Month: September 2023

For many years Russia’s Caspian Flotilla dominated this inland sea and was the region’s most important navy. That is evolving today as outside powers, including Turkey, expand their national navies and assume a larger role. The Caspian littoral states, previously focused on deploying their Coast Guards, are this summer constructing naval vessels in Kazakhstan capable of challenging the Russian Caspian Flotilla and enabling Turkey to project power throughout the region.  

Located east of the Black Sea the often overlooked, large body of water contains a wealth of oil and gas reserves. It can be accessed only through canals connecting it to the Black Sea, Azov Sea, the Baltic, and Russia’s Volga River. No saltwater reaches its shores. While some describe it simply as the world’s largest lake, it contributes an estimated 10% to the GDP of the countries along its shores and accounts for about 40% of their exports. It also serves as a link between east and west with competing powers vying for dominance. 

Central Asian governments view it as more valuable than a freshwater lake and now Turkey is planning a genuine navy in the Caspian Sea, according to Paul Goble of the Jamestown Foundation. He points out that Astana has signed agreements with Turkey to construct large naval vessels for Ankara in Kazakhstan. They will be capable of challenging Moscow’s regional influence once deployed in the Caspian. The deals inked this summer will enable the Turkish government to be the “naval contractor of first resort or even use the ships it builds under the flags of others to promote Turkish goals,” says Goble. 

Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan were not allotted ships from the former Soviet Caspian fleet upon the dissolution of the USSR. As a result, Kazakhstan recently refocused its approach to sea corridors through shallow waters and is building additional coastal defenses. Today Astana has the largest naval inventory of any of the Caspian littorals states, including Russia. It developed a two-prong approach, both purchasing ships from foreign states and by increasing domestic production in cooperation with foreign shipbuilders.  

The Russian publicationSovsekretno, on August 29, reported that Moscow officials will be paying closer attention to Kazakhstan’s naval plans this fall. The Kremlin suggests that Astana is deliberately allowing Turkey to project power beyond the Turkish world in a move aimed at placing it into the dominant geopolitical position once held by Russia. If this summer’s announced plans are fully carried out, Turkey could dominate the entire southern port of the post-Soviet space to the border with China. That could force Putin’s hand, compelling him to respond militarily or lose status in the Caspian Sea and in the nearby Central Asian states.  

Five years ago, Moscow had the shipbuilding market cornered using bilateral agreements with the littoral states. The Central Asian states, including Kazakhstan, leaned toward the Russian Federation for shipbuilding, according to Goble. They used the provisions in the 2018 accord on the delimitation of the Caspian to end conflict among states in the region that had been on the rise since 1991. Despite Moscow’s efforts, the states later turned to South Korea and now Turkey for the construction of its ships. 

According to at least one Russian analyst, “Ankara has found a way around the restrictions about the introduction of foreign navies on the Caspian,” says Goble. Yury Lyamin, a senior researcher at Moscow’s Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, is quoted in Sovershenno Sekretno, as suggesting that “in order to control the oil and gas wealth of the Caspian Sea, and at the same time support their ally Azerbaijan, which is arguing for huge reserves of blue fuel with Turkmenistan, the Turks have come up with the idea of ​​deploying their naval forces here under the flags of their kindred “Turkic” countries, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan.”  

Despite the 2018 Convention prohibiting the use of non-Caspian armed forces, Baku and Astana are prepared to circumvent the restrictions imposed by Iran and Russia. Turkey is projecting power in the region and also aiding its closest ally, Azerbaijan, to ensure Ankara can access Caspian oil and gas. This will allow it to emerge potentially as the predominant geoeconomic power over all of Central Asia. One analyst suggests that Turkey has an additional goal of exerting its influence within the current borders of the Russian Federation as Ankara considers “…the representatives of peoples living in Russia, certain republics of the Caucasus, the Middle Volga, Kalmykia, parts of the Urals and Siberia” as properly within their sphere of influence.  

