SERIOUS THREATS FROM CHINA'S SEAFOOD INDUSTRY - PART 2

Massive imports of Chinese seafood products are not only hurting our home-grown fishing industry but pose potential health hazards to Americans, especially those who eat imported shrimp and farmed produced fish. The warning comes from the U.S. - China Economic and Security Review Commission in its annual report to Congress.
China now exports one billion pounds of fish to the U.S. each year, thereby accounting for one in every five pounds of seafood eaten by Americans. The problem is that much of the imported farmed fish and shellfish come from nearly 5 million small producers in China who, more often than not harvest their seafood crops in water contaminated by bacteria, viruses and parasites. The farmers also feed the fish antibiotics considered dangerous to health in the United States. Unfortunately, the USDA - U.S. Food and Drug Administration - is inept at dealing with the problem and does not have the authority to inspect Chinese fish farms. It also lacks the resources to check much of the fish cargo shipped into docks in this country.
In its report, the Commission points out that the FDA even lacks the authority to seize and destroy Chinese seafood shipments it has rejected for import.
“In some cases, the FDA must relinquish the fish to the shipper, which has led to the practice known as port hopping,” says the report.
“Port hopping” means a Chinese shipper can move the rejected cargo to another U.S. port and re-import it. The Commission claims the FDA’s inability to prevent the practice is further exacerbated by the fact it takes the Agency on average one year to warn ports about banned shipments, by which time it is likely the fish and shrimp in the shipments have found their way to dinner tables in the U.S.
“The FDA also lacks the authority to order a mandatory recall of seafood or even to block imports of Chinese seafood at the request of Chinese officials,” the report adds.
The problems with Chinese seafood imports can be traced back to 2001 when China joined the World Trade Organization. That opened up global markets and almost immediately the Chinese government began using massive subsidies to expand its industrial fish farming. By 2006, the U.S. was importing 23% of its fresh and prepared fish from the Chinese in a trade worth almost $2 billion. By then, China had the world’s largest fishing fleet and was the biggest global exporter of wild-caught and farmed fish. Contrast that with 1995 when our home market was evenly divided between imports and locally caught and farmed fish. However, within a decade imports had increased by 74%. In 2006 alone, of the 5 billion pounds of seafood eaten by Americans, 83% of it had come from Asia.
The Chinese seafood industry thrives on subsidies and loans disguised as “new technology” grants and, as a consequence, it has been able to overwhelm other markets with cheaper products. The Chinese government has deliberately neglected to impose stringent health controls on its millions of fish farmers for fear that would limit their output. Meanwhile, the $7 billion seafood industry linked to the Gulf of Mexico is suffering. Latest figures show an almost 30% decline in the numbers of workers employed on Gulf Coast fishing trawlers between 2005 and the present.
In the opinion of the Commission, China has kept it currency low and, in tandem with its financial support for its farming industry, has given its fish farmers and exporters an unfair advantage over competitors, especially those in the U.S.
“All the subsidies, direct and indirect, have had a considerable effect on the U.S. market. For example, catfish from Chinese fish farms began arriving in the U.S. in 2004, often selling for $1 per pound less than U.S. farmed fish. As a consequence, the production of U.S. growers quickly declined and hit the lowest level in ten years with the 2007 harvest,” the report concluded.
One of the issues highlighted by the Commission concerns “trans-shipping,” a practice that worries the Florida-based Southern Shrimp Alliance. It believes that Chinese exporters keep shrimp prices in this country low by avoiding tariffs designed to prevent the dumping of large quantities at very low rates. To do that, the Chinese move some of their produce through third party exporters, who are not limited by quotas. The Alliance told the Commission that it suddenly discovered shrimp arriving in the U.S. market from countries like Papua New Guinea that had never been in the shrimp business. It also detected large increases in imports from countries like Indonesia and Malaysia. Cambodia even imported 2 million pounds of shrimp from China and then exported 3 million pounds of shrimp to the U.S. The Alliance saw that activity as part of a growing trend of bait and switch tactics. Most troubling for the Alliance was evidence that the Chinese government gave its fish farmers $625 million in subsidies from 2000 to 2005 and is now subsidizing fish processing.
