I was heartened to see Terry Alberstein of Cisco Systems' response (Letters, Sept. 7, page 8) to your reporter's article ("Beware Cisco's example in China, author warns," Sept. 1, page 10). The letter demonstrates concern for Cisco's corporate reputation. Perhaps that concern will eventually turn into action -- like a phasing out of Cisco's services to the Chinese Public Security Bureau. Until then, specious attacks will not solve Cisco's dilemma.
Alberstein begins by saying that "Ethan Gutmann's claim that Cisco has somehow built a national security database in China for the Chinese Public Security Bureau is factually wrong ... we do not build database software."
False. Alberstein's assertion is contradicted by the language in Cisco's own "Policenet" brochures: "Combining voice, video, and data into one accessible resource to strengthen China's law and order."
His assertion is also contradicted by other Cisco reps. For example, Zhou Li, a systems engineer from Cisco's Shanghai branch, explained to me that Policenet means a policeman or Public Security Bureau (PSB) agent can stop a person on the street and using a hand-held device, access the citizen's danwei (employment, family and political records), trace their Web surfing history for the last 60 days and read their e-mail.
Alberstein does however make a valid semantic point. At the Aug. 31 China Trade forum in Taipei, I shorthanded the issue by saying that "Cisco built a national public security bureau database." In more detailed talks, for example, in my Jan. 7 speech at the National Press Club in Washington, I explained that Harry Wu, executive director of the Laogai Research Foundation, had called police stations throughout China. According to the police, Cisco had "built the entire structure for the national PSB database with real-time updating and mobile-ready capabilities. And as of June 2003 it's already resident in every province in China except Sichuan." I'm pleased to correct the record.
Alberstein asserts that when I visited the "Gold Shield" trade show in Shanghai in December 2002, I did not identify myself "as a journalist or author."
False. I introduced myself as a "visiting fellow at the Project for the New American Century" and that "I write about Internet issues and national security" precisely the way that I introduce myself today. Cisco's surveillance cameras appeared to be taping that conversation. Good. I stand by my account.
Alberstein says that I have "never called Cisco to seek any information or explanation on Cisco's products."
False. I did not get my interview with David Zhou at Cisco's Beijing headquarters by slipping through a window. I went through Cisco's public affairs department.
As for Zhou -- is Alberstein seriously suggesting that a Cisco sales rep at a major trade show does not accurately represent the company? The truth: Other than an unnamed Cisco rep asserting that "He has never produced one shred of evidence to support his claims," (Spectrum, May 2005), Cisco ignored the allegations contained in my book Losing the New China.
It was only after I gave permission for some of the Cisco Policenet brochures to be published in the Chinese-language edition of my book and allowed a single page to be posted on the Web that Cisco went into high-spin mode. Back in May, Cisco reps were suggesting that the Policenet brochures were the work of a rogue subcontractor.
By the end of last month, Cisco vice president Dan Scheinman was touting Cisco's openness on Policenet: "Its capabilities were advertised in full public view at the Chinese equivalent of the annual US convention of police chiefs."
According to Alberstein, "Gutmann claims that Cisco is in violation of the US Foreign Relations Authorization Act [suspending exports `to the People's Republic of China of any crime-control or detection instruments or equipment']. This is not true."
To quote Wu: "This is not up to Mr. Alberstein to decide. The US Congress has the authority to decide if any violations have been committed. We should now ask Cisco to make public the information about exactly how much business it has done with the PSB, their profits, the quantity and date of sales and business dealings, and contacts in China, as well as the specific types of software and technology that has been sold. After Cisco has truthfully revealed this information, Congress and the American people can decide whether or not Cisco has committed a violation of the law."
These are not empty words. Representative Dan Burton recently wrote to the secretary of commerce about Cisco, asking for a full explanation. Representative Tom Tancredo has requested Justice Department hearings. And investment firms such as Boston Common have launched a shareholder resolution against Cisco over human rights concerns.
How will all this shake down in post-Unocal Washington? I don't know. Will other US companies in China, sensing that Cisco is poisoning the well, quietly convince Cisco to take a step back? I don't know that either. But I do know this: I am not the issue. Policenet is. And until it's resolved in a way that respects US values and the struggling democracy movements of China, I'll keep talking about it.
Ethan Gutmann
Visiting fellow, Project for the New American Century
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS