Podcasts about china initiative

This week on Sinica, I chat with David Zweig, a veteran China scholar who is Professor Emeritus from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. We discuss Davis'd latest book, The War for Chinese Talent in America, which looks at Chinese efforts to harness the intellectual firepower of Chinese scientists and engineers who studied abroad, especially in the United States, and bring them — or at least their knowledge —back to China. David's book takes a balanced look at both the very real problems generated by Chinese policies as well as the overreaction by the U.S. Department of Justice in the form of the infamous China Initiative. 3:40 – Why got David interested on this particular topic 7:07 – The diaspora option12:09 – The Thousand Talents Program/Plan18:28 – How the talent programs operate23:48 – Motivations for Chinese to participate in the talent programs, how geopolitics now impacts these decisions, and what the effect of the China Initiative has been on collaboration 36:29 – The China Initiative's climate of fear and the concern for racial profiling 49:40 – The extent of the validity of U.S. security concerns57:24 – David's suggestions for balancing national security interests and open scientific exchange Paying It Forward: Dan Lynch and his book, China's Futures: PRC Elites Debate Economics, Politics, and Foreign PolicyRecommendations:David: It's a Wonderful World — The Louis Armstrong Musical in New YorkKaiser: The Invention of Yesterday: A 50,000-Year History of Human Culture, Conflict, and Connection by Tamim Ansary, especially the audiobook read by the authorSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

North Korea-Russia ties have grown by leaps and bounds since Moscow launched its invasion of Ukraine, while its relationship with China appears to have suffered as a result. This week, expert Lyle Goldstein joins the podcast to share insights into Pyongyang's strategic partnerships with its neighbors and the complex dynamics that shape its nuclear ambitions. He also discusses what could come now that Donald Trump has been inaugurated and why he believes that Trump-Kim engagement 2.0 could help deescalate tensions on the Korean Peninsula.  Lyle J. Goldstein is the director of the Asia Program at Defense Priorities, a nonprofit think tank. He is also director of the China Initiative and senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University. He is wrapping up a book length project that examines China-Russia relations in the 21st century. About the podcast: The North Korea News Podcast is a weekly podcast hosted by Jacco Zwetsloot exclusively for NK News, covering all things DPRK — from news to extended interviews with leading experts and analysts in the field, along with insight from our very own journalists. NK News subscribers can listen to this and other exclusive episodes from their preferred podcast player by accessing the private podcast feed. For more detailed instructions, please see the step-by-step guide at nknews.org/private-feed.

Man Pleads Guilty: Running Chinese Police Outpost in NYCKathy Hochul's Former Aid Accused of Serving BeijingFAA Bans Drones in New JerseyDefense Bill Targets Chinese Drones Scotus to Hear Arguments from TikTokHearing: CCP Weaponizing Patents, Courts, SubsidiesRep. Green Expects DOJ's China Initiative to ReturnWSJ: U.S. Considers Chinese Router BanSenate Passes Falun Gong Protection ActSen. Marshall: 'A Lot of Organs Come from China'Cook: CCP Censors, Intimidates People in U.S.

You're Listening to Parallax Views https://parallaxviews.podbean.com/ Support the Show on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/parallaxviews On this edition of Parallax Views, former CIA analyst and Cato Institute fellow Patrick G. Eddington, who specializes in issues related to homeland security and civil liberties, returns to the program to discuss a scandalous snafu on the part of the Office of National Intelligence in relation to questions of PRC espionage (specifically the issue of whether or not the PRC has made recruiting Chinese Americans for spying activities) that illustrates a massive government abuse of Freedom of Information Act Exemptions. The whole story was detailed in Patrick's Antiwar.Com article "PRC Espionage: Are Chinese Americans Their Top Recruitment Targets?". In the second part of our conversation we delve into what a second Trump term will potentially mean for civil liberties in the United States and have a in-depth discussion about Trump's mass deportations plans for undocumented migrant/illegal immigrants. Back in August, Patrick wrote a piece for The Bulwark entitled "Trump Could Do a Mass Deportation. We've Done It Before.". We delve into the history of mass deportation plans than have been done in the past with a focus on Eisenhower as well as the crackdowns on German Americans during World War I. We'll also mention issues related to the internment camps of WWII and how they not only targeted Japanese American, but also German- and Italian Americans. Patrick will help us delve into the Alien Enemy Act which has been cited by Trump and his advisers already. Additionally, Patrick will comment on Kentucky Senator Rand Paul's criticisms of Trump wanting to use the U.S. military for mass deportations. Also discussed in the course of this conversation is neo-McCarthyism and the China Initiative of the first Trump Presidency, threats to civil liberties in a second Trump term, the expansion of Presidential/Executive Branch powers over the years and its consequences, the January 6th insurrection/riots, and much, much more.