The concept of a Turkish world is an old, but not a forgotten one in Ankara. An expanded and more powerful Turkish fleet can bypass Russian trade routes and limit Moscow’s ability to trade with the Indian Ocean states and Iran. The question analysts are asking this month is can the West fend off the Turkish challenge in Central Asia and, especially, inside Kazakhstan. For Russia, these developments represent yet another southeastern state than may leave Moscow’s fold. It could force Russia to align more closely with its competitive ally China and possibly Iran. A once backwater region is emerging as a new flashpoint for serious conflict and with far-reaching consequences for the great powers. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

Photo: Pixabay

In 2019, candidate Joe Biden stated emphatically that  “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.”  Biden also said, “I have never discussed, with my son or my brother or with anyone else, anything having to do with their businesses. Period…And what I will do is the same thing we did in our (Obama) administration. There will be an absolute wall between personal and private [business interests] and the government. There wasn’t any hint of scandal at all when we were there. And I’m going to propose the same kind of strict, strict rules. That’s why I never talked with my son or my brother or anyone else — even distant family — about their business interests. Period.” 

These words could be interpreted as being technically true – in those 20 phone calls and even the dinner with a representative from Burisma, the then Vice President did not need to be involved in any discussion of business.  As Archer testified, his presence alone, and Hunter’s ability to get him on the phone so easily, proved that Hunter had his father’s ear.

In the words of Lilo Galente, “(a) smart boss finds the sweet spot between being remote enough from street level associates/soldiers who do the dirty work so that he’s not easily caught up in law enforcement investigations and being close enough to the hoodlums so that they know that he knows what they’re doing or not doing…(t)he boss takes a healthy piece of all of the activities, businesses, or rackets in which the organization is involved. Usually the boss has enough experience to know what most people are doing and how much money they should be earning.” 

All this comparison between the behavior of Biden and the average crime boss is facetious at best without evidence of actual criminal or unethical activity.  So far, the bulk of the hard evidence points toward a pattern of tax evasion and other criminal conduct by the President’s son – enough to merit the appointment of a Special Counsel to conduct an investigation of Hunter Biden’s business affairs.    What evidence is there of a pattern of criminal and or unethical behavior by the President, and other members of his family?

In May of 2023 (as the New York Times was claiming that there was “no proof of misconduct”), the House Oversight Committee released a Memorandum detailing some of their findings.  “The Committee has subpoenaed four different banks and received thousands of records in response,” according to the Memo.  “The Committee’s bank subpoenas were tailored to specific individuals and companies that engaged in business activities with Biden family members and their business associates.” 

The Committee reports that “(w)hen President Biden ran as a presidential candidate, he assured the American people his family received no money from China. President Biden recently claimed the Committee’s bank records regarding his family’s receipt of funds from China are ‘not true.’” Yet, “Biden family members and business associates created a web of over 20 companies—most were limited liability companies formed during Joe Biden’s vice presidency…Bank records show the Biden family, their business associates, and their companies received over $10 million from foreign nationals’ companies. The Committee has identified payments to Biden family members from foreign companies while Joe Biden served as Vice President and after he left public office…Chinese nationals and companies with significant ties to Chinese intelligence and the Chinese Communist Party hid the source of the funds by layering domestic limited liability companies.”

Further, “(t)o date, President Biden has continued to deny that his family received money from China—despite bank records proving otherwise. In 2017 alone, bank records show President Biden’s family and their related companies received millions of dollars from Chinese foreign nationals’ companies…(b)ecause President Biden is not required to file financial disclosures for immediate family members (other than a spouse or dependents), this gaping legislative hole has allowed President Biden to make misleading statements about the source of his family’s income, act willfully blind about their finances notwithstanding potential conflicts of interest, and use federal government resources and personnel—including White House spokespersons—to conceal influence peddling.”

The established facts are these; while Joe Biden was Vice President, Hunter Biden engaged in a series of meetings with Chinese, and other foreign nationals.  He reportedly “made millions” from these activities.  Hunter showed his foreign contacts that he had ready access to his father by calling him during meetings with these overseas associates.  The rest of the Biden family then received “millions of dollars” from foreign nationals, including the Chinese, money which was spread between 20 different “shell” companies.

