In August 2001, a bi-partisan group of California legislators were invited to visit China as part of the initiative to promote greater bi-lateral and mutual understanding. At the planning stage of this trip, Mike Honda was a member of the State Assembly. By the time of the actual trip, Honda had won the Congressional election to represent the 15th Congressional District, encompassing much of the fabled Silicon Valley. Thus Mike became the senior member and the leader of the delegation. I was a member of the entourage from the private sector that went on this trip and took the following notes of the trip.
Monday, August 6, 2001
Morning starts with a quick tour through the Forbidden City, the imperial palace of China that has become China’s national (and largest) museum. Thanks to actor Roger Moore, the voice on the audio tour, everyone in the group--which quickly strung out into a loose caravan--learns something of the palace and life in the former days of imperial splendor. Roger spoke of one overindulgent and roving Emperor who chose a different concubine every night until he did himself in.
At the end of the tour, we then board our bus for a short ride to the Great Hall of the People, the huge building on the western edge of the Tiananmen Square, for a reception hosted by Mr. Zeng Jianhui, chairman of the foreign affairs committee of the National People’s Congress. We were received in the Hong Kong Hall, which features a photomural of the spectacular night scene of the Hong Kong harbor. Most notable from this stop is the pro forma group photo with Mr. Zeng and a pro forma delivery, in my opinion, of a genuine official blah blah blah.
For lunch, we were then taken to a nearby new Radisson’s State Guest Hotel hosted by Tian Zengpei, chairman of foreign affairs committee of CPPCC (national committee of the Chinese people’s political consultative conference). The group awaiting us included former Ambassadors to Canada, United Nations, and Egypt, a former vice minister of foreign affairs, a nationally famous dancer and Wang Lin Xue, a painter who specializes in traditional Chinese paintings of bamboo.
There is more substance to this conversation. Tian said China’s GDP reached $1 trillion last year and is expected to continue to grow at 7% per year, which means it will double by next decade. China’s national priority is to develop China’s western region with a 50-year strategy.
Tian reviewed the U.S. China relations as one plagued by misinformation from the media on such issues as human rights, Tibet, Taiwan, religious freedom, etc. He welcomes American friends and legislators to visit and see for themselves. “Last year, U.S. Congress enacted some 70 resolutions relating to China, many were without foundation. Why not talk to us, come visit, so as to avoid future such resolutions based on false premises?” Tian did not wish to delay lunch and thus time did not permit any discussion on Taiwan, except that the U.S. should continue to adhere to principles of the 3 communiqués.
On behalf Zhenxie (CPPCC), he wished for more visitors to promote understanding and for visitors to come more often. “Go to more places, not just the prosperous places. Visitors should also see backward, poor regions for a more comprehensive understanding of China.”
After lunch instead of going across town to our hotel, we stayed at the Radisson to rest. Otherwise, we would have spent the entire break on the bus, traffic being as congested as it gets in Beijing. Yang Hong Ji, deputy mayor from Nanchang was a surprised presenter on the merits of investing in his city, the Jiangxi provincial capital. (Jiangxi, hardly far west of China, is next to coastal provinces but decidedly less prosperous.) Alas, his presentation, typical of many presentations from Chinese delegations we see in the U.S., could have been for any city in China and did not really spell out the comparative advantages of Nanchang.
The entire group then was driven to the art studio of artist Wang (Lin Xue) accompanied by the artist and his wife, Li Lin. His studio was located nearby inside the grounds of Diaoyutai, the government’s state guesthouse. On the walls of his studio were photos of many heads of state that visited his studio. He didn’t have to say anything to let us know that he is considered a living national treasure. He presented Mike a bamboo painting to commemorate the visit. He and his wife spent a good part of each year in the U.S. and greeted a number of the delegation warmly as old friends. Among their familiar friends were Anita and Gordon Chan.
The next meeting took place at the office of CPPCC hosted by vice chairman Wang Wen Yuan. He said China’s desire for peace could be understood just from the world’s disastrous experience from the past two world wars. He cited premier Zhou En Lai urging that misunderstandings between China and U.S. are natural. The solution is to have more frequent exchanges, look for more common ground, expand common interests and let differences be. Deng Xiaoping, he told us, frequently expressed confidence in future generations counting on them to solve problems that befuddle the present.
Wang expected China to enter the WTO by year-end and become even further integrated into the world economy. China will be developing the western region and China wishes to invite and encourage more outside participation in this endeavor.
Wang suggested that the U.S. try looking from the other side’s perspective and see the big gap that still exists between China and the U.S. The U.S. does not understand China’s policies. For example, had China not imposed a population control policy over the recent 20 some years, there would have been 300 million more people in today’s population—more than the 260 million for all of the U.S.
China is slightly bigger than the U.S. in landmass, by about 300,000 sq km. China’s population is larger by about 1 billion. In terms of population density, the U.S. has 30 persons per sq km while China has 130. However, if this is normalized to the amount of arable land, the density becomes 35/ sq km in the U.S. vs. 700 for China. (Imagine 20 persons in the U.S. for every one that exists today.)
One of the consequences of China entering the WTO is the need to help China’s agriculture sector. The farmers can’t compete in the world market because they lack the economy of scale. China’s auto industry is also not competitive (because it is highly fragmented). “China needs to work out ways to help them in reasonable and equitable manner,” he said.
China treats other countries all the same regardless of the size of the other country but based on actual reality. (By implication, China’s policy is not based on ideology or demagoguery.) “For the U.S. to “look at China as a threat makes no sense,” he said. Instead, look at how hard the Chinese people are working to develop their economy. No other country more than China needs a secure and stable peaceful environment.
The last activity of this long day was to drive north towards Beijing’s academic district and Zhong Guan Cun (ZGC), China’s hope for answer to Silicon Valley. The host was the Legend Group, a spin-off from the Academy of Computer Sciences and the hands down success story of ZGC with annual revenue in excess of $3 billion. After a tour of the Legend modern but empty offices since we arrived after working hours, we then retired to the Legend’s own dining room on the premises for a multi-course banquet.
Tuesday, August 7, 2001
Most of the party went to the Great Wall and lunch enroute to the Summer Palace where Ellen Corbett made her first of many to come purchases. The vendor at Summer Palace took advantage of the crush of tourists to give Ellen a brand new 50 ruble Russian note as change. It is safe to assume that this note is worth nowhere near the 50-renminbi change owed her. But Ellen got her value talking about it and planning to give it to her son as a unique souvenir.
Mike did not go sightseeing but elected to meet American companies in Beijing including Hewlett Packard and other companies organized by the U.S. Information Technology Office. (I did not go with Mike.)
All the different groups reconvened at Kempinski Hotel in late afternoon and left for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. MFA, the equivalent of the U.S. State Department, is now housed in a spectacular modern building with a multi-ethnic and mythic mural on the lobby facing the entry. Zhou Wenzhong, assistant minister, hosted this reception. Zhou had previously served a stint in the San Francisco Consulate (and returned to Washington in 2005 as the Ambassador from China).
First Zhou reported that Secretary Colin Powell’s visit to China has been very successful. Zhou believes the bilateral relations are on normal track again. The two countries have agreed to talk about human rights and to resume the joint military meetings. This is a winning relationship, beneficial to both sides.
That China will become a threat to the U.S. is a false notion. China is still a developing country, has a long ways to go and does not wish to be a threat to anyone. China’s goal is to continue to double its GDP every ten years so that by 2040-50, China will become mid-level developed and modern country. China wishes to be a force for peace and has no desire to be a super power.
Mike: "Relations building and confidence building is important and not just for economic reasons."
Zhou then said it is natural to disagree in certain matters. The key is how we handle the disagreements when they arise. Should be through dialogue and discussion based on mutual respect, look to benefit from the other’s experience and nobody’s perfect. Human rights have improved in China. Most people now enjoyed the right to subsistence and education, not always the case in China’s past. There is no one model to human rights but there should be many different models.
As one example of differences in points of view is the trade imbalance between China and the U.S. According to U.S. customs, the trade deficit was $80 billion but according to Chinese customs, only $30 billion. But it really doesn’t matter because bilateral trade will only grow and California will continue to play a major role in this.
Zhou would really like to meet members of the “blue team” to discuss how anyone can gain through conflict. The U.S. has already fought two wars in Asia and what did they gain aside from loss of lives? (First reported by Washington Post, the Blue Team is Washington-based and consisted mostly of extreme right wing Congressional staffers and other low profile individuals with China bashing as common interest. Their dangerous and provocative influence on U.S. foreign policy is too easily overlooked.)
What’s China’s education program, Elaine Alquist asked. Answer: In urban areas, education is compulsory for 9 years and 6 in rural areas. Unfortunately, dropout is a problem in poor rural areas. Project Hope was set up to help children of the poor stay in school. Contrary to the past, the government now encourages formation of private schools to supplement the public schools. Right now 30% of high school graduates go on to college and the goal is to get to 60%. Beijing has already reached 70%.
The Beijing office of Deloitte & Touche hosted dinner this evening. After dinner one bus went back to the hotel. Another group led by D.K. Lu went to nearby Wangfujing for a quick shopping foray and then rode the peddicab to Tiananmen Square. A third group walked through the Peking Hotel, Beijing’s first deluxe hotel that dates back to the early 20’s, enroute to Tiananmen Square. The latter two groups managed to converge at the square and came back together on the second bus.
Wednesday, August 8, 2001
This was a relatively easy day. We left the hotel bright and early in the morning for the airport and flew to Nanjing. By the time we checked into the Jinling Hotel it was almost time for lunch. In the afternoon, we went to visit Dr. Sun Yatsen’s Mausoleum and then the Nanjing Museum. At the Mausoleum we were to see as we have seen elsewhere throughout this trip the attention Jim Brulte and Walter Hammon attracted. Giggling children and sometimes adults would ask to have their pictures taken with either one. Jim because he towered over them and the full bearded Walter reminded them of a Karl Marx reincarnate.
Chen Huanyou, Chairman of the Jiangsu Provincial People’s Congress at another hotel a short distance away, hosted dinner.
Thursday, August 09, 2001
This morning began with a reception and meeting with Ji Yunshi, governor of Jiangsu province held at the Jinling Hotel. He mostly talked about the economic development of Jiangsu. Jiangsu is one of the most developed regions of China, number 2 in terms of enacting reform and its GDP has reached over $100 billion, contributing about 10% of the country’s GDP. In fact, Jiangsu more or less accounts for roughly 10% of China’s major economic indicators.
Jiangsu was one of the first to accept the principles of reform and benefit there from. For the most recent five years, the GDP has averaged an annual growth of 11.7% and the aim is to continue to grow at 10% per year for the next 5 years. Jiangsu was one of the first to open to foreign trade and export last year reached $46 billion. Jiangsu attracted about 20% of China’s foreign direct investments (FDI) and 30% of province’s tax revenue came from foreign investments.
As for Jiangsu’s sister relationship with the U.S., there are 4565 enterprises and joint ventures in Jiangsu, U.S. investments representing $ 8 billion investment out of a total of $36 FDI invested in Jiangsu.* Of the 63 projects over $10 million, 50 are from the U.S. and of those, 5 are over $100 million. Average size of the U.S. investment is around $23 million--higher than any other country. Japanese investments are also quite successful as also are investments from Taiwan.
Trade with the U.S. reached $6.5 billion; export at $5 billion made U.S. second largest market while import at $1.5 billion ranked U.S. at 4th largest.
We were the 4th official delegation from California to visit Jiangsu since 1999, the governor noted.
After the meeting, we were herded into the adjoining room for a surprised signing ceremony between Justin Tin and Kenneth Yee and city of Xuzhou on a memorandum of understanding over a dental clinic for Xuzhou. Customary banner, floral displays and a healthy contingent from Xuzhou were awaiting us. While they signed, Mike and Jim hovered to provide photogenic backdrop to the affair. The group then filed out of the conference room for the bus to get back to the next scheduled event.
Zhu Chengshan, curator of Nanjing Massacre Museum, was on hand to greet us. This museum was dedicated in 1987, a memorial dedicated to the memories of 300,000 victims massacred by the invading Japanese troops in the winter of 1937. This was a sobering experience.
The museum in a park like setting, consisted of concrete pillars, stone pebble covered grounds and sprinkling of black and white granite blocks, each describing one of the Japanese atrocities committed in and around the Nanjing area. There was a wall of names a la the U.S. Vietnam War Memorial, except in this case there was only a paltry list of known victims, most being unnamed and unknown.
The walk leads to an enclosure where excavation exposes random stacks of human remains to the visitors’ view, the museum being located on one of the execution grounds used by the imperial Japanese troops. At the entry and exit of this enclosure are leis of multi-colored, paper-folded cranes hanging on the walls. These are offerings left by visiting school children of Japan as a sign of regret and respect. From the record of leis, some schools seem to make this sojourn an annual event.
Next to the massacre grounds is a pond where many bodies were thrown. This pond has long since disappeared and skeletons that have been excavated are numbered and labeled and the mounds are protected by a glass enclosure. Next came photo exhibits before entering the museum itself. The museum displayed photos, weapons, documents and other physical evidence of the “Rape of Nanjing.” Mike and members of the group signed the museum register at the exit. The delegation’s visit to this museum occurred just about a week before the Japanese prime minister was to make his controversial visit to the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo.
Lunch back at the hotel featured steak or grilled salmon in case anyone missed an old fashioned western meal. Trouble was that the entrees arrived at snails pace thus delayed our timely departure for Suzhou. There was a Caucasian matre’d hovering around us and became the recipients of our disgruntled complaints. We found out that he was a student in hotel management from Purdue University working in Jinling for 5 months on an exchange program.
On our way to Suzhou, we made a brief stop at the northern part of the Nanjing city walls, very well preserved from the Ming dynasty and opposite to the direction of the Japanese invasion, hence still intact. Ms. Wang, our guide in Nanjing, told us more than once that the wall was so durable because the bricks bore the names of the brick maker. Failure of the bricks to perform was punishable by death. The short climb to the top of the wall was rewarded with a view of the nearby lake and a spectacular Buddhist nunnery with golden yellow walls and slate tile roofs. We arrived in Suzhou by bus just in time for shower, change of clothes and dinner.
At dinner hosted by Huang Jundu, chairman of Standing Committee of Suzhou People’s Congress, I sat next to Zhang Xue a deputy of Foreign affairs department. His formal training is Japanese and he personally sees 30 to 40 delegations from Japan every year. Suzhou is very much in Japan’s culture and lore.
Zhang said Suzhou is no. 7 in China in contributor to GDP and no. 1 in Jiangsu. Now a population of more than 1.5 million inside city proper, all the narrow streets of yore have been widened and thus losing some of the charm of this ancient city.
Some surprised guests joined this dinner--Larry and Celia Lee, the parent-in-laws of Washington governor Gary Locke. They recently bought a place in Shanghai and happened to be visiting Suzhou. Another unexpected guest was a Ms. Wang who then invited the party to a karaoke where we were her guests while many of the women folks bought and were fitted for various apparel. The karaoke party for some ran into the wee hours of the morning.
Friday, August 10, 2001
We left early in the morning for China Singapore Suzhou Industrial Park (SIP), which is east of the old Suzhou. Deputy Barry Yang, deputy CEO of the park, greeted us and provided the briefing.
Suzhou, a 2500-year-old city, is known as a “village of fish and rice and a paradise on earth.” Suzhou is one of top ten contributing cities to China’s economy. Contracted FDI in Suzhou by end of 2000 reached $42.2 billion and $20.3 has actually been invested. Of the global 500, 76 have invested in Suzhou. In terms of GDP, the six ahead of Suzhou are Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Tianjin, and Chongqing, all much larger than Suzhou. Per cap GDP reached $9,300 in 2000.
SIP is one of thousands of development parks located inside China but is the only one that is a JV with the Singapore government, begun in 1994. The JV went from 65/35 Singapore to 35/65 where Suzhou now holds the controlling interest. Wang Jun Hua, deputy mayor of Suzhou is now the CEO of SIP. As of July 2001, FDI contracted reached $9.8 billion with $4.3 utilized. Approximately 25% is from the U.S., 47.9% is in electronics and electrical related, > 90% is in high tech and > 90% is wholly foreign owned. SIP made $7.5 million in profit in the first year since the change in ownership structure, making up for the losses of the last 3 years. They have plans to go public.
SIP is also the only part in China with nine different underground piping so that there is no above ground wires and pipes. Unlike Shanghai’s experience in recent monsoon downpour, Suzhou has no flooding problem. With Lake Taihu nearby, Suzhou also has no lack of water. The sewage treatment set-up is advanced with ability to handle all manner of wastewater. The park offers dual redundant power supply to guard against interruption. The park has ready built factories in various configurations for instant occupation. Customs is located inside the park and can handle everything within the park.
The park has built 6010 residential units, 3360 more are under construction and 7750 have been sold. Average sales price is $250 per sq. meter. There is a lake, Jinji Hu, inside the park. Seven different recreational sites along the lake are built, under construction or in the plans.
Key to the SIP turn around: they learned that the park cannot do without the local government support and cannot function solely on commercial basis. Cost of SIP land was fixed while price of competitive land elsewhere was going down. By reversing ownership, local government can give all kinds of support including price concession, tax grants, etc. There is a workforce of 28000 inside the park, about 2-300 expats.
Solectron in SIP
Kent Chen, Vice President & General Manager of Solectron China greeted and made the presentation. He started the SIP facility and it now produces over $50 million worth of products in one month. Solectron now has 76 sites in the world. The first site in Asia was in Malaysia and now has 11 facilities in Asia. Solectron’s business mission is to help MNC’s grow in China.
AMD in SIP
Dickin Cheung, managing director, greeted the group and made the opening presentation. Total investment in this facility, which assembles and tests integrated circuits, is $108 million. At full capacity, this facility will employ 1500, currently it is at 700. Start-up of every line at this facility has been on time and successful. Katherine of his staff talked about AMD employee’s participation in Project Hope, a national charity designed to help educate the poor.
Chen Deming, Party Secretary of Suzhou City, hosted lunch back at the Gloria Plaza Hotel. He was the first and only official that greeted the group with a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation largely covered information already covered by others. (Chen received post graduate training at Harvard and became the Minister of Commerce in 2007.)
After lunch, the group went to Garden of the Master of the Nets, a World Heritage site, and the Suzhou Embroidery Institute. Exiting from the Institute, Mike was recognized by the kids of three generations of a Chinese American family visiting from Los Altos Hills. Mike signed autographs and had his picture taken with this family.
On the way to Shanghai via the Nanjing-Shanghai toll way, traffic came to halt due to an overturned bus on a rain-slicked road. Thanks to police escort, which we had throughout our stay in Jiangsu (but not in Beijing or Shanghai), we created a third lane out of the two-lane road. The skills of our driver were impressive as he weaved our coach around other buses and trucks. We lost about 40 minutes because of the accident. Could have been hours, had the escort not been with us.
Sha Lin, Vice Chairman of Shanghai Municipal People’s Congress, hosted the dinner in Shanghai. Everybody lugged his or her carry-ons into the Old Jinjiang Hotel and bid farewell to our bus from Nanjing. From here on the group is back to two minibuses, one unofficially for Republicans and sympathizers and the other for the Democrats and their followers. This sorting of guests was not an organized effort among a most congenial group, and must have been a matter of natural inclination.
Saturday, August 11, 2001
First stop was to Fang Yuan Digital, a Sino-Korean-American JV making the loader mechanism for the DVD player. The American partner is DVS based in San Jose, who owns a majority interest in the Korean firm and together own the controlling interest of Fang Yuan.
Mike, Meri, Jeffrey and I skipped the plant tour to visit MeetChina.com, a B2B company based in San Francisco and Shanghai. Upon leaving MeetChina for lunch being hosted by Allbright and arranged by Katherine Schiffler, Shanghai based director of California Trade & Commerce Agency, Jeffrey found that the group left at DVS had gone back to the Shangri-la Hotel in Pudong instead of proceeding direct to lunch. Thanks to a few frantic cell phone calls, most of the group was rounded up and re-convene at the Cypress Hotel, site of the former Sasson Park. Allbright has 27 partners and a staff of over 150 and considers itself the largest law firm in China.
After lunch some of the women slipped away for some serious shopping. We got to the Shanghai Art Museum in time for a quick one plus hour tour of this internationally renowned museum. On the way to the venue for dinner hosted by DVS, the two minibuses dropped off the shoppers for some frantic bargain hunting while the buses circle the blocks. After we returned to Shangri-la after dinner, some went on to PuJ’s, located at the Jin Mao, Shanghai’s 88-story skyscraper, for some discoing.
Sunday, August 12, 2001
After checking out of the hotel, the group went to the former Chinese quarters of Shanghai where Yu Garden, city god temple (Chenghuangmiao), and all kinds of shops beckoned. Most of the group did not want to spend the precious time touring Yu Garden nor the temple but devoted the time to last opportunity of shopping. The Shanghai bureau of China Daily, again arranged by Katherine Schiffler, hosted lunch. After lunch, some went for a stroll on the section of Nanjing Road that has become a pedestrian mall, while others went—what else—shopping.
====================================
Most of the notes were written within one week of the visit. Some notes were added after this report was posted on the blog.
Monday, September 3, 2001
Tuesday, April 17, 2001
China and Taiwan Closer Than You Think - Arms Sales Will Subvert Reconciliation
Pacific News Service, George Koo, Posted: Apr 17, 2001
Editor's Note: Long considered warring states, China and Taiwan are actually moving closer to one another on cultural, economic and even political fronts. U.S. arms sales to Taiwan will jeopardize this process of reconciliation, leaving Taiwan more, rather than less, secure in the decade ahead.
The Bush administration must now decide whether or not to sell arms to Taiwan, a choice that will affect U.S.-China relations far more than any effects of the spy plane incident.
Those who favor selling the most advanced weapon systems to Taiwan say they would make that country more secure. In reality, just the opposite is true.
Taiwan is already the world's second largest arms buyer to Saudi Arabia -- spending about $3 billion per year. Its ability to inflict damage on any invader is sufficient to ensure that such action would not to be taken lightly.
In any event, no such conflict is imminent, as Beijing has stated it will turn to armed intervention only if Taiwan declares independence.
This is highly unlikely for a number of reasons. For one thing, a majority of the people on Taiwan do not favor independence from the mainland. On the contrary, recent polls show the numbers favoring reunification are actually increasing. The majority still prefer the status quo -- but even "status quo" means the two sides moving closer together.
The two cannot be considered warring states. Half a million Taiwanese now live and work on the mainland. The career paths of many young Taiwanese now pass through Shanghai, Kunshan, Tongguan -- or wherever a new office or factory goes up on the mainland.
Taiwanese-owned restaurants, shops and factories employ more than three percent of the mainland workforce.
And when Taiwanese leave their island for vacations, more than half go to the mainland.
Two-way trade across the strait reached $25 billion in 1999, roughly four to one in Taiwan's favor. In most years Taiwan's surplus from trade with China more than covers the deficit Taiwan tallies with the rest of the world. This is not insignificant when you consider that the island's economy is export-driven.
Vocal advocates of independence for Taiwan are a distinct minority -- no more than 15 percent, according to polls, and the number is declining because people from both sides are more integrated than ever.
Chen Shui-bian was elected president last year with less than 40 percent of the popular vote under an existing constitution that recognizes Taiwan as a part of China. He ran on a clean government pledge -- had he advocated independence, he would have lost.
Since the election, the rhetoric from both sides has been increasingly conciliatory. Most observers believe that prospects for reopening cross strait talks and negotiations, begun in 1992, are more favorable than ever.
Despite China's placement of missiles, actual military conflagration across the strait could only come as a last resort, triggered by declaration of independence by Taiwan and/or overt military provocation by the U.S.
Sales of Aegis system or theater missile defense (TMD) system could well constitute such a provocation.
The United States has stood by a consistent "One-China" policy for three decades. Sale of destroyers equipped with the Aegis replaces that policy for a virtually irrevocable military alliance with Taiwan. This is precisely the kind of interference China could not tolerate or ignore, and exactly the excuse Taiwan needs to avoid negotiating with Beijing.
Sale of advanced military weapons could lead the protagonists to think that Washington supports Taipei's resistance to negotiate and that the U.S. stands ready to put the lives of its own military personnel on the line over the cross strait dispute.
Instead of promoting an arms race, Washington should encourage the two sides to resume the cross strait negotiations. In the decade since those talks began, the wealth gap between Taiwan and the mainland has narrowed and the synergy of the two sides working together becomes increasingly evident.
Washington can do its part by not adding any fuel to the fire. The Bush administration should declare that the U.S. stands ready to support any peaceful reconciliation worked out by the two sides.
Historically, culturally, ethnically and linguistically, Taiwan is a part of China. Most of the people in Taiwan think of themselves as Chinese, identify with the people on the mainland and recognize that their destiny lies in being part of China. Washington, by merely relying on the "One-China" policy and not selling arms, will add immeasurably to the momentum towards reconciliation.
Editor's Note: Long considered warring states, China and Taiwan are actually moving closer to one another on cultural, economic and even political fronts. U.S. arms sales to Taiwan will jeopardize this process of reconciliation, leaving Taiwan more, rather than less, secure in the decade ahead.
The Bush administration must now decide whether or not to sell arms to Taiwan, a choice that will affect U.S.-China relations far more than any effects of the spy plane incident.
Those who favor selling the most advanced weapon systems to Taiwan say they would make that country more secure. In reality, just the opposite is true.
Taiwan is already the world's second largest arms buyer to Saudi Arabia -- spending about $3 billion per year. Its ability to inflict damage on any invader is sufficient to ensure that such action would not to be taken lightly.
In any event, no such conflict is imminent, as Beijing has stated it will turn to armed intervention only if Taiwan declares independence.
This is highly unlikely for a number of reasons. For one thing, a majority of the people on Taiwan do not favor independence from the mainland. On the contrary, recent polls show the numbers favoring reunification are actually increasing. The majority still prefer the status quo -- but even "status quo" means the two sides moving closer together.
The two cannot be considered warring states. Half a million Taiwanese now live and work on the mainland. The career paths of many young Taiwanese now pass through Shanghai, Kunshan, Tongguan -- or wherever a new office or factory goes up on the mainland.
Taiwanese-owned restaurants, shops and factories employ more than three percent of the mainland workforce.
And when Taiwanese leave their island for vacations, more than half go to the mainland.
Two-way trade across the strait reached $25 billion in 1999, roughly four to one in Taiwan's favor. In most years Taiwan's surplus from trade with China more than covers the deficit Taiwan tallies with the rest of the world. This is not insignificant when you consider that the island's economy is export-driven.
Vocal advocates of independence for Taiwan are a distinct minority -- no more than 15 percent, according to polls, and the number is declining because people from both sides are more integrated than ever.
Chen Shui-bian was elected president last year with less than 40 percent of the popular vote under an existing constitution that recognizes Taiwan as a part of China. He ran on a clean government pledge -- had he advocated independence, he would have lost.
Since the election, the rhetoric from both sides has been increasingly conciliatory. Most observers believe that prospects for reopening cross strait talks and negotiations, begun in 1992, are more favorable than ever.
Despite China's placement of missiles, actual military conflagration across the strait could only come as a last resort, triggered by declaration of independence by Taiwan and/or overt military provocation by the U.S.
Sales of Aegis system or theater missile defense (TMD) system could well constitute such a provocation.
The United States has stood by a consistent "One-China" policy for three decades. Sale of destroyers equipped with the Aegis replaces that policy for a virtually irrevocable military alliance with Taiwan. This is precisely the kind of interference China could not tolerate or ignore, and exactly the excuse Taiwan needs to avoid negotiating with Beijing.
Sale of advanced military weapons could lead the protagonists to think that Washington supports Taipei's resistance to negotiate and that the U.S. stands ready to put the lives of its own military personnel on the line over the cross strait dispute.
Instead of promoting an arms race, Washington should encourage the two sides to resume the cross strait negotiations. In the decade since those talks began, the wealth gap between Taiwan and the mainland has narrowed and the synergy of the two sides working together becomes increasingly evident.
Washington can do its part by not adding any fuel to the fire. The Bush administration should declare that the U.S. stands ready to support any peaceful reconciliation worked out by the two sides.
Historically, culturally, ethnically and linguistically, Taiwan is a part of China. Most of the people in Taiwan think of themselves as Chinese, identify with the people on the mainland and recognize that their destiny lies in being part of China. Washington, by merely relying on the "One-China" policy and not selling arms, will add immeasurably to the momentum towards reconciliation.
Thursday, March 22, 2001
Commentary for Pacific Time, KQED, 88.5 FM
In preparing to meet with Vice Premier Qian Qichen from Beijing, President George W. Bush and his administration is facing a major challenge in foreign policy. Since the outcome of the administration’s handling of this bi-lateral relationship could mean the difference between peace or war, stability or strife, economic growth or stagnation, a lot is at stake. And, no issue is more sensitive and explosive than whither Taiwan.
Historically, culturally, ethnically and linguistically, Taiwan has always been a part of China. Today, approximately half a million professionals and executives from Taiwan are living and working on the mainland, some are even employed as senior executives in mainland firms. Taiwan investments already employ over 3% of the mainland workforce and increasing. Every year more than 30% of Taiwan’s population leave the island for a vacation; about half of them head for the mainland. Cultural affinity and ethnic roots account for the economic ties and recreational pilgrimage. [Everywhere on the mainland, one can see Taiwan influence from eating places to entertainment palaces to electronic factories.]* The synergy across the Taiwan strait is palpable. At the people to people level, there exists a common desire for a peaceful resolution.
For America to now sell advanced weapons or a theatre missle defense system to Taiwan is exactly the wrongheaded thing to do. Such actions would rachet up the cross strait tension, destroy the on-going harmony and ruin any chance for a peaceful reconciliation. Taiwan is already the second largest arms buyer in the world. As is, she is plenty equiped to deter any temptation towards a lose-lose military solution.
The people of Taiwan and the mainland need the space and quietude to resolve their differences. The U.S. cannot dictate the outcome, not even act as a mediator across the straits. As in any family squabble, the best approach is for the U.S. to “leave the room" and let the two sides reach settlement without outside interference, all the while insist that the ultimate resolution must be a peaceful one.
Needless to say this suggested approach by the Bush administration will take courage but will win the eternal gratitude of all the people of the world.
Historically, culturally, ethnically and linguistically, Taiwan has always been a part of China. During the height of the presidential election last year, a poll of Taiwanese revealed that only 2.5% wanted independence right away and 15% sooner or later.
Today, approximately half a million professionals and executives from Taiwan are living and working on the mainland, some are even employed as senior executives in mainland firms.
Taiwan businesses already employ over 3% of the mainland workforce..and more join every day.
Half of all Taiwanese who go off the island for holidays go to the mainland.
The synergy across the Taiwan strait is palpable at the people to people level.
For America to now sell advanced weapons or a theatre missle defense system to Taiwan is exactly the wrongheaded thing to do. It would rachet up the cross strait tension, destroy harmony and ruin any chance for a peaceful reconciliation.
Further, Taiwan is already the second largest arms buyer in the world.
So it is well-equipped to deter any Chinese temptation to try a military solution.
The people of Taiwan and the mainland need the space and quiet to resolve their differences. The U.S. cannot dictate the outcome, not even act as a mediator across the straits.
As in any family squabble, the best approach is for the U.S. to "leave the room", and let the two sides reach settlement without outside interference. All Washington can do is make it clear that any solution must be peaceful.
For Pacific Time, I'm George Koo
Historically, culturally, ethnically and linguistically, Taiwan has always been a part of China. Today, approximately half a million professionals and executives from Taiwan are living and working on the mainland, some are even employed as senior executives in mainland firms. Taiwan investments already employ over 3% of the mainland workforce and increasing. Every year more than 30% of Taiwan’s population leave the island for a vacation; about half of them head for the mainland. Cultural affinity and ethnic roots account for the economic ties and recreational pilgrimage. [Everywhere on the mainland, one can see Taiwan influence from eating places to entertainment palaces to electronic factories.]* The synergy across the Taiwan strait is palpable. At the people to people level, there exists a common desire for a peaceful resolution.
For America to now sell advanced weapons or a theatre missle defense system to Taiwan is exactly the wrongheaded thing to do. Such actions would rachet up the cross strait tension, destroy the on-going harmony and ruin any chance for a peaceful reconciliation. Taiwan is already the second largest arms buyer in the world. As is, she is plenty equiped to deter any temptation towards a lose-lose military solution.
The people of Taiwan and the mainland need the space and quietude to resolve their differences. The U.S. cannot dictate the outcome, not even act as a mediator across the straits. As in any family squabble, the best approach is for the U.S. to “leave the room" and let the two sides reach settlement without outside interference, all the while insist that the ultimate resolution must be a peaceful one.
Needless to say this suggested approach by the Bush administration will take courage but will win the eternal gratitude of all the people of the world.
Historically, culturally, ethnically and linguistically, Taiwan has always been a part of China. During the height of the presidential election last year, a poll of Taiwanese revealed that only 2.5% wanted independence right away and 15% sooner or later.
Today, approximately half a million professionals and executives from Taiwan are living and working on the mainland, some are even employed as senior executives in mainland firms.
Taiwan businesses already employ over 3% of the mainland workforce..and more join every day.
Half of all Taiwanese who go off the island for holidays go to the mainland.
The synergy across the Taiwan strait is palpable at the people to people level.
For America to now sell advanced weapons or a theatre missle defense system to Taiwan is exactly the wrongheaded thing to do. It would rachet up the cross strait tension, destroy harmony and ruin any chance for a peaceful reconciliation.
Further, Taiwan is already the second largest arms buyer in the world.
So it is well-equipped to deter any Chinese temptation to try a military solution.
The people of Taiwan and the mainland need the space and quiet to resolve their differences. The U.S. cannot dictate the outcome, not even act as a mediator across the straits.
As in any family squabble, the best approach is for the U.S. to "leave the room", and let the two sides reach settlement without outside interference. All Washington can do is make it clear that any solution must be peaceful.
For Pacific Time, I'm George Koo
Monday, October 30, 2000
Asian American Ticket to the American Dream
Keynote speech, October 28, 2000
Seattle Area Asian American Professional Organizations Joint Fall Conference,
Ladies & Gentlemen,
It is a distinct pleasure and privilege to be with you today. Seattle is my adopted hometown. When I immigrated to the United States as a refugee, not knowing a word of English, Seattle was where I landed and where I grew up. My father was a research fisheries biologist with University of Washington, and I attended Laurelhurst Elementary, Nathan Eckstein and Hamilton Junior Hi and Lincoln High School. After I went to MIT for college, I had summer jobs at Boeing. I remember working one summer as interns when we carefully updated the original engineering drawings with all the engineering changes and advanced engineering changes. We were part of Boeing’s effort in converting the military tanker KC-135 into 707, the first commercial jet liner in the world. While my contribution is not even infinitesimal, I am proud to be part of Seattle’s history. Roughly some twenty years later, I was to make a business trip to Bellevue. When I got off the elevator at the wrong floor of the then only skyscraper in Bellevue, I walked into the office where a bunch of scruffy young kids was sitting around. Unfortunately I didn’t ask if I could buy some of their stock but those were the early days of the eventual software giant that has since moved to Redmond.
So as you can see, I have some real Seattle roots, and I presume, in common with many of you in the audience. I am very proud to be a former Seattleite. However, even though I lettered in varsity tennis, I am convinced that growing up in Seattle deprived me of any chance of becoming a Michael Chang. I simply didn’t see the sun often enough.
The organizers of this conference asked me to talk about what it means for a Chinese American to be successful in America. There are many Chinese Americans more prominent than I, more accomplished and with higher net worth, so I am not sure why I have been accorded this honor. However, as I grow older, I have become more opinionated and I rarely pass up the opportunity to sound off. So here I am and I will do my best on this subject.
Even as far back as the 19th century, the Chinese made contributions to America far beyond their numbers. The transcontinental railroad could not have been built without the Chinese taking on the most dangerous, life threatening tasks. The Chinese also took on jobs that no one else wanted, operating laundries, small shops and eating places. Despite their contributions, they were not given citizenships and cannot be called Chinese Americans. When the last spike was driven to link the transcontinental railroad and a photo taken to document the occasion, no Chinese can be seen in the historic photo. Instead, the Chinese in the Wild West were beaten, robbed and frequent victims of vigilante acts.
On the shores of the San Francisco Bay, there is now a state park on a beach where the Chinese used to catch the tiny bay shrimp, dry them and ship them back to China where dried shrimp has been and continues to be a favorite flavoring agent in cooking. In those days, the shrimp had no other commercial value and attracted interest from no one else. Nevertheless, the city passed a series of ordnances that restricted or prohibited shrimping on certain times of the year and drying on the beach. All for the purpose of stifling the Chinese without being explicitly racist.
Others more authoritative than I can tell you about the unjust and unfair laws, regulations or simply racist attitudes that prevailed in the U.S. against the Chinese up to and following World War II. I will simply relate to you a couple of personal experiences of mine.
When we moved into our first house in America, it was on 4th Avenue and 47th Street in the northeast section of Seattle, between University district and Wallingford. This is now one block away from Interstate 5. After living a university housing project for three years, we moved into the house in 1952, a modest home that my father could afford. On the first day we moved in, I remember an obviously inebriated man knocking on our door to tell us that “our kind” was not welcome. That was our welcome to the neighborhood. That was how our American dream got started.
In the ‘60s, my wife and I took a vacation on Cape Hatteras in North Carolina. A beach apparel shop was plastered with signs announcing an end of season sale. Being a Chinese, I couldn’t pass up a bargain, went in and selected a beach robe. When the manager of the store rang up the regular price, I said wait a minute, wasn’t this on sale? He said only some items were but not beach robes. When I said in that case I didn’t want the item, he blew his top. He was outraged and said people like me should go back to where ever I came from.