Jamie is joined by Lyle Goldstein—director of the China Initiative at Brown University and the director of Asia Engagement at Defense Priorities—to discuss Goldstein's case against American engagement in Taiwan. The Agenda: —Potential Chinese invasion scenarios —Democracy vs. realism —Red lines in the Pacific —Strategic ambiguity —China's military capability —World War II —Moral considerations Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Hoover Institution Program on the US, China, and the World held Critical Issues in the US-China Science and Technology Relationship on Thursday, November 7th, 2024 from 4:00 pm - 5:30 pm PT at the Annenberg Conference Room, George P. Shultz Building.  Both the United States and the People's Republic of China see sustaining leadership in science and technology (S+T) as foundational to national and economic security. Policymakers on both sides of the Pacific have taken action to promote indigenous innovation, and to protect S+T ecosystems from misappropriation of research and malign technology transfer. In the US, some of these steps, including the China Initiative, have led to pain, mistrust, and a climate of fear, particularly for students and scholars of and from China. Newer efforts, including research security programs and policies, seek to learn from these mistakes. A distinguished panel of scientists and China scholars discuss these dynamics and their implications. What are the issues facing US-China science and technology collaboration? What are the current challenges confronting Chinese American scientists? How should we foster scientific ecosystems that are inclusive, resilient to security challenges, and aligned with democratic values?  Featuring Zhenan Bao is the K.K. Lee Professor of Chemical Engineering, and by courtesy, a Professor of Chemistry and a Professor of Material Science and Engineering at Stanford University. Bao directs the Stanford Wearable Electronics Initiate (eWEAR). Prior to joining Stanford in 2004, she was a Distinguished Member of Technical Staff in Bell Labs, Lucent Technologies from 1995-2004. She received her Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of Chicago in 1995. Bao is a member of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Inventors. She is a foreign member of the Chinese Academy of Science. Bao is known for her work on artificial electronic skin, which is enabling a new-generation of skin-like electronics for regaining sense of touch for neuro prosthetics, human-friendly robots, human-machine interface and seamless health monitoring devices. Bao has been named by Nature Magazine as a “Master of Materials”. She is a recipient of the VinFuture Prize Female Innovator 2022, ACS Chemistry of Materials Award 2022, Gibbs Medal 2020, Wilhelm Exner Medal 2018, L'Oréal-UNESCO For Women in Science Award 2017. Bao co-founded C3 Nano and PyrAmes, which produced materials used in commercial smartphones and FDA-approved blood pressure monitors. Research inventions from her group have also been licensed as foundational technologies for multiple start-ups founded by her students. Yasheng Huang (黄亚生) is the Epoch Foundation Professor of Global Economics and Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management. He also serves as the president of the Asian American Scholar Forum, a non-governmental organization dedicated to promoting open science and protecting the civil rights of Asian American scientists. Professor Huang is a co-author of MIT's comprehensive report on university engagement with China and has recently contributed an insightful article to Nature on the US-China science and technology agreement. For more information, you can read his recent article in Nature here. Peter F. Michelson is the Luke Blossom Professor in the School of Humanities & Sciences and Professor of Physics at Stanford University. He has also served as the Chair of the Physics Department and as Senior Associate Dean for the Natural Sciences. His research career began with studies of superconductivity and followed a path that led to working on gravitational wave detection. For the past 15 years his research has been focused on observations of the Universe with the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, launched by NASA in 2008. He leads the international collaboration that designed, built, and operates the Large Area Telescope (LAT), the primary instrument on Fermi. The collaboration has grown from having members from 5 nations (U.S., Japan, France, Italy, Sweden) to more than 20 today, including members in the United States, Europe, China, Japan, Thailand, South America, and South Africa. Professor Michelson has received several awards for the development of the Fermi Observatory, including the Bruno Rossi Prize of the American Astronomical Society. He is an elected member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a Fellow of the American Physical Society. He has served on a number of advisory committees, including for NASA and various U.S. National Academy of Sciences Decadal Surveys. In 2020-21, he co-directed an American Academy of Arts and Sciences study, Challenges for International Scientific Partnerships, that identified the benefits of international scientific collaboration and recommended actions to be taken to address the most pressing challenges facing international scientific collaborations. Glenn Tiffert is a distinguished research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a historian of modern China. He co-chairs Hoover's program on the US, China, and the World, and also leads Stanford's participation in the National Science Foundation's SECURE program, a $67 million effort authorized by the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 to enhance the security and integrity of the US research enterprise. He works extensively on the security and integrity of ecosystems of knowledge, particularly academic, corporate, and government research; science and technology policy; and malign foreign interference.  Moderator Frances Hisgen is the senior research program manager for the program on the US, China, and the World at the Hoover Institution. As key personnel for the National Science Foundation's SECURE program, a joint $67 million effort authorized by the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022, Hisgen focuses on ensuring efforts to enhance the security and integrity of the US research enterprise align with democratic values, promote civil rights, and respect civil liberties. Her AB from Harvard and MPhil from the University of Cambridge are both in Chinese history.  ​