Much of the media will not believe that this “web” of payments does not constitute influence peddling by Joe Biden himself.  They would rather view the then Vice President as just an innocent bystander to his son’s activities.  But the Oversight Committee thinks differently.

“The amount of money involved in these financial transactions is significant. The wires and money transfers range from approximately $5,000 to at least $3 million,” the Committee states. “Many of the relevant wire transfers involve Owasco PC, a professional corporation formed in Washington, D.C. Hunter Biden was the owner of Owasco PC…(t)he transactions in Romania and China show related but separate issues identified by the Committee that raise serious questions about financial disclosures and risks to national security…(t)he Committee is releasing a selection of bank records that shows the Biden family’s receipt of money from a foreign company reportedly controlled by Gabriel Popoviciu, the subject of a criminal probe and prosecution for corruption in Romania…(t)hen Vice President Biden delivered speeches and met with Romanian leaders in 2014 and 2015 regarding corruption in the country…(t)he Committee is concerned about the Biden family’s pattern of courting business in regions of the world in which the then Vice President had an outsize role and influenced U.S. policy.”

Let us take the position that these are mere allegations.  But are these allegations, involving the current President of the United States, serious enough to require a full investigation, and the appointment of a Special Counsel?

If you ask Attorney General Merrick Garland, he has already appointed a Special Counsel, and his name is David Weiss.  “Mr. Weiss, in his capacity as U.S. Attorney and along with federal law enforcement partners, began investigating allegations of certain criminal conduct by, among others, Robert Hunter Biden,” Garland stated when he appointed Weiss as Special Counsel on August 11, 2023.   “As Special Counsel, he will continue to have the authority and responsibility that he has previously exercised to oversee the investigation and decide where, when, and whether to file charges.” (Emphasis added.)

It is argued that the “among others” referenced above includes the President himself.  but significantly, no where is it stated that David Weiss is involved in any investigation beyond that of Hunter Biden’s activities.

In fact, as reported by Newsweek, “(t)he GOP-led House Oversight Committee wrote on X that Garland’s move is part of a cover up aimed to discredit the ‘Committee’s mounting evidence of President Joe Biden’s role in his family’s schemes selling ‘the brand’ for millions of dollars to foreign nationals.'” 

Is this assertion true?  Judge for yourself.  As we stated in August, “rather than select someone from outside the Justice Department, Attorney General Merrick Garland chose the current US Attorney for Delaware, David Weiss, to serve as his Special Counsel – the same David Weiss who has conducted an investigation into Hunter Biden for five years, failed to bring felony charges against Hunter Biden in a timely manner, failed to bring a routine felony gun charge against the President’s son, offered Hunter a plea to two misdemeanors and a diversion program, and then watched that agreement blow up under questioning by a federal judge.” 

It is therefore safe to conclude that even if David Weiss is conducting an investigation of Joe Biden and the rest of his family for the unethical and potentially criminal activities outlined by the House Oversight Committee, we can expect the same incompetent and “slow-walked” investigation we have witnessed Weiss conduct regarding the President’s son.

Let us be honest here – given the evidence uncovered by the House Oversight Committee, the American people deserve better than David Weiss to look into these serious allegations.

Judge John Wilson served on the bench in NYC

If you listen to the legacy media, or read the majority of what are generally considered mainstream news sources, and are trying to get information about the Congressional investigation into the Biden Family business, maybe you experience the same feeling as when you come upon a traffic accident, or a crime scene.  Usually, there is a police officer waving you away, telling you “Move along citizen, nothing to see here.”

Here, it’s the media telling you to be on your way, and ignore the carnage that’s plain to see.

For instance, Politico stated in April that “House Republicans charged into the majority vowing an investigative onslaught against President Joe Biden and Democrats. But they’ve gotten almost nowhere so far.”  Then, in May, according to the New York Times, “(a)fter months of investigation and many public accusations of corruption against Mr. Biden and his family, the first report of the premier House GOP inquiry showed no proof of such misconduct.” 