I am sure most of you have experiences of your own to tell. Stories of slights that you still remember vividly to this day, stories that remind you that you are still a foreigner in your own country. My parents used to remind me all the time, “don’t forget you are a Chinese. Don’t do anything to embarrass us.” For me, the consequence of all this admonition was to develop an attitude, an attitude that automatically assumed that I would have to put out more than 100% of effort to get the credit that my white colleague can get with less than 100%. Along with this attitude also came the desire to always outdo the white guys in every undertaking.
Indeed I began my professional career just about when the term, “model minority,” as a way of describing the Chinese Americans, came into vogue. We were considered a model minority because we had a lower crime rate, we held tight family values and we were academic achievers. Until the politicians got hold of the term, I believe the people that referred us as “a model minority” were sincere and did it out of admiration. However, even without condescension the term has some unfortunate consequences, one of which is a mental trap, namely, the presumption that if we keep our nose clean, behave and mind our own business, we will be OK. Not getting involved means staying away from volunteer organizations and local politics.
For much of the 20th century, the model minority concept worked reasonably well. Our willingness to mind our business and know our place fitted comfortably with the mainstream’s expectation that we know our places and cause no trouble. So long as we were content and willing to settle for professional rank and file positions and not expect or demand a shot at management positions, everything was copasetic. It didn’t seem to bother us that we could be senior engineers and scientists but not managers, that we could be professors but not deans or chancellors, that we could do the heavy lifting in the national labs but not serve as lab directors. It may not have been idyllic but it was a peaceful co-existence.
In recent years our willingness to get along as second-class citizens ran into trouble. In 1989, the evil empire known as USSR began to crumble and at the same time the world saw on TV the student protest on Tiananmen Square in China getting out of hand, culminating in bloodshed and tragedy. Since that day, the man standing in front of the tanks became forever imbedded in the media’s consciousness to be re-wound and replayed every June. It became the icon that demonized China. Zhongnanhai replaced the Kremlin and the leaders of China became the butchers of Beijing. For those in America disquieted by the sudden absence of an enemy, China conveniently stepped into the void as the next evil empire.
The next event that significantly affected the lives of Chinese Americans was the election of Bill Clinton as the president of the United States. For whatever reason and for reasons really beyond the scope of my presentation, President Clinton has managed to arouse the hatred of a certain segment of the American population. These people went thru millions of taxpayers’ money to go after Bill and Hillary Clinton ranging from Whitewater to travelgate to campaign contributions to Monica Lewinsky to Los Alamos. While this was basically a domestic political squabble, somehow we Chinese American by-standers were victimized.
How were we victimized? It has been estimated that the total amount of money spent at each presidential election run in the order of $2 billion, give or take a few hundred million. No body got hot and bothered about the source of funds except for the $2 million or so that Chinese Americans were accused of raising possibly from foreign sources. The senators and pundits making the accusation couldn’t even tell the difference between Chinese Americans, Chinese from PRC, Hsilai Temple Buddhists from Taiwan, or Indonesians that are ethnic Chinese. It didn’t matter. If an ethnic Chinese was involved, it must be sinister and it must have involved Beijing trying to influence the election. Imagine for a moment, how much influence $2 million can really be in changing the course of a history with the momentum of a couple of billion dollars.
John Huang, an assistant Commerce secretary, was made into the arch villain/fund raiser, for alleged irregularities--irregularities that never came into light of day. The only consequence is that his career ended in tatters and he in financial ruin. Even the famed Cox Report after pages and pages demonizing China, Chinese and Chinese Americans had to admit that John Huang never upgraded his level of access to confidential information even though he was entitled. He was observed not taking notes during briefing and not asking for documents that he could have asked for. In other words, they couldn’t find a single disloyal act upon close scrutiny.
The Cox Report, of course, has done more to alienate the Chinese Americans than any other act since the days of Joseph McCarthy. Unfortunately, your great state of Washington is complicit in this by virtue of the minority chair of the Select Committee being headed by Congressman Norm Dix. The Democrats on this committee must have been so glad that President Clinton escaped from the Lewinski scandal that they did not even protest the publication of this report. The report distorts, exaggerates, and fabricates, all for the purpose of demonizing China and embarrassing Clinton and by innuendo implying that somehow Clinton is letting the Chinese get away with absolutely everything worth stealing. Stanford University Center for International Security and Cooperation, in a report prepared by four eminent scientists and edited by Michael May, former director of the Lawrence Livermore National Lab tore the Cox Report to shreds. They concluded and I quote: “The report lacks scholarly rigor, and exhibits too many examples of sloppy research, factual errors and weakly justified inferences”—and in my opinion the Stanford group was being kind. Again the unfortunate by-product of the hysteria created by the Cox Report is to imply that all Chinese Americans are potential spies for PRC.
The Cox Report also led directly to the Wen Ho Lee case. In January 1999, the committee leaked the word that they had uncovered evidence of espionage by China whereby China had stolen the secrets of W88 multiple warhead and that the secrets were stolen from Los Alamos. This information turns out to be based on closed-door testimony given by Notra Trulock. Trulock was absolutely certain that the secrets were stolen with the help of a Chinese American. The code name the FBI used in their investigation was “kindred spirit,” so you can see that everybody in the counterintelligence business pretty much share the same foregone conclusion as to where to look for the culprit. This information was leaked to the New York Times, which led to the immediate firing of Wen Ho Lee. The news broke on March 6 and Richardson fired Lee on March 8.
After Lee was fired, cooler heads pointed out that W88 secrets could have been pilfered from literally hundred of places and not just from Los Alamos. Further there was no real evidence, other than Trulock’s overactive imagination, that China has really co-opted the W88 design. In fact to this day, China has not been observed to have made any multiple warhead missiles. At this point in mid 1999, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson must have been getting awfully uncomfortable with eggs on his face. He could have backed off. Instead he persisted on the Lee case. In the meantime, the FBI got lucky. They were roundly criticized for failing to conduct a wide and objective investigation, but while searching Lee’s home, they found evidence of Lee having downloaded restricted data. Somebody, I don’t know if it’s the FBI or someone else upgraded the classification of the restricted data into the “crown jewel” class so as to justify arresting Lee, throwing him in solitary confinement in a cell lit around the clock, isolating him from the outside contact including TV, and subjecting him to chain and shackle for the one hour of fresh air each day.
As you all must know, the Wen Ho Lee case has become a cause celebré. Asian Americans who have been actively working on getting Wen Ho Lee fair and due process are now clamoring for an impartial panel to conduct public hearing on this case. The feeling is that until all the details of this case are out in the open, there can be no closure.
The Wen Ho Lee case has driven home a point that should be increasingly obvious to us all. Namely, uneasy lies your American dream if you are satisfied with being a second-class citizen. In our case being second-class doesn’t mean an increase probability in getting pulled off the road. You don’t fit that profile. But your loyalty is suspect and you are not entitled to the customary rights of presumed innocent until proven guilty. Even if you do your best to keep your head down and avoid trouble, trouble can come to your doorsteps anyway due to circumstances beyond your control.
Whether you like it or not, whatever your political inclination may be, and how ever you might feel about Taiwan and China, your American dream is intimately tied to the U.S. China relationship. When China is regarded as a friend of the White House and U.S. Congress, we are the model minority. When China becomes the demon in America’s eyes, we become potential enemy agents. As the campaign finance scandal has shown and as what happened to Wen Ho Lee has confirmed, to the mainstream America, a Chinese is a Chinese, or in many cases, an Asian is an Asian. They don’t care or necessarily know how to make the distinction between those that came from Mainland China or Taiwan or elsewhere in Asia or those born in America. There is no escaping the broad profile cast to fit us all.
Before concluding on where do we go from here, I would like to share with you my experiences and observations of Silicon Valley. Deloitte & Touché, my employer, conducts an annual survey of fastest growing, technology companies in America. The survey is based on the compounded growth rate in revenue over the most recent 5-year period. Every region has a list of fast 50 companies, which is consolidated into a national Fast 500. This year from Silicon Valley, the top three and five of the top eight fastest growing companies are founded and/or headed by a Chinese American CEO. In case you are interested, the five are Yahoo, Pctel, Nvidia, Broadvision and Viador. Yahoo is the only company not headed by a Chinese American CEO, but as you all know founder Jerry Yang has become a worldwide icon for the Internet age.
Even for Silicon Valley, where Asian Americans found 30% of the companies, 5 out of top 8 are pretty remarkable. I have been living and working in Silicon Valley for nearly 30 years and have had a ringside seat. I can tell you, it wasn’t always this way. Twenty years ago, Asian American entrepreneurs had to band together and form their own network and associations. Ten years ago, most of the blue ribbon venture capital funds had no Asian American partners. Today, most of them do. How did this happen? I think the current generation of successful entrepreneurs owes a debt to the pioneers who broke through the glass ceiling and proved that they can manage a company as well as doing the technical work.
David Lee founded Qume, a daisy wheel printer company, which was sold to ITT and he became one of the earliest senior executives of a Fortune 100 company. Even though public speaking is not his favorite activity, he is seen frequently in public forum sharing his experience with the younger generation. David Lam founded Lam Research, a major semiconductor equipment company. He went on to found or lead a series of companies. He is active in various associations such as Asian American Manufacturers Association and served as advisor to many other start-ups. Pauline Lo Alker is also a serial entrepreneur and widely recognized and honored for her achievements. She makes a point of allocating part of her time coaching young Asian entrepreneurs, and served as role model to young women entrepreneurs. Lester Lee founded his own company called Recortec but devotes much of his time serving on the board of Chinese related organizations. All of these people support political candidates and are involved in fund raising efforts for them. Lester was the first Chinese American to serve on the board of regent for University of California. David Lee is a current regent.
Thanks to the organizing skills of people like Barry Chang, the Bay Area has become a must visit place for Asian American political candidates in search of financial support. Your governor Gary Locke has been a regular visitor. When Barry organizes a fundraiser, he gets young people involved by getting the students to preside over the fundraiser and introduce the speakers and candidates. His goal is to get young people engaged early. Barry’s publicly stated goal is to see a Chinese American as the president of the United States.
The Wen Ho Lee Defense Fund was started by a handful of Chinese Americans in the Bay Area. We met Alberta, Lee’s daughter in September of last year, and began letters of protest, fund raising, and discussions with the media. Eventually Chinese Americans from all over the country got into the act that then pulled in other Asians and the rest of American public was made aware that justice in the Lee’s case was not being served.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think it is pretty obvious where we go from here. Second class citizenship, with or without the moniker of model minority, just isn’t going to cut it any more. Even if you can be satisfied with a permanent seat in the back of the bus, is it right to leave this legacy for future generations of Asian Americans? How can you be sure that your middle class, or even upper middle class, respectability won’t be stripped away in a moment’s notice when a scapegoat is needed? Or that you won’t be shot dead by the police because they fear your martial arts capability even if you are drunk and can barely stand, as it happened to a Chinese scientist in Santa Rosa, California? Or that you won’t be clubbed to death because some Detroit workers thought you were Japanese, as it happened to Vincent Chin?
This is only one way. That is to make sure you belong to the first class with full rights pertaining to the citizenship of the United States. If you have been living in the U.S. for any length of time, you would have heard the saying: “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” What it means is that you will have to act like a regular citizen before you can be treated like one. Register and vote. Speak up about issues in public forum and with letters to the editor. Show up in town hall meetings with your Congressional representative. Support political candidates. Run for office. Be a volunteer in local community. Every day, look everybody in the eye with the bearing that says I belong here, this is my country too.
Thomas Jefferson said, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” For Asian Americans, a variation should read: “Vigilant insistence of all rights due a citizen so that there will be no more Wen Ho Lees.”
Seattle Area Asian American Professional Organizations Joint Fall Conference,
Ladies & Gentlemen,
It is a distinct pleasure and privilege to be with you today. Seattle is my adopted hometown. When I immigrated to the United States as a refugee, not knowing a word of English, Seattle was where I landed and where I grew up. My father was a research fisheries biologist with University of Washington, and I attended Laurelhurst Elementary, Nathan Eckstein and Hamilton Junior Hi and Lincoln High School. After I went to MIT for college, I had summer jobs at Boeing. I remember working one summer as interns when we carefully updated the original engineering drawings with all the engineering changes and advanced engineering changes. We were part of Boeing’s effort in converting the military tanker KC-135 into 707, the first commercial jet liner in the world. While my contribution is not even infinitesimal, I am proud to be part of Seattle’s history. Roughly some twenty years later, I was to make a business trip to Bellevue. When I got off the elevator at the wrong floor of the then only skyscraper in Bellevue, I walked into the office where a bunch of scruffy young kids was sitting around. Unfortunately I didn’t ask if I could buy some of their stock but those were the early days of the eventual software giant that has since moved to Redmond.
So as you can see, I have some real Seattle roots, and I presume, in common with many of you in the audience. I am very proud to be a former Seattleite. However, even though I lettered in varsity tennis, I am convinced that growing up in Seattle deprived me of any chance of becoming a Michael Chang. I simply didn’t see the sun often enough.
The organizers of this conference asked me to talk about what it means for a Chinese American to be successful in America. There are many Chinese Americans more prominent than I, more accomplished and with higher net worth, so I am not sure why I have been accorded this honor. However, as I grow older, I have become more opinionated and I rarely pass up the opportunity to sound off. So here I am and I will do my best on this subject.
Even as far back as the 19th century, the Chinese made contributions to America far beyond their numbers. The transcontinental railroad could not have been built without the Chinese taking on the most dangerous, life threatening tasks. The Chinese also took on jobs that no one else wanted, operating laundries, small shops and eating places. Despite their contributions, they were not given citizenships and cannot be called Chinese Americans. When the last spike was driven to link the transcontinental railroad and a photo taken to document the occasion, no Chinese can be seen in the historic photo. Instead, the Chinese in the Wild West were beaten, robbed and frequent victims of vigilante acts.
On the shores of the San Francisco Bay, there is now a state park on a beach where the Chinese used to catch the tiny bay shrimp, dry them and ship them back to China where dried shrimp has been and continues to be a favorite flavoring agent in cooking. In those days, the shrimp had no other commercial value and attracted interest from no one else. Nevertheless, the city passed a series of ordnances that restricted or prohibited shrimping on certain times of the year and drying on the beach. All for the purpose of stifling the Chinese without being explicitly racist.
Others more authoritative than I can tell you about the unjust and unfair laws, regulations or simply racist attitudes that prevailed in the U.S. against the Chinese up to and following World War II. I will simply relate to you a couple of personal experiences of mine.
When we moved into our first house in America, it was on 4th Avenue and 47th Street in the northeast section of Seattle, between University district and Wallingford. This is now one block away from Interstate 5. After living a university housing project for three years, we moved into the house in 1952, a modest home that my father could afford. On the first day we moved in, I remember an obviously inebriated man knocking on our door to tell us that “our kind” was not welcome. That was our welcome to the neighborhood. That was how our American dream got started.
In the ‘60s, my wife and I took a vacation on Cape Hatteras in North Carolina. A beach apparel shop was plastered with signs announcing an end of season sale. Being a Chinese, I couldn’t pass up a bargain, went in and selected a beach robe. When the manager of the store rang up the regular price, I said wait a minute, wasn’t this on sale? He said only some items were but not beach robes. When I said in that case I didn’t want the item, he blew his top. He was outraged and said people like me should go back to where ever I came from.
I am sure most of you have experiences of your own to tell. Stories of slights that you still remember vividly to this day, stories that remind you that you are still a foreigner in your own country. My parents used to remind me all the time, “don’t forget you are a Chinese. Don’t do anything to embarrass us.” For me, the consequence of all this admonition was to develop an attitude, an attitude that automatically assumed that I would have to put out more than 100% of effort to get the credit that my white colleague can get with less than 100%. Along with this attitude also came the desire to always outdo the white guys in every undertaking.
Indeed I began my professional career just about when the term, “model minority,” as a way of describing the Chinese Americans, came into vogue. We were considered a model minority because we had a lower crime rate, we held tight family values and we were academic achievers. Until the politicians got hold of the term, I believe the people that referred us as “a model minority” were sincere and did it out of admiration. However, even without condescension the term has some unfortunate consequences, one of which is a mental trap, namely, the presumption that if we keep our nose clean, behave and mind our own business, we will be OK. Not getting involved means staying away from volunteer organizations and local politics.
For much of the 20th century, the model minority concept worked reasonably well. Our willingness to mind our business and know our place fitted comfortably with the mainstream’s expectation that we know our places and cause no trouble. So long as we were content and willing to settle for professional rank and file positions and not expect or demand a shot at management positions, everything was copasetic. It didn’t seem to bother us that we could be senior engineers and scientists but not managers, that we could be professors but not deans or chancellors, that we could do the heavy lifting in the national labs but not serve as lab directors. It may not have been idyllic but it was a peaceful co-existence.
In recent years our willingness to get along as second-class citizens ran into trouble. In 1989, the evil empire known as USSR began to crumble and at the same time the world saw on TV the student protest on Tiananmen Square in China getting out of hand, culminating in bloodshed and tragedy. Since that day, the man standing in front of the tanks became forever imbedded in the media’s consciousness to be re-wound and replayed every June. It became the icon that demonized China. Zhongnanhai replaced the Kremlin and the leaders of China became the butchers of Beijing. For those in America disquieted by the sudden absence of an enemy, China conveniently stepped into the void as the next evil empire.
The next event that significantly affected the lives of Chinese Americans was the election of Bill Clinton as the president of the United States. For whatever reason and for reasons really beyond the scope of my presentation, President Clinton has managed to arouse the hatred of a certain segment of the American population. These people went thru millions of taxpayers’ money to go after Bill and Hillary Clinton ranging from Whitewater to travelgate to campaign contributions to Monica Lewinsky to Los Alamos. While this was basically a domestic political squabble, somehow we Chinese American by-standers were victimized.
How were we victimized? It has been estimated that the total amount of money spent at each presidential election run in the order of $2 billion, give or take a few hundred million. No body got hot and bothered about the source of funds except for the $2 million or so that Chinese Americans were accused of raising possibly from foreign sources. The senators and pundits making the accusation couldn’t even tell the difference between Chinese Americans, Chinese from PRC, Hsilai Temple Buddhists from Taiwan, or Indonesians that are ethnic Chinese. It didn’t matter. If an ethnic Chinese was involved, it must be sinister and it must have involved Beijing trying to influence the election. Imagine for a moment, how much influence $2 million can really be in changing the course of a history with the momentum of a couple of billion dollars.
John Huang, an assistant Commerce secretary, was made into the arch villain/fund raiser, for alleged irregularities--irregularities that never came into light of day. The only consequence is that his career ended in tatters and he in financial ruin. Even the famed Cox Report after pages and pages demonizing China, Chinese and Chinese Americans had to admit that John Huang never upgraded his level of access to confidential information even though he was entitled. He was observed not taking notes during briefing and not asking for documents that he could have asked for. In other words, they couldn’t find a single disloyal act upon close scrutiny.