In respect of the health hazards posed by Chinese imports, the U.S.-China Commission points out that the antibiotics and other chemicals used in fish farming in China are provided free by government and, in many cases, pharmaceutical plants are positioned near large fish farms. In terms of the sheer scale of the dangers, one only had to consider some facts presented by Food & Health Watch, an environmental organization:
“In China, 3.7 billion tons of sewage is discharged daily. The untreated sewage runs into rivers, lakes and costal water, some of which are used for aquaculture production. Furthermore, producers cram thousands of finfish and shellfish into their facilities to maximize production. This generates large amounts of waste, contaminates the water and spreads, which can kill off entire crops of fish if left untreated……….Heavy metals persist in all meat in China but particularly in fish. Mercury from China’s coal-fired power plants is a high-profile example of how water pollution links to food safety. Consuming fish is the most common way to ingest mercury since it accumulates in the flesh of the animal.”
To deal with pollution risks, Chinese fish farmers feed finfish and shellfish antibiotics like difloxacin and ciprofloxican, which are only approved for human use. According to scientists, the more these medications are used in fish the more likely their effectiveness will be reduced in humans. Some chemicals used in Chinese fish ponds are even banned in China. The Commission was presented with evidence that Chinese pharmaceutical companies provided farms with antibiotics not approved for use in the U.S.
Finally, when you buy fin fish or shellfish you might like to consider what the Commission says about the labeling of seafood. It discovered that loop holes exist in our laws, allowing Chinese imports to be labeled as American in origin. For example, if Chinese fish are smoked here or “substantially transformed,” they can be sold over the counters in grocery stores as American products. In the case of shrimp, if it is cleaned and breaded in the U.S. it does not have to be labeled “foreign.” Shrimp that is cooked in the United States “magically becomes” not imported, so health conscious consumers cannot rely on labeling.
American catfish farmers complained to the Commission that Chinese exporters sometimes sell their product as “Mississippi channel catfish” because some fish farms in China rear their catfish from Mississippi fingerlings.
Those who believe tariffs leading to heavy financial penalties can help solve some of the import issues, especially the dumping of cheap fish by its routing through third countries, might need to think again. During its investigations, the Commission learned that many of the financial penalties on Chinese shrimp exporters have had little impact because the penalties were never collected. Senator David Vitter of Louisiana told the Commission that $80 million in duties on imported crawfish from 2002 to 2004 remains uncollected and only $25.5 million was collected from $195.5 million levied against Chinese exporters for dumping crawfish on the U.S. market
The Commission warns that the future for Gulf Coast shrimpers “look grim” and it is time for Congress to act. Given the present economic climate there may be a greater incentive for Congress to confront China about the financial damage it is doing to the American seafood-fishing industry. Congress may also have to address the health risks involved with Chinese imports because those represent a national security issue.

THREATS POSED BY CHINA- PART 1: CHINA'S CYBER POTENTIAL

According to a new report to Congress, China has reached a point where it is so advanced in cyber warfare capabilities that the U.S. may be unable to stop or detect some of its operations.
The warning came from Colonel Gary Mac Alum, chief of staff for the U.S. Strategic Command’s Joint Task Force for Global Network Operations. He was giving testimony to the US-China Economic Security Commission, which presented Congress with a lengthy and disturbing report on Chinese policies that should be a cause for grave concern on Capitol Hill.
Colonel M ac Alum said he believed China was devoting massive resources to the use of computers because it understood that cyber operations were an integral and significant part of modern warfare. In his opinion, China had become so sophisticated it could carry out cyber operations anywhere in the world.
Department of Defense statistics show that between 2006 -2007, there was a 31% increase on attacks on U.S. Defense networks, leading to 43,880 incidents. U.S. cyber experts believe most of the attacks were perpetrated by as many as 250- hacker groups in China, the majority of them under the control or influence of the Chinese authorities, who exert total control over all cyber activity in the country.
