"Civilizations die by suicide not by murder", Arnold Toynbee
(In video format similar summaries are given in differing versions at www.China-Threat.com at www.youtube.com/user/ChineseEspionage and at the UM-YouTube videos (see below for video links under Arms & Academia ) for those preferring the visual presentation of information, but it is a retrospective condensation of all that has happened that we know about at the University of Michigan which has significantly damaged our national welfare.)
In 1999 The Cox Report of the House Select Committee on US National Security and Military Commercial Concerns with the Peoples' Republic of China was issued detailing through that date the loss of American economic and military assets to a probable and likely adversary and enemy. It is long past due for another assessment and documentation of this credible and significant threat. On a continuing basis warnings are issued by such authoritative sources as the FBI, the DOD, and the US China Commission confirming this situation.
Via the University of Michigan, other academic institutions, industry, business, and Chinese agents science, engineering, and technology knowledge, information, and know how instrumental to the survival of the American nation are being transferred on a massive scale and rate to the Peoples Republic of China, a substantial economic and military threat. This situation is enabling them to create the current American economic crisis and to escalate such at their will in the future.This summary will concentrate on the role played by the University of Michigan in certain specific areas because the sources for the information were previously associated with that institution of higher learning where they were not in the Central Administration.
It is relevant to first review the development of the University of Michigan relationship with the Communist Chinese nation.The PRC happenings in Michigan are no accident.
In 1948 the Communist Government of China inherits a nation with a subsidence agricultural economy. This is not going to support a billion plus people or create a military powerhouse.
There is the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution which produce only greater grief.
The PRC equivalent of Gosplan decides that industrialization will solve many problems....create jobs and wealth and make the nation a super power.
Their fraternal buddy, the USSR, is not a good role model to follow for industrialization, but America is the obvious choice.
The American Midwest is the Ft. Knox of the world's industrial technology, but how to get it.
The UM going back to 1880 imported young Chinese women with bound feet in order to introduce them and their homeland to Occidental ways. University of Michigan President Angell had become Minister to China, and, fortunately, MI had been the Arsenal of Democracy during WWII.
In 1979 Jimmy Carter and Frank Press identify an impending social collapse in the PRC and invite mainland professors to come to America and the University of Michigan to be trained in humanitarian skills in order to fend off the incipient crisis. Most, upon their return, join the defense industry.
In 1987 in the UM Dept of Industrial and Operations Engineering is Prof. Shien Ming "Gus" Wu, wife Daisy, with solid mainland China credentials. This incipient effort will become the S. M. Wu Manufacturing Research Center, the keystone of Industrial Engineering's manufacturing technology efforts. And, good old Gus is not going to attract national security official's attention by providing Chinese students with manufacturing skills. Later, Jun Ni, again an individual with strong mainland connections, assumes among other positions at the UM the Directorship of the Center and later is designated to be "The Dean of Engineering" for China.
At the State level there is Andrea Fischer Newman and her affiliations with Northwest Airlines and subsequently Delta Airlines, Oakland University, the University of Michigan, and Michigan's Republican Governor, John Engler, who subsequently becomes the leader of the National Association of Manufactures and the Business Round Table where there is great interest in Chinese business opportunities. Northwest and now Delta Airlines offers considerable air service between Detroit and Chinese cities.
Wu Yi who is Vice Premier of the Beijing government and internationally recognized reportedly visits Lansing, 1995. Her successor reportedly has already recently visited MI.
The Tauber Institute is formed by the College of Engineering which nows joins with the Ross Business School at the UM to jointly develop international manufacturing concepts.
In 2005 a Chinese national, Wei Shyy, is appointed Chair of the Aerospace Engineering Department, while simultaneously holding four PRC appointments.
In 2005 with a significant delegation the President of the UM, Mary Sue Coleman, visits China and institutes numerous programs with the PRC, affiliates with Chinese universities and opens her own University of Michigan Campus in Shanghai which grants UM degrees, in order to educate Chinese students predominately in the areas of science, engineering, technology, and medicine. In 2010 she again repeats such a trip considerably broadening and expanding the existing effort. Tim Slottow, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, manages to increase the UM endowment each year by 25% and Chinese investments are involved.
In 2010 Mary Sue Coleman hosts for nearly one month a delegation of nearly three dozen Communist Chinese university presidents for a leadership congress.
There are currently ~3000 Chinese "students and researchers" on the Ann Arbor Campus...more than anywhere else in the US where they number ~130,000.
Within the College of Engineering and the Department of Aerospace Engineering at the University of Michigan it is known that the following technologies have been stolen or sabotaged.
(Chinese weapons are now acknowledged to be deployed against American troops in Afghanistan, and there was use in Iraq. Current US military training emphasizes knowledge of Chinese weapons systems.)
a. Rockets, Launch Vehicles, and Missiles (1948 alum, Applied Mechanics)
b. Nuclear and Thermonuclear Weapons (1965 alum, Physics)
c. Reentry Vehicle
d. Anti Satellite, ASAT
e. Cruise Missile
f. Trident SLBM (attempted but foiled)
g. Electric Vehicles
h. Fuel Air Explosives, FAE
i. Scramjets and Pulse Detonation Wave Engines, PDWE
j. Gas Turbine Combustors
k. Green Energy Devices
l. MEMS Devices for PGM's
In addition to the thievery of our information the Chinese have also interfered with the education of American students concerning national defense related training.