These reports are from earlier this year, before the testimony of Devon Archer to the House Oversight Committee in July.  “Archer said…Hunter Biden (made) millions in business deals with…foreign companies, including Burisma and CEFC China Energy,” as reported by Yahoo! News. “after Burisma added Hunter Biden to its board in 2014, that helped the company survive because it was associated with what Archer called ‘the Biden brand…I think Burisma would have gone out of business if it didn’t have the brand attached to it,’ Archer said. ‘People would be intimidated to mess with them.’” 

Did this dramatic testimony by Hunter Biden’s former business partner change the minds of the media? 

No.  According to PBS. “The Republican-led House Oversight Committee conducted a more than-five hour interview with Devon Archer as part of its expanding congressional inquiry into the Biden family businesses…(b)oth Republican and Democratic lawmakers inside the closed-door interview said Archer testified that over the span of 10 years, Hunter Biden put his father on the phone around 20 times while in the company of associates but ‘never once spoke about any business dealings.’” 

What did President Obama talk with his son about during those business calls?  If you ask New York Democratic Representative Dan Goldman, who was present for Archer’s testimony,  “The witness was unequivocal and stated very clearly that they never discussed any business on [those] phone conversations…There were niceties. And there was a hello. And [they] talked about the weather or whatever it was…but it was never any business.” 

The weather?  No business discussed?  20 calls, all while Hunter was “in the company of associates?”  Frankly, this doesn’t pass the smell test.  As the Oversight Committee Republicans asked “Who dials their father into 20 business phone calls?” 

What did Archer actually say? “’You have to understand that there was no business conversation about…a fee or anything like that,’ Archer told Congress. ‘It was, you know, just general niceties and…conversation in general, you know, about the geography, about the weather, whatever it may be.’ Hunter was selling what Archer called an ‘illusion of access’ to Joe Biden’s decision-making power. ‘People send signals and those signals are basically used as currency. And that’s kind of how a lot of D.C. operators and foreign tycoons and businessmen work,’ Archer said.”

Besides the 20 phone calls, “Archer also asserted that then-Vice President Joe Biden met a Burisma executive in 2015 at a dinner with Hunter Biden and others in Washington, D.C.”   

Chairman of the House Oversight Committee, James Comer (R-KY), put the issue of Biden’s corruption in its proper perspective; “Devon Archer’s testimony confirms Joe Biden 𝐋𝐈𝐄𝐃 when he said he had no knowledge about his son’s business dealings and was not involved. Joe Biden was ‘the brand’ & he joined Hunter’s dinners with his foreign associates in person or by phone over 20 times.” (Emphasis in original.) 

The article concludes tomorrow

Judge Wilson served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

In August of 2022, we discussed whether or not the Biden Administration has the authority to forgive outstanding student loans.  At that time, we detailed a series of instances where the Courts had determined that various Biden initiatives were in excess of the authority granted the Executive Branch by the Congress, and therefore unconstitutional.  We predicted that this measure would also be found illegal. 

We also discussed the Biden Administration’s belief that the HEROES Act of 2003 authorized the Secretary of Education to engage in a wholesale amnesty of student loan debt.  In that regard, we quoted Jonathan Turley, a Law Professor at George Washington University, who said, “President Biden has been a constitutional recidivist in executive overreach in a series of major court losses.  The authority cited is highly challengeable. To assume such a massive power to excuse as much as $500 billion, that authority should be both express and clear. It is not.”

Well, you know how much we hate to say, “I told you so.”  But…we told you so.

On June 30, 2023 the US Supreme Court decided the case of Biden v Nebraska, one of two cases brought in challenge of the government’s student loan forgiveness plan,    and as we predicted, the Supreme Court thought little of the use of the HEROES Act to justify this scheme.

But before we delve into the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s latest effort to protect the Constitution’s separation of powers, one issue should be clarified.  

When we discussed the state of the litigation on student loan forgiveness in November of 2022, we noted that there were two cases headed to the Supreme Court; Biden v. Nebraska, brought by six states, and Department of Education v. Brown, brought by individual borrowers. Both of these cases turned on the legal issue of standing – that is, who has “suffered an injury,” and therefore has the right to bring a case.

