China has long attempted to defuse concerns that the United States has about China’s military buildup, particularly the “China Threat Theory.”  On February 8, 2008, Xinhua commented on the January 29, 2008, U.S. Congressional hearing held by the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Judiciary Subcommittee, on the issue of espionage and cyber-crime. The following is a translation of the full text of the Xinhua article written by the U.S. correspondent of Global Times, a newspaper under Xinhua.[1]

On January 29, 2008 the Crime Terrorism, and Homeland Security Subcommittee of the U.S. Congress held a hearing in which U. S. counter-intelligence officers briefed Congressmen on China’s “rampant espionage activities.” After the hearing a Congressman claimed, “China’s espionage activities have become the number one threat to the United States.” In fact, in many cases last year, Western media, organizations and individuals made allegations about China espionage theory and the China hackers theory, with no evidence whatsoever. China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has repeatedly refuted these allegations. The content of this Congressional hearing is “the same old tune."  It is nothing new at all compared to what was alleged in the past.

Claiming China Is Stepping up Military Espionage

The conservative Washington Times reported on January 30 that the Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security Judiciary Subcommittee of the U.S. House held a hearing to discuss whether existing law is sufficient to deal with foreign espionage, but the hearing ultimately focused on China’s "espionage activities" against the United States.

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the U. S.  Department of Justice, Patrick Rowan states that both China and Iran are stepping espionage on military technology.  “Of great concern recently is the substantial and growing national security threat posed by illegal foreign acquisition of restricted U.S. military technology. China and Iran pose particular U.S. export-control concerns." 

Rowan said that spying today includes traditional Cold-War-style espionage as well as sophisticated operations to gather trade secrets and export-controlled military technology. “Recent prosecutions have highlighted illegal exports of stealth missile technology, military aircraft components, naval warship data, night-vision equipment and other restricted technology destined for those countries."
{mospagebreak}
"China’s Espionage Is The Biggest Threat To The United States."

Larry Wortzel, a former military counterintelligence officer and current chairman of the Congressional U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, testified, “China is acquiring or shamelessly using stolen technology to rapidly produce new and lethal high-technology weapons. This significantly contributes to China’s military modernization and development of new capabilities,"
Wortzel said that after a year of hearings and research, the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission concluded that China’s espionage activities strain the U.S. counterintelligence resources and have become the greatest threat to the United States. He said that China’s cyber-spying and computer attacks are major worries, that the U.S. government and private sector networks are targets, and that counterespionage services are "overwhelmed" in trying to counter the threat.

After the hearing, Rep. Randy Forbes said, "China has now become the biggest espionage threat to the United States." “It is a real problem that is costing us a lot of dollars and potentially puts our soldiers at risk down the road." Wortzel and Forbes called for further efforts to step up the U.S. counter-intelligence against China.

Chinese Experts: No need to Pay Attention to Such Speculation

The U.S. correspondent of Global Times noticed that since "China’s espionage threat" has become the subject that the U.S. right-wing often speculates about, the hearing did not draw too much mainstream media attention in the United States, and only The Washington Times and the World Journal (U.S. edition) have reported it.

Ni Feng, a research fellow at the Institute of American Studies under the China Academy of Social Sciences told the Global Times correspondent in an interview that there was no need too be concerned about The Washington Times report. The newspaper primarily reflects right-wing positions. The authenticity of its reports has always been questioned by outside world. The American journalist Bill Gertz who wrote this article is also an anti-China figure.

Ni Feng holds that The Washington Times does not have much influence in the United States and often attracts eyeballs by attacking China. The best way to deal with it is to ignore the report. At present, people in the United States are more concerned about the presidential election, the situation in Pakistan, the situation in Iraq, and the Korean and Iranian nuclear issue. Anti-China voices do not get much special attention. Other academia has also noted that the true purpose of U. S. intelligence in exaggerating the "China espionage threat" is to get a larger Congressional budget.

Endnote:
[1] Xinhua, February 8, 2008
http://news.xinhuanet.com/mil/2008-02/08/content_7581605.htm

For a long period of time, although merchandize made in China has frequently been recalled in other countries, China’s domestic merchandize has seldom been recalled due to poor quality. Not only does China lack the disciplinary mechanism to recall poor quality products, except drugs; China’s merchandize for domestic consumption usually has a safety standard that is lower than international norms. The following is a translation of the report from Voice of America. [1]

By Sun Feng
January 9, 2008

Although we have seen that outside of China, Chinese made products have frequently been recalled due to poor quality, China’s domestic merchandize seldom faces similar problems. Not only does China lack the disciplinary mechanism to recall poor quality products; China’s merchandize for domestic consumption usually has a safety standard that is lower than international norms.

