

US scientists boycott Nasa conference over China ban - grey-area
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/05/us-scientists-boycott-nasa-china-ban

======
austinz
Good for these researchers. This ban is, as far as I've been able to tell,
racism arising from political expediency. If it were about national security,
we wouldn't be collaborating with Russia on the ISS (or allowing ourselves to
be completely dependent upon Soyuz for access to the station for the
indeterminate future). It's not about human rights, either - NASA collaborates
with Saudi Arabia, enough said.

~~~
TsiCClawOfLight
But Russia has Soyouz and the Saudis have oil and power. What could the US
gain from China? Where there is nothing to gain, there will be no
cooperation...

~~~
rjzzleep
That's a very interesting question given that 90% of US manufacturing happens
in China and probably even more of the eletronics.

------
grey-area
The most amusing part of the ban in this instance is that the meeting doesn't
concern anything with a possible connection to rivalries between nations. One
of the scientists wrote:

 _" In good conscience, I cannot attend a meeting that discriminates in this
way. The meeting is about planets located trillions of miles away, with no
national security implications,"_

------
beedogs
> The law is part of a broad and aggressive move initiated by congressman
> Frank Wolf, chair of the House appropriations committee, which has
> jurisdiction over Nasa. It aims to restrict the foreign nationals' access to
> Nasa facilities, ostensibly to counter espionage.

Wow, I am _totally shocked_ that a Republican congressman would sponsor
jingoistic, borderline-racist laws such as this.

~~~
tinco
To quote a generic reddit visitor:

"Wow, I did nazi that coming"

As a European I am not shocked that a Republican congressman would sponsor
such a law. I am shocked that a law like this could be passed without an
enormous public backlash. I know it's an awful thing to compare current events
to pre-WW2 circumstances, but the U.S. is making things very difficult.

It is mind boggling to think that many journalists and opposition politicians
read this law and thought "yeah well, but we're in competition with China so
it makes sense" and proceeded to not make a fuss about it. This is
indoctrination at its finest. The minds of the U.S. citizens is being polluted
by ideas of international competition. This is an age in which international
cooperation is of critical importance.

------
rtpg
>Nasa officials rejected applications from Chinese nationals who hoped to
attend the meeting at the agency's Ames research centre in California next
month citing a law, passed in March, which prohibits anyone from China setting
foot in a Nasa building.

Seems like this is a fight to be held with Congress, not NASA administration.

Although, like mentioned elsewhere, they could hold it in another building

------
kenster07
From the story, it seems NASA has no choice but to implement this despicable
law. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I hope I am not.

I hope this kind of politics does not creep into other areas of American life.

~~~
papaf
I don't understand the "national security" reasoning behind it. China is one
of the most peaceful countries on Earth. I cannot think of it committing a
single aggressive military act in the last 20 years.

European countries and the US are amongst the most aggressive countries in the
world when it comes to military action.

Pretend that you are not Western and think about it for a second. How crazy is
this?

~~~
Sharlin
Eh, it is about the supposed threat of industrial espionage, of course. China
is an _economic_ threat to the USA, not a direct military one.

~~~
papaf
Economic threats are not national security issues - if they were the current
Government shutdown would not be tolerated.

~~~
Sharlin
It seems just about _anything_ can be justified as a "national security issue"
these days...

------
ethana
Furthering this issue, why does the U.S "ban" China from the ISS? NASA
collaborate with Russia on the ISS pretty closely. So I'm unsure why China is
anymore worse if we are talking about espionage...unless that's not what we're
talking about.

~~~
TsiCClawOfLight
The US needs Soyuz, but have nothing to gain from China.

------
darkarmani
I don't know if this is accurate, but this is the other side of the story:
[http://wolf.house.gov/press-releases/wolf-letter-to-nasas-
bo...](http://wolf.house.gov/press-releases/wolf-letter-to-nasas-bolden-
correcting-record-on-restrictions-involving-chinese-nationals/)

> I believe what Mr. Messersmith may have been referring to was a temporary
> restriction on Chinese nationals that you put in place earlier this year
> after serious security protocol flaws were brought to your attention by some
> in Congress, including me, specifically regarding violations at Ames and
> Langley Research Center. You indicated at the time that security policies
> for foreign nationals for particular countries of concern would be
> reevaluated and new accreditations would not be approved until the security
> process was vetted. However, _any restriction against Chinese nationals on
> NASA centers is entirely an agency policy and not covered under the
> statutory restriction_. Furthermore, it was my understanding that NASA’s
> temporary restrictions had been lifted after a review of security protocols
> for foreign nationals at all NASA centers.

As you know, NASA’s inspector general recently produced a report documenting
the serious failures in the security process that led to violations involving
a Chinese national at NASA’s Langley Research Center. I hope a copy of this
report will soon be made public. For these reasons, I supported NASA’s
policies that were put in place earlier this year to ensure that these
security flaws had been dealt with. I continue to support every effort you
deem appropriate to ensure that NASA centers are fully compliant with laws and
regulations governing security.

------
Blahah
Can anyone provide further context about this law? Why on Earth would Chinese
nationals be banned from NASA? And from the ISS for that matter? From the
outside it seems like a very aggressive move - are relations between the US
and China really so bad?

------
asgard1024
I wish China wouldn't be banned from cooperation on International Space
Station. It's a warmongering decision, nothing else.

~~~
BrandonMarc
I was under the impression the US invited China to participate, but China
decided not to, opting instead to launch their own space station when they're
ready. Am I mistaken?

------
michaelt
It sounds like the ban applies because the conference is held in Nasa
facilities. Anyone know why they can't move it to a nearby hotel, conference
facility or university?

~~~
mineo
That's really not a solution to the original problem, just a short-term
solution for this one conference. From the mail by Mark Messersmith it looks
like the ban applies to all conferences held at a NASA building, so if the
NASA ever wants to have chinese participants at one of them they'd have to
hold it outside of their own buildings.

------
tmsh
The irony is that the movie Gravity opened this weekend. It somewhat
indirectly celebrates collaboration among different countries.

------
DavidWanjiru
While I understand where the Republican comments are coming from, it should be
useful to realize that this law was passed in a bi-partisan legislative
assembly, and since it appears there was no objection from Democrats (or the
public) at the time the law was passed, it's safe to assume Democrats were
cool with it too.

~~~
tanzam75
The environment in the US is so jingoistic that it is political suicide to
vote against certain national-security measures, even ones that you disagree
with. This is particularly true for Democrats -- they must vote hawkishly if
they want to get reelected.

This is why "Only Nixon could go to China." Only someone who built his career
on anti-Communism could stretch out a hand in friendship, because that made
him immune to political attacks.

The only person who is currently allowed to get away with this sort of stuff
is Rand Paul -- and his father before him. You used to routinely see 420-1
votes in Congress for things that are objectively nonsensical -- and Ron Paul
would be the 1.