In Biden v. Nebraska, six states complained of a loss of tax revenue as a result of student loan forgiveness.  The lower court called these losses “speculative,” and found that the states did not have standing to bring their case.  Conversely, in Department of Education v. Brown, the lower court found that two individuals who would not be eligible for benefits under the student loan forgiveness plan had standing since “‘Plaintiffs have a concrete interest in having their debts forgiven.’  Thus, these Plaintiffs ‘inability to obtain the full benefit of debt forgiveness under the Program flows directly from the Program’s eligibility requirements.’”

Ironically, the Supreme Court reversed each lower court opinion.  In Brown, Justice Alito found “that (Plaintiffs) fail to establish that any injury they suffer from not having their loans forgiven is fairly traceable to the (student loan forgiveness) Plan.”   Meanwhile, in Biden v. Nebraska, Chief Justice Roberts found that the State of Missouri, through  “the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority (MOHELA), a public corporation that holds and services student loans,” had standing to sue.  “Under the Secretary’s plan,’ Roberts writes, “roughly half of all federal borrowers would have their loans completely discharged…MOHELA could no longer service those closed accounts, costing it, by Missouri’s estimate, $44 million a year in fees that it otherwise would have earned under its contract with the Department of Education…(t)his financial harm is an injury in fact directly traceable to the Secretary’s plan.”

In his opinion, Roberts gave some background on the HEROES Act. “Shortly after the September 11 terrorist attacks, Congress became concerned that borrowers affected by the crisis—particularly those who served in the military—would need additional assistance. As a result, it enacted the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2001. That law provided the Secretary of Education, for a limited period of time, with ‘specific waiver authority to respond to conditions in the national emergency’ caused by the September 11 attacks…Rather than allow this grant of authority to expire by its terms at the end of September 2003, Congress passed the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act)…That Act extended the coverage of the 2001 statute to include any war or national emergency— not just the September 11 attacks. By its terms, the Secretary ‘may waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision applicable to the student financial assistance programs under title IV of the [Education Act] as the Secretary deems necessary in connection with a war or other military operation or national emergency.’”

During the pandemic, “then-Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos announced that she was suspending loan repayments and interest accrual for all federally held student loans,” a necessary emergency measure, given that many borrowers were out of work and unable to make their payments.  “But in August 2022, a few weeks before President Biden stated that ‘the pandemic is over,’ the Department of Education announced that it was once again issuing ‘waivers and modifications’ under the Act—this time to reduce and eliminate student debts directly.”

Chief Justice Roberts states his ruling in clear and plain language; “The Secretary (of Education) asserts that the HEROES Act grants him the authority to cancel $430 billion of student loan principal. It does not. We hold today that the Act allows the Secretary to ‘waive or modify’ existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act, not to rewrite that statute from the ground up… statutory permission to ‘modify’ does not authorize ‘basic and fundamental changes in the scheme’ designed by Congress…(t)he Secretary’s…’modifications’…were not ‘moderate’ or ‘minor.’ Instead, they created a novel and fundamentally different loan forgiveness program…(f)rom a few narrowly delineated situations specified by Congress, the Secretary has expanded forgiveness to nearly every borrower in the country.”

As Robert’s puts it bluntly, “(t)he Secretary’s plan has ‘modified’ the (HEROES Act) only in the same sense that ‘the French Revolution ‘modified’ the status of the French nobility’—it has abolished them and supplanted them with a new regime entirely…the Secretary’s plan…in essence (allows) the Secretary unfettered discretion to cancel student loans. It is ‘highly unlikely that Congress’ authorized such a sweeping loan cancellation program ‘through such a subtle device as permission to ‘modify.’”

The Biden Administration tried to justify its power grab by stating that “(t)he whole point of the HEROES Act…is to ensure that in the face of a national emergency that is causing financial harm to borrowers, the Secretary can do something,” and that “the unprecedented nature of the Secretary’s debt cancellation plan only ‘reflects the pandemic’s unparalleled scope.’”  But Roberts disposes of this argument quickly.  

