May 11, 2021
No, NASA Shouldn't Get in Bed With China's Space Program
The International Space Station is getting a new neighbor. The People’s Republic of China launched the Tianhe (Heavenly Harmony) module of its new space station on April 28. This module will serve as the core habitation area of the space station, which will be joined by several other modules for experiments and scientific activities. The entire station is expected to be completed by 2023.
Heritage Senior Research Fellow Dean Cheng writes <[link removed]> that this project is part of a broader effort by China to expand its space capabilities, which includes placing additional satellite constellations around Earth and further exploiting “cislunar” space, the volume of space between Earth and the moon.
Some see the Chinese space station as an opportunity to once again call for U.S.-PRC space cooperation. In particular, there has long been a segment of NASA and the broader American space community that would dearly love to see more open cooperation with China in space. Much has been made of the Apollo-Soyuz mission, which some consider some kind of turning point in U.S.-Soviet relations, and there is the hope that a similar reset might be possible if there were a joint U.S.-Chinese space mission, perhaps involving the International Space Station and the new Chinese station.
Absent from this discussion has been the Wolf Amendment, which prohibits NASA from spending any money on bilateral cooperation with China. Despite this, it is the fond hope of this contingent at NASA and the arms control community that the United States will choose to pursue more extensive space cooperation with China, a position that the new NASA administrator, Bill Nelson, seemed to reject during his confirmation hearings.
These advocates ignore basic realities of China’s space program. Perhaps most important, China’s space program is heavily integrated with the Chinese military. Indeed, every launch facility, tracking facility, and mission control facility is a Chinese military facility. (The Tianhe module was launched from the Wenquan Satellite Launch Center on Hainan, aka Base 27 of the People’s Liberation Army.) Cooperating with the Chinese in space unavoidably means getting in bed with the Chinese military.
It also ignores the reality that China is flouting the basic rules of space safety. This was highlighted in the Tianhe launch. The Long March 5B rocket that carried the module into space did not shed its heavy rocket motors during the ascent. An earlier Long March 5B launch in May 2020 saw pieces crash into the Ivory Coast—with no real warning from Beijing. China has been launching rockets long enough to both understand global best practices and norms, as well as the responsibility of letting others know when and where its debris may land. Its refusal to be more transparent in its space activities (even to such basic concepts as its overall space budget) should serve as a cautionary restraint on the wild expectations for space cooperation.
Related: Click here <[link removed]> to view the Heritage China Transparency Project and find resources on China's military.
Climate Change, Taiwan, and U.S. Foreign Policy
Two weeks ago, according to the New York Times, Chinese State Councilor and Foreign Minister Wang Yi told a virtual audience convened by the Council on Foreign Relations that cooperation with the U.S. on climate change depends on the U.S. approach to several hot-button Chinese interests.
Heritage ASC Director Walter Lohman writes <[link removed]> that for anyone following the way Beijing conducts diplomacy, this is no surprise. Connor Swank, an analyst at the Center for Advanced China Research <[link removed]>, which systematically examines official Chinese statements, puts it this way: “Unfortunately, the notion that Beijing continues to seek concessions from the United States in return for China’s cooperation on climate change is very well-supported.” Added Swank: “Chinese officials have been open, even brazen, in their efforts to link progress on climate issues to American behavior on other issues in bilateral relations.”
The question is whether the U.S. will give them anything, and what. It could be Taiwan.
Special Envoy John Kerry and his long-held passion for addressing climate change is the wildcard. In fact, we’ve seen this movie before. As Josh Rogin asserts in his new book, Chaos Under Heaven, the Obama administration’s too-little, too-late pushback on growing Chinese aggression can be traced directly back to the priority Obama attributed to cooperation with China on climate—when Kerry was Secretary of State.
If the Biden administration does give on Taiwan, don’t look for anything dramatic. Kerry has explicitly ruled out any linkage between climate change cooperation and other U.S. interests. National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan just did the same last week.
So look for the sort of changes that are deniable. Does the next major arms sale to Taiwan slide into oblivion? Does the Biden administration make a cabinet-level visit to Taiwan or follow the precedent the Trump administration set with Undersecretary Keith Krach’s visit—the highest-ranking State Department visitor since 1979? Biden picked up the relay on Trump’s relaxation of U.S. government contact guidelines. That was great news. Do administration officials make full use of them?
Finally, look to the more complex set of issues surrounding the prospects for a free trade agreement with Taiwan. The Biden National Security Council and State Department understand the logic of negotiating an FTA with Taiwan. USTR, however, may never get to yes, despite the progress Taiwan has made on U.S. interests on pork and beef. Former USTR Robert Lighthizer had his reasons for not getting there. We now know it obviously wasn’t beef and pork. It was steel, or trade deficits, or the U.S.-China phase one trade deal. If the Biden administration can’t commit to an FTA, Kerry and his climate crusade will likely be part of its evasion.
It’s hard to put any faith in Beijing’s pledges, whether it is adherence to the Sino-British Joint Declaration on Hong Kong or the assurances Xi Jinping (習近平) made to Obama on cyber espionage and not militarizing the South China Sea. Given the way these things played out, in fact, he’s probably eager to reap the benefits of more pledges.
More importantly, however, is Kerry’s own eagerness for climate cooperation. There is no path to climate-change cooperation with China that does not involve a U.S. concession on other interests. If Kerry insists, the only question will be which one gets clipped. It could be Taiwan.
Related: Click here <[link removed]> to read the 2020 Heritage report on a U.S.-Taiwan free trade agreement.
American Conservatives Renew Push Against China's "Developing Country" Status at World Bank
Heritage Research Fellow James Roberts writes <[link removed]> that a group of conservative U.S. senators has introduced legislation that would prevent China from continuing to exploit its “developing country” status at the World Bank to access super low interest rate loans that are funded in part by American taxpayers—even as China continues its huge and aggressive debt-trap diplomacy “One Belt, One Road” development lending programs throughout the world.
The World Bank Integrity Preservation Act of 2021 was reintroduced by Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa; Marco Rubio, R-Fla.; Tom Cotton, R-Ark.; Ted Cruz, R-Texas; and Rick Scott, R-Fla., on April 30. Grassley said its goal is to “cut Beijing’s access to low-rate debt financing.” According to Grassley, “China has been lending development money outside its borders to extend its influence for years while taking in U.S. taxpayer dollars via World Bank loans.” His legislation would “provide a short-term and longer-term means to take away the status that allows China to receive loans and halt loans to any country like China that exceeds the World Bank graduation thresholds or poses a risk to religious freedom.”
For decades now, China’s communist government has exploited its status as a developing country in the world’s international organizations to game their systems and avoid the greater accountability and cost burdens that are shouldered by developed countries. China also continues to play the “developing country status” card in the International Monetary Fund, in the Paris climate agreement, and in numerous other global organizations.
China’s status as a developing country also results from it taking advantage of regulations written largely in an era when it was unthinkable that a communist country could become an economic superpower. That belief was reinforced when the Soviet Union collapsed. China, however, has avoided the Soviets’ missteps.
Related: Click here <[link removed]> to listen to the Heritage China Uncovered podcast on Chinese Foreign Direct Investments featuring Derek Scissors. Click here <[link removed]> to listen to the episode on U.S.-China investments and venture capital featuring Adam Lysenko.
-
