiced as to whether Congress has itself been pressured into action by powerful US defense contractors and lobbyists, who have been using their influence in order for force the government to do all that it can to prevent foreign arms companies from trading in world markets that they cannot access.

Difficult Issues

Secondly, the sale of Israeli made weapons to China is a particularly problematic issue for Washington because of Israel's unusually high level of access to US defence technology.

As such, Israel has, on several occasions been accused of selling China 'cloned' American technology; Technology that Israel acquired by reverse engineering military hardware sold to Israel under the US-Israeli 'special relationship', or which Israel obtained directly from American defense establishments through espionage.

These accusations have lead to fears that, in the event of a Sino-US confrontation, China could end up 'killing US citizens with their own weapons'.

incidents that fall into tis category include technology from the Lavi (Lion); a jointly developed multi-role fighter program that was cancelled due to cost overruns, which later resurfaced in China as part of the Chengdu Jian-10 program, and its export variant, the F-10.

"[China has acquired US military technology through] the re-export by Israel of advanced technology transferred to it by the United States, including avionics and missile guidance useful for the PLA's F-10 fighter. Congress and several Executive agencies have also investigated allegations that Israel has provided U.S.-origin cruise, air-to-air, and ground-to-air missile technology to the PRC"

Select Committee on US National Security and Militery/Commercial Concerns with the PRC, US

The J-10 is almost identical to the Lavi, in both configuration and capability and has similar, though inferior, handling to the F-16. It's cost is however much lower.

Temporary Concessions?

After the stalling of the Phalcon deal, and the unearthing of the Harpy scandal, Israel temporarily suspended the issuance of arms export licences to China, but resumed them again in March of this year when a 'special oversight committee' was set up to monitor arms sales.

Though Israel assured the US that it would be carefully watch exports to ensure that US or jointly developed technologies would not be transferred to Beijing, it also caused consternation by reserving the right to conduct arms exports 'with or without consultation with the United States' .

"[Israel and America] are two independent countries which respect their relative interests"

Yaakov Toren, Director, Defense Ministry, Israel

Up to 75 Percent of all munitions and military systems manufactured in Israel are made for export. They form a vital component of the Israeli economy.

24.5.06 13:43

Permalink / Comment

[next page]

The weblog's authors are responsible for the contents of this blog. Your free weblog from 20six.co.uk