The Cox Report, of course, has done more to alienate the Chinese Americans than any other act since the days of Joseph McCarthy. Unfortunately, your great state of Washington is complicit in this by virtue of the minority chair of the Select Committee being headed by Congressman Norm Dix. The Democrats on this committee must have been so glad that President Clinton escaped from the Lewinski scandal that they did not even protest the publication of this report. The report distorts, exaggerates, and fabricates, all for the purpose of demonizing China and embarrassing Clinton and by innuendo implying that somehow Clinton is letting the Chinese get away with absolutely everything worth stealing. Stanford University Center for International Security and Cooperation, in a report prepared by four eminent scientists and edited by Michael May, former director of the Lawrence Livermore National Lab tore the Cox Report to shreds. They concluded and I quote: “The report lacks scholarly rigor, and exhibits too many examples of sloppy research, factual errors and weakly justified inferences”—and in my opinion the Stanford group was being kind. Again the unfortunate by-product of the hysteria created by the Cox Report is to imply that all Chinese Americans are potential spies for PRC.
The Cox Report also led directly to the Wen Ho Lee case. In January 1999, the committee leaked the word that they had uncovered evidence of espionage by China whereby China had stolen the secrets of W88 multiple warhead and that the secrets were stolen from Los Alamos. This information turns out to be based on closed-door testimony given by Notra Trulock. Trulock was absolutely certain that the secrets were stolen with the help of a Chinese American. The code name the FBI used in their investigation was “kindred spirit,” so you can see that everybody in the counterintelligence business pretty much share the same foregone conclusion as to where to look for the culprit. This information was leaked to the New York Times, which led to the immediate firing of Wen Ho Lee. The news broke on March 6 and Richardson fired Lee on March 8.
After Lee was fired, cooler heads pointed out that W88 secrets could have been pilfered from literally hundred of places and not just from Los Alamos. Further there was no real evidence, other than Trulock’s overactive imagination, that China has really co-opted the W88 design. In fact to this day, China has not been observed to have made any multiple warhead missiles. At this point in mid 1999, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson must have been getting awfully uncomfortable with eggs on his face. He could have backed off. Instead he persisted on the Lee case. In the meantime, the FBI got lucky. They were roundly criticized for failing to conduct a wide and objective investigation, but while searching Lee’s home, they found evidence of Lee having downloaded restricted data. Somebody, I don’t know if it’s the FBI or someone else upgraded the classification of the restricted data into the “crown jewel” class so as to justify arresting Lee, throwing him in solitary confinement in a cell lit around the clock, isolating him from the outside contact including TV, and subjecting him to chain and shackle for the one hour of fresh air each day.
As you all must know, the Wen Ho Lee case has become a cause celebré. Asian Americans who have been actively working on getting Wen Ho Lee fair and due process are now clamoring for an impartial panel to conduct public hearing on this case. The feeling is that until all the details of this case are out in the open, there can be no closure.
The Wen Ho Lee case has driven home a point that should be increasingly obvious to us all. Namely, uneasy lies your American dream if you are satisfied with being a second-class citizen. In our case being second-class doesn’t mean an increase probability in getting pulled off the road. You don’t fit that profile. But your loyalty is suspect and you are not entitled to the customary rights of presumed innocent until proven guilty. Even if you do your best to keep your head down and avoid trouble, trouble can come to your doorsteps anyway due to circumstances beyond your control.
Whether you like it or not, whatever your political inclination may be, and how ever you might feel about Taiwan and China, your American dream is intimately tied to the U.S. China relationship. When China is regarded as a friend of the White House and U.S. Congress, we are the model minority. When China becomes the demon in America’s eyes, we become potential enemy agents. As the campaign finance scandal has shown and as what happened to Wen Ho Lee has confirmed, to the mainstream America, a Chinese is a Chinese, or in many cases, an Asian is an Asian. They don’t care or necessarily know how to make the distinction between those that came from Mainland China or Taiwan or elsewhere in Asia or those born in America. There is no escaping the broad profile cast to fit us all.
Before concluding on where do we go from here, I would like to share with you my experiences and observations of Silicon Valley. Deloitte & Touché, my employer, conducts an annual survey of fastest growing, technology companies in America. The survey is based on the compounded growth rate in revenue over the most recent 5-year period. Every region has a list of fast 50 companies, which is consolidated into a national Fast 500. This year from Silicon Valley, the top three and five of the top eight fastest growing companies are founded and/or headed by a Chinese American CEO. In case you are interested, the five are Yahoo, Pctel, Nvidia, Broadvision and Viador. Yahoo is the only company not headed by a Chinese American CEO, but as you all know founder Jerry Yang has become a worldwide icon for the Internet age.
Even for Silicon Valley, where Asian Americans found 30% of the companies, 5 out of top 8 are pretty remarkable. I have been living and working in Silicon Valley for nearly 30 years and have had a ringside seat. I can tell you, it wasn’t always this way. Twenty years ago, Asian American entrepreneurs had to band together and form their own network and associations. Ten years ago, most of the blue ribbon venture capital funds had no Asian American partners. Today, most of them do. How did this happen? I think the current generation of successful entrepreneurs owes a debt to the pioneers who broke through the glass ceiling and proved that they can manage a company as well as doing the technical work.
David Lee founded Qume, a daisy wheel printer company, which was sold to ITT and he became one of the earliest senior executives of a Fortune 100 company. Even though public speaking is not his favorite activity, he is seen frequently in public forum sharing his experience with the younger generation. David Lam founded Lam Research, a major semiconductor equipment company. He went on to found or lead a series of companies. He is active in various associations such as Asian American Manufacturers Association and served as advisor to many other start-ups. Pauline Lo Alker is also a serial entrepreneur and widely recognized and honored for her achievements. She makes a point of allocating part of her time coaching young Asian entrepreneurs, and served as role model to young women entrepreneurs. Lester Lee founded his own company called Recortec but devotes much of his time serving on the board of Chinese related organizations. All of these people support political candidates and are involved in fund raising efforts for them. Lester was the first Chinese American to serve on the board of regent for University of California. David Lee is a current regent.
Thanks to the organizing skills of people like Barry Chang, the Bay Area has become a must visit place for Asian American political candidates in search of financial support. Your governor Gary Locke has been a regular visitor. When Barry organizes a fundraiser, he gets young people involved by getting the students to preside over the fundraiser and introduce the speakers and candidates. His goal is to get young people engaged early. Barry’s publicly stated goal is to see a Chinese American as the president of the United States.
The Wen Ho Lee Defense Fund was started by a handful of Chinese Americans in the Bay Area. We met Alberta, Lee’s daughter in September of last year, and began letters of protest, fund raising, and discussions with the media. Eventually Chinese Americans from all over the country got into the act that then pulled in other Asians and the rest of American public was made aware that justice in the Lee’s case was not being served.
Ladies and gentlemen, I think it is pretty obvious where we go from here. Second class citizenship, with or without the moniker of model minority, just isn’t going to cut it any more. Even if you can be satisfied with a permanent seat in the back of the bus, is it right to leave this legacy for future generations of Asian Americans? How can you be sure that your middle class, or even upper middle class, respectability won’t be stripped away in a moment’s notice when a scapegoat is needed? Or that you won’t be shot dead by the police because they fear your martial arts capability even if you are drunk and can barely stand, as it happened to a Chinese scientist in Santa Rosa, California? Or that you won’t be clubbed to death because some Detroit workers thought you were Japanese, as it happened to Vincent Chin?
This is only one way. That is to make sure you belong to the first class with full rights pertaining to the citizenship of the United States. If you have been living in the U.S. for any length of time, you would have heard the saying: “The squeaky wheel gets the grease.” What it means is that you will have to act like a regular citizen before you can be treated like one. Register and vote. Speak up about issues in public forum and with letters to the editor. Show up in town hall meetings with your Congressional representative. Support political candidates. Run for office. Be a volunteer in local community. Every day, look everybody in the eye with the bearing that says I belong here, this is my country too.
Thomas Jefferson said, “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” For Asian Americans, a variation should read: “Vigilant insistence of all rights due a citizen so that there will be no more Wen Ho Lees.”
Friday, October 13, 2000
The Impact of the Wen Ho Lee Case on Asian Americans
Remarks before the China Institute, New York, October 13, 2000
.
Before I begin, I want to make one point crystal clear. I am an American. I am proud to be an American. I pay my taxes, vote regularly –certainly more often than some of our candidates running for the highest offices in this land. I’ve worked as volunteer worker for candidates that I believe in, at the local and national level. I belong here. I resent that this clarification is even necessary. If my subsequent remarks seem anti- America, then I am being misunderstood. I am critical of certain institutions of America but not America. Quite the contrary, I am motivated by the desire to help make America a better place for my kids and grandkids.
As other speakers of this conference will attest, the behavior of the U.S. government in conduct of the Wen Ho Lee case has been no better, I repeat no better, than the behavior of 3rd world dictatorships that the U.S. is so wont to criticize. By now everybody should be familiar with the particulars of this case, I would simply like to summarize certain aspects relevant to how this case has affected Asian Americans—which is the topic of my presentation. However, I must acknowledge one crucial difference: in a third world country, I would not be able to stand before you and say what I am about to say. And that’s what makes this country great, unless the FBI comes and takes me away after this speech.
When this case first broke in March 1999, the presumption by the general public was that the government has caught a spy. Whether orchestrated or just happened that way, the country was at near hysteria over nuclear crown jewels allegedly stolen by China, thanks to a series of leaks from the Cox Committee. (I will come back and amplify my views on the Cox Committee.) On March 6, the New York Times trumpeted on the front page that the W-88 secrets were stolen from Los Alamos National Laboratory and the spy was a Chinese American employee in the lab. W-88 for those that might not have been following the story closely stands for multiple warhead missiles that the United States developed in the 1970s. Two days later, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson fired Dr. Wen Ho Lee. Instantly Dr. Lee was tried and convicted by the media all across the country. From then until he was arrested in December, from sunrise to sun down, Lee had four FBI agents as his constant companions. Brian Sun the attorney representing the family will be speaking and I leave it for him to describe how Dr. Lee was treated.
Now let me discuss how this case affected Chinese Americans and how they reacted. The first thing that struck some of us was the complete lack of due process in this case. The judiciary due process was turned completely upside down. Dr. Lee was presumed guilty and it was up to him to prove otherwise. Shortly after Lee’s high profile dismissal, the Committee of 100 was having their annual conference in New York on April 30 and May 1 and we invited Secretary Richardson to speak. He accepted, I believe, because he was anxious to explain his action. In fact he was to devote a significant portion of his time in ensuing months explaining, explaining to Asian American communities, explaining to the employees of the laboratories and explaining to the American public that racial profiling played no role in the victimization of Dr. Lee. Knowing that he was coming, we convinced ABC Nightline to cover his speech. We found two Chinese American scientists from Lawrence Livermore, a sister lab within the Energy Department, brave enough to come and meet with Secretary Richardson to tell him about racial prejudice that has been running through the laboratories and now exacerbated by the Wen Ho Lee case. Again, I expect that Ms. Kalin Wong will address more fully this issue of racial discrimination in our national laboratories.
Nightline didn’t run this program until June because Kosovo was a hot topic in May. The Nightline program was the first nation-wide media coverage of the case that suggested that there might be more to the story than simply a case of a Chinese American spy. If you saw the program, you would see that Secretary Richardson did not come out particularly well in this 30-minute piece. His image was tarnished even further by the CBS 60 Minutes piece that came out in August.
In latter part of May, the much-ballyhooed report from the House Select Committee headed by Congressman Christopher Cox was finally released. Henry Tang, the chairman of the Committee sent me a copy in time for my business trip to Korea, and I read over much of the 900-page report while on my trip. 900 pages may seem a lot to you, but actually it was a fairly easy read. The hard part was lugging the report around. The report unlike most government publications is nicely formatted, with a lot of photos and colorful charts, in large fonts and full of statements in bold face. It is a slick piece of work. More like a product of Madison Avenue than staid Capitol Hill.
The only problem with this report is that it contains flat out misrepresentations, gross exaggerations, flying leaps of logic and claims that cannot stand up to rigorous scrutiny. As a matter of fact, an immediate chorus of ridicule and protest from the public greeted this report culminating in a 100 page report from Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation prepared by four eminent scientists and edited by Michael May, former director of the Lawrence Livermore National Lab. The Stanford study tore the Cox Report to shreds. They concluded and I quote: “The report lacks scholarly rigor, and exhibits too many examples of sloppy research, factual errors and weakly justified inferences”—and in my opinion the Stanford group was being kind.
One of many accusations in the Cox report is China’s theft of the W88 multiple head missiles. Former Senator Warren B. Rudman (R-N.H.), is the chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which made an independent review of the espionage allegations at the request of President Clinton and in response to the Cox Report. He said in a recent interview appearing in the Washington Post, "It is my belief that there was no espionage involved with the W-88 data obtained by the Chinese.” As far as China's new, smaller warhead, Rudman said, "What they did, they did on their own."
The reason I am dwelling so much on the Cox Report is not just because this is the most disgusting and disgraceful piece of work to come out of Congress since Senator Joseph McCarthy days, which it is, but because this report victimized all Chinese Americans living in this country. This report accused China of practicing mosaic espionage. What they mean by this is that China is patient and willing to collect random tidbits and piece them together into one devastating breach in national security. And who do they turn to, to collect these tidbits? Why the Chinese Americans living in this country, of course. The so-called kindred spirits that FBI also referred to in the Los Alamos case. What sort of evidence did the Cox Report offer to back up their claim? Nothing. Zippo. Not one shred of hard data.
Let me give you just one example of how the Cox committee reached their conclusions. The report indicates that the State Department can identify 2 companies from China based in the U.S. with connections to the People’s Liberation Army. The AFL-CIO, no friend of China as you all know, thinks it closer to 12 or more. The Committee concludes that the number is closer to 3000! 3000 companies sent from China connected to the PLA for the ostensible purpose of collecting tidbits big and small. Where did the committee arrive at the 3000 number? The report did not say. The report then talks about the 100,000 students from China that are in the U.S. and goes on to speculate about the instructions they were given by the Beijing government on the kind of information they should collect. The report makes no distinction between visitors from China on a short trip and those that might be living in the U.S. as permanent residents. The implication is that all Chinese Americans are potential spies.
The federal prosecutors slapped 59 charges including possibility of life imprisonment on Dr. Lee to end up with one admission of guilt for time served. The Cox Committee took 2 companies from the State and blew it up into 3000 sinister covert operations. Do you not see a common pattern here?
The Cox committee is not the only one subscribing to this line of thinking. Notra Trulock, the former chief of counter-intelligence, according to the press reports I have read, was absolutely convinced that China had stolen the multiple nuclear warhead missile technology from the U.S., the so-called W-88 missile. And he, Trulock knew exactly how it happened. Los Alamos was where the leaks occurred and a Chinese American scientist was where to look. Of course, some time after Trulock received a commendation and $10,000 cash award from Richardson, others point out that information on the W-88 could have been obtained in literally hundreds of places. Still others in addition to Senator Rudman question whether China really had taken the W-88 secrets and how useful the technology developed in 1970’s would have been for China. According to numerous published sources such as a recent article in Current History, to this day China has yet to build any multiple head missiles.
Bob Vrooman is also on today’s program and perhaps he will share his views of Trulock with you. Let me simply quote Charles E. Washington, former acting director of counterintelligence at the Energy Department, who said, "Based on my experience and my personal knowledge, I believe that Mr. Trulock improperly targeted Dr. Lee due to Dr. Lee's race and national origin." He goes on to say, "Based upon my personal experience with Mr. Trulock, I strongly believe that he acts vindictively and opportunistically, that he improperly uses security issues to punish and discredit others, and that he has racist views toward minority groups.”
Mr. Trulock of course isn’t the only one with bigoted views working inside our government. Until their recent falling out, FBI apparently shares Trulock’s view. Throughout their investigation of Los Alamos and Wen Ho Lee, the code name was “kindred spirit.” Kindred spirit, not too subtle are they? Certainly sounds like they knew who their man was going to be even before they started their investigation, doesn’t it? After Dr. Wen Ho Lee was fired by Richardson, Mr. Paul Moore, another speaker in today’s program, was seen on Jim Lehrer’s hour proclaiming that yes, FBI practices racial profiling but that’s because The People’s Republic of China targets Chinese Americans as their preferred sources. In other words, the Chinese made them do it. Mr. Moore did not offer any proof for his statements but claims to know that this is the case, based on his experience from some 20 years of his career with the FBI. In a way very convenient, when Mr. Moore went public with his theory about the Chinese method to spying, he had already retired from FBI so that his remarks cannot be used to directly discredit FBI.
Of course since Mr. Moore went public with his theory of mosaic spying, there have been many others in government and in the intelligence business that have directly refuted his theory. For example, again I quote Mr. Washington: “In the counterintelligence training I have received and in my counterintelligence experience, I am unaware of any empirical data that would support a claim that Chinese- Americans are more likely to commit espionage than other Americans. Further, I know of no analysis whatsoever that has been done as to whether American citizens born in Taiwan would be more likely to commit espionage for the People's Republic of China.”
Since America is founded on the principle that a man or an ethnic group is innocent until proven guilty, I will say no more but defer to Mr. Moore to make his case. Hopefully he will have more specific and convincing evidence to present today than simply requiring us to accept his word on good faith.
Based on FBI conduct on the Lee case, good faith is not going to be easy to come by. The FBI lied to Lee and lied to the presiding judge. The FBI interrogators threatened Lee with the electric chair. They rejected the results of the first test, which Lee passed—with flying colors according to the tester but now according to FBI director Louie Freeh was inconclusive. The FBI re-administered the lie detector test under such conditions as to come up with “inconclusive” results. They did what they had to do so that the government can justify arresting Lee, deny him bail and throw him in solitary confinement, in a 7 by 13 cell with the light turned on around the clock, restrict his access to outside contact including TV and chain and shackled him for his one hour of exercise per day.
You might ask: Why would the most democratic nation in the world, the one that goes around monitoring and criticizing other nations for real and imagined abuses of human rights, resort to the very Gestapo tactics that they normally deplore? We will not likely ever get an official response to this question but the answer is clear to me. They thought they could intimidate a 5 ft 4, 60 year old Chinese man, they thought they could apply enough pressure to get him to cave in and sign a confession, any confession to get them off the hook. Unfortunately for Lee and his tormentors, this is a case of cultural misunderstanding. They simply did not understand that the quiet, mild manner demeanor of an Asian scholar does not mean the person is a willing foil easily run over and coerced. To his credit, Dr. Lee came out of the nine months of solitary by authoring a textbook in mathematics and two scientific journal articles. I don’t think there are many of us that could have done as well in such an enforced sabbatical.
