U.S.-China Nuclear Security Exchanges Hampered by Lingering Suspicions

Plutonium pits for the U.S. nuclear arsenal are cast at Los Alamos National Laboratory in 2005. Years after the United States accused China of nuclear espionage, the issue of whether to resume laboratory-to-laboratory exchanges for nuclear security purposes remains a touchy subject.
National Journal
Rachel Oswald
July 17, 2014, 10:13 a.m.

Years after Wash­ing­ton ac­cused China of nuc­le­ar es­pi­on­age, the sub­ject of re­sum­ing labor­at­ory-to-labor­at­ory ex­changes among sci­ent­ists re­mains a sens­it­ive one.

It has been 15 years since a con­gres­sion­al com­mit­tee ac­cused China of ad­van­cing its nuc­le­ar weapons pro­gram in the 1980s and 1990s by steal­ing ther­mo­nuc­lear war­head designs from the United States. And 14 years have passed since the FBI’s es­pi­on­age case against former Los Alam­os phys­i­cist Wen Ho Lee col­lapsed and he was re­leased from jail.

For at least one ex­pert, that is enough time for the United States to now con­sider re­sum­ing nuc­le­ar labor­at­ory ex­changes with China in or­der to as­sist the lat­ter coun­try in im­prov­ing its nuc­le­ar se­cur­ity prac­tices. In an on­line post pub­lished last week by the Na­tion­al In­terest, Hui Zhang, a phys­i­cist and ex­pert on China’s nuc­le­ar arms policies, ar­gues that bi­lat­er­al labor­at­ory ex­changes con­duc­ted from 1995 to 1998 should con­tin­ue, be­gin­ning with “less sens­it­ive activ­it­ies that are iden­ti­fied as mu­tu­ally be­ne­fi­cial.”

The lab-to-lab pro­gram was can­celed in the af­ter­math of al­leg­a­tions made in 1999 by a U.S. House se­lect com­mit­tee led by then-Rep­res­ent­at­ive Chris­toph­er Cox (R-Cal­if.) that China was us­ing the sci­entif­ic ex­changes to pil­fer clas­si­fied nuc­le­ar weapons in­form­a­tion.

In re­cent years, re­ports have sur­faced that the En­ergy De­part­ment was con­tem­plat­ing re­start­ing the labor­at­ory con­tacts as a means of build­ing two-way un­der­stand­ing about each side’s nuc­le­ar arms policy.

Cur­rently, Wash­ing­ton and the Chinese gov­ern­ment are jointly fund­ing the con­struc­tion of a nuc­le­ar-se­cur­ity train­ing cen­ter in Beijing that is to fo­cus on com­bat­ing the il­li­cit traf­fick­ing of atom­ic sub­stances and tech­no­lo­gies in the re­gion. Last week, U.S. En­ergy Sec­ret­ary Ern­est Mon­iz dis­cussed the is­sue of re­du­cing the use of highly en­riched urani­um in re­search re­act­ors with the head of China’s Atom­ic En­ergy Au­thor­ity.

At the same time, con­cern has been rising in the United States about cy­ber es­pi­on­age com­mit­ted by Chinese hack­ers. Last year, a De­fense De­part­ment ad­vis­ory board al­leged that cy­ber at­tack­ers from China had gained ac­cess to the design plans for a num­ber of U.S. bal­list­ic mis­sile de­fense sys­tems. And a Pentagon re­port re­vealed a not­able in­crease in re­cent years in the amount of mil­it­ary cy­ber es­pi­on­age — un­der­stood to ori­gin­ate from the Asia-Pa­cific re­gion — on ra­di­ation-hardened elec­tron­ics. So-called “rad-hard” tech­no­lo­gies have ap­plic­a­tions in nuc­le­ar weapons and bal­list­ic mis­siles.

Beijing of­fi­cially denies or­der­ing di­git­al in­tru­sions against the net­works of U.S. de­fense com­pan­ies and gov­ern­ment agen­cies. Chinese of­fi­cials have ar­gued Wash­ing­ton is be­ing hy­po­crit­ic­al in its al­leg­a­tions, giv­en re­cent rev­el­a­tions by former U.S. in­tel­li­gence con­tract­or Ed­ward Snowden about wide­spread Na­tion­al Se­cur­ity Agency elec­tron­ic spy­ing.

Still, Zhang, a seni­or re­search­er at Har­vard Uni­versity’s Pro­ject on Man­aging the Atom, re­com­mends that nuc­le­ar labor­at­ory con­tacts be re­star­ted. He’d like to see them be­gin with com­pre­hens­ive bi­lat­er­al dis­cus­sions on best prac­tices for re­mote mon­it­or­ing of nuc­le­ar war­heads, track­ing and ob­ser­va­tion of fis­sile-ma­ter­i­al ship­ments, and safe­guard­ing atom­ic ar­sen­als. If these ex­changes pro­ceed smoothly, he pro­poses that, “based on the ex­per­i­ence from U.S.-Rus­si­an co­oper­a­tion, China and the United States may con­sider mu­tu­al vis­its and joint work at se­lec­ted key sites.”