In Chinese military academies, cyber warfare is one of the major teaching topics with emphasis placed on how to damage a potential enemy in the opening stages of a conflict. In all the scenarios the target is the United States with emphasis on operations, which could cripple it economically and militarily. For example, cyber targets could be the banking system, power grids and of course the command control systems of the Department of Defense. The fact that the U.S. population has become highly dependent on computers to control everything from water to sewage, electricity and transport makes major parts of the country’s infrastructure vulnerable to a major cyber attack. The Chinese reckon that too much U.S. reliance on information technology makes the U.S. especially ripe for concentrated cyber assaults prior to, or in the opening hours of a conflict. Such attacks could happen in less time that it would take to launch a missile or drop a bomb. One of the obvious targets would be information sources so that China could feed disinformation into civilian or military networks, creating confusion. This is not a farfetched concept since most people get information nowadays through the Internet or in the case of the military through its own digital channels.
The report from the commission on U.S-China security and economic matters warned Congress that private sector networks operated by civilian agencies of government and unclassified U.S. military and intelligence agency networks were experiencing increasing high levels of attacks and intrusions. In the view of the commission, there was evidence that Chinese cyber operations were also being used for spying on the U.S.
Alan Paller of the SANS Institute, a network security company, believes the ten top U.S. defense contractors, including Boeing and Northrop Grumman, had their files hacked in 2007. That followed a similar Chinese cyber program in 2005 when Chinese hackers stole a massive quantity of files from NASA networks outlining the technical details of the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. Among the files stolen were documents on the Orbiter’s propulsion system and solar panels.
This latest report to Congress highlighted the fact that the unclassified U.S. military network – NIPRNet – was a constant target for Chinese military hackers. It is a vital DOD-military digital link because it handles DOD payments, troop and cargo movements, medical records, aircraft locations and all emails between DOD and military personnel. The fact that the system is connected to the World Wide Web makes it particularly vulnerable to hackers. According to the commission report, China views the network as “a significant Achilles heel and an important target.”
“The ability to manipulate or disable the NIPRNet, or to use it to disable discrete, defense related functions that depend on it, gives China the potential capability to delay or disrupt U.S. forces without physically engaging them – and in ways it lacks the capability to do conventionally,” warned the report.
U.S. cyber experts now agree that China’s development of cyber tools is a means to gain an edge over the U.S. in a vital part of modern warfare, thereby limiting the overall power of the U.S. military. In September 2008, Taiwan’s Defense Minister, Chen Chao-min revealed that his country believed China would launch a major cyber attack in the opening stages of a conflict with his nation. In order to counter that threat he had established a special task force.
One of the startling warnings in the report to Congress concerned the global supply of computer related components, many of which are made in China.
“In theory, this leaves them vulnerable to tampering by Chinese security services, such as implanting malicious code that could be remotely operated on command, placing U.S. systems and the date they contain at risk of destruction or manipulation.” the report pointed out.
One of the most disturbing parts of the report stated that cyber space is a “critical vulnerability” of the U.S. government and economy since we rely so heavily on computers and our dependence on the Internet makes the computers we use and the information we store on them vulnerable to attack. The report offered the following assessment of the overall risk:
“China is likely to take advantage of U.S. dependence on cyber space for four significant reasons. First, the costs of cyber operations are low in comparison with traditional espionage or military activities. Second, determining the origin of cyber activities and attributing them to the Chinese government or any other operator is difficult. Therefore, the U.S. would be hindered in responding conventionally to such an attack. Fourth, there is an underdeveloped legal framework to guide responses.”
Just as worrying was another conclusion that the aggressive way China has been developing cyber capabilities may provide it with an advantage over the U.S. that could significantly reduce current U.S. military dominance. The commission’s emphasis on the threat from China in respect of cyber attacks mirrored an equally important threat China could soon pose in space. The Chinese military runs the nation’s space program, making it an integral part of the military’s command and control systems, as well as its intelligence gathering. In the past year, China has speeded up the development of space weapons, which some believe will be used to establish a space corridor over China that would be closed to all external satellite traffic.
The commission’s report to Congress made it clear that China views outer space as a potential battle ground of the future because many U.S. command and control functions are operated through ground stations receiving information and linkages from satellites. The report had this warning on the subject:
“China’s growing reliance on space for military purposes increases the likelihood that any future conflict between China and the United States will involve actions directed against each other’s space systems’ assets. These offensive and defensive actions may be directed against either assets………..China has significant anti-satellite capabilities. The capabilities go far beyond those demonstrated in the January 2007 ‘‘test’’ that destroyed an obsolete Chinese weather satellite. They include co-orbital direct attack weapons and directed energy weapons for dazzling or damaging satellites, both of which currently are under development. China is also researching technology for electronic attack such as jamming, against an adversary’s space assets as well as its ground support networks.”