So what has this case done to this country?
We saw a presiding judge apologize to Lee, who had to strike the bargain of becoming a convicted felon for his freedom. Before dismissing Lee, Judge Parker apologizes to him for the prosecutorial abuse by the U.S. government. If this isn’t unprecedented, I don’t know what is.
We saw the most influential news daily of America, namely the New York Times, publish a self-criticism in the form of an editor’s review acknowledging that “we fell short of our standards on our coverage of this story.” The editors generously fell on their own sword and did not put the blame on the offending reporters, saying “the blame lies principally with those who directed the coverage, for not raising questions that occurred to us only later.”
We saw the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine collectively write to the president asking for due process for Lee. These organizations represent the highest scientific bodies in this country.
We also heard the lamentations of the directors of the national labs because Asian Americans and foreign-born scientists are not applying for positions at the labs. Not only no new applications, but they are leaving in droves. The direct aftermath of this case is shattered morale among the staff of the national labs. No spy whatever the origin could have wreaked as much damage as the Department of Energy, the Congress, the FBI and the Department of Justice have done to our national security in their handling of this case.
As a most thoughtful op-ed appearing in points out: America has always depended on immigrant scientists to retain her superiority as the world leader in technology. This case has now sent a chilling message to all foreign born scientists whether they are working here or contemplating coming to heretofore the land of opportunity. If you can work for 20 years in a national lab and still risk sudden dismissal, get thrown into jail and have your life turned inside out, the American dream suddenly doesn’t look quite so golden. It remains to be seen how this self-inflicted gash on our national psyche will heal.
What has not changed is the almost reflexive reaction of those in the government to stonewall and if possible finish the scapegoating of Wen Ho Lee they began in jail. FBI director Freeh insists that they could have won if they persisted and Lee is really guilty of the 59 counts. Oh really now. Attorney General Reno insists that when national security is at stake, draconian measures such as those levied against Lee is justified.
While the potential abuse of prosecutorial power in the name of national security is a matter of concern raised by many, the Asian Americans have found Reno’s justification viscerally troubling. They remember when President Franklin Roosevelt also invoked the threat to national security as justification for putting 100,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry behind barb-wired detention camps. Attorney General Reno may have forgotten but not the Asian Americans.
Dr. Lee’s case may well represent a new dawn for Asian Americans in this country. He himself represents the old school Chinese American. He does note vote. He minds his own business and he doesn’t get involved. He doesn’t even read the newspapers according to his daughter. He is fortunate that he is living in an era where not all Chinese Americans and Asian Americans are like him. First, he is lucky to have been introduced to a Mark Holscher, a thoroughly decent man and former federal prosecutor, who was so moved by the injustice that he not only served pro bono but also recruited others to the cause. Second, he found enough Asian Americans that are no longer willing to be passive bystanders.
In September of last year, Lee’s daughter, Alberta, Brian Sun and Mark Holscher came to the Bay area to tell their story before a group of Chinese Americans. This was the beginning of the Wen Ho Lee Defense Fund. When the San Jose Mercury News reported this meeting, it was one of the earliest public indications that not everybody agreed with the way the government was stating the case.
Early this year, the Committee of 100 organized a three-hour, nation-wide conference call involving some 20 organizations followed by a series of calls with smaller groups to hammer out a letter of concern on the Wen Ho Lee case sent to President Clinton and Attorney General Reno. San Francisco based Chinese for Affirmative Action and Asian Law Caucus organized a national coalition, which staged simultaneous multi-city protests of the government’s treatment of Wen Ho Lee. From coast to coast, Chinese Americans got involved. They also got Asian Americans involved and eventually mainstream noticed. Our activism in getting all the facts out led to public reflection and played to the American sense of fairness and justice. Mainstream organizations ranging from scientific and professional societies to American Civil Liberties Union to Amnesty International and eventually to all the major daily newspapers joined in the national indignation and condemnation.
So have we won? Not by a long shot. Not until there is a blue ribbon panel, impartial and unburdened by politics, look into the origin of this case. We need answers to at least the following questions:
(1) Why is it that if China is so prolific in their recruiting and spying activity, the Cox Report names only one Chinese American as having passed information to China? Mind you, this person was sentenced to 12 months in a halfway house, fined and made to do certain number of hours of community service. Hardly an Aldrich Ames serving life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
(2) While we are on this vein, perhaps we should ask the FBI as to how many spies they have apprehended versus the number of Chinese American scientists they have intimidated and badgered for no justifiable cause? I personally know of several victims in the Bay Area whose careers were destroyed by the FBI. Mr. Moore for example spent 20 years allegedly monitoring the Chinese in America, how many arrests and convictions can he claim? Parenthetically, in my early days of going to China on business, I would be interviewed by CIA agents and sometimes by FBI agents on my return. I cooperated willingly thinking that I was helping our government better understand China. Little did I know that I was participating in reverse mosaic espionage.
(3) I would like to know where the oft-used reference to the 400,000 pages of nuclear secret came from. If 800 megabytes of downloaded data consist of only text, it would approximate 13 stories of paper, as prosecutor Bay likes to dramatize. But 800 MB of equations, graphs, drawings can be rather unspectacular in the amount of paper it would take. I don’t know if the prosecutors are ignorant of subtleties of computer software or just plain prone to exaggerate.
(4) I certainly would like to know if racial profiling entered into this case and if so the respective role of Notra Trulock, the FBI, the federal prosecutors and senior members of the Clinton Administration. The defense asked for government documents that would reveal whether racial profiling had anything to do with this case. Presiding Judge Parker was about to grant this request when the case was settled. I believe the American people have a right to know the content of these documents. Only a public inquiry has any chance of giving us the answers.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have not won until all Asian Americans are treated just like any other citizens in this country. We have not won until we are represented in government leadership positions as well as in worker bee positions. We have not won until we get paid the same amount for same work done. We have not won until we are not automatically assumed to be a foreign spy unless we can prove otherwise. We have not won, if people still ask us where we came from.
Asian Americans have been energized by the Wen Ho Lee case, but this is not the end of the story. Did you know that when San Jose Mercury News first broke the story about Bay Area Chinese Americans meeting with Lee’s daughter and defense team, the reporter got crank phone calls and threatening email? Someone should ask the newspaper if the reason for reassigning the Wen Ho Lee beat to Dan Stober from the original Chinese American journalist wasn’t because of their concerns of racist backlash.
Most recently, William Safire, the senior columnist of New York Times and well-known cold war dinosaur, is still using the term “anti-McCarthyism” in a pejorative sense. In his essay dated September 25, 2000 commenting on the Wen ho Lee case, he observes that “anti-McCarthyism suppressed anti-Communism once before.” Clearly anti-Communism is his Holy Grail and he certainly doesn’t see anything wrong with McCarthyism if that will get him the Holy Grail.
Tony Hillerman, arguably the best known fiction writer from New Mexico, where the Lee case originated, said, “A lot of us were deeply concerned about what they (the Justice department) were doing to the U.S. Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Dr. Lee is an American citizen. If he could be locked up without bail and without trial in violation of our basic law, how safe are the rest of us?” Until we have an overwhelming majority of Hillermans and until we can consign Safires to the endangered species list, we have not won.
Thomas Jefferson said, "Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty.” A logical corollary for Asian Americans should read: vigilant insistence on all rights due us as American citizens or there will be more Wen Ho Lees.
.
Before I begin, I want to make one point crystal clear. I am an American. I am proud to be an American. I pay my taxes, vote regularly –certainly more often than some of our candidates running for the highest offices in this land. I’ve worked as volunteer worker for candidates that I believe in, at the local and national level. I belong here. I resent that this clarification is even necessary. If my subsequent remarks seem anti- America, then I am being misunderstood. I am critical of certain institutions of America but not America. Quite the contrary, I am motivated by the desire to help make America a better place for my kids and grandkids.
As other speakers of this conference will attest, the behavior of the U.S. government in conduct of the Wen Ho Lee case has been no better, I repeat no better, than the behavior of 3rd world dictatorships that the U.S. is so wont to criticize. By now everybody should be familiar with the particulars of this case, I would simply like to summarize certain aspects relevant to how this case has affected Asian Americans—which is the topic of my presentation. However, I must acknowledge one crucial difference: in a third world country, I would not be able to stand before you and say what I am about to say. And that’s what makes this country great, unless the FBI comes and takes me away after this speech.
When this case first broke in March 1999, the presumption by the general public was that the government has caught a spy. Whether orchestrated or just happened that way, the country was at near hysteria over nuclear crown jewels allegedly stolen by China, thanks to a series of leaks from the Cox Committee. (I will come back and amplify my views on the Cox Committee.) On March 6, the New York Times trumpeted on the front page that the W-88 secrets were stolen from Los Alamos National Laboratory and the spy was a Chinese American employee in the lab. W-88 for those that might not have been following the story closely stands for multiple warhead missiles that the United States developed in the 1970s. Two days later, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson fired Dr. Wen Ho Lee. Instantly Dr. Lee was tried and convicted by the media all across the country. From then until he was arrested in December, from sunrise to sun down, Lee had four FBI agents as his constant companions. Brian Sun the attorney representing the family will be speaking and I leave it for him to describe how Dr. Lee was treated.
Now let me discuss how this case affected Chinese Americans and how they reacted. The first thing that struck some of us was the complete lack of due process in this case. The judiciary due process was turned completely upside down. Dr. Lee was presumed guilty and it was up to him to prove otherwise. Shortly after Lee’s high profile dismissal, the Committee of 100 was having their annual conference in New York on April 30 and May 1 and we invited Secretary Richardson to speak. He accepted, I believe, because he was anxious to explain his action. In fact he was to devote a significant portion of his time in ensuing months explaining, explaining to Asian American communities, explaining to the employees of the laboratories and explaining to the American public that racial profiling played no role in the victimization of Dr. Lee. Knowing that he was coming, we convinced ABC Nightline to cover his speech. We found two Chinese American scientists from Lawrence Livermore, a sister lab within the Energy Department, brave enough to come and meet with Secretary Richardson to tell him about racial prejudice that has been running through the laboratories and now exacerbated by the Wen Ho Lee case. Again, I expect that Ms. Kalin Wong will address more fully this issue of racial discrimination in our national laboratories.
Nightline didn’t run this program until June because Kosovo was a hot topic in May. The Nightline program was the first nation-wide media coverage of the case that suggested that there might be more to the story than simply a case of a Chinese American spy. If you saw the program, you would see that Secretary Richardson did not come out particularly well in this 30-minute piece. His image was tarnished even further by the CBS 60 Minutes piece that came out in August.
In latter part of May, the much-ballyhooed report from the House Select Committee headed by Congressman Christopher Cox was finally released. Henry Tang, the chairman of the Committee sent me a copy in time for my business trip to Korea, and I read over much of the 900-page report while on my trip. 900 pages may seem a lot to you, but actually it was a fairly easy read. The hard part was lugging the report around. The report unlike most government publications is nicely formatted, with a lot of photos and colorful charts, in large fonts and full of statements in bold face. It is a slick piece of work. More like a product of Madison Avenue than staid Capitol Hill.
The only problem with this report is that it contains flat out misrepresentations, gross exaggerations, flying leaps of logic and claims that cannot stand up to rigorous scrutiny. As a matter of fact, an immediate chorus of ridicule and protest from the public greeted this report culminating in a 100 page report from Stanford Center for International Security and Cooperation prepared by four eminent scientists and edited by Michael May, former director of the Lawrence Livermore National Lab. The Stanford study tore the Cox Report to shreds. They concluded and I quote: “The report lacks scholarly rigor, and exhibits too many examples of sloppy research, factual errors and weakly justified inferences”—and in my opinion the Stanford group was being kind.
One of many accusations in the Cox report is China’s theft of the W88 multiple head missiles. Former Senator Warren B. Rudman (R-N.H.), is the chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, which made an independent review of the espionage allegations at the request of President Clinton and in response to the Cox Report. He said in a recent interview appearing in the Washington Post, "It is my belief that there was no espionage involved with the W-88 data obtained by the Chinese.” As far as China's new, smaller warhead, Rudman said, "What they did, they did on their own."
The reason I am dwelling so much on the Cox Report is not just because this is the most disgusting and disgraceful piece of work to come out of Congress since Senator Joseph McCarthy days, which it is, but because this report victimized all Chinese Americans living in this country. This report accused China of practicing mosaic espionage. What they mean by this is that China is patient and willing to collect random tidbits and piece them together into one devastating breach in national security. And who do they turn to, to collect these tidbits? Why the Chinese Americans living in this country, of course. The so-called kindred spirits that FBI also referred to in the Los Alamos case. What sort of evidence did the Cox Report offer to back up their claim? Nothing. Zippo. Not one shred of hard data.
Let me give you just one example of how the Cox committee reached their conclusions. The report indicates that the State Department can identify 2 companies from China based in the U.S. with connections to the People’s Liberation Army. The AFL-CIO, no friend of China as you all know, thinks it closer to 12 or more. The Committee concludes that the number is closer to 3000! 3000 companies sent from China connected to the PLA for the ostensible purpose of collecting tidbits big and small. Where did the committee arrive at the 3000 number? The report did not say. The report then talks about the 100,000 students from China that are in the U.S. and goes on to speculate about the instructions they were given by the Beijing government on the kind of information they should collect. The report makes no distinction between visitors from China on a short trip and those that might be living in the U.S. as permanent residents. The implication is that all Chinese Americans are potential spies.
The federal prosecutors slapped 59 charges including possibility of life imprisonment on Dr. Lee to end up with one admission of guilt for time served. The Cox Committee took 2 companies from the State and blew it up into 3000 sinister covert operations. Do you not see a common pattern here?
The Cox committee is not the only one subscribing to this line of thinking. Notra Trulock, the former chief of counter-intelligence, according to the press reports I have read, was absolutely convinced that China had stolen the multiple nuclear warhead missile technology from the U.S., the so-called W-88 missile. And he, Trulock knew exactly how it happened. Los Alamos was where the leaks occurred and a Chinese American scientist was where to look. Of course, some time after Trulock received a commendation and $10,000 cash award from Richardson, others point out that information on the W-88 could have been obtained in literally hundreds of places. Still others in addition to Senator Rudman question whether China really had taken the W-88 secrets and how useful the technology developed in 1970’s would have been for China. According to numerous published sources such as a recent article in Current History, to this day China has yet to build any multiple head missiles.
Bob Vrooman is also on today’s program and perhaps he will share his views of Trulock with you. Let me simply quote Charles E. Washington, former acting director of counterintelligence at the Energy Department, who said, "Based on my experience and my personal knowledge, I believe that Mr. Trulock improperly targeted Dr. Lee due to Dr. Lee's race and national origin." He goes on to say, "Based upon my personal experience with Mr. Trulock, I strongly believe that he acts vindictively and opportunistically, that he improperly uses security issues to punish and discredit others, and that he has racist views toward minority groups.”
Mr. Trulock of course isn’t the only one with bigoted views working inside our government. Until their recent falling out, FBI apparently shares Trulock’s view. Throughout their investigation of Los Alamos and Wen Ho Lee, the code name was “kindred spirit.” Kindred spirit, not too subtle are they? Certainly sounds like they knew who their man was going to be even before they started their investigation, doesn’t it? After Dr. Wen Ho Lee was fired by Richardson, Mr. Paul Moore, another speaker in today’s program, was seen on Jim Lehrer’s hour proclaiming that yes, FBI practices racial profiling but that’s because The People’s Republic of China targets Chinese Americans as their preferred sources. In other words, the Chinese made them do it. Mr. Moore did not offer any proof for his statements but claims to know that this is the case, based on his experience from some 20 years of his career with the FBI. In a way very convenient, when Mr. Moore went public with his theory about the Chinese method to spying, he had already retired from FBI so that his remarks cannot be used to directly discredit FBI.
Of course since Mr. Moore went public with his theory of mosaic spying, there have been many others in government and in the intelligence business that have directly refuted his theory. For example, again I quote Mr. Washington: “In the counterintelligence training I have received and in my counterintelligence experience, I am unaware of any empirical data that would support a claim that Chinese- Americans are more likely to commit espionage than other Americans. Further, I know of no analysis whatsoever that has been done as to whether American citizens born in Taiwan would be more likely to commit espionage for the People's Republic of China.”
Since America is founded on the principle that a man or an ethnic group is innocent until proven guilty, I will say no more but defer to Mr. Moore to make his case. Hopefully he will have more specific and convincing evidence to present today than simply requiring us to accept his word on good faith.
Based on FBI conduct on the Lee case, good faith is not going to be easy to come by. The FBI lied to Lee and lied to the presiding judge. The FBI interrogators threatened Lee with the electric chair. They rejected the results of the first test, which Lee passed—with flying colors according to the tester but now according to FBI director Louie Freeh was inconclusive. The FBI re-administered the lie detector test under such conditions as to come up with “inconclusive” results. They did what they had to do so that the government can justify arresting Lee, deny him bail and throw him in solitary confinement, in a 7 by 13 cell with the light turned on around the clock, restrict his access to outside contact including TV and chain and shackled him for his one hour of exercise per day.
You might ask: Why would the most democratic nation in the world, the one that goes around monitoring and criticizing other nations for real and imagined abuses of human rights, resort to the very Gestapo tactics that they normally deplore? We will not likely ever get an official response to this question but the answer is clear to me. They thought they could intimidate a 5 ft 4, 60 year old Chinese man, they thought they could apply enough pressure to get him to cave in and sign a confession, any confession to get them off the hook. Unfortunately for Lee and his tormentors, this is a case of cultural misunderstanding. They simply did not understand that the quiet, mild manner demeanor of an Asian scholar does not mean the person is a willing foil easily run over and coerced. To his credit, Dr. Lee came out of the nine months of solitary by authoring a textbook in mathematics and two scientific journal articles. I don’t think there are many of us that could have done as well in such an enforced sabbatical.
So what has this case done to this country?
We saw a presiding judge apologize to Lee, who had to strike the bargain of becoming a convicted felon for his freedom. Before dismissing Lee, Judge Parker apologizes to him for the prosecutorial abuse by the U.S. government. If this isn’t unprecedented, I don’t know what is.
We saw the most influential news daily of America, namely the New York Times, publish a self-criticism in the form of an editor’s review acknowledging that “we fell short of our standards on our coverage of this story.” The editors generously fell on their own sword and did not put the blame on the offending reporters, saying “the blame lies principally with those who directed the coverage, for not raising questions that occurred to us only later.”
We saw the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine collectively write to the president asking for due process for Lee. These organizations represent the highest scientific bodies in this country.
We also heard the lamentations of the directors of the national labs because Asian Americans and foreign-born scientists are not applying for positions at the labs. Not only no new applications, but they are leaving in droves. The direct aftermath of this case is shattered morale among the staff of the national labs. No spy whatever the origin could have wreaked as much damage as the Department of Energy, the Congress, the FBI and the Department of Justice have done to our national security in their handling of this case.