For oth­er re­search­ers, such as Mi­chael Aus­lin of the Amer­ic­an En­ter­prise In­sti­tute, re­in­vig­or­at­ing nuc­le­ar labor­at­ory con­tacts with China is a dan­ger­ous pro­pos­i­tion.

“Re­sum­ing nuc­le­ar labor­at­ory co­oper­a­tion with China … is a ter­rible idea,” Aus­lin, an ex­pert on U.S.-Asia re­la­tions, wrote in an email re­sponse to ques­tions from Glob­al Se­cur­ity News­wire. “It sounds like it would be a good way to pro­mote trust and best prac­tices, but in real­ity has the high like­li­hood of be­com­ing a Tro­jan Horse whereby the Chinese gain sens­it­ive, if not vi­tal, in­form­a­tion about how we pro­tect against threats and eval­u­ate our nuc­le­ar pro­grams.”

Aus­lin found par­tic­u­larly ob­jec­tion­able Zhang’s re­com­mend­a­tion that Chinese spe­cial­ists be al­lowed to ob­serve “force-on-force” ex­er­cises at U.S. ci­vil­ian atom­ic sites that are de­signed to as­sess a nuc­le­ar power op­er­at­or’s abil­ity to pro­tect sens­it­ive ma­ter­i­als from theft or dis­turb­ance by po­ten­tial in­truders. To do so “is an in­vit­a­tion to give away our deep­est plans for de­fense of nuc­le­ar fa­cil­it­ies,” he said.

Lora Saal­man, an as­so­ci­ate pro­fess­or at the Asia-Pa­cific Cen­ter for Se­cur­ity Stud­ies, said she found some of Zhang’s re­com­mend­a­tions for best-prac­tice ex­changes worth ex­plor­ing. But she ar­gued that, at present, the sug­ges­tions ap­peared to be more be­ne­fi­cial to China than to the United States. To get back­ing from the U.S. gov­ern­ment and poli­cy­makers, a stronger case should be made on how re­sum­ing the labor­at­ory con­tacts would be good for the United States, she said in an email.

“To my un­der­stand­ing, there is already some mo­mentum in U.S. of­fi­cial chan­nels to re-start the lab-to-lab ex­changes, but there has been long­stand­ing re­luct­ance on the Chinese side,” which has pre­vi­ously de­man­ded an of­fi­cial apo­logy for the al­leg­a­tions made in the Cox re­port, Saal­man said.

What We're Following See More »
CONTRARY TO REPORTS
Ryan Not Endorsing Trump Just Yet
15 minutes ago
THE LATEST
SHORT ON LACTATION STATIONS, CHANGING TABLES
U.S. Capitol Doesn’t Meet Standards for New Moms
1 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"The U.S. Capitol does not meet the federal government’s own standards for accommodations for new mothers," according to an investigation by NBC Channel 4. "Though the U.S. General Services Administration, a government agency which oversees the management of federal government buildings, requires a minimum number of lactation stations and changing tables, Congress is exempt from the rules and fails to meet those standards." The Capitol grounds have 12 lactations stations, far short of the 42 that would be required given the number of female workers there.

Source:
OTHER SECRETARIES AT FAULT, TOO
State Dept. Review Faults Clinton Email Management
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A State Department audit has faulted Hillary Clinton and previous secretaries of state for poorly managing email and other computer information and slowly responding to new cybersecurity risks. ... It cites 'longstanding, systemic weaknesses' related to communications. These started before Clinton's appointment as secretary of state, but her failures were singled out as more serious."

Source:
CRUZ STILL TOOK DELEGATES AT THE CONVENTION
Trump Rolls in Washington Primary
2 hours ago
THE LATEST

Donald Trump "was on course to win more than three-quarters of the vote in Washington's primary" last night. Ted Cruz's defunct candidacy still pulled about 10 percent. "Cruz dropped out of the race on May 3, but won 40 of the state's 41 delegates up for grabs at last weekend's state GOP convention."

Source:
MULTIPLE OFFICERS INJURED
Trump Rally Turns Violent in New Mexico
2 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"What started as a calm protest outside Donald Trump’s rally Tuesday erupted into fiery violence as protesters jumped on police cars, smashed windows and fought with Trump supporters and police. Police faced such an angry crowd that they called in reinforcements from around the state, seeking to double their numbers to counter the protesters, whose numbers swelled beyond 600." Protesters threw rocks and bottles at police, who broke up several fights. 

Source:
×