The commission recommended that Congress should pay more attention to China related issues, especially in the economic and security spheres. For example, more money should be spent to ensure that computer components used in civilian and defense networks came from reliable sources and that major networks were regularly assessed and protected. It also s aid our allies must be encouraged to join us in dealing with cyber attacks that originate in China. Finally, China should be reminded of its 1967 Space Treaty commitment to use outer space for peaceful exploration and not to see it as the preserve of any one nation.


Part Two: How China is damaging the American seafood industry in Louisana and on the Gulf Coast and the health hazards posed by Chinese imports, which is a matter of national security.

AFGHANISTAN – A WATERSHED FOR OBAMA?

The Taliban’s latest rejection of talks with the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, showed the insurgents think they are winning and feel no urgency to lay down their arms to discuss a peaceful end to the war.
Karzai’s offer to provide safe sanctuary to Taliban leader, Mullah Omar, for roundtable discussions in Kabul, was roundly rejected by Omar’s deputy, who called Karzai an “American puppet” and warned he would be put on trial in an Islamic court once the Taliban returned to power. The offer to Omar stunned some international observers, given that Omar was the person who provided Osama Bin Laden with a safe haven before and after the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban chief went into hiding at the same time as Bin Laden and is believed to be living in Pakistan’s tribal lands along the border with Afghanistan. He has a $10 million bounty on his head, and along with Bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, makes up the trio President Bush would most love to bring to justice.
The offer from President Karzai was not the first one he made to Mullah Omar. In 2006, he made an offer, which appeared to include amnesty, but soon backtracked under pressure from the White House. This time, while amnesty was not on the table, the approach was predicated on the basis he was prepared to resign if NATO and the US opposed it. But again, he was forced to modify his safe sanctuary proposition by pointing out that even though he was willing to sit down with Omar, the latter would have to “account for his action” and the Afghan government would always be “uncompromising” in its attitude to men like the Taliban Mullah.
“Our policy is clear. Omar is a criminal and he should be brought to justice” Karzai told Reuters.
That assertion appeared to conflict with his the offer of safe passage to Omar and showed once again that Karzai was not his own master. His latest overture to the Taliban coincided with the election of Barack Obama as president-elect and a statement by General David Petraeus, now in charge of Afghan war strategy, that his policy of reaching out to insurgents in Iraq could be applied to Afghanistan. The general said he felt there were Taliban fighters who might he prepared to break ranks with Mullah Omar and fight on the side of the Afghan army. However, there has been little evidence, if any, of that happening even though Hamid Karzai has made claims that hundreds of insurgents have left Taliban ranks.
Some military figures on both sides of the Atlantic believe the Iraq model of dealing with insurgents is not applicable to the Afghan conflict. They argue that, in Iraq, General Petraeus was able to pay and arm Sunni insurgents to fight Al Qaeda elements in Anbar province but in Afghanistan Al Qaeda is not the main insurgent force. Instead, the dominant group fighting the international security force is mostly Taliban, with several other militia organizations on the fringes of the conflict. For example, there are approximately 10,000 Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, with similar number across the border in Pakistan. There are also four major militia groups that oppose the occupation. While they account for approximately 50,000 fighters, they lack the military cohesiveness of the Taliban as well as its considerable support in Pakistan. As for Al Qaeda, it has at most 1,500 to 2,000 trained insurgents and that estimate may even be too high.
Like Hamid Karzai, the Taliban are Pashtuns and there is no evidence that Pashtuns who leave the Taliban are ready to turn on their own tribe. Therefore, the Petraeus doctrine of recruiting insurgents to fight each other, or turn their guns on Al Qaeda, may be wishful thinking. It must be borne in mind that Afghans, especially the Taliban, have been close to Bin Laden over decades, going back to the Soviet occupation. It is unrealistic to assume they would now turn on him for U.S. money and weapons.