As a most thoughtful op-ed appearing in points out: America has always depended on immigrant scientists to retain her superiority as the world leader in technology. This case has now sent a chilling message to all foreign born scientists whether they are working here or contemplating coming to heretofore the land of opportunity. If you can work for 20 years in a national lab and still risk sudden dismissal, get thrown into jail and have your life turned inside out, the American dream suddenly doesn’t look quite so golden. It remains to be seen how this self-inflicted gash on our national psyche will heal.
What has not changed is the almost reflexive reaction of those in the government to stonewall and if possible finish the scapegoating of Wen Ho Lee they began in jail. FBI director Freeh insists that they could have won if they persisted and Lee is really guilty of the 59 counts. Oh really now. Attorney General Reno insists that when national security is at stake, draconian measures such as those levied against Lee is justified.
While the potential abuse of prosecutorial power in the name of national security is a matter of concern raised by many, the Asian Americans have found Reno’s justification viscerally troubling. They remember when President Franklin Roosevelt also invoked the threat to national security as justification for putting 100,000 Americans of Japanese ancestry behind barb-wired detention camps. Attorney General Reno may have forgotten but not the Asian Americans.
Dr. Lee’s case may well represent a new dawn for Asian Americans in this country. He himself represents the old school Chinese American. He does note vote. He minds his own business and he doesn’t get involved. He doesn’t even read the newspapers according to his daughter. He is fortunate that he is living in an era where not all Chinese Americans and Asian Americans are like him. First, he is lucky to have been introduced to a Mark Holscher, a thoroughly decent man and former federal prosecutor, who was so moved by the injustice that he not only served pro bono but also recruited others to the cause. Second, he found enough Asian Americans that are no longer willing to be passive bystanders.
In September of last year, Lee’s daughter, Alberta, Brian Sun and Mark Holscher came to the Bay area to tell their story before a group of Chinese Americans. This was the beginning of the Wen Ho Lee Defense Fund. When the San Jose Mercury News reported this meeting, it was one of the earliest public indications that not everybody agreed with the way the government was stating the case.
Early this year, the Committee of 100 organized a three-hour, nation-wide conference call involving some 20 organizations followed by a series of calls with smaller groups to hammer out a letter of concern on the Wen Ho Lee case sent to President Clinton and Attorney General Reno. San Francisco based Chinese for Affirmative Action and Asian Law Caucus organized a national coalition, which staged simultaneous multi-city protests of the government’s treatment of Wen Ho Lee. From coast to coast, Chinese Americans got involved. They also got Asian Americans involved and eventually mainstream noticed. Our activism in getting all the facts out led to public reflection and played to the American sense of fairness and justice. Mainstream organizations ranging from scientific and professional societies to American Civil Liberties Union to Amnesty International and eventually to all the major daily newspapers joined in the national indignation and condemnation.
So have we won? Not by a long shot. Not until there is a blue ribbon panel, impartial and unburdened by politics, look into the origin of this case. We need answers to at least the following questions:
(1) Why is it that if China is so prolific in their recruiting and spying activity, the Cox Report names only one Chinese American as having passed information to China? Mind you, this person was sentenced to 12 months in a halfway house, fined and made to do certain number of hours of community service. Hardly an Aldrich Ames serving life imprisonment without possibility of parole.
(2) While we are on this vein, perhaps we should ask the FBI as to how many spies they have apprehended versus the number of Chinese American scientists they have intimidated and badgered for no justifiable cause? I personally know of several victims in the Bay Area whose careers were destroyed by the FBI. Mr. Moore for example spent 20 years allegedly monitoring the Chinese in America, how many arrests and convictions can he claim? Parenthetically, in my early days of going to China on business, I would be interviewed by CIA agents and sometimes by FBI agents on my return. I cooperated willingly thinking that I was helping our government better understand China. Little did I know that I was participating in reverse mosaic espionage.
(3) I would like to know where the oft-used reference to the 400,000 pages of nuclear secret came from. If 800 megabytes of downloaded data consist of only text, it would approximate 13 stories of paper, as prosecutor Bay likes to dramatize. But 800 MB of equations, graphs, drawings can be rather unspectacular in the amount of paper it would take. I don’t know if the prosecutors are ignorant of subtleties of computer software or just plain prone to exaggerate.
(4) I certainly would like to know if racial profiling entered into this case and if so the respective role of Notra Trulock, the FBI, the federal prosecutors and senior members of the Clinton Administration. The defense asked for government documents that would reveal whether racial profiling had anything to do with this case. Presiding Judge Parker was about to grant this request when the case was settled. I believe the American people have a right to know the content of these documents. Only a public inquiry has any chance of giving us the answers.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have not won until all Asian Americans are treated just like any other citizens in this country. We have not won until we are represented in government leadership positions as well as in worker bee positions. We have not won until we get paid the same amount for same work done. We have not won until we are not automatically assumed to be a foreign spy unless we can prove otherwise. We have not won, if people still ask us where we came from.
Asian Americans have been energized by the Wen Ho Lee case, but this is not the end of the story. Did you know that when San Jose Mercury News first broke the story about Bay Area Chinese Americans meeting with Lee’s daughter and defense team, the reporter got crank phone calls and threatening email? Someone should ask the newspaper if the reason for reassigning the Wen Ho Lee beat to Dan Stober from the original Chinese American journalist wasn’t because of their concerns of racist backlash.
Most recently, William Safire, the senior columnist of New York Times and well-known cold war dinosaur, is still using the term “anti-McCarthyism” in a pejorative sense. In his essay dated September 25, 2000 commenting on the Wen ho Lee case, he observes that “anti-McCarthyism suppressed anti-Communism once before.” Clearly anti-Communism is his Holy Grail and he certainly doesn’t see anything wrong with McCarthyism if that will get him the Holy Grail.
Tony Hillerman, arguably the best known fiction writer from New Mexico, where the Lee case originated, said, “A lot of us were deeply concerned about what they (the Justice department) were doing to the U.S. Constitution and our Bill of Rights. Dr. Lee is an American citizen. If he could be locked up without bail and without trial in violation of our basic law, how safe are the rest of us?” Until we have an overwhelming majority of Hillermans and until we can consign Safires to the endangered species list, we have not won.
Thomas Jefferson said, "Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Liberty.” A logical corollary for Asian Americans should read: vigilant insistence on all rights due us as American citizens or there will be more Wen Ho Lees.
Thursday, September 21, 2000
Only An Open Public Inquiry Can Put The The Wen Ho Lee Case To Rest
Pacific News Service, George Koo, Posted: Sep 21, 2000
Editor's Note: Wen Ho Lee is no longer in solitary confinement or awaiting trial. But the case is by no means resolved, and the host of unanswered questions can only be answered by an open public investigation. PNS commentator George Koo is a business consultant and a member of Committee of 100, a national organization of prominent Chinese Americans.
Dr. Wen Ho Lee pleaded guilty to one felony count of downloading classified information in exchange for his freedom. But we haven't heard the last of this case, much as the Justice Department and the FBI would like to put it behind them.
Perhaps the strangest episode in this entire affair came when the presiding judge delivered a 30-minute apology to Lee. Judge Parker excoriated the government for prosecutorial abuse and calculated efforts to mislead him into denying Lee bail and keeping him in solitary confinement.
The media reacted with their own critical crescendo, pointing out that those guilty of a comparable offense would have received, at most, an administrative reprimand.
The Asian American community has been saying all along that Lee is a victim of racial profiling, a scapegoat caught in the crossfire of domestic politics. That claim now resonates among the general public.
Even President Bill Clinton felt compelled to publicly criticize the Justice Department for its handling of this case.
Norman Bay, U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, suddenly became highly visible. He insisted on ABC Nightline that Lee compiled "a personal library of highly sensitive nuclear secrets" and that "this information represented a complete design portfolio for nuclear weapons."
Unfortunately, the commentator did not ask Bay why he insists on the "crown jewel" depiction of the material even after world-renowned experts have dismissed it as so much malarkey.
Bay, a Chinese American, was appointed to replace John Kelly who resigned to run for Congress. On the same program, Bay even volunteered that Lee reminded him of his own father, and that there is no way he would have been a part of racially profiling such a father-like figure.
Unfortunately, due to its conduct in this case, the government has exhausted its credibility. There is only one way to stop the competition for the public mind between the government and its critics. Only an open and fair public inquiry can restore confidence in the Department of Justice and the legal system, and render to all the actors of this tragic comedy their due.
Let the inquiry examine the documents Judge Parker requested from the government to determine whether racial profiling had any basis in fact.
Let a panel of qualified experts examine the codes Lee downloaded, to determine whether this "represented a complete design portfolio for nuclear weapons" or merely a compilation of Lee's work in hydrodynamics.
If it's the latter, Bay should be asked to justify why he is still crooning the same old tune.
If the download really involved vital material, why was it classified merely as restricted data? Who ordered the classification upgraded after discovering that Lee had downloaded it? Why settle for only one out of 59 charges?
Let the panel discover who made the decision to deprive Lee of due process and his human rights. Why was he kept in solitary confinement with the light on 24 hours a day if not for psychological intimidation to force a confession?
Who ordered rigging a lie detector test to produce inconclusive results in order to justify threatening Lee? Who ordered the FBI agents interrogating Lee to lie and tell him that he failed the first test? What happened to the FBI agent who could not stomach the proceedings and got herself reassigned?
What role die Notra Trulock play -- did he put the finger on Lee as head of counter-intelligence at Department of Energy? Did he violate federal statutes and leak information to the New York Times that put the spy scandal into high gear?
What was the official reason for Energy Secretary Bill Richardson awarding Trulock with $10,000 cash? What did Richardson know about Lee's case and when did he know it?
Who insisted on indicting Lee -- was it Richardson who couldn't stand looking foolish, or prosecuting attorney John Kelly, who thought the publicity would give him a head start in his race for Congress?
A lot of questions about the Wen Ho Lee case are unanswered, and will stay so until there is an open inquiry. Until the public knows, the government will be viewed with distrust and scorn.
Congressman George Miller (D-CA) has called for a blue-ribbon panel to look into the case and "see how we can better safeguard the rights and liberties of all American citizens." Let the healing process begin.
Editor's Note: Wen Ho Lee is no longer in solitary confinement or awaiting trial. But the case is by no means resolved, and the host of unanswered questions can only be answered by an open public investigation. PNS commentator George Koo is a business consultant and a member of Committee of 100, a national organization of prominent Chinese Americans.
Dr. Wen Ho Lee pleaded guilty to one felony count of downloading classified information in exchange for his freedom. But we haven't heard the last of this case, much as the Justice Department and the FBI would like to put it behind them.
Perhaps the strangest episode in this entire affair came when the presiding judge delivered a 30-minute apology to Lee. Judge Parker excoriated the government for prosecutorial abuse and calculated efforts to mislead him into denying Lee bail and keeping him in solitary confinement.
The media reacted with their own critical crescendo, pointing out that those guilty of a comparable offense would have received, at most, an administrative reprimand.
The Asian American community has been saying all along that Lee is a victim of racial profiling, a scapegoat caught in the crossfire of domestic politics. That claim now resonates among the general public.
Even President Bill Clinton felt compelled to publicly criticize the Justice Department for its handling of this case.
Norman Bay, U.S. Attorney for New Mexico, suddenly became highly visible. He insisted on ABC Nightline that Lee compiled "a personal library of highly sensitive nuclear secrets" and that "this information represented a complete design portfolio for nuclear weapons."
Unfortunately, the commentator did not ask Bay why he insists on the "crown jewel" depiction of the material even after world-renowned experts have dismissed it as so much malarkey.
Bay, a Chinese American, was appointed to replace John Kelly who resigned to run for Congress. On the same program, Bay even volunteered that Lee reminded him of his own father, and that there is no way he would have been a part of racially profiling such a father-like figure.
Unfortunately, due to its conduct in this case, the government has exhausted its credibility. There is only one way to stop the competition for the public mind between the government and its critics. Only an open and fair public inquiry can restore confidence in the Department of Justice and the legal system, and render to all the actors of this tragic comedy their due.
Let the inquiry examine the documents Judge Parker requested from the government to determine whether racial profiling had any basis in fact.
Let a panel of qualified experts examine the codes Lee downloaded, to determine whether this "represented a complete design portfolio for nuclear weapons" or merely a compilation of Lee's work in hydrodynamics.
If it's the latter, Bay should be asked to justify why he is still crooning the same old tune.
If the download really involved vital material, why was it classified merely as restricted data? Who ordered the classification upgraded after discovering that Lee had downloaded it? Why settle for only one out of 59 charges?
Let the panel discover who made the decision to deprive Lee of due process and his human rights. Why was he kept in solitary confinement with the light on 24 hours a day if not for psychological intimidation to force a confession?
Who ordered rigging a lie detector test to produce inconclusive results in order to justify threatening Lee? Who ordered the FBI agents interrogating Lee to lie and tell him that he failed the first test? What happened to the FBI agent who could not stomach the proceedings and got herself reassigned?
What role die Notra Trulock play -- did he put the finger on Lee as head of counter-intelligence at Department of Energy? Did he violate federal statutes and leak information to the New York Times that put the spy scandal into high gear?
What was the official reason for Energy Secretary Bill Richardson awarding Trulock with $10,000 cash? What did Richardson know about Lee's case and when did he know it?
Who insisted on indicting Lee -- was it Richardson who couldn't stand looking foolish, or prosecuting attorney John Kelly, who thought the publicity would give him a head start in his race for Congress?
A lot of questions about the Wen Ho Lee case are unanswered, and will stay so until there is an open inquiry. Until the public knows, the government will be viewed with distrust and scorn.
Congressman George Miller (D-CA) has called for a blue-ribbon panel to look into the case and "see how we can better safeguard the rights and liberties of all American citizens." Let the healing process begin.
Friday, August 11, 2000
Book Review: American Goddess at the Rape of Nanking, The Courage of Minnie Vautrin
In 2014, I posted this review on Amazon.
Some people live their lives at the water's edge, footprints of their passage on earth quickly erased by the rising tide. Others acquire a bit of immortality by converting their wealth into libraries, monuments and endowment funds. Then there are still others like Minnie Vautrin, who devote their entire life to helping others and hardly thought about the next day much less their place in history. Thanks to Ms. Hua-ling Hu and her tireless effort to uncover the facts obscured by the dust of time, Ms. Vautrin is, at least, one unsung heroine that will not be forgotten.
Author Hu manages to open the thin volume of under 150 pages with a most informative review of China's history of uneasy and ambivalent relationship with missionaries from the West and sets the stage for Ms. Hua Chuan's (Minnie Vautrin's Chinese name) arrival in China.
When Ms. Vautrin first went to China, she knew nothing about the country. At the time, the beginning of the 20th century, teaching in missionary service was one of the more attractive career options for women. Yet, she was to devote 28 of her 55 years in China and came to call China her home.
Despite her extensive research, the author never quite explained why Ms. Vautrin came to adopt China as her country. Perhaps because she shared the esteem Chinese hold for education. Perhaps she saw that the women in China, shackled by male dominated feudalism, needed her as their champion.
By the time the Japanese imperial troops marched into Nanjing in December 1937, Ms. Vautrin had already spent a quarter of a century at the Ginling College in Nanjing. She not only administered the training of female students; she also organized schooling for children of destitute families living nearby. Women were taught to read and acquire skills that would provide them a livelihood.
Most of the book, of course, is devoted to describing the atrocities committed by the Japanese troops and Ms. Vautrin's valiant effort to confront and face down the brutal soldiers and their arms. She was not always successful in protecting the women seeking sanctuary inside the college, but she earned the eternal gratitude of the people of Nanjing who canonized her as a living Buddha.
This book looks at the Rape of Nanjing from yet another perspective and complements those recently published about this subject. At the same time, this book tells the story of a selfless woman of compassion and courage. Minnie Vautrin is surely one of China's and America's earliest advocates for women's right to equal access to education. Hers is a story that should inspire all.
Some people live their lives at the water's edge, footprints of their passage on earth quickly erased by the rising tide. Others acquire a bit of immortality by converting their wealth into libraries, monuments and endowment funds. Then there are still others like Minnie Vautrin, who devote their entire life to helping others and hardly thought about the next day much less their place in history. Thanks to Ms. Hua-ling Hu and her tireless effort to uncover the facts obscured by the dust of time, Ms. Vautrin is, at least, one unsung heroine that will not be forgotten.
Author Hu manages to open the thin volume of under 150 pages with a most informative review of China's history of uneasy and ambivalent relationship with missionaries from the West and sets the stage for Ms. Hua Chuan's (Minnie Vautrin's Chinese name) arrival in China.
When Ms. Vautrin first went to China, she knew nothing about the country. At the time, the beginning of the 20th century, teaching in missionary service was one of the more attractive career options for women. Yet, she was to devote 28 of her 55 years in China and came to call China her home.
Despite her extensive research, the author never quite explained why Ms. Vautrin came to adopt China as her country. Perhaps because she shared the esteem Chinese hold for education. Perhaps she saw that the women in China, shackled by male dominated feudalism, needed her as their champion.
By the time the Japanese imperial troops marched into Nanjing in December 1937, Ms. Vautrin had already spent a quarter of a century at the Ginling College in Nanjing. She not only administered the training of female students; she also organized schooling for children of destitute families living nearby. Women were taught to read and acquire skills that would provide them a livelihood.
Most of the book, of course, is devoted to describing the atrocities committed by the Japanese troops and Ms. Vautrin's valiant effort to confront and face down the brutal soldiers and their arms. She was not always successful in protecting the women seeking sanctuary inside the college, but she earned the eternal gratitude of the people of Nanjing who canonized her as a living Buddha.
This book looks at the Rape of Nanjing from yet another perspective and complements those recently published about this subject. At the same time, this book tells the story of a selfless woman of compassion and courage. Minnie Vautrin is surely one of China's and America's earliest advocates for women's right to equal access to education. Hers is a story that should inspire all.
Tuesday, August 8, 2000
Book review: Virtual Tibet by Orville Schell
In a way, what Jonathan Spence did with The Chan’s Great Continent, Orville Schell has done with Virtual Tibet. Both study how the West glamorizes, idealizes, disparages, and criticizes China, nearly always from a narrow western frame of reference, blinded by its own bias and ignorance. Chan’s is a scholarly compilation of how the West saw China throughout history. Schell deals with how the West sees Tibet in a less scholarly but more personal way. Schell interweaves West’s early contacts with Tibet with his foray into the Hollywood fascination with and idealization of Tibet.
Virtual Tibet is anecdotal and fun to read. In walking the impartial line of a journalist, Schell is careful to recount his observations without the intermixing of his opinions. However, his droll descriptions never cease to entertain. For instance, he voiced nary a nasty comment on the carrying-on of the kung-fu actor, Steven Seagal and his fixation with Dalai Lama. Still, after reading his encounter with Seagal, the reader comes away with a new appreciation of what a Hollywood megalomanic lout is all about.