In 1998 external funding was successfully obtained in order to make permanent an undergraduate advanced aircraft design course concerned with combat aircraft design taught by guest lecturers who were recognized industry experts. The first two individuals involved in the prototype three semesters of lectures were John Fozard, Chief Designer of the Harrier from British Aerospace and Oleg Samoylovich, Chief Designer of the Flanker and of the Frogfoot from the Sukhoi Design Bureau. Administrators within the College of Engineering and the Department of Aerospace Engineering prevented the intended use of this funding and instead diverted it in order to support research activities involving graduate research "students" and their advisor, Peretz Friedman. It was also noted that combat aircraft was not an appropriate subject of study in academe. In the academic years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 the Chair of the Aerospace Engineering Department, Wei Shyy, with his known strong Mainland China ties, cancelled national security related courses in the Department of Aerospace Engineering at the University of Michigan:
1) Aero 729 parts 1 and 2, Explosions, Explosives, Propellants, and Pyrotechnics,
2) Aero 490 and 590, Internal Combustion Engines,
3) Aero 530, Gas Turbine Engines, and
4) Aero 535, Rocket Propulsion.
With American soldiers being killed every day in Iraq and Afghanistan Prof. Shyy behaved in a manner so as to knowingly deny young Americans battlefield skills. In 2006 a proposal to Federal agencies with national security interests to obtain financial resources to be used to initiate a new Master of Science Degree program entitled "The Science, Engineering, and Technology of Safety, Disasters, and Terrorism (SET of SDT)" in cooperation with the Moscow Physical Engineering Institute was presented to Prof. Shyy and the Dean of Engineering, Ronald Gibala for their approval for submission. They rejected authorizing such an effort, although there had been Federal interest as the US needs such experts to be trained for our own well being. The program was just initiated this year in Russia. Also, in October 2006 I had made arrangements to attend the Air Show China in Zhuhow China in order to identify stolen US technologies. Two days before my departure I was arrested in my campus office and handcuffed by a University of Michigan Department of Public Safety Officer who informed me that "We do not want you going to China". As a result of several hours of abuse and interrogation I was unable to complete remaining travel details, and I missed attending the exhibition.
For several of these instances elaboration is appropriate, but it may be provided for all situations.
1) ASAT Prof. Daniel Scheeres studies how to rendezvous objects in space such as landing a spacecraft on an asteroid. However, the same technology can be used to shoot down a satellite or rendezvous a hunter killer satellite with a target satellite in orbit.Dr. Scheeres gave a series of lectures in July 2006 at Harbin Institute of Technology entitled;
· “Space Missions to Asteroids: NEAR and Hayabusa,"
· “The Full Two-Body Problem: Celestial Mechanics and Binary Asteroids,"
· “Asteroid Mission Design and Navigation,"
The Harbin Institute of Technology (HIT) has close ties to the Peoples’ Liberation Army (PLA) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). HIT is the key university in the Chinese missile and space industry.
One person who paid particular attention to Dr. Scheeres presentations in China was Yu Xiaohong. She works for a division of the PLA known as the Academy of Equipment Command & Technology. She has written scientific articles on anti-satellite kinetic kill vehicles such as Ning Ziwen and Yu Xiaohong, “Error Analysis of Orbit-transferring Velocity Increment on KKV (Kinetic Kill Vehicles) in Space,” Journal of the Academy of Equipment Command & Technology, Issue 3, 2004.
Dr. Scheeres claims that he had no knowledge of her military affiliations before she came to work with him at the University of Michigan from February to August of 2007. During that time she undoubtedly had access to sophisticated computer software and mathematical models for calculating orbits and trajectories. It is unclear what she may have taken back with her to China but China has demonstrated its anti-satellite weapons.
2) MEMS
Electronics for application in Precision Guided Munitions developed at the University of Michigan have apparently been illegally exported to the PRC by business interests associated with the current Michigan Governor, Rick Snyder. Extensive details are given in the attachment Research Backgrounder.
3)Manufacturing Technology
President Obama unveiled in an announcement made at Carnagie Mellon University a $500 million program for Advanced Manufacturing Partnership (AMP) designed to reinvigorate the country’s manufacturing sector. The partnership between academics, business leaders, and science and technology agencies is intended to create jobs by helping US manufacturers reduce costs, improve quality, and accelerate product development.
However, UM’s program is led by Chinese Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Jack Hu along with his mostly Chinese graduate students and visiting scholars; Jingjing Li, Hui John Wang, Liang Zhou, Sha Li, Zhiliang "Grace" Wu, He "Herbert" Wang June Lu.
How can we expect these Chinese students not to take whatever technology is developed under this program back to China invigorating the manufacturing there?