In May and June of 2007, many countries announced the recall of tainted toothpaste made in China, because it contained the poisonous chemical diethylene glycol (DEG). The very same toothpaste has never been removed from China’s merchandize shelves.

In June of 2007, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration released a warning that toothpaste imported from China contained more than 4% DEG and warned the public not to use toothpaste made in China.

The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine, an organization under China’s State Council, issued a public notice in July 2007 forbidding the use of DEG as a toothpaste ingredient, and banning its export. However, it did not ban the sale of toothpaste with DEG within China. To the contrary, the General Administration specified in this same public notice that toothpaste with less than 15.6% DEG would not harm anyone’s health, and that "consumers do not need to worry too much about their health if they have used this type of toothpaste."

For a long period of time, although merchandize made in China has frequently been recalled in other countries, China’s domestic merchandize has seldom been recalled due to poor quality. Not only does China lack the disciplinary mechanism to recall poor quality products, except drugs; China’s merchandize for domestic consumption usually has a safety standard that is lower than international norms.

Take the auto safety evaluation system as an example. The head-to-head collision standard in the U.S. is 56 kilometers per hour, while it is 50 kilometers per hour in China.
{mospagebreak}
Gao Hongbing, the deputy minister of China’s Ministry of Agriculture admitted on Tuesday that China lagged behind other countries in setting up product standards and that there is still a gap between China and developed countries in this respect.

Wang Hai is the host of Wang Hai Hotline, a "consumers’ rights protection" group. According to Wang, establishing overly low standards for domestic merchandize occurred because no representatives for consumers were present when the standards were drafted.

"Why can’t China’s quality standards be improved?" asked Wang. "The key is, first of all, the standards were set by the leaders of the particular enterprise, with little or no involvement from the general public. In other words, the consumers’ rights protection group has no way to participate in the decision making process. In addition, we have virtually no on to speak for consumer’s interests. In China, there is no organization that truly represents consumers’ interests. The Consumers’ Association is a state-run organization. It can only serve a very limited purpose in protecting consumers. We also lack a third-party inspection organization. The inspection organizations we have are all state-run institutes."

According to Wang Hai, in the battle between consumers and entrepreneurs, the entrepreneurs have considerable resources while consumers have none. The government is usually overly lenient with enterprises, for the sake of economic development. In addition, many of the enterprises are either state-run companies or have government backing. All media outlets are state-run mouthpieces. They do not dare to offend their major advertising clients either.

However, the legal consultant of the Consumer Association of Beijing Qiu Baochang has a different point of view. According to Qiu, it is an inappropriate generalization to say the standards for domestic merchandize are lower and are higher for exports.

"Inside China we have our own standard," Qiu said. "As long as we meet this standard, we do not have any problem selling the product inside China. Of course it remains a question whether China’s domestic standard is the same as those of other countries. Can they ever be exactly the same? I don’t think it is possible to unify the standard, because there are issues like development of the market economy and scientific development."

He also said when drafting the standards the authorities had taken protecting consumers’ interests into consideration.

According to Mao Shoulong, director of the Department of Administration and Management at People’s University, many agricultural produces intended for export are refined goods. They are different from the products for domestic consumption. Although it’s a common belief that the standards for goods for domestic consumption should be improved, he believes that implementing those new standards will encounter many problems.
{mospagebreak}
Mao said, "For example, many of the companies may be forced out of business. This year, the price of food itself is rising sharply. If we factor in the improvement of the processing technique and other investments, as well as training personnel and the management team, the cost will be high. It will bring a huge change to the market. If we cannot adjust to the change, the price may go up 100%, not just the 5%, 10% or 30% that we are experiencing right now. It may bring about some social problems."

Long Yongtu, the current general secretary of the Boao Forum for Asia, was the leading negotiation representative when China joined the WTO. Long also shared his opinion on this subject. He believed there was no need to have two different standards. "We had no other choice when China was a poor country." Long added, "Now things have changed. Chinese civilians’ well-being is as important as that of foreigners."

Endnote
[1] Voice of America, January 9, 2008
http://www.voanews.com/chinese/w2008-01-09-voa39.cfm