From Schell’s book I learned that the word “pundit” came from the Anglicization of “pandit,” a Hindi term. Pandit or pundit meaning a person of knowledge was applied to native Indians trained by the British to spy in Tibet starting from the turn of the 19th century. It seemed that for decades, the voracious British colonial government coveted Tibet and needed detailed maps of the region. Official surveys headed by white explorers were out of the question and the solution was to resort to employing Indian nationals that could sneak into Tibet. Before reading this book, I often wondered why I hold a vague disdain for pundits. Now I know.
By the time Lost Horizon was written in 1933 and introduced the concept of Shangri-La, a hidden paradise, Tibet had already been established as the exotic destination of choice for overactive adventurers and farout mystics. Tibetan monks were attributed with awesome magical powers including ability to fly, read people’s minds, perform miraculous cures and endure subzero temperatures. According to Schell, “the Tibet of filth, ferocity, arcane religious practices, grinding poverty, barren wastes, inhospitable weather, serfdom, disease and theocratic absolutism vanished from public consciousness.”
“Shangri-La is a distillation of a borrowed piece of Tibetan mythology overlaid with a Western dream of dreams that was two centuries in the making.” Look past the Hollywood gloss on the modern Tibet of the West, and one concludes that Schell’s observation still holds.
Reviews in brief
A Victor’s Reflections and other Tales for China’s Timeless Wisdom for Leaders by Michael C. Tang is an absolute joy to read and own. The author has managed to reduce classic stories of China’s sages, military strategists, wise rulers, clever advisors and child prodigies into highly readable and entertaining short stories. When he tries to draw lessons from these classics to modern day situations, he was less successful. But, if your grandchildren ever ask you to explain “what is Chinese culture,” you will want to read this book first. Better yet, give this book to your grandchildren.
I had been looking forward to reading The Yamato Dynasty by Sterling and Peggy Seagrave ever since I saw the book in Asia and then found out that the publication in the West was months later. This book claims to contain the secret history of Japan’s imperial family, the billions of gold stashed away and the secret deals made with General Douglas MacArthur after World War II. Unfortunately I found the book disorganized, rambling and not well written, falling short of the reputation the authors earned from their previous efforts. However, this book is a valuable reference that goes a long way to explaining the complicity of the U.S. government in overlooking war crimes committed by Japan.
Virtual Tibet is anecdotal and fun to read. In walking the impartial line of a journalist, Schell is careful to recount his observations without the intermixing of his opinions. However, his droll descriptions never cease to entertain. For instance, he voiced nary a nasty comment on the carrying-on of the kung-fu actor, Steven Seagal and his fixation with Dalai Lama. Still, after reading his encounter with Seagal, the reader comes away with a new appreciation of what a Hollywood megalomanic lout is all about.
From Schell’s book I learned that the word “pundit” came from the Anglicization of “pandit,” a Hindi term. Pandit or pundit meaning a person of knowledge was applied to native Indians trained by the British to spy in Tibet starting from the turn of the 19th century. It seemed that for decades, the voracious British colonial government coveted Tibet and needed detailed maps of the region. Official surveys headed by white explorers were out of the question and the solution was to resort to employing Indian nationals that could sneak into Tibet. Before reading this book, I often wondered why I hold a vague disdain for pundits. Now I know.
By the time Lost Horizon was written in 1933 and introduced the concept of Shangri-La, a hidden paradise, Tibet had already been established as the exotic destination of choice for overactive adventurers and farout mystics. Tibetan monks were attributed with awesome magical powers including ability to fly, read people’s minds, perform miraculous cures and endure subzero temperatures. According to Schell, “the Tibet of filth, ferocity, arcane religious practices, grinding poverty, barren wastes, inhospitable weather, serfdom, disease and theocratic absolutism vanished from public consciousness.”
“Shangri-La is a distillation of a borrowed piece of Tibetan mythology overlaid with a Western dream of dreams that was two centuries in the making.” Look past the Hollywood gloss on the modern Tibet of the West, and one concludes that Schell’s observation still holds.
Reviews in brief
A Victor’s Reflections and other Tales for China’s Timeless Wisdom for Leaders by Michael C. Tang is an absolute joy to read and own. The author has managed to reduce classic stories of China’s sages, military strategists, wise rulers, clever advisors and child prodigies into highly readable and entertaining short stories. When he tries to draw lessons from these classics to modern day situations, he was less successful. But, if your grandchildren ever ask you to explain “what is Chinese culture,” you will want to read this book first. Better yet, give this book to your grandchildren.
I had been looking forward to reading The Yamato Dynasty by Sterling and Peggy Seagrave ever since I saw the book in Asia and then found out that the publication in the West was months later. This book claims to contain the secret history of Japan’s imperial family, the billions of gold stashed away and the secret deals made with General Douglas MacArthur after World War II. Unfortunately I found the book disorganized, rambling and not well written, falling short of the reputation the authors earned from their previous efforts. However, this book is a valuable reference that goes a long way to explaining the complicity of the U.S. government in overlooking war crimes committed by Japan.
Monday, July 17, 2000
Should Wen Ho Lee Cop A Plea? Making A Deal Would Be A Disservice To All Americans
The facts in the Wen Ho Lee case get more and more curious as time goes by. Recently, the judge has suggested the prosecution negotiate with Lee's lawyers on questions of bail, which raises the possibility of a plea bargain -- a possibility that PNS commentator George Koo finds unsavory indeed. Koo is a business consultant and a member of Committee of 100, a national organization of prominent Chinese Americans.
The latest development in the case of Wen Ho Lee comes from U.S. District Judge James Parker, who has ordered lawyers from both sides to confer and agree on one or more senior judges to mediate possible terms of bail for Lee -- and perhaps a plea bargain.
Lee's sudden dismissal from the post he had held at Los Alamos National Laboratory captured every front page in the country. Congress and mainstream media expressed anguish over the loss of America's "crown jewels," nuclear weapon design secrets allegedly leaked to China.
Since Lee was charged, information has come to light that raises doubts as to whether any secrets were stolen at all -- for one thing, it has been shown conclusively that Los Alamos was only one of hundreds of venues where the alleged secret could have been obtained. Moreover, Lee had no access to "W-88 secrets" and therefore could not be the spy titillating the public.
Although it waited nine months after his dismissal to arrest Lee, the government did not have sufficient evidence to charge him with espionage, only with illegally downloading computer data. Some time after his arrest, the government quietly upgraded the data in question to a level high enough to justify threatening Lee with life imprisonment.
Recently, more than eight months after Lee's arrest, the prosecution responded to a defense challenge to produce the names of eight countries Lee is charged with trying to contact. The list included Switzerland, Germany, France, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia and Hong Kong (then still a British colony). The prosecution's source, evidently, is a series of job application letters Lee wrote when he was warned of potential layoffs at Los Alamos. Perhaps the government thinks Lee used copies of classified work to enhance his resume.
The Los Angeles Times calls the government's case against Lee a joke. Considering the price he has paid so far, Lee, his family and defense team are not likely laughing yet.
Rather than investigate leaks at Los Alamos, the FBI decided Lee was their spy and then set out to find evidence to support that conclusion.
When they could not come up with any such evidence, they found a logbook at Lee's home that provided the basis for accusing Lee of downloading secured data.
This was used to justify denying Lee bail, putting him in solitary confinement and in chains and shackles for 23 hours per day. He has been denied contact with his family except for one hour per week. He has been restricted in choice of reading material, in access to news and television and even in selection of a diet that would provide him with his accustomed nourishment.
If the government sought to crack Lee by subjecting him to such treatment, they surely must be disappointed. If they equated his unassuming, quiet manner with docility and assumed Lee would take the rap if properly intimidated, they have been proven wrong.
Lee may have originally assumed that he had no need to engage a lawyer if he had done nothing wrong. He may have assumed that as a citizen of the world's greatest democracy that he could count on equal protection and due process. Events have proven otherwise, and he has disappointed his tormentors by choosing to fight for his rights instead of caving in. Perhaps the government did not expect Lee to behave like the American that he is!
Over the next few months, Lee will likely have ample opportunity to plead to lesser charges in exchange for time already spent incarcerated. The question is -- should he settle and allow the government off the hook?
Lee could only do this at great personal cost. Even though the government could not charge him with espionage, the media have already branded as a key figure in a mythical "spying" scandal. Without full exoneration, Lee could never cleanse himself of the stigma.
Then there is the financial loss in terms -- lost wages and pension and the cost of a legal defense. Presumably any settlement would preclude any monetary compensation, much less the right to sue for damages as a victim of racial profiling and character defamation.
In the end, the decision on is a personal one. Asian Americans and all other Americans interested in justice can only hope that Lee will go the distance.
Indeed, the day Asian Americans are treated as full citizens will arrive that much sooner when if Lee receives an official apology, full restoration of his status in Los Alamos, and compensation for his pain and wrongful prosecution. Anything less will be hard to swallow.
The latest development in the case of Wen Ho Lee comes from U.S. District Judge James Parker, who has ordered lawyers from both sides to confer and agree on one or more senior judges to mediate possible terms of bail for Lee -- and perhaps a plea bargain.
Lee's sudden dismissal from the post he had held at Los Alamos National Laboratory captured every front page in the country. Congress and mainstream media expressed anguish over the loss of America's "crown jewels," nuclear weapon design secrets allegedly leaked to China.
Since Lee was charged, information has come to light that raises doubts as to whether any secrets were stolen at all -- for one thing, it has been shown conclusively that Los Alamos was only one of hundreds of venues where the alleged secret could have been obtained. Moreover, Lee had no access to "W-88 secrets" and therefore could not be the spy titillating the public.
Although it waited nine months after his dismissal to arrest Lee, the government did not have sufficient evidence to charge him with espionage, only with illegally downloading computer data. Some time after his arrest, the government quietly upgraded the data in question to a level high enough to justify threatening Lee with life imprisonment.
Recently, more than eight months after Lee's arrest, the prosecution responded to a defense challenge to produce the names of eight countries Lee is charged with trying to contact. The list included Switzerland, Germany, France, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia and Hong Kong (then still a British colony). The prosecution's source, evidently, is a series of job application letters Lee wrote when he was warned of potential layoffs at Los Alamos. Perhaps the government thinks Lee used copies of classified work to enhance his resume.
The Los Angeles Times calls the government's case against Lee a joke. Considering the price he has paid so far, Lee, his family and defense team are not likely laughing yet.
Rather than investigate leaks at Los Alamos, the FBI decided Lee was their spy and then set out to find evidence to support that conclusion.
When they could not come up with any such evidence, they found a logbook at Lee's home that provided the basis for accusing Lee of downloading secured data.
This was used to justify denying Lee bail, putting him in solitary confinement and in chains and shackles for 23 hours per day. He has been denied contact with his family except for one hour per week. He has been restricted in choice of reading material, in access to news and television and even in selection of a diet that would provide him with his accustomed nourishment.
If the government sought to crack Lee by subjecting him to such treatment, they surely must be disappointed. If they equated his unassuming, quiet manner with docility and assumed Lee would take the rap if properly intimidated, they have been proven wrong.
Lee may have originally assumed that he had no need to engage a lawyer if he had done nothing wrong. He may have assumed that as a citizen of the world's greatest democracy that he could count on equal protection and due process. Events have proven otherwise, and he has disappointed his tormentors by choosing to fight for his rights instead of caving in. Perhaps the government did not expect Lee to behave like the American that he is!
Over the next few months, Lee will likely have ample opportunity to plead to lesser charges in exchange for time already spent incarcerated. The question is -- should he settle and allow the government off the hook?
Lee could only do this at great personal cost. Even though the government could not charge him with espionage, the media have already branded as a key figure in a mythical "spying" scandal. Without full exoneration, Lee could never cleanse himself of the stigma.
Then there is the financial loss in terms -- lost wages and pension and the cost of a legal defense. Presumably any settlement would preclude any monetary compensation, much less the right to sue for damages as a victim of racial profiling and character defamation.
In the end, the decision on is a personal one. Asian Americans and all other Americans interested in justice can only hope that Lee will go the distance.
Indeed, the day Asian Americans are treated as full citizens will arrive that much sooner when if Lee receives an official apology, full restoration of his status in Los Alamos, and compensation for his pain and wrongful prosecution. Anything less will be hard to swallow.
Saturday, February 5, 2000
The Difference between John Deutch and Wen Ho Lee
Recent revelations of the national security breach committed by former Central Intelligence Agency director Dr. John Deutch enable a more detailed comparison of his case versus the case against Dr. Wen Ho Lee, the scientist accused of security breach at Los Alamos Lab. Lee’s defense team and supporters have accused the government of selective prosecution. We now have enough information to judge whether there are grounds for their accusation.
At his bail hearing, the prosecution contends that Lee has downloaded “massive” amount of secret computer data and is the reason his case is different from the common, run-of-the-mill infractions. According to New York Times, investigators found 17,000 pages of top-secret files in Deutch’s unsecured computers. Since the prosecutors did not define “massive,” we can only wonder why 17,000 pages and 26 volumes of his daily log do not constitute a massive breach by Deutch.
According to the prosecutors, Lee mishandled enough data to design a nuclear bomb. In Deutch’s case, the data dealt with “some of the government’s most sensitive covert operations.” Hard to tell which is more damaging but there is one distinct difference. Investigators found Deutch’s downloading in his computers at his home. Lee has been accused of downloading into his unsecured computer at his desk inside the Los Alamos Laboratory. The only thing the investigators found in Lee’s home was one logbook containing a series of passwords.
Reportedly Deutch used the same home computer to surf the Internet thus exposing his top secret files to electronic theft by those with unfriendly intentions. Lee, on the other hand, imposed three layers of passwords on his unsecured office computer to deter unauthorized break-ins. However, the prosecutors ascribe Lee's presumed unfriendly intentions as a criminal offense while Deutch's action dismissed as well-intentioned sloppiness.
Deutch through his lawyer indicates that he has cooperated fully with CIA's investigation. CIA choose not to hold his failing a polygraph test against him. Lee also cooperated fully with the FBI, at least he did until he found out he was entrapped and lied to by the FBI. The FBI apparently resented Lee for having passed a polygraph test and proceeded to keep Lee confused and bewildered and gave him the impression that he failed.
Deutch and Lee share one other similarity. Both deleted files of classified information from their computers after they learned that they were under investigation. Lee performed the erasure at work while Deutch did his at home.
There are of course some glaring differences. Deutch is white while Lee is ethnic Chinese. Deutch was a high ranking government official and beltway insider while Lee was merely one of many scientists working in Los Alamos. Deutch got a reprimand and lost his security clearance. Lee after months of round the clock surveillance was arrested, put in solitary confinement and denied bail.
One of the reasons for denying Lee bail according to prosecution is their fear of some unidentified foreign power making a surprise grab and whisk Lee away for leisurely debriefing, a fear that reflects poorly on their confidence in the vigilance of FBI. No one seems concerned that Deutch’s knowledge of sensitive covert operations would render him an appealing target for abduction.
Dr. Deutch, a highly respected educator, has had a distinguished career in public service. One can reasonably assume that at the time of discovery, he was given the benefit of the doubt and his offense charged to well-intentioned but sloppy carelessness. It must distress him hugely to have to undergo a belated public scrutiny now for certain past indiscretions.
Lee, on the other hand, was the beneficiary of only doubt and intimidation. Had it not been for reputable law firms willing to come to his aid pro bono, Lee’s distress would be many times more unbearable.
Certainly the purpose of calling attention to the inequality in the treatment of Deutch and Lee is not to subject Deutch to a similar witch hunt, but to point to the vast contrast and inequality that can occur among Americans. This uneven treatment can only put to a lie that this country is a democracy governed by rule of law and equal protection for all citizens.
Ironically, astrophysicist Fang Lizhi points out that Lee’s treatment is identical to the kind of treatment China is criticized for. Fang is arguably the best known, non-self promoting dissident from China, now teaching at the University of Arizona. He spoke up for democracy in China and had to hide in the American embassy after the Tiananmen incident in 1989.
Leaders in Washington hide behind a shroud of classified information beyond public access to justify the treatment accorded Lee. However, instead of tiptoeing around a stink bomb of their own making, someone with the requisite courage needs to step forward and say, “Stop. Enough of this shameful charade. Set Lee free.”
At his bail hearing, the prosecution contends that Lee has downloaded “massive” amount of secret computer data and is the reason his case is different from the common, run-of-the-mill infractions. According to New York Times, investigators found 17,000 pages of top-secret files in Deutch’s unsecured computers. Since the prosecutors did not define “massive,” we can only wonder why 17,000 pages and 26 volumes of his daily log do not constitute a massive breach by Deutch.
According to the prosecutors, Lee mishandled enough data to design a nuclear bomb. In Deutch’s case, the data dealt with “some of the government’s most sensitive covert operations.” Hard to tell which is more damaging but there is one distinct difference. Investigators found Deutch’s downloading in his computers at his home. Lee has been accused of downloading into his unsecured computer at his desk inside the Los Alamos Laboratory. The only thing the investigators found in Lee’s home was one logbook containing a series of passwords.
Reportedly Deutch used the same home computer to surf the Internet thus exposing his top secret files to electronic theft by those with unfriendly intentions. Lee, on the other hand, imposed three layers of passwords on his unsecured office computer to deter unauthorized break-ins. However, the prosecutors ascribe Lee's presumed unfriendly intentions as a criminal offense while Deutch's action dismissed as well-intentioned sloppiness.
Deutch through his lawyer indicates that he has cooperated fully with CIA's investigation. CIA choose not to hold his failing a polygraph test against him. Lee also cooperated fully with the FBI, at least he did until he found out he was entrapped and lied to by the FBI. The FBI apparently resented Lee for having passed a polygraph test and proceeded to keep Lee confused and bewildered and gave him the impression that he failed.
Deutch and Lee share one other similarity. Both deleted files of classified information from their computers after they learned that they were under investigation. Lee performed the erasure at work while Deutch did his at home.
There are of course some glaring differences. Deutch is white while Lee is ethnic Chinese. Deutch was a high ranking government official and beltway insider while Lee was merely one of many scientists working in Los Alamos. Deutch got a reprimand and lost his security clearance. Lee after months of round the clock surveillance was arrested, put in solitary confinement and denied bail.
One of the reasons for denying Lee bail according to prosecution is their fear of some unidentified foreign power making a surprise grab and whisk Lee away for leisurely debriefing, a fear that reflects poorly on their confidence in the vigilance of FBI. No one seems concerned that Deutch’s knowledge of sensitive covert operations would render him an appealing target for abduction.
Dr. Deutch, a highly respected educator, has had a distinguished career in public service. One can reasonably assume that at the time of discovery, he was given the benefit of the doubt and his offense charged to well-intentioned but sloppy carelessness. It must distress him hugely to have to undergo a belated public scrutiny now for certain past indiscretions.
Lee, on the other hand, was the beneficiary of only doubt and intimidation. Had it not been for reputable law firms willing to come to his aid pro bono, Lee’s distress would be many times more unbearable.