4)Wholesale Tech Transfer
In August 2010 Wei Shyy defected back to Mainland China, but he still remains a naturalized US citizen, after spending 30 years in America at a variety of industrial and academic positions where he had access to the total spectrum of critical aerospace information. His speciality was aerodynamics. In the winter 2011 the PRC revealed their J-20 stealth fighter. It would be reasonable to conclude that his activities while in the US contributed to this development....the classic sleeper agent. In the UM Aerospace Engineering Department he still holds an appointment as an Adjunct Professor, and he has reportedly expressed the intention to return periodically in order to refill his technology bucket. He will need no visa as he still retains his citizenship!
5) A Singularity Worthy of Examination
An especially peculiar situation currently exists regarding the last Chief Scientist USAF, Werner J A Dahn and ex Professor of Aerospace Engineering, UM. Dahm was very instrumental in choosing Wei Shyy to be Department Chair and was first to join in his defense when his loyalty to the US was questioned. Dahm also had a substantial commercial corporate relationship with Professor Jun Ni, the College of Engineering "Dean for China" and the successor to Professor Sam Wu. The previous Chief Scientist, University of Maryland Professor Mark Lewis stated to me personally that "The US education of Chinese
students could not be terminated because of the adverse financial impact on American universities".
An analysis of this critical detrimental situation must be made in order to assess the damage to our nation, to determine responsibility for these events, and to levy the penalties for the damage inflicted. The UM currently receives $1.24B in Federal research funding. Additionally, future policies must be determined and implemented in order to undo the information transfer crisis and to prevent the continuing and future denigration of America's national security.
The current economic crisis in the United States is directly attributable to the transfer of American industrial production to the Peoples' Republic of China. The abandoned American factories are not the result of an extraterrestrial invasion, but off shoring and conveying critical and strategic information to Chinese "students". For example, if each returning Chinese "student" because of their new knowledge is able to create 10 new jobs upon their return home, there are 100,000 Chinese "students" studying each year in the United States, this has been occurring for the past 10 years, then in the last decade 10 million new jobs have appeared in Communist China, and America officially has 14 million unemployed. (Perhaps really 25 million.) During the entire history of the American nation national assets have been protected especially during times of national crisis. Most easily remembered is the fifty five year period of the Cold War when the Soviet Union was not allowed access to our information or products. It has been concluded that this policy substantially contributed to their collapse. For whatever reasons Communist China was and is perceived in a totally different and catastrophic manner.....it is as if they are a NATO ally. Such deception has either escaped the attention of national security officials or they have been overridden by commercial and global political interests.
America has lost the capability to control its national assets in several ways beyond the inability to identify a threat. The information revolution occurred making possible the storage and transmission of huge amounts of data. The piece of paper with its caveats in a locked filing cabinet in the custody of a vetted individual is no longer relevant. With the demise of government and industrial laboratories research and development activities in academe assumed enormous national importance at a time when a significant change in the background of faculty and students was occurring, ~1990. The time between the incubation of a new idea, through its development, and until its deployment on store shelves or onto the battlefield shortened from years to months. In the name of "Academic Freedom" and "Globalization" academe has avoided all existing protections of national security assets while hassling those committed to and responsible for maintaining the national security assets. The University of Michigan even went so far as to offer advice on how to avoid ITAR constraints. The UM Administration also denied the requests of national security officials to brief them on the national security threats posed by the presence of foreign "students" on campus. This deplorable situation evolved because their was and is no oversight of academe by authoritative and competent interests concerned with the national well being.
The situation at the University of Michigan concerning the loss of strategic industrial and military information to the PRC was first brought to the attention of public officials in Michigan beginning in 2004 including State Representatives and Senators, US Representatives and Senators, Party Chairs, and the UM Regents. It was also noted in seminar presentations in 2003 and 2005 at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and to representatives of the Federal Investigative Service in 2006, and since then to a wide variety of officials, officers, authorities, media outlets, etc associated with an alphabet soup of designations. Additionally, the US Attorney for Eastern Michigan was informed by Registered Letter, 11 May 2011, and the Chicago Office of the Bureau of Industrial Security, US Department of Commerce, 10 November 2010, by email.There has been no detectable responses to any of these interactions with authorities. Elsewhere in academe and industry there have been prosecutions of those engaged in traitorous activities, but why not in Michigan or at the University of Michigan? Is protection being bought by the award of honorary degrees, the gift of complementary athletic tickets, the appointment to visiting faculty positions, the award of lucrative business contracts, etc?
It is clear that protecting America's economic and military assets will be difficult in the current political climate. In May 2011 a trip was made to Capitol Hill by four concerned citizens, voters, and taxpayers to express their alarm to selected Members of Congress who were known to have substantial pro American views. More and others could have been selected. Eight offices in the House and three in the Senate were visited, and they represented both parties. In all instances basically there was the same response to our China concerns. When as a Member of Congress they acted to protect America's economic and military strength they received push back communications from the White House, Offices of Cabinet Secretaries, captains of industry, and the media. They asked us if upon return to our home if we could generate public support for their positions. Secondly, we were informed that the Federal government was infested with moles going back to 1948 that were sympathetic to the interests of Communist China.