“The question here is not whether something should be done; it is who has the authority to do it,” the Chief Justice writes.  “(T)he Secretary of Education claims the authority, on his own, to release 43 million borrowers from their obligations to repay $430 billion in student loans. The Secretary has never previously claimed powers of this magnitude under the HEROES Act… Under the Government’s reading of the HEROES Act, the Secretary would enjoy virtually unlimited power to rewrite the Education Act… (t)he ‘economic and political significance’ of the Secretary’s action is staggering by any measure…(a) budget model issued by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania estimates that the program will cost taxpayers ‘between $469 billion and $519 billion,’ depending on the total number of borrowers ultimately covered…It amounts to nearly one-third of the Government’s $1.7 trillion in annual discretionary spending.”  

Therefore, if this use of the HEROES Act were found legal, “the Secretary (of Education could then claim) the authority to exercise control over ‘a significant portion of the American economy.’”  In essence, then “(t)he Secretary’s assertion of administrative authority has ‘conveniently enabled [him] to enact a program’ that Congress has chosen not to enact itself…Congress did not unanimously pass the HEROES Act with such power in mind. ‘A decision of such magnitude and consequence’ on a matter of ‘earnest and profound debate across the country’ must ‘res[t] with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.’”

Thus, Roberts reaches the same conclusion the Supreme Court has reached in a number of decisions involving efforts by the Biden Administration to seize power from Congress; “’The basic and consequential tradeoffs’ inherent in a mass debt cancellation program ‘are ones that Congress would likely have intended for itself’…In such circumstances, we have required the Secretary to ‘point to clear congressional authorization’ to justify the challenged program…And as we have already shown, the HEROES Act provides no authorization for the Secretary’s plan even when examined using the ordinary tools of statutory interpretation—let alone ‘clear congressional authorization’ for such a program.”

But will President Biden cease his efforts to unconstitutionally seize power from Congress?  Don’t bet on it.

According to Caleb Kruckenberg of the Pacific Legal Foundation, writing in the New York Post, “(w)hile everyone’s focus has been on the administration’s outrageous cancellation stunt, the DOE has been working tirelessly to accomplish an even more disastrous policy: a new Income-Driven Repayment rule… (u)nder the new plan, in a variety of formulations, the secretary proposes to dramatically reduce the monthly payments of most borrowers, with millions looking at payments of $0, while also reducing the time to forgiveness to as short as 10 years. In other words, while styled as a rule that simply tinkers with the details of existing income-based repayment programs, it effectively does the same work as the cancellation effort: It writes off the debts of millions of college-educated borrowers. And it does so permanently – applying to future borrowers…(t)he rule itself claims it would cost taxpayers at least $138 billion… The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated that the actual program costs between $333 billion and $361 billion over 10 years.  Estimates that account for tuition inflation and future borrowing costs put government expenditures as high as $1 trillion. The old cancellation policy’s $500 billion price tag now almost seems quaint.”

Unfortunately, this scheme might be more successful than the effort to cancel student loans.  This measure is based on the Higher Education Act of 1965, and as we discussed last August,  “one would think the Biden Administration would argue that over the course of 50 years, Congress has granted the Secretary of Education increased power over student loans, including control over loan extensions and forgiveness, and that this latest initiative is nothing new in the increasing burden the Department of Education has placed on the American taxpayer.”

In other words, stayed tuned.  Biden v. Nebraska may prove to be a short-lived victory against executive overreach, while the real war was lost by Congress when it gave its authority away to the Secretary of Education in 1965.

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC

Illustration: Pixabay

China may be facing growing domestic economic and political issues, but it remains a major global concern to nations attempting to protect their intellectual property (IP) and state secrets. Academic institutions in advanced Western nations, such as Germany, are only recently beginning to recognize the extent of the threat and act, by suspending some Chinese government-funded researchers over concerns of industrial espionage and academic freedom. It may be too little, too late, according to military analysts in Washington. In June, one of Germany’s leading academic institutions, the Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg (FAU), announced the formal suspension of its Chinese government-funded researchers. Earlier this week the school admitted it “feared” these individuals were utilizing government funding supplied through the China Scholarship Council (CSC) for spying. 