Certainly the purpose of calling attention to the inequality in the treatment of Deutch and Lee is not to subject Deutch to a similar witch hunt, but to point to the vast contrast and inequality that can occur among Americans. This uneven treatment can only put to a lie that this country is a democracy governed by rule of law and equal protection for all citizens.
Ironically, astrophysicist Fang Lizhi points out that Lee’s treatment is identical to the kind of treatment China is criticized for. Fang is arguably the best known, non-self promoting dissident from China, now teaching at the University of Arizona. He spoke up for democracy in China and had to hide in the American embassy after the Tiananmen incident in 1989.
Leaders in Washington hide behind a shroud of classified information beyond public access to justify the treatment accorded Lee. However, instead of tiptoeing around a stink bomb of their own making, someone with the requisite courage needs to step forward and say, “Stop. Enough of this shameful charade. Set Lee free.”
Tuesday, January 4, 2000
Wen Ho Lee Case: Whatever Happened To Due Process?
Pacific News Service, George Koo, Posted: Jan 04, 2000
Editor's Note: Even a mass murderer is accorded more humane treatment than Chinese American scientist Wen Ho Lee, who is accused of mishandling secret computer data, says PNS commentator George Koo.
In their zeal to force Wen Ho Lee to his knees, federal prosecutors have turned America's system of justice upside-down.
From the outset, Lee has been presumed guilty, and prosecutors have ignored or dismissed every effort to assert his legal rights. "Even if we can't prove he is a spy, we are going to treat him like a spy, keep him in jail and deny him bail because he might be a spy," would be a precise summary of prosecutor John Kelly's position.
To reinforce the government's contention that Lee, 60, is a menace to national security, he is being held in solitary confinement, under constant surveillance and allowed to see his family and attorney only one hour per week -- and then he must speak only in English. Even a mass murderer is accorded more humane treatment while awaiting trial.
Lee is charged with mishandling secret computer data. The government justifies its actions on the grounds that Lee could cause terrible harm to the nation with seven computer tapes he downloaded but has not accounted for. At Lee's bail hearing, the government prosecutor actually stated there is no way to tell whether an apparently innocuous wink or casual comment might be a coded message for an enemy agent.
Lee's defense attorneys have offered to subject their client to polygraph tests to show he poses no danger to the United States and to verify his claim that he destroyed the seven tapes. But Kelly is unwilling to allow any procedure that might allow Lee out on bail. He is determined to keep Lee incarcerated under maximum security conditions for the two years needed to prepare for trial.
As numerous editorials have pointed out, the prosecution has moved from investigating an espionage case to harassing a scientist they were unable to indict as a spy.
It is difficult to see any difference between this and the workings of a police state. Due process, presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial have all been thrown away for the sake of satisfying an appetite for bashing Chinese and Americans of Chinese ancestry.
The FBI actually called its action "Operation Kindred Spirit" to justify the way they homed in on Lee to the exclusion of all other possibilities when the investigation into leaks began. Only after former Los Alamos intelligence officer Robert Vrooman charged the FBI with acting on racial grounds did the public realize that Lee was a victim of "racial profiling."
Attorney General Janet Reno effectively confirmed Vrooman's claims when she ordered the FBI to restart its investigation and cast a wider net.
Paul Moore, former FBI chief of counter-intelligence and widely quoted in the media, admits racial profiling exists -- but says it is a tactic of Beijing. Moore say the Chinese government targets ethnic Chinese to act as spies, but he offers no proof to support his claim. This is the sort of logic used to put 125,000 Japanese Americans into detention camps in World War II.
Accusations without proof have long been a favorite technique of those who want to demonize some portion of the population or revive racial prejudice. Particularly damaging in this respect were leaks from a select committee headed by Congressman Christopher Cox implying that China had stolen every nuclear secret of value due to lax security under the Clinton administration. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson promptly offered Wen Ho Lee as a sacrificial lamb to appease critics of the administration.
The credibility of the Cox report has since vaporized. "The report lacks scholarly rigor, and exhibits too many examples of sloppy research, factual errors and weekly justified inferences," concludes the Stanford University Center for International Security and Cooperation.
Harsher assessments came from Cox's own Republican Party. Former deputy assistant Secretary of the Army, Dr. James Prather, after studying the report observed, "You've been had, Chris. Now just admit it."
Jude Wanniski, advisor to former Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp, who authorized Prather's study, added, "We know that Bill Richardson is ready to destroy the life of the Chinese American computer scientist Wen Ho Lee and several Los Alamos scientists." Wanniski went on, "If you have the right stuff, Chris, you would come clean now before your nose gets any longer, and tell Bill Richardson he does not have to put Wen Ho Lee in the slammer after all."
Alas, the right stuff is not a quality readily found. If Americans of all political persuasions do not strenuously object to the injustices perpetrated against Wen Ho Lee, can a police state be far behind?
Editor's Note: Even a mass murderer is accorded more humane treatment than Chinese American scientist Wen Ho Lee, who is accused of mishandling secret computer data, says PNS commentator George Koo.
In their zeal to force Wen Ho Lee to his knees, federal prosecutors have turned America's system of justice upside-down.
From the outset, Lee has been presumed guilty, and prosecutors have ignored or dismissed every effort to assert his legal rights. "Even if we can't prove he is a spy, we are going to treat him like a spy, keep him in jail and deny him bail because he might be a spy," would be a precise summary of prosecutor John Kelly's position.
To reinforce the government's contention that Lee, 60, is a menace to national security, he is being held in solitary confinement, under constant surveillance and allowed to see his family and attorney only one hour per week -- and then he must speak only in English. Even a mass murderer is accorded more humane treatment while awaiting trial.
Lee is charged with mishandling secret computer data. The government justifies its actions on the grounds that Lee could cause terrible harm to the nation with seven computer tapes he downloaded but has not accounted for. At Lee's bail hearing, the government prosecutor actually stated there is no way to tell whether an apparently innocuous wink or casual comment might be a coded message for an enemy agent.
Lee's defense attorneys have offered to subject their client to polygraph tests to show he poses no danger to the United States and to verify his claim that he destroyed the seven tapes. But Kelly is unwilling to allow any procedure that might allow Lee out on bail. He is determined to keep Lee incarcerated under maximum security conditions for the two years needed to prepare for trial.
As numerous editorials have pointed out, the prosecution has moved from investigating an espionage case to harassing a scientist they were unable to indict as a spy.
It is difficult to see any difference between this and the workings of a police state. Due process, presumption of innocence and right to a fair trial have all been thrown away for the sake of satisfying an appetite for bashing Chinese and Americans of Chinese ancestry.
The FBI actually called its action "Operation Kindred Spirit" to justify the way they homed in on Lee to the exclusion of all other possibilities when the investigation into leaks began. Only after former Los Alamos intelligence officer Robert Vrooman charged the FBI with acting on racial grounds did the public realize that Lee was a victim of "racial profiling."
Attorney General Janet Reno effectively confirmed Vrooman's claims when she ordered the FBI to restart its investigation and cast a wider net.
Paul Moore, former FBI chief of counter-intelligence and widely quoted in the media, admits racial profiling exists -- but says it is a tactic of Beijing. Moore say the Chinese government targets ethnic Chinese to act as spies, but he offers no proof to support his claim. This is the sort of logic used to put 125,000 Japanese Americans into detention camps in World War II.
Accusations without proof have long been a favorite technique of those who want to demonize some portion of the population or revive racial prejudice. Particularly damaging in this respect were leaks from a select committee headed by Congressman Christopher Cox implying that China had stolen every nuclear secret of value due to lax security under the Clinton administration. Energy Secretary Bill Richardson promptly offered Wen Ho Lee as a sacrificial lamb to appease critics of the administration.
The credibility of the Cox report has since vaporized. "The report lacks scholarly rigor, and exhibits too many examples of sloppy research, factual errors and weekly justified inferences," concludes the Stanford University Center for International Security and Cooperation.
Harsher assessments came from Cox's own Republican Party. Former deputy assistant Secretary of the Army, Dr. James Prather, after studying the report observed, "You've been had, Chris. Now just admit it."
Jude Wanniski, advisor to former Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp, who authorized Prather's study, added, "We know that Bill Richardson is ready to destroy the life of the Chinese American computer scientist Wen Ho Lee and several Los Alamos scientists." Wanniski went on, "If you have the right stuff, Chris, you would come clean now before your nose gets any longer, and tell Bill Richardson he does not have to put Wen Ho Lee in the slammer after all."
Alas, the right stuff is not a quality readily found. If Americans of all political persuasions do not strenuously object to the injustices perpetrated against Wen Ho Lee, can a police state be far behind?
Monday, December 27, 1999
Bill Richardson and Asian Americans, the Saga Continues
Since the summary dismissal of physicist Wen Ho Lee from the Los Alamos National Laboratories last March, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson has had to repeatedly assure the Asian Americans that he will not tolerate racial profiling in the national laboratories. The latest assurance took place just before Christmas.
On the day Lee’s friends and supporters gathered to celebrate his birthday with a fund raiser for his legal defense, Richardson visited the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories to once again pledge “zero tolerance” for discrimination against Asian Americans working in government labs. Two days later, nine Asian Americans employed at Lawrence filed claims of racial bias in their treatment at the Labs.
“Without Richardson’s statement against discrimination, there certainly would be nothing, no claims filed today. But he said he’s committed to zero tolerance. Now he needs to do something about it. So far it’s all talk,” said Kalina Wong, one of the nine filing suit. According to the San Jose Mercury News report, the harassing of Asian Americans after the arrest of Lee has angered her and Richardson’s highly publicized pledge emboldened her to file the complaint.
Given Richardson’s own Hispanic heritage, it seems particularly ironic that he should be if not at the center at least the catalyst for Asian American ire at racial profiling stemming from the Wen Ho Lee case. It seems instructive during this holiday lull to retrospectively review the developments that led to this debacle, a scandal that promises to blot the entry of the new millennium.
Almost exactly a year ago, Americans spent their holiday season watching the President Clinton’s impeachment hearings unfold on national TV. He did not topple but was severely wounded. In early January, the House Select Committee headed by Congressman Christopher Cox began to rumble about rampant Chinese spying on the leaky national labs. By then the exhausted administration was too tired to fight the allegations of wrongdoing.
In March the New York Times broke the news of suspected spy in Los Alamos Laboratories and Richardson promptly fired Lee. The media, led by New York Times, then rushed to label Lee the Chinese spy and pronounced him guilty. Lee and his family became targets of round the clock FBI surveillance. At this critical juncture, if a California major law firm had not come to Lee’s defense and if national Asian American organizations had not protest the lack of fairness and due process in this case, Lee would have been put on the express train to prison and the case would have been over.
In latter part of May, the Cox report became public. Once in the public domain, it quickly became evident that the sound and fury preceding its publication could not be supported by the actual contents of the report. The general reaction was best summarized by the assessment of the report released by Stanford University Center for International Security and Cooperation, “[the report] lacks scholarly rigor, and exhibits too many examples of sloppy research, factual errors and weakly justified inferences.” Even members of the conservative Republican camp agreed with this assessment, in particular members of the faction headed by former Congressman Jack Kemp.
Once the Cox report turned into a dud and no longer pose as a threat to the Clinton administration, it should have been possible for Richardson to call for a review of the Wen Ho Lee case and a halt to the proceedings. But he didn’t do so.
When Robert Vrooman’s internal memo became public, the whole world then knew that FBI failed to conduct an objective investigation but zeroed in on Lee because of his ethnic background. Vrooman is the former head of internal security at Los Alamos. This would have been another good time to review the case against Lee. Richardson didn’t.
By the time Lee appeared in a Mike Wallace interview on CBS 60 Minutes in August, this case may have already suffered from overexposure. While Richardson found it necessary to continue to reassure Asian American scientists in the labs, he could not find a way to resolve the Lee case out of the limelight. Not even when it was demonstrated that Lee could not have been the source of alleged leak on nuclear warhead design. Not even after Attorney General Janet Reno instructed the FBI to restart their investigation and cast a considerably wider net in search of spies, spies that may yet turned out to be mere figments of overactive, right wing imagination.
After another tortuous four months, just two weeks before Christmas, Lee was finally arrested and jailed on charges of mishandling information from secured computer files. He was not charged with espionage. To justify holding Lee in jail without bail and threatening him with life imprisonment, the prosecution charged Lee under certain obscured statues in the Atomic Energy Act. He became the first to be charged under those statues, a dubious distinction indeed.
The public reaction has been swift and unambiguous. Editorials from coast to coast criticized the government’s heavy-handed treatment towards Lee. Selective prosecution, harassment with intent to intimidate the defendant and prosecution overkill without due process are some of the criticism leveled at the U.S. government. National Asian American organizations gathered via conference calls to draft a public statement condemning the government action. Fourteen organizations initiated the action. Many more has sign on since the statement was disclosed one week before Christmas.
The question at hand is why the persistence on the part of Richardson. While only he knows for sure, his actions appear tied to politics. He may no longer be a viable vice presidential candidate but he may still run for governor of New Mexico in the coming election. If he were to drop charges against Lee, his opponents could attack him for bungling the duties of his office. By keeping the Lee trial pending, his opponents would be deprived of a useful issue against him.
While Lee is paying a heavy price as the sacrificial lamb in the battle between the Clinton Administration and the detractors, he is not entirely without blame. His mistake is to assume that as a citizen of the United States, he is guaranteed certain “inalienable” rights. He naively assumes that right is might and he is presumed innocent until proven guilty and does not need to engage attorneys to defend him. He did not appreciate the adversarial nature of American law and how politics can tilt justice way out of balance.
The one good thing that may yet come out of this affair, other than eventual exoneration of Lee, is that Asian Americans are rallying together and realizing they are not exempt from racial profiling. They are now visibly protesting the treatment of Lee and they are taking Richardson’s promise at face value by challenging to overturn the racial discrimination that exists in the national laboratories. So the saga continues.
On the day Lee’s friends and supporters gathered to celebrate his birthday with a fund raiser for his legal defense, Richardson visited the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories to once again pledge “zero tolerance” for discrimination against Asian Americans working in government labs. Two days later, nine Asian Americans employed at Lawrence filed claims of racial bias in their treatment at the Labs.
“Without Richardson’s statement against discrimination, there certainly would be nothing, no claims filed today. But he said he’s committed to zero tolerance. Now he needs to do something about it. So far it’s all talk,” said Kalina Wong, one of the nine filing suit. According to the San Jose Mercury News report, the harassing of Asian Americans after the arrest of Lee has angered her and Richardson’s highly publicized pledge emboldened her to file the complaint.
Given Richardson’s own Hispanic heritage, it seems particularly ironic that he should be if not at the center at least the catalyst for Asian American ire at racial profiling stemming from the Wen Ho Lee case. It seems instructive during this holiday lull to retrospectively review the developments that led to this debacle, a scandal that promises to blot the entry of the new millennium.
Almost exactly a year ago, Americans spent their holiday season watching the President Clinton’s impeachment hearings unfold on national TV. He did not topple but was severely wounded. In early January, the House Select Committee headed by Congressman Christopher Cox began to rumble about rampant Chinese spying on the leaky national labs. By then the exhausted administration was too tired to fight the allegations of wrongdoing.
In March the New York Times broke the news of suspected spy in Los Alamos Laboratories and Richardson promptly fired Lee. The media, led by New York Times, then rushed to label Lee the Chinese spy and pronounced him guilty. Lee and his family became targets of round the clock FBI surveillance. At this critical juncture, if a California major law firm had not come to Lee’s defense and if national Asian American organizations had not protest the lack of fairness and due process in this case, Lee would have been put on the express train to prison and the case would have been over.
In latter part of May, the Cox report became public. Once in the public domain, it quickly became evident that the sound and fury preceding its publication could not be supported by the actual contents of the report. The general reaction was best summarized by the assessment of the report released by Stanford University Center for International Security and Cooperation, “[the report] lacks scholarly rigor, and exhibits too many examples of sloppy research, factual errors and weakly justified inferences.” Even members of the conservative Republican camp agreed with this assessment, in particular members of the faction headed by former Congressman Jack Kemp.
Once the Cox report turned into a dud and no longer pose as a threat to the Clinton administration, it should have been possible for Richardson to call for a review of the Wen Ho Lee case and a halt to the proceedings. But he didn’t do so.
When Robert Vrooman’s internal memo became public, the whole world then knew that FBI failed to conduct an objective investigation but zeroed in on Lee because of his ethnic background. Vrooman is the former head of internal security at Los Alamos. This would have been another good time to review the case against Lee. Richardson didn’t.
By the time Lee appeared in a Mike Wallace interview on CBS 60 Minutes in August, this case may have already suffered from overexposure. While Richardson found it necessary to continue to reassure Asian American scientists in the labs, he could not find a way to resolve the Lee case out of the limelight. Not even when it was demonstrated that Lee could not have been the source of alleged leak on nuclear warhead design. Not even after Attorney General Janet Reno instructed the FBI to restart their investigation and cast a considerably wider net in search of spies, spies that may yet turned out to be mere figments of overactive, right wing imagination.
After another tortuous four months, just two weeks before Christmas, Lee was finally arrested and jailed on charges of mishandling information from secured computer files. He was not charged with espionage. To justify holding Lee in jail without bail and threatening him with life imprisonment, the prosecution charged Lee under certain obscured statues in the Atomic Energy Act. He became the first to be charged under those statues, a dubious distinction indeed.
The public reaction has been swift and unambiguous. Editorials from coast to coast criticized the government’s heavy-handed treatment towards Lee. Selective prosecution, harassment with intent to intimidate the defendant and prosecution overkill without due process are some of the criticism leveled at the U.S. government. National Asian American organizations gathered via conference calls to draft a public statement condemning the government action. Fourteen organizations initiated the action. Many more has sign on since the statement was disclosed one week before Christmas.
The question at hand is why the persistence on the part of Richardson. While only he knows for sure, his actions appear tied to politics. He may no longer be a viable vice presidential candidate but he may still run for governor of New Mexico in the coming election. If he were to drop charges against Lee, his opponents could attack him for bungling the duties of his office. By keeping the Lee trial pending, his opponents would be deprived of a useful issue against him.
While Lee is paying a heavy price as the sacrificial lamb in the battle between the Clinton Administration and the detractors, he is not entirely without blame. His mistake is to assume that as a citizen of the United States, he is guaranteed certain “inalienable” rights. He naively assumes that right is might and he is presumed innocent until proven guilty and does not need to engage attorneys to defend him. He did not appreciate the adversarial nature of American law and how politics can tilt justice way out of balance.
The one good thing that may yet come out of this affair, other than eventual exoneration of Lee, is that Asian Americans are rallying together and realizing they are not exempt from racial profiling. They are now visibly protesting the treatment of Lee and they are taking Richardson’s promise at face value by challenging to overturn the racial discrimination that exists in the national laboratories. So the saga continues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