The writer was a participant in the Cold War and trained in national security issues by numerous Federal agencies concerned with such.The Soviet Union was clearly treated as an adversary and threat although its predecessor and successor, Russia, is a nation with which we share commonalities. The Communist Peoples' Republic of China (The official symbol of the Chinese Communist Party, CCP, is the red flag with the yellow hammer and sickle in the upper left corner.) does not share democratic values, has a deplorable human rights record, according to many it is the worst in history for a despotic and totalitarian nation, is stealing our economic well being, and will soon confront us militarily. Why are they not treated as was the USSR? Historically, national assets have been protected and those accused of providing them to an adversary have been prosecuted. Based upon my training I actually expected such to occur when the violations were first reported to authorities, and it would be my opinion that individuals at the University of Michigan have done more damage to American national security than all previous traitors combined who are enumerated in American history. The hemorrhaging of our national assets must stop.
Unfortunately, the United States is currently in a bifurcated situation addressing both the concerns of terrorism, acute, and the concerns of China stealing our economic and military base, chronic. It should be examined if there are Chinese fingerprints on the first. Both issues are of critical and equal importance to the survival of the American nation. The situation is precarious and immediate action must be taken The Patriots within the Federal government must address and resolve the China Threat issue now. Most Americans will support the effort!
"When China awakes the world will shudder", Napoleon Bonaparte
Research Backgrounder: Is Discera Exporting Sensitive Military-Grade Technology to China?
Discera, Inc. specializes in the development, production, marketing and sales of a cutting edge technology known as MEMS oscillators. MEMS – microelectromechanical systems – refers to the extreme miniaturization of a variety of electromechanical components so they can be embedded in a silicon chip as part of an integrated circuit.
One of those components is an oscillator, a device that generates a continuous electronic wave at a specified frequency that can be used in a wide range of commercial, industrial and military applications. MEMS oscillators are incredibly small, extremely accurate and highly shock resistant. These characteristics make them particularly useful in advanced timing applications.
Because oscillators are used in both commercial products and military products like missiles and smart munitions, they are classified and regulated by the federal government as a “dual use” technology. Tight restrictions are placed on the export of military-grade technologies to China that could be used to improve their missile technology and space programs.
Discera’s MEMS oscillator technology was developed at the University of Michigan, presumably with the assistance/subsidy of public funds, and exclusively licensed to Discera, Inc. The license agreement between U-M and Discera provides for royalty payments, stock options and reimbursement of patent-related expenses to the university, which means U-M has a financial interest in the successful commercialization of the technology.1
Military Application of Discera Oscillator Technology
Discera has partnerships with several companies to market their oscillator technology to different end users. One such partner is Vectron International, a subsidiary of Dover Corporation. Under the terms of their partnership, Discera offers commercial market applications of their MEMS oscillator technology, while Vectron offers military applications.
“Our respective markets are clearly demarcated," he added, "with Discera targeting consumer electronics, etc., and Vectron producing high-end consumer goods and primarily high-precision military and aerospace components."2
In 2007 the two companies announced the first product of their joint venture – a highly-shock resistant MEMS oscillator for use in guidance systems for missiles and other “smart munitions:”
“Our latest breakthrough, the VMEM5Q, clearly demonstrates our commitment to bring leading-edge technology to our customers who are manufacturing guidance systems for small munitions, projectile electronics, missiles, and high-shock vibration applications." Greg Smolka, vice president of Vectron's Industrial Military and Space Business unit, adds: "This MEMS-based oscillator addresses a strong need for high-shock resistant timing components in the Precision Guided Munitions (PGM) market." The Vectron oscillator makes use of a PureSilicon MEMS resonator from Discera.”3
Another industry trade publication reported that “the Vectron VMEM5Q has passed the company’s qualification testing, including MIL-PRF-55310, and has been qualified, approved, and installed by a top-level military customer for a gun-hardened munitions guidance system.”4
Discera’s military-grade oscillators are also embedded in defense industry hardware by M/A-COM, a division of Tyco, Inc. The DIscera MOS-1 oscillator is a key component in M/A-COM’s telemetry systems for missiles:
“The world's first design win for microelectromechanical-system oscillators is a high-reliability military application--a wireless transmitter that streams real-time telemetry data back from smart munitions to remotely guide them to their target. Discera Inc. will announce Monday (April 9) that Tyco Electronics' subsidiary M/A-COM (Lowell, Mass.) will use its MOS-1 MEMS oscillator in a wireless transmitter built for smart munitions. During testing, M/A-COM removed some warheads, allowing munitions to be retrieved after impact--and Discera's oscillators were still ticking.