Author Dr. David Zweig discusses his latest book, “The War for Chinese Talent in America,” which documents China's aggressive attempts to gain access to U.S. technology and America's countermeasures in response. Asia Society Policy Institute Managing Director Rorry Daniels moderates the discussion on China's need for science and technology inputs, its education and recruitment strategies for diaspora talent, the reasons scientists might risk participating in China's technological development, and the role of the FBI's China Initiative in closing space for bilateral science & technology cooperation. Dr. Zweig's book is available through Columbia University Press.Asia Inside Out brings together our team and special guests to take you beyond the latest policy headlines and provide an insider's view on regional and global affairs. Each month we'll deliver an interview with informed experts, analysts, and decision-makers from across the Asia-Pacific region. If you want to dig into the details of how policy works, this is the podcast for you. This podcast is produced by the Asia Society Policy Institute, a “think-and-do tank” working on the cutting edge of current policy trends by incorporating the best ideas from our experts and contributors into recommendations for policy makers to put these plans into practice.

In 2018, US authorities launched the China Initiative, targeting American scientists for the so-called suspicious links to China. The initiative went on for 4 years, and most of the targeted scientists have a Chinese origin.Now, a US government agency that prompted many inquiries under the initiative has admitted that a difficult climate was created. A recent statement by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) mentioned the unintended consequence for Asian-American researchers who may feel targeted and alienated. The NIH says it is looking to repair relations with Asian researchers, but can a sense of fear and anxiety be easily dissipated?Host Ding Heng is joined by Tian Xia, Professor of Medicine with University of California Los Angeles; Professor Liu Baocheng, Director of the Center for International Business Ethics, University of International Business and Economics; Josef Mahoney, Professor of Politics and International Relations with East China Normal University.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn says we must send a message that the United States stands resolutely and solidly with Israel, that we will be there to support Israel's right to defend themselves and their people, to do what they need to do to eliminate Hamas. We don't need a ceasefire to give Hamas time to regroup. We don't need to send aid into Gaza because Hamas is taking all the supplies. And Blackburn says we don't need to micromanage this war. Let's let Israel and IDF eliminate Hamas from the face of the earth and send a message to other terrorist groups that if they do something like this, we will hunt them down and eliminate them as well. Blackburn has filed to get subpoenas in four important cases: Epstein's complete flight logs to see who participated in this highly orchestrated sex and human trafficking ring. She wants to subpoena Justice Sotomayor's staff surrounding a $3million advance book deal she did not report. Sotomayor's staff helped facilitate the sale of these books wherever she gave speeches. Blackburn also has a subpoena for the DOJ and FTC requesting emails pertaining to the investigation of Elon Musk. And she has a subpoena for the White House requesting documents relating to the elimination of the China Initiative, an initiative used to investigate and prosecute Chinese spies on U.S. soil. Senator Blackburn taking care of business.GUEST: SEN. MARSHA BLACKBURN, TENNESSEESee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Jenny Lee, vice president for Arizona International, dean of international education, and professor of educational policy studies and practice at the University of Arizona, leads the conversation on U.S. international academic collaboration and how U.S.-China tensions are affecting higher education. FASKIANOS: Welcome to CFR's Higher Education Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We're delighted to have Jenny Lee with us to discuss U.S. international academic collaboration. Dr. Lee is vice president for Arizona International, dean of international education, and professor of educational policy studies and practice at the University of Arizona. She is also a fellow of the American Educational Research Association. Dr. Lee formerly served as a senior fellow of NAFSA, the Association of International Educators, as chair for the Council of International Higher Education, and as a board member for the Association for the Study of Higher Education. And she has also served as a U.S. Fulbright scholar to South Africa, as a distinguished global professor at Korea University, and as an international visiting scholar at the City University of London, the University of Pretoria, and the University of Cape Town in South Africa. So, Dr. Lee, thank you very much for being with us for today's topic. I thought you could begin by giving us an overview of current trends in U.S. international academic collaboration, especially looking at what's happening with our relations with China. LEE: Sounds great. Well, thank you for the opportunity, Irina. It's a pleasure to be here and to speak with you and all those listening right now. I'll speak for about ten or so minutes, and then open it up and engage with the audience. Hopefully, you all have some good questions that will come up during my remarks. So, clearly, we're entering a very interesting and somewhat uncertain chapter in how we understand