On October 24, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced three separate criminal prosecutions centered upon espionage efforts by the People Republic of China (PRC) to corrupt US institutions and to extort US residents into repatriating back to the PRC. The PRC also set up a “fake think tank” to recruit a government official to serve its cause.
The press conference also included FBI Director Wray, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, Matthew G. Olsen, Assistant Attorney General – National Security Division, and other Justice Department officials.
They pointed out that the PRC has focused upon targeting academic institutions in particular, and Garland said, the actions of the indicted PRC agents “also included attempts to stop protected First Amendment activities – protests here in the United States – which would have been embarrassing to the Chinese Government.” Monaco added that the cases “make clear that Chinese agents will not hesitate to break the law and violate international norms in the process.”
Over the past few years, the Cornell Faculty Senate has objected to various affiliations between Cornell and academic programs in China. In 2019, a Cornell faculty member wrote a Sun op-ed advocating the suspension of all of Cornell’s PRC-related programs; Those concerned were dismissed as hypothetical or remote. With these new indictments, as well as FBI Director Wray stating that the FBI opens up a new PRC-related investigation every 12 hours, the direct threat has become manifest.
Throughout Cornell’s history, threat assessment has been an important role in conducting University affairs. At the close of World War II, Cornell established the Cornell Aeronautical Lab (CAL) with 1,000 employees that conducted sponsored research, including classified research and military research. By 1970, Cornell decided that CAL’s mission was inconsistent with on-campus efforts and arranged for its sale. Similarly, for decades, Cornell operated a nuclear reactor in Ward Hall on the Engineering Quad. On June 30, 2002, Cornell shut down the reactor, because the academic benefits of its research did not outweigh the security risks and burdens of operating a reactor on our central campus.
Day Hall must now conduct a similar cost-benefit analysis of PRC involvement based on these latest disclosures. Cornell’s Guidelines on Ethical International Engagement, adopted in 2019, state the criteria it will apply, including “partner with people you know and trust and avoid partnering with colleagues, organizations, agencies, or companies that are under credible and direct suspicion of malfeasance or serious legal or human rights violations.”
The PRC is capable of forming fake think tanks, uses academic outreach to subvert federal restrictions on the export of critical technology, has foreign agents undermining First Amendment-protected protests, and actively harasses US residents to expatriate back to the PRC. Any reasonable person would question whether PRC-based academic programs can be a worthy partner. Although the academic world assumes good faith of all scholars, is Cornell equipped to handle such criminal tactics? The lure of revenues from joint programs with the PRC can be very seductive, but the Cornell community must protect itself from the corrupting influences of such programs.
Cornell would be wise to heed the stark warnings from these most recent criminal cases and re-examine Cornell’s ongoing Chinese entanglements before Cornell finds itself on the front page in connection with some criminal case.
This article was written by a member of the Cornell community who requested to stay anonymous.