"Our MEMS oscillator will be used in telemetry transmitters that must endure the shock of being fired with all the various different types of smart munitions in the U.S. arsenal," said Venkat Bahl, vice president of marketing at Discera (San Jose, Calif.). "Military observers present during M/A-COM's rigorous shock-testing procedures were at first skeptical of MEMS, but 100 percent of our MOS-1 chips passed [the tests]."5
New Export Controls on Military-Grade Oscillators
In December 2009 the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) – the federal agency responsible for the enforcement of “dual use” export controls – classified certain oscillators as a technology subject to export controls in the categories of national security (NS), missile technology (MT), nuclear non-proliferation (NP) and anti-terrorism (AT). According to BIS:
“The purpose of the control is to ensure that these items do not make a contribution to the military potential of countries in Country Group D:1 [ed.note: this group includes China] that would prove detrimental to the national security of the United States.6
According to the Commerce Control List (CCL) maintained by BIS and adopted by several international conventions, oscillator technology is designated with the Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 3A001.b.10. Exporting this technology to China is prohibited by federal law and international convention without an export license. Because export licenses are considered proprietary business information, there is no publicly available database to verify if Discera has obtained an export license to sell military-grade oscillators in China.
Additional restrictions apply to the export of missile technology to China. According to the BIS:
“Section 1512 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
requires a Presidential certification to Congress prior to the export to China of missile
technology controlled items, except for certain items used in manned aircraft.” 7
It should be noted that President Obama in 2009 delegated certification authority under this section to the U.S. Department of Commerce, a move that raised significant concerns in the national security community that certification authority for the export of sensitive missile technology should be vested in the Department of Defense.8
Missile technologies are also proscribed by the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), a voluntary association of governments around the world that aims to reduce the proliferation of missiles. Not surprisingly, China is not a member of the organization. The MTCR maintains a detailed list of missile technologies subject to export controls. The list includes telemetry systems like those described in the Vectron and M/A-COM product announcements cited above.9
Concerns Over “Dual Use” Technology Transfer to China
In July, Discera opened a new business operation in Shenzhen, China. The company press release touted the new venture as a “state-of-the-art China applications center:”
“As the heart of the company’s permanent investment plan in China, the new office features engineers, equipment, and researchers to support sophisticated chip and module integration, high definition and 3D video technology, and radio frequency and smart grid design.”10
Company officials have since backtracked, describing the scope and scale of the Shenzhen operation as merely a “small sales office with five employees” who work with commercial end-users to incorporate Discera oscillators into Chinese consumer products.
Meanwhile, Vectron and M/A-COM are selling Discera oscillators to military end-users here in the US and abroad. Discera’s concurrent sale of their oscillator technology for use in U.S. missile guidance and telemetry systems as well as for commercial uses in China raises legitimate questions about the export of such “dual use” technologies to China. Once this technology is made available to China for commercial applications, it is difficult if not impossible to prevent the technology from being transferred to China’s military agencies.
Experts in the field of “dual use” technology transfer warn that the export of these technologies to China has serious implications for US national security.
“the acquisition of advanced dual-use technology by Chinese military and defense-industrial companies in the United States as well as technology ‘leakage’ through US joint ventures with companies in China pose the most serious national security concerns for the United States….”11
“In a 2005 exchange regarding U.S. exports of dual use technologies to China, former Department of Defense official Lawrence Korb (then with the Center for American Progress) told Peter Lichtenbaum, then Acting Undersecretary for Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce, that "…the United States exports equipment and technology to China that actively contributes to Beijing's ability to wage war." Korb noted that U.S. exports were not "…being used in a manner consistent with our national security and nonproliferation interests."12
Even the US government agency responsible for export controls on “dual use” technologies expresses concern about the long-term impact of high technology transfers to China on US national security. According to the BIS:
“Although it is not possible to make a clear determination of the US national security implications of commercial US technology transfers to China, the continuation of the trends identified in this study could pose long-term challenges to US national security interests. This study does not identify any specific Chinese military advances made as a result of US commercial technology transfers, but does suggest that continued pressures on foreign high-tech firms to transfer advanced commercial technologies, if successful, could indirectly benefit China’s efforts to modernize its military.”13
Further, a partially declassified Interagency Review of U.S. Export Controls for China (January 2007) conducted by the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Defense, State, Energy, Homeland Security and the Central Intelligence Agency concluded that “export control regulations and policies related to China should be strengthened” and that the Chinese government continues to pursue an “aggressive program of domestic industrial reform and acquisition of key weapons and technologies from foreign sources.” The report notes that the primary technologies sought by China include microelectronics, nanotechnology, space systems and missile systems.14
More recently, President Barack Obama called for a complete overhaul of the U.S. export control regime, according to a presidential directive signed Dec. 21, 2009.15
Conclusion
In sum, serious concerns can be raised that Discera’s Chinese sales activities may be tantamount to the transfer of military-grade technology to China under the auspices of selling it to commercial rather than military end-users. Unanswered questions include:
· Does Discera hold the appropriate export licenses needed to transfer their technology to commercial end-users in China? How do they prevent the technology from being obtained by military end-users in China?
· Do Vectron International and M/A-COM comply with appropriate export controls on military products that use Discera’s oscillator technology?