the role of higher education globally. So I will begin with some general observation so all our viewers are on the same page. Now, first and foremost, the U.S. is mostly at the top when it comes to the higher education sector. Most of us already know that the United States houses the most highly ranked institutions. And this allows the country to be the largest host of international students and scholars from around the world. According to the latest IIE Open Doors report published a couple of weeks ago, the U.S. attracted over a million students from all over the world. And we're almost back to pre-pandemic levels. We also host over 90,000 scholars. And the primary purpose for them being here is research, for about two-thirds to 75 percent of them. These international scholars, as well as international graduate students, contribute significantly to the U.S. scientific enterprise. The U.S. is also among the leading countries in scientific output and impact, and the largest international collaborator in the world. In other words, the U.S. is highly sought because of its prestigious institutions, drawing top faculty and students from around the world. And with that comes the ability to generate cutting-edge scientific breakthroughs which further secures the U.S.' global position in academia. At the same time, of course, we've seen China's economy rise significantly as the country surpassed the United States in scientific output, and more recently in impact as measured by publication citations, and is outpacing the U.S. in the extent of R&D investment. Chinese institutions have also made noticeable jumps in various global rankings, which is a pretty big feat considering the fierce competition among the world's top universities. What we're witnessing as well are geopolitical tensions between the two countries that have impacted the higher education sector. While these two countries, the U.S. and China, are the biggest global collaborators—and they collaborate more with each other than any other country—they're also rival superpowers. As global adversaries, what we are witnessing as well is increased security concerns regarding intellectual theft and espionage. I'm going to spend some time summarizing my work for those who are not familiar to provide some further context. I and my colleagues, John Haupt and Xiaojie Li, also at the University of Arizona, have conducted numerous studies about U.S.-China scientific collaboration. And what we're observing across these studies is how the scientific pursuit of knowledge, which is fundamentally borderless, is becoming bordered in the current geopolitical environment. International collaboration, long valued as positive-sum, is being treated as zero-sum. Besides the rise of China and the accompanying political rhetoric that posed China as a so-called threat, tensions also grew among accusations, as you may recall, about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and a corresponding sharp increase in anti-Asian hate crimes in the United States. Public opinions about China were not favorable, and thus there was not a whole lot of public resistance when the FBI's China Initiative was launched in 2018. This initiative basically signaled that anyone of Chinese descent was a potential enemy of the state, including possible Chinese Communist Party spies in our own universities, even though there was no pervasive empirical or later judicial cases that proved such a damaging assumption. Nevertheless, world-renowned Chinese scientists were falsely accused of academic espionage and their careers and personal finances ruined. In my research that followed with Xiaojie Li, with support from the Committee of 100, we surveyed about 2,000 scientists in the U.S.' top research universities during the China Initiative. And we found that one in two Chinese scientists were afraid that they were being racially profiled by the FBI. We also observed that consequently scientists, especially those with Chinese descent, were less inclined to collaborate with China, less inclined to pursue federal grants, less inclined to even stay in the United States but rather to take their expertise to another country where they felt safer to pursue their research, including in China. In sum, the federal government's attempts to weed out possible Chinese spies was highly criticized as a damaging form of racial profiling affecting even U.S. citizens and, in the end, undermined the U.S.' ability to compete with China. Especially now, as we continue to observe Chinese scientists leaving the U.S. and taking their skills and talents elsewhere. With John Haupt and two academics at Tsinghua University in China, Doctors Wen Wen and Die Hu, we asked about two hundred co-collaborators in China and in the United States how were they able to overcome such geopolitical tensions and the challenges associated with COVID-19 during the pandemic? And we did learn something somewhat unexpected, and I hope valuable. Basically, we found that mutual trust between international collaborators helped overcome such perceived hurdles, including risks of being unfairly targeted. What this tells us is that a chilling effect is certainly real and remains possible, but in the end scientists have tremendous agency on what they study, where they study, and whether or not they seek funds, or where they seek funds. Regardless of the host or home country, international collaboration is important to all countries' scientific enterprise. Coauthors from different countries improve the knowledge being produced, its applicability, enlarges global audiences, and thereby increases the impact of the work. So considering the value, yet risks, where do we begin? Firstly, federal and institutional policies, of course, matter, for better or for worse. But policies do not manufacture trust. The formation of an academic tie does not suddenly occur over a cold call in the middle of a global meltdown, as often portrayed in Hollywood. Rather, this is a gradual process. And the longevity of the relationship helps strengthen that trust over time. According to our research, these collaborative relationships begin as graduate