Joseph Fitsanakis, writing in IntelNews.org, says that the Swish-based Dagens Nyheter reported that, to receive a CSC scholarship, Chinese citizens are now required to pledge “support [to] the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party… and to have a correct world view, outlook on life, and values system.” This week the FAU sent an internal email to university officials expressing concerns that Beijing could force its CSC researchers to spy on FAU advanced scientific and industrial research and compromise its data security and IP practices as allowed under Chinese law. All Chinese citizens, whether residing inside China or working or studying abroad are compelled to spy under China’s nèibù (内部) regulations when asked by the government.

Bettina Stark-Watzinger, Germany’s Minister of Education, this week supported FAU’s decision saying that research organizations have “a responsibility to safeguard themselves against espionage activities conducted by students receiving scholarships from the Chinese government.” It appears other schools in Western Europe are considering similar actions with intelligence analysts in Washington calling it “long overdue” and “too late” in many cases. China often sends military officers to study Western advanced technologies without declaring their status. Their sheer numbers overwhelm the capabilities of foreign intelligence agencies to identify or track them. At the same time universities are often uncooperative as they vie for the money tied to these students and often overlook or minimize the threat they pose.

The Chinese have an extensive history of industrial spying in modern Germany. As early as 2009, the German Association for Security in Industry and Commerce (ASW), a corporate security group, echoed warnings from the German government over its concern in increases in foreign industrial and commercial espionage. At the time, the German newspaper Mitteldeutsche Zeitung reported that the General Manager of the ASW, Dr. Berthold Stoppelkamp, said the “targeting of German research and commercial enterprises by mainly Chinese and Russian agents is so extensive that it usually costs the German economy over €20 billion per year, and it may be costing as high as €50 billion per year since 2007.”

According to Dr. Stoppelkamp, although these covert activities are government-managed, they “aim to assist individual Chinese or Russian firms competing against German companies for international contracts.” ASW reports point out that most of the espionage activities involve “sensitive information […] siphoned from trade shows and business meetings”, or the covert utilization of Chinese and Russian students working in German universities and research firms. 

China is known for planting of informants with extensive fabricated identities and advanced technological skills. The Germany Ministry of the Interior almost two decades ago warned that “science, engineering, renewable energy, materials research, pharmaceuticals and manufacturing businesses are becoming popular places to imbed foreign spies.”

Industrial espionage in Europe is not limited to Germany. In 2019, after the director of the Belgian intelligence and security agency, the Veiligheid van de Staat  – Surete de L‘Etat (VSSE), accused the director of the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), one of Belgium’s leading higher-education institutions, of spying for Beijing, the university shut down the research institute. It had been in operation on the campus for over 13 years. Ian Allen, of IntelNews, says that Beijing tried to stifle Belgian research critical of China and that “In Europe alone, the University of Lyon in France, Stockholm University in Sweden, and Holland’s University of Leiden have all recently terminated their cooperation” with various Chinese government-linked organizations. 

In the United States, Ivy League schools appear worried they may lose up to $14 billion in tuition and other fees spent annually by more than 350,000 Chinese nationals studying in the US. These prestigious institutions regularly share strategies to thwart plans by counter-intelligence officials in Washington to address the problem. Harvard University has in recent years explicitly refused to allow FBI Special Agents to train research professors in the advanced technologies how to recognize the Chinese threat. 

It extends to the US commercial sector, too. It is becoming so blatant that this week investigative reporter Philip Lenczycki reported on a video depicting American employees at the Chinese parent company of US-based Gotion, Inc. (which intends to build two electric battery plants in Michigan), pledging Chinese Communist Party oaths and dressed as Red Army soldiers during company field trips. The footage is openly posted on the Chinese battery manufacturer’s website. If officials in Western governments, academia, and the corporate world fail to develop and implement stronger policies, Beijing will continue to make inroads and threaten the international rules-based system.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.