Even if all three companies currently hold valid export licenses for commercial or military products based on Discera oscillators, it remains possible that the federal authorities responsible for the enforcement of export controls are not aware that Discera may be exporting technology to China, ostensibly to commercial end-users, that is virtually identical to the technology used by Vectron and M/A-COM in guidance and telemetry systems for missiles.
NOTES
(1) Amendments to Discera Licensing Agreement, University of Michigan Board of Regents, Meeting Minutes for December 2002, page 171; October 2003, page 110; April 2004, page 251; July 2005, page 34. The original licensing agreement between U-M and Discera, Inc. does not appear in meeting minutes available through an online search.
(2) “Discera and Vectron formalized partnership”, EuroAsia Semiconductor, February 19, 2007 http://www.euroasiasemiconductor.com/news_full.php?thumb_id=2&newsid=69312
(3) “Tracking The Technologies That Are Forging Future Systems”, by Jack Browne, Technical Editor, SECTION: DEFENSE ELECTRONICS: SPECIAL REPORT; Pg. 36 Vol. 47 No. 9 ISSN: 0745-2993
(4) “Military Clock Oscillator Rides MEMS Technology”, by Jack Browne, Penton’s Military Electronics, September 2008, p. 8.
(5) “M/A-COM qualifies MEMS oscillator for smart munitions”, by R Colin Johnson, EETimes, 4/9/2007 http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4070853/M-A-COM-qualifies-MEMS-oscillator-for-smart-munitions
(6) Final Rule, Docket No. 0908041218-91220-01, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Wassenaar Arrangement 2008 Plenary Agreements Implementation: Categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Parts I and II, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Commerce Control List, Definitions, Reports; Federal Register: December 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 237).
(7) U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security, Missile Technology Controls Questions and Answers. https://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/mctrfacts010802.html
(8) “Obama loosens missile technology controls to China,” by Bill Gertz, Washington Times, October 15, 2009 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/inside-the-ring-2059116/
(9) Missile Technology Control Regime, Equipment, Software and Technology Annex, 10 Nov 2009. http://www.mtcr.info/english/annex.html
(10) Discera Press Release, July 19, 2010, “Discera Establishes State-of-the-Art China Applications Center in Shenzhen”
(11) James Mulvenon in Chinese Military Commerce and US National Security, Center for Asia Pacific Policy, RAND Corporation, MR-907.0-CAPP (draft) July 1997
(12) RESEARCH REPORT ON CHINESE HIGH-TECH INDUSTRIES, U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission, Prepared by NSD Bio Group, LLC, January 2009, http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2009/NSD%20BioGroup%20Final%20Report%20'Sunrise'%20Report%2002June2009.pdf
(13) U.S. Commercial Technology Transfers to the People’s Republic of China, Defense Industrial Base Program, Defense Market Research Reports, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (undated) http://www.bis.doc.gov/defenseindustrialbaseprograms/osies/defmarketresearchrpts/techtransfer2prc.html
(14) Interagency Review of U.S. Export Controls for China - Report No. D-2007-050 (PDF) - Project No. D2005-D000LG-0220.001, January 31, 2007
(15) “Obama Memo Puts Export Reform on Front Burner”, by Amy Klamper, Space News, January 15, 2010 http://www.spacenews.com/policy/100115-obama-memo-puts-export-reform-front-burner.html
Discera, Inc. specializes in the development, production, marketing and sales of a cutting edge technology known as MEMS oscillators. MEMS – microelectromechanical systems – refers to the extreme miniaturization of a variety of electromechanical components so they can be embedded in a silicon chip as part of an integrated circuit.
One of those components is an oscillator, a device that generates a continuous electronic wave at a specified frequency that can be used in a wide range of commercial, industrial and military applications. MEMS oscillators are incredibly small, extremely accurate and highly shock resistant. These characteristics make them particularly useful in advanced timing applications.
Because oscillators are used in both commercial products and military products like missiles and smart munitions, they are classified and regulated by the federal government as a “dual use” technology. Tight restrictions are placed on the export of military-grade technologies to China that could be used to improve their missile technology and space programs.
Discera’s MEMS oscillator technology was developed at the University of Michigan, presumably with the assistance/subsidy of public funds, and exclusively licensed to Discera, Inc. The license agreement between U-M and Discera provides for royalty payments, stock options and reimbursement of patent-related expenses to the university, which means U-M has a financial interest in the successful commercialization of the technology.1
Military Application of Discera Oscillator Technology
Discera has partnerships with several companies to market their oscillator technology to different end users. One such partner is Vectron International, a subsidiary of Dover Corporation. Under the terms of their partnership, Discera offers commercial market applications of their MEMS oscillator technology, while Vectron offers military applications.