students, postdocs, visiting researchers. They occur at academic conferences and other in-person opportunities. Cutting short-term fellowships, for example, will impact the potential of a future scientific relationship, but its effects may not be felt for years. Same with denied visas and opportunities for travel. Fewer graduate students from particular countries or fields also means a different shape when it comes to global science. U.S. for instance, was not too long ago Russia's biggest foreign scientific collaborator, with the war in Ukraine, those research relationships, as well as much—with much of the Western world, have ceased. All of this, and my related empirical research, was conducted when I was a professor at my home institution. And since July, I've been serving, as Irina mentioned, as the dean and vice president of international affairs at my own institution. And I've been thinking a lot of, what does this mean for institutional practice? For those in university leadership positions, as mine, you know this is a tough challenge. Especially as domestic demand and state funding for higher education is generally declining. And at the same time, internationalization is increasingly central to senior leadership strategies. Universities are continuing vying to attract the world's students, even despite a decline of interest from China. And at the same time, research universities in particular are quite dependent on federal grants. We have our own research security offices that need to ensure our universities have good reputations and relations with our large federal funding agencies and taking every precaution to not be seen as a vulnerable site of intellectual theft. These units tend not to operate within international affairs. And I'm very well aware that in my role of trying to attract as many students from China and develop international partnerships, all of them can be suddenly erased if a Chinese University partner does not pass visual compliance or there is a sudden presidential executive order, as we experienced under the Trump administration. I'm also very well aware that of senior leaders have to choose between my educational offerings and partnerships in China versus risking a major grant from a federal agency, I will lose. We witnessed that with the shutting down of over 100 Confucius Institutes in the U.S., despite a lack of evidence of systematic espionage occurring through these centers. Public perceptions, informed or not, strongly affect the nature of our international work, as in the case of Florida. Such negative perceptions are not one country-sided, of course. A key concern for Chinese and other international students and their parents relate to safety. Gun violence, including on our own college campuses, anti-Asian hate crimes in surrounding neighborhoods, and unfavorable political environment in which studies might be interrupted as in the case of Proclamation 10043, or visa non-renewals are all contributing factors for the decline of interest from China, and uncertain future student exchange as well. In closing, when it comes to China these days no practices are guaranteed. However, I can recommend some while also keeping in mind geopolitical conditions can suddenly change for worse, or perhaps better. I mentioned earlier the value of mutual trust. At my university, we have long-standing relationships with university leaders at Chinese institutions. We've set up dual degree programs in China. Actually, about 40 percent of our international student enrollment are through such partner relationships throughout the world, in which we go to where they are. Hiring staff who speak the language and know the culture are also essential. And, like any relationship, these arrangements have developed over time. They are not built overnight. It takes intention. It takes effort. But in my experience, as trust is established the numbers have grown, and the positive impact is still being felt. Thank you. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much for that. That was terrific. Let's go now to all of you for your questions, comments. You can use this to share best practices and what you're doing to your universities or institutions. Please click the raise hand icon on your screen to ask a question. On your iPad or tablet, you can click the “more” button to access the raise hand feature. And when you're called upon, please accept the unmute prompts, state your name and affiliation, followed by your question. You can also submit a written question, they've already started coming in, by the Q&A icon. And if you can also include your affiliation there, I would appreciate it, although we will try to make sure we identify you correctly. So let's see. I'm looking for—no raised hands yet, but we do have questions written. So first question from Denis Simon, who's a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Many U.S. universities have curtailed their exchanges and cooperation with China. You referenced that. Officials at these universities are worried that if they appear too friendly toward China they will lose all sorts of federal funding. Are these concerns justified? Are there any regulations or legislation that actually says federal funding can be removed assuming these universities are in compliance with the export controls, et cetera? LEE: All right. Well, thanks, Denis, for your question. I know there—when I saw the list of those who signed up, I know there are many here who can speak to this directly. So I encourage those to also raise their hands and provide input in the Q&A, maybe in the form of an A instead of a Q. But in any case, going to that question, you know, it's a tough environment. And so much in my role, but what I even experienced in my research, is about that perception, that overinterpretation. So maybe signaling that we have this exchange program might draw attention in ways that might lead to suspicions that, oh, well is this, you know, somehow creating an opportunity for us to disclose military secrets? I mean, that's where we take it. A friendly exchange or visit is oftentimes now having to be scrutinized and ensuring that