CCP-University Links? – USA Gov Policy

A letter was sent from Rep. Mike Gallagher, of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, to Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin on Wednesday evening seeking an answer. The simple question in it: Why is New York’s Alfred University receiving a $13.5 million grant to conduct hypersonic weapons research when they have close ties to China? “One university in particular – Alfred – was hosting a Confucius Institute and partnering with a Chinese university ‘actively engaged in defense research’ on behalf of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA),” Gallagher wrote. “To put it plainly, DOD is funding advanced, hypersonic weapons-related research at an American university that actively partners with a Chinese university that performs similar research for the PLA. We seek additional information regarding this alarming matter and the DOD’s efforts to safeguard sensitive U.S. military research.”

Recently, Rep. Jim Banks sent the Secretary of Defense a letter asking another “simple” question… Why are colleges seeking waivers to grant Confucius Institutes allowed to do so when they are known avenues China uses for spying and still receiving federal funding from DOD to conduct military research. So far, American taxpayer dollars have provided over $17 million to fund advanced research at Alfred University although the Biden Administration is aware that the school actively partners with a Chinese research institution working closely with the Chinese military.

Rep. Gallagher is calling for the US Government to put “hard power” in the path of China’s President Xi Jinping. Gallagher told Fox News Digital that “It is not a secret that the CCP uses Confucius Institutes to project ‘soft power,’ but it’s time to shed light on how the CCP also uses these institutes to build Chinese ‘hard power’ weapons that could be used against Americans in a future conflict.” The research grant will be in violation of the law as of October 1, 2023,” per Section 1062 of the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which prohibits DOD from administering funds to “institution[s] of higher education that hosts a Confucius Institute’ after October 1, 2023.” The question remains as to why there is no immediate action by Alfred University now.

Rep. Gallagher’s letter, which comes a month after Rep. Bank’s request, asks for “additional information regarding DOD’s efforts to protect sensitive national security and American taxpayer-funded research from theft or compromise,” given the university’s Confucius Institute in conjunction with its “research agreement with China University of Geosciences in Wuhan,” which currently maintains a research center whose research area is “closely related” to that of Alfred University’s. It appears that the Biden Administration is allowing American taxpayers to fund Chinese military research in areas that threaten US national security. Intelligence analysts in Washington are puzzled about why this has not been halted immediately and funding rescinded from these programs.

This is not a new issue for the Biden Administration. The President’s own political appointee to head the CIA, Nick Burns, in a Congressional hearing on February 24, 2021, stated that American universities and colleges should “cut ties” to China’s Confucius Institutes after calling them propaganda tools. In the hearing he added: “I think what the Confucius Institutes do, and I’m no expert on them, is to promote a narrative of Xi Jinping’s China, which is designed to build sympathy for what is, in my view, a quite aggressive leadership, which is engaged in conduct and conducted an adversarial approach to relations with the United States… that particular dimension of foreign influence operations constitutes a genuine risk… my advice for any institutions in the United States, including academic institutions, is to be extraordinarily careful of what the motives are for a variety of institutions like that and to be very careful in engaging them.” Analysts are asking if anyone in the Biden White House was listening to its own appointee? The miscalculations and misinterpretation of Chinese of Chinese actions are emerging as a greater threat than in the past as agents of the CCP infiltrate more and more American institutions, draining our competitive advantage and increasing the threat to US national security.

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

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.