“Our respective markets are clearly demarcated," he added, "with Discera targeting consumer electronics, etc., and Vectron producing high-end consumer goods and primarily high-precision military and aerospace components."2
In 2007 the two companies announced the first product of their joint venture – a highly-shock resistant MEMS oscillator for use in guidance systems for missiles and other “smart munitions:”
“Our latest breakthrough, the VMEM5Q, clearly demonstrates our commitment to bring leading-edge technology to our customers who are manufacturing guidance systems for small munitions, projectile electronics, missiles, and high-shock vibration applications." Greg Smolka, vice president of Vectron's Industrial Military and Space Business unit, adds: "This MEMS-based oscillator addresses a strong need for high-shock resistant timing components in the Precision Guided Munitions (PGM) market." The Vectron oscillator makes use of a PureSilicon MEMS resonator from Discera.”3
Another industry trade publication reported that “the Vectron VMEM5Q has passed the company’s qualification testing, including MIL-PRF-55310, and has been qualified, approved, and installed by a top-level military customer for a gun-hardened munitions guidance system.”4
Discera’s military-grade oscillators are also embedded in defense industry hardware by M/A-COM, a division of Tyco, Inc. The DIscera MOS-1 oscillator is a key component in M/A-COM’s telemetry systems for missiles:
“The world's first design win for microelectromechanical-system oscillators is a high-reliability military application--a wireless transmitter that streams real-time telemetry data back from smart munitions to remotely guide them to their target. Discera Inc. will announce Monday (April 9) that Tyco Electronics' subsidiary M/A-COM (Lowell, Mass.) will use its MOS-1 MEMS oscillator in a wireless transmitter built for smart munitions. During testing, M/A-COM removed some warheads, allowing munitions to be retrieved after impact--and Discera's oscillators were still ticking.
"Our MEMS oscillator will be used in telemetry transmitters that must endure the shock of being fired with all the various different types of smart munitions in the U.S. arsenal," said Venkat Bahl, vice president of marketing at Discera (San Jose, Calif.). "Military observers present during M/A-COM's rigorous shock-testing procedures were at first skeptical of MEMS, but 100 percent of our MOS-1 chips passed [the tests]."5
New Export Controls on Military-Grade Oscillators
In December 2009 the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) – the federal agency responsible for the enforcement of “dual use” export controls – classified certain oscillators as a technology subject to export controls in the categories of national security (NS), missile technology (MT), nuclear non-proliferation (NP) and anti-terrorism (AT). According to BIS:
“The purpose of the control is to ensure that these items do not make a contribution to the military potential of countries in Country Group D:1 [ed.note: this group includes China] that would prove detrimental to the national security of the United States.6
According to the Commerce Control List (CCL) maintained by BIS and adopted by several international conventions, oscillator technology is designated with the Export Control Classification Number (ECCN) 3A001.b.10. Exporting this technology to China is prohibited by federal law and international convention without an export license. Because export licenses are considered proprietary business information, there is no publicly available database to verify if Discera has obtained an export license to sell military-grade oscillators in China.
Additional restrictions apply to the export of missile technology to China. According to the BIS:
“Section 1512 of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
requires a Presidential certification to Congress prior to the export to China of missile
technology controlled items, except for certain items used in manned aircraft.” 7
It should be noted that President Obama in 2009 delegated certification authority under this section to the U.S. Department of Commerce, a move that raised significant concerns in the national security community that certification authority for the export of sensitive missile technology should be vested in the Department of Defense.8
Missile technologies are also proscribed by the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), a voluntary association of governments around the world that aims to reduce the proliferation of missiles. Not surprisingly, China is not a member of the organization. The MTCR maintains a detailed list of missile technologies subject to export controls. The list includes telemetry systems like those described in the Vectron and M/A-COM product announcements cited above.9
Concerns Over “Dual Use” Technology Transfer to China
In July, Discera opened a new business operation in Shenzhen, China. The company press release touted the new venture as a “state-of-the-art China applications center:”
“As the heart of the company’s permanent investment plan in China, the new office features engineers, equipment, and researchers to support sophisticated chip and module integration, high definition and 3D video technology, and radio frequency and smart grid design.”10
Company officials have since backtracked, describing the scope and scale of the Shenzhen operation as merely a “small sales office with five employees” who work with commercial end-users to incorporate Discera oscillators into Chinese consumer products.
Meanwhile, Vectron and M/A-COM are selling Discera oscillators to military end-users here in the US and abroad. Discera’s concurrent sale of their oscillator technology for use in U.S. missile guidance and telemetry systems as well as for commercial uses in China raises legitimate questions about the export of such “dual use” technologies to China. Once this technology is made available to China for commercial applications, it is difficult if not impossible to prevent the technology from being transferred to China’s military agencies.
Experts in the field of “dual use” technology transfer warn that the export of these technologies to China has serious implications for US national security.
