The CCP & US Policy on Chinese Immigration and Espionage, Part II--Editor's Discussion

UPDATE 10.12.18: From the article, Google's China Problem is America's China Problem: Larry Diamond, a senior fellow at Hoover, told me: “If you understand how China operates, it would be shocking to the point of disbelief if they were not in an organized fashion trying to penetrate Google.”And this: "Chinese citizens are subjects of a totalitarian government. This does not mean that every Chinese national at Google is a spy or a plant. It does mean that Chinese Googlers are more likely to face pressure from their government than Googlers who come from more open societies. Just like the old Soviet Union, the Chinese state views its people as its appendages." To be fair, the Chinese government itself calls the Overseas Chinese "Assets" not appendages._______________This is a compilation of emails with an editor about the article that I previously posted in Part I.Discussion with editor

Hi David,

The situation is indeed messy, as you say, but some of the sources you cite make unsubstantiated claims or offer opinions I think are flat-out wrong. I'm also surprised by some of the conclusions you draw from otherwise solid observations. This point here for instance -- "Since successful businesses in China still often rely on influential relationships, many Chinese claim practicality as the initial impetus for joining the CCP" -- seems to support the idea that one shouldn't be justified in placing individuals under suspicion, because joining the party is indeed a matter of practicality and doesn't fit into the rather extreme "CCP is weaponizing its citizenry" narrative.I don't think it's at all justifiable to put private Chinese citizens -- even those who are CCP members -- under the same umbrella of suspicion as ZTE execs or criminals. It's paranoia, is what it is. And I think instead of calling for vague "more effective measures," you'd be well served to come out and call this paranoia simply what it is: unhealthy and unbefitting of a first-world democracy. The first third of your article is headed this direction, and it's something I feel many people can get behind. The middle third undermines your initial (and stronger) point.Anyway, the situation is messy, but I'd try to convey that by addressing the paranoia that has arisen from overblown fears over Chinese espionage, etc. But I'd only want to proceed with edits if we were in agreement that these fears are indeed overblown. Let's discuss if not.Best,EDITOR_________________Dear EDITOR,Thank you for your comments. I’m quite pleased with your willingness to both spend time responding and openness in sharing your concerns and opinions. I’m very interested in your reading of the “first third” of the piece and have re-read it a number of times to try to understand your positioning. Sincere thanks for sharing this. Let em responded to each point, not to debate, but to try to find a position that works for each of us.First, I agree that it’s quite messy. Innocent citizens are bing caught up in a mess that is actively being created by the CCP and is being inappropriately responded to by the US HNS. But that is not the entire story, and to leave it at that (or even less, as you seem to suggest) is, I think, incorrect. I’d be glad to present both academic work that points to broader issues that need better thinking as well as use personal anecdotes to highlight shortcomings.Second, I don’t know that we have to agree to have a well edited piece—that may be my misunderstanding of your site’s goals though. I think that my conclusion states clearly that I don’t know what to do but SUGGEST that only a specific segment of people are targeted—not all Chinese.Third, in that vein, I do not think that it’s justifiable to place private citizens that are not members of the CCP under an umbrella of suspicion. But if the CCP continues to specifically use C-level executives and academics in positions of influence to achieve political goals in foreign countries, as Brady documents with extreme detail and academic rigor, then I can see the result being a logical policy position that is not paranoid.Fourth, joining the CCP for guanxi and practicality is certainly a very diverse and not easily simplified occurrence in the PRC today. I have family that are members. I have friends in the US that joined and have never thought about it since. Joining the party may indeed be an innocuous practical act by many/most. But it is not seen as such by the CCP. And there is also extensive evidence that Party members are the first to be contacted for United Front work abroad. Additionally, the extent of corruption in China is undisputedly rooted (or at least fostered by) party connections—party affiliation is not just for social relationships.Finally, the original FP article did not take into context Chinese influence, and I am not willing to make the same mistake. Having said that, I am not pleased with current US immigration policy, but I am also very much not in the camp of everything in the current US policy arena is ignorant BS and should be considered in a vacuum. US immigration has been a mess for decades, not just the last two years. The issue is at times ignored and at other times focused on too much. But if the direction that you’d like this piece to take is that the fears about Chinese CCP members are both somehow similar to what’s happening on the Mexican border and are also unfounded paranoia then we likely won’t agree. Personally, I’m fine not agreeing. But I’m not fine putting my name on something that is not representative of my understanding of current issues.I’m willing to adjust and listen/study to your opinions if you’d like to move forward. I do hope that competing personal views are an acceptable position. I’d be more than happy to use only academic sources and not dumb down the piece for general consumption if your main concern is unsubstantiated claims.At the very least, I very much appreciate this opportunity to have you read and respond—thank you. I hope that we can reach an agreement.Thanks!DD_________________Hi David,Your thoughtful and comprehensive response is much appreciated. I don't have access to Brady's paper, unfortunately, but would be interested in taking a look.I think there's a way forward, but perhaps less academic would be better.But before we get to that, let me address our disagreement real quick. All that you say is correct in theory, but even if CCP interference/influence is playing out at the scale that some researchers insist, it's still, in my opinion, worth it to actively argue that it doesn't matter, because the vast, vast majority of people going to the U.S. from China, even party members, have no interest in being "spies" or whatever. Wray's comments are frankly incendiary, and it's somewhat unprecedented for the director of a national security organization to bring what is a high-level conflict between governments -- anti-espionage, essentially -- into the civilian realm. Casting suspicion on all "Chinese students" (essentially what he did, without saying it outright) feels like a terribly irresponsible thing for someone with his power to do.Your piece is academic and presents both sides, and does its due diligence, but I might be encountering a little difficulty converting it to an article for a consumer media platform precisely because it's arguing two sides. 1) Immigration policy is bad, and is exacerbated by (what I think are overblown) suspicions; 2) the Chinese government's influence campaign is causing increased suspicion.I see those as competing positions ...The other thing is, when I first approached your piece, I thought it might be an op-ed -- which would be great -- but now I think it actually defies that genre. (It remains slightly too academic.) As an op-ed, the conclusion "something must change with U.S. immigration policy" feels incomplete. How must it change? If we set ourselves to answering that specific question, we'd then have a structure and a specific, op-ed-esque direction forward.Which is to say -- sorry if we're just circling back again -- the parts about CCP influence seem like they should be a caveat, limited to two or three paragraphs, as opposed to a central argument (one of two central arguments, as it were).What do you think?EDITOR______________________DEAR EDITORGlad to hear back from you!! Again, thanks for this. Here are my thoughts.I think, our general disagreement is three fold.First, you want to point to scale, and I want to point to scope. Certainly ALL Chinese students and business people are neither CCP members nor spies. But that is not my claim, nor Wray’s (this is a weak straw man at best). In my opinion, more important than both these points is the larger context of China’s understanding of what the CCP calls “its assets” abroad—students, business people, and the overseas Chinese community.You’re right in saying that lumping everyone together is problematic. I agree. But I also think that you’re also being too dismissive of the context and the sheer number of incidents by people who are not “spies.” You want to put the blame for individual issues on Wray's comments. Not only is the timing incorrect to support that positions but, in my opinion (and I think I can document quite extensively), the comments are a response to China’s changing the nature of the traditional espionage more than a decade ago. The recent US (and global) response to China’s United Front work is a secondary (and oft-times clumsy) reaction to China’s fundamental reinterpretation of everything from the definition of “Chinese,” to filial piety and nationalism (the CCP’s words), to actual corporate and international espionage by Chinese who are not “spies,” to extraterritorial force and coercion. Chinese citizens abroad are the victims of the policies of both governments.Second, I feel like you want my piece to say something that I didn’t necessarily intend—that’s not wrong or necessarily a problem, it’s your reading, but it is also different than what I intended. Originally I had hoped to balance the individual anecdotes caused by poor US policy and procedures with the documented reality of increased CCP activity. If that’s a story that we can tell, I’d like to work with you. If you only want the personal stories of Chinese in the US to use as critique of the US without global Chinese context then I’ll have to pass.Third, I likely don’t write very well, and as a professional editor you noticed that immediately. I’ve apparently mixed two stories. I apologize for this. While for you it may be just a frustration, for me it’s been both embarrassing and also very interesting to see your focus on anecdotes over more substantial materials (and that’s saying something since I’m an anthropologist!). I realize that the confusion and frustrations are likely a function of my poor attention to your site’s audience and direction.As I stated before, I’m fine with disagreement. I’d still like to see what we can do. I more than willing to write a piece that is less academic, but not one that presents individual events out of a larger context.Please let me know if you think we can move forward.Thanks!!DDHere’s a copy of Brady’s Magic Weapons piece too._____________________________________Hi David,Thanks for sending Brady's piece. I agree with it, generally."Chinese citizens abroad are the victims of the policies of both governments" is a thesis I could get behind. I just hesitate slightly because I fear it will be hard for some readers -- who, if they're in the U.S., are already inundated with anti-Chinese espionage talk -- to understand that we're not trying to blame the victims.I think you and I aren't quibbling all that much over facts*, but framing. The "documented reality of increased CCP activity" is a fine story to tell, but it almost seems like we don't need to tell it in the context of immigration.But also, that's a story that's been told quite often -- I can see it turning into one of those "China narratives," like "Beijing's air is bad," which newspaper editors outside China might return to with regularity because it sells.You writing is good, and I appreciate both the chance to read it and to have this discussion!Best,EDITOR