It is also a fact that the deterioration in the Afghan war is due in no small measure to the fact it was never given top priority by the Bush White House. In almost eight years of Operation Enduring Freedom, the U.S. and its allies have been fighting a rear guard war. Each time U.S. and NATO troops have taken area from the Taliban, they have had to leave it because of a lack of manpower and within a short time the Taliban have re-taken the territory. The insurgents have also used the last eight years wisely, rebuilding their fighting strength by exploiting the lawlessness of the Pakistan tribal lands and the porous Afghan-Pakistan border. At the same time, the Afghan government of Hamid Karzai has been riven by corruption and has lost credibility. Its authority does not extend beyond the capital, Kabul, and its hold on power may be tested in elections in 2009.
The Taliban and their allies can also see that support for the war among NATO members is waning and that some NATO countries are unwilling to send more troops. Opinion polls show there is a desire internationally for an end to the conflict. A recent survey in Britain, which supplies the most NATO troops of any European nation, showed that a majority believe the war is lost and there should be a negotiated settlement that would permit a military exit within 12 months. A large majority of Germans, Dutch and Danes oppose any request from the U.S. for more troops. There has been criticism among NATO members, especially, the French and British, that German troops have had it relatively easy because they have remained in the peaceful north of the country. British newspapers recently quoted a survey that showed how the 3,000 German troops in Afghanistan drank almost two million pints of beer and 70,000 liters of a sparkling wine last year. The German Defense Ministry said it was normal consumption.
The American response to the war in Afghanistan has changed too. In 2002, 93% of the country agreed with sending troops to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban but in July 2008 only 59% believed it was important to send more troops. In September 2008, an online poll by Ipsos/Mc Clatchey found that 66% of Americans were against sending more troops and 74% believed it was time to plan a withdrawal. The war in Afghanistan has not gone well and some will say it was mismanaged by the Bush Administration. However, the questions now that really matter are whether a military victory is at all possible and whether leaving Afghanistan without destroying Al Qaeda would create a state that could become a haven for terrorists, drug lords and organized crime syndicates. On the other hand, Afghanistan is already a failed state since it is listed as number 10 on the global chart of failed nations. Nevertheless, the core issue is that we know what can happen when Afghanistan is allowed to function as it did before the attacks of 9/11. That in turns brings into question the limitations of the options available to the U.S. and NATO. One option is to feed more troops into the war and concentrate once and for all on destroying Al Qaeda, thereby opening the opportunity for someone like Karzai to negotiate a deal with tribal leaders, including Mullah Omar and his Taliban. Another option would be to go all out to defeat the insurgency but few military strategists believe a victory is possible. History demonstrates that such a course of action could be a costly and futile exercise in terms of human life. Declassified Soviet military documents show that Russia’s prolonged war in Afghanistan in the 1980s weakened its military, emboldened Islamic groups in the region and had serious domestic consequences at home. Finally, there is an option favored for some time by the British that feeds into General Petraeus’ thinking. That is to negotiate with the Taliban as the lesser of two evils and split them away from Al Qaeda and militias with a similar agenda. Perhaps that is why Karzai made the overture to Mullah Omar. The fact that it was rejected mattered less than the impression it created that the Afghan government and the US-NATO alliance were open to a serious dialogue.
President-Elect Barack Obama has pledged to make the war in Afghanistan and the search for Bin Laden top priorities. That begs the question is he is willing to commit to a large troop surge and end up getting bogged down in a country that has seen more than its fair share of failed occupations. On the other hand, he could reach out to Russia and Iran for help and bring more pressure to bear on Pakistan. That strategy could go a long way towards destroying the Al Qaeda base in that part of the world and to opening up opportunities for dialogue with the main insurgent groups. Russia has a vested interest in seeing that Islamic fundamentalism in the region does not thrive and Iran has always insisted it is willing to provide the U.S. with assistance to bring down Al Qaeda. Few people realize that the Shiites of Iran and the Arabs that make up Al Qaeda are bitter enemies. Iran also shares a border with Afghanistan.
All in all, Afghanistan may well prove to be one of the most difficult hurdles for the incoming Obama Administration to overcome politically and militarily. The Afghan war will require a new and perhaps bold approach with no guarantee of a quick or satisfactory outcome. Victory is a word we are unlikely to hear if there is an exit strategy in the next four years.