“the acquisition of advanced dual-use technology by Chinese military and defense-industrial companies in the United States as well as technology ‘leakage’ through US joint ventures with companies in China pose the most serious national security concerns for the United States….”11
“In a 2005 exchange regarding U.S. exports of dual use technologies to China, former Department of Defense official Lawrence Korb (then with the Center for American Progress) told Peter Lichtenbaum, then Acting Undersecretary for Industry and Security of the Department of Commerce, that "…the United States exports equipment and technology to China that actively contributes to Beijing's ability to wage war." Korb noted that U.S. exports were not "…being used in a manner consistent with our national security and nonproliferation interests."12
Even the US government agency responsible for export controls on “dual use” technologies expresses concern about the long-term impact of high technology transfers to China on US national security. According to the BIS:
“Although it is not possible to make a clear determination of the US national security implications of commercial US technology transfers to China, the continuation of the trends identified in this study could pose long-term challenges to US national security interests. This study does not identify any specific Chinese military advances made as a result of US commercial technology transfers, but does suggest that continued pressures on foreign high-tech firms to transfer advanced commercial technologies, if successful, could indirectly benefit China’s efforts to modernize its military.”13
Further, a partially declassified Interagency Review of U.S. Export Controls for China (January 2007) conducted by the U.S. Departments of Commerce, Defense, State, Energy, Homeland Security and the Central Intelligence Agency concluded that “export control regulations and policies related to China should be strengthened” and that the Chinese government continues to pursue an “aggressive program of domestic industrial reform and acquisition of key weapons and technologies from foreign sources.” The report notes that the primary technologies sought by China include microelectronics, nanotechnology, space systems and missile systems.14
More recently, President Barack Obama called for a complete overhaul of the U.S. export control regime, according to a presidential directive signed Dec. 21, 2009.15
Conclusion
In sum, serious concerns can be raised that Discera’s Chinese sales activities may be tantamount to the transfer of military-grade technology to China under the auspices of selling it to commercial rather than military end-users. Unanswered questions include:
· Does Discera hold the appropriate export licenses needed to transfer their technology to commercial end-users in China? How do they prevent the technology from being obtained by military end-users in China?
· Do Vectron International and M/A-COM comply with appropriate export controls on military products that use Discera’s oscillator technology?
Even if all three companies currently hold valid export licenses for commercial or military products based on Discera oscillators, it remains possible that the federal authorities responsible for the enforcement of export controls are not aware that Discera may be exporting technology to China, ostensibly to commercial end-users, that is virtually identical to the technology used by Vectron and M/A-COM in guidance and telemetry systems for missiles.
NOTES
(1) Amendments to Discera Licensing Agreement, University of Michigan Board of Regents, Meeting Minutes for December 2002, page 171; October 2003, page 110; April 2004, page 251; July 2005, page 34. The original licensing agreement between U-M and Discera, Inc. does not appear in meeting minutes available through an online search.
(2) “Discera and Vectron formalized partnership”, EuroAsia Semiconductor, February 19, 2007 http://www.euroasiasemiconductor.com/news_full.php?thumb_id=2&newsid=69312
(3) “Tracking The Technologies That Are Forging Future Systems”, by Jack Browne, Technical Editor, SECTION: DEFENSE ELECTRONICS: SPECIAL REPORT; Pg. 36 Vol. 47 No. 9 ISSN: 0745-2993
(4) “Military Clock Oscillator Rides MEMS Technology”, by Jack Browne, Penton’s Military Electronics, September 2008, p. 8.
(5) “M/A-COM qualifies MEMS oscillator for smart munitions”, by R Colin Johnson, EETimes, 4/9/2007 http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4070853/M-A-COM-qualifies-MEMS-oscillator-for-smart-munitions
(6) Final Rule, Docket No. 0908041218-91220-01, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security, Wassenaar Arrangement 2008 Plenary Agreements Implementation: Categories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Parts I and II, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Commerce Control List, Definitions, Reports; Federal Register: December 11, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 237).
(7) U.S. Bureau of Industry and Security, Missile Technology Controls Questions and Answers. https://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/mctrfacts010802.html
(8) “Obama loosens missile technology controls to China,” by Bill Gertz, Washington Times, October 15, 2009 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/15/inside-the-ring-2059116/
(9) Missile Technology Control Regime, Equipment, Software and Technology Annex, 10 Nov 2009. http://www.mtcr.info/english/annex.html
(10) Discera Press Release, July 19, 2010, “Discera Establishes State-of-the-Art China Applications Center in Shenzhen”
(11) James Mulvenon in Chinese Military Commerce and US National Security, Center for Asia Pacific Policy, RAND Corporation, MR-907.0-CAPP (draft) July 1997
(12) RESEARCH REPORT ON CHINESE HIGH-TECH INDUSTRIES, U.S. China Economic and Security Review Commission, Prepared by NSD Bio Group, LLC, January 2009, http://www.uscc.gov/researchpapers/2009/NSD%20BioGroup%20Final%20Report%20'Sunrise'%20Report%2002June2009.pdf
(13) U.S. Commercial Technology Transfers to the People’s Republic of China, Defense Industrial Base Program, Defense Market Research Reports, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (undated) http://www.bis.doc.gov/defenseindustrialbaseprograms/osies/defmarketresearchrpts/techtransfer2prc.html
(14) Interagency Review of U.S. Export Controls for China - Report No. D-2007-050 (PDF) - Project No. D2005-D000LG-0220.001, January 31, 2007
(15) “Obama Memo Puts Export Reform on Front Burner”, by Amy Klamper, Space News, January 15, 2010 http://www.spacenews.com/policy/100115-obama-memo-puts-export-reform-front-burner.html