Open Now
Open Now
Watch now

In the Crosshairs of Two Governments: Chinese Americans

The people who were hurt by the 'China Initiative,' as well as their families, friends, and the general public, deserve to know the truth.

In the almost 250 years that the American Republic has been around, many people and groups have been the target of federal domestic surveillance, political repression, or both. In a lot of cases, the people who were killed were not white. They were often Blacks, Native Americans, Arab or Muslim Americans, or different kinds of Asian Americans. And in the years after World War II, both the U.S. government and the agents of the People's Republic of China (PRC) often went after Chinese Americans. Just over 25 years ago, I saw firsthand how PRC agents try to silence people who disagree with its policies, even in the United States.

At Purdue University in early April 1997, there was a conference to remember the Holocaust. The theme of the conference was "individual guilt and collective responsibility." I was asked to speak because I recently leaked information about the CIA. To my surprise, I got to share the stage with Chinese dissident Harry Wu, who is one of the bravest people I've ever met.

Wu had an amazing life: he escaped from a PRC political prison after 19 years of brutal treatment, moved to the U.S., started a nonprofit in 1992 to expose the PRC political prison industrial system, and went back undercover to the PRC on a regular basis to smuggle out other prisoners and dissidents at great personal risk. His speech at the Purdue event quickly turned bad when a few Chinese students in the crowd started heckling him and trying to shout him down. I asked the person in charge of the event if I could stand up and talk to the crowd, and he said I could.

I started by saying, "I'd like to thank the people from the Chinese intelligence service for being here today." That stopped Wu's critics. Then, I told the audience what the PRC does to scare away dissidents who live abroad. I also made it clear to those who had been bothering Wu that this was not the PRC and that Wu would be heard.

I'll never forget shaking Wu's hand at the end and the kind words he said about my help. I'll also never forget that the long arm of PRC repression had been allowed to reach right into an American university in the middle of the country.

The PRC's program to intimidate dissidents, which I talked about above, is sometimes called "Operation Fox Hunt" or "Operation Skynet," according to a Justice Department statement from October 28, 2020, about the indictments and arrests of a number of PRC nationals who tried to do much more than just heckle their targets. On July 22, 2021, a new indictment in the same case said that PRC Hanyang People's Procuratorate prosecutor Tu Lan "went to the United States, led the harassment campaign, and told a co-conspirator to destroy evidence to stop the criminal investigation."

I couldn't be happier that the Justice Department is going after these and other "Operation Fox Hunt" cases. It's exactly the kind of legal approach that's needed to protect Chinese dissidents and asylum seekers in the U.S. Unfortunately, the federal government has been wrongly accusing Chinese American researchers and scientists of being spies or working for the PRC in ways that are almost as bad as the PRC's "Operation Fox Hunt."

Before the fall of 2018, the case of Wen Ho Lee, a scientist who worked for the Department of Energy, was the most famous example of the federal government wrongly charging a Chinese American scientist. Lee's life and career never really got back on track after that. But instead of learning from the mistakes in the Lee case, the Trump administration started the so-called "China Initiative" in November 2018. This is an investigation and prosecution campaign focused on alleged (and in some cases actual) espionage and technology theft by the PRC against both the U.S. government and American companies.

Asian American and civil rights groups said that the Justice Department's actions were a form of government-backed profiling and targeting based on race. By late winter 2021, a study showing how rarely Chinese Americans actually did espionage gave credibility to "China Initiative" critics' claims, and by late 2021, the number of acquittals or dismissed cases brought about by the "China Initiative" had reached the point where it was embarrassing for DoJ. On February 23, 2022, DoJ said that the "China Initiative" was over.

Since then, many in the Chinese American community have continued to wonder if the federal government will really stop going after Chinese American scientists and researchers. There are signs that the answer is "no."

On April 20, 2022, less than two months after the Biden administration said the "China Initiative" was dead, the FBI responded to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from the Cato Institute by saying, "The material you requested is located in an investigative file that is exempt from disclosure pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(1), 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(3), and 5 U.S.C. 522

The statutory citation is to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and three specific "exemptions" that allow the federal government to keep information from the public. The first two are about national security and "intelligence sources and methods." The last one is about a law enforcement exemption for records that "would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumventing the law."

Attorney General Merrick Garland told all federal agencies and departments on March 15, 2022, that they must follow the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). This makes the FBI's answer even more surprising. Garland's memo says, about the 2016 changes to the FOIA, "Information that might technically fall under an exemption should not be withheld from a FOIA requester unless the agency can identify a foreseeable harm or legal bar to disclosure." When in doubt, people should be honest. Also, agencies are strongly encouraged to share information when they think it is appropriate. Cato has tried to change the FBI's decision.

Late last month, Congress asked the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to put out a report on U.S. government intelligence activities that may violate the constitutional rights of Chinese Americans. The report said, "These intelligence programs protect all Americans' privacy, civil liberties, and civil rights." In May 2021, Cato sent another Freedom of Information Act request about the "China Initiative." The ODNI turned down the request for almost the same reasons as the FBI. Also on appeal is that Cato request.

These events are important because of a key admission on page 7 of the ODNI report about how the Intelligence Community (IC) rated the methods used by the PRC to recruit spies:

"Some of these factors may be linked to having personal, financial, or professional ties with people or groups in the PRC, but the IC believes that PRC intelligence services don't just look at race or ethnicity when figuring out how likely it is that intelligence assets will be recruited."

The public version of the annual ODNI Worldwide Threat Assessment, which came out just two weeks after the DoJ was said to have killed the "China Initiative," did not include that conclusion.

If that IC conclusion came out before or during the "China Initiative," it would mean that the Justice Department under Trump and/or Biden ignored a finding that said the FBI's focus on race in China-related investigations would lead to surveillance and prosecution of innocent Chinese Americans.

Congress and the public should look into when that particular IC conclusion about PRC spying tactics was sent out, who got it, and what, if anything, was done because of it. The people who were hurt by the "China Initiative," as well as their families, friends, and the general public, deserve to know the truth. Lastly, Congress should look back at the question of whether or not civil liberties guidelines and procedures issued by agencies are even close to being able to stop similar events from happening again, and if not, what legislative and oversight changes are needed to fix the problem if they are not.

=======

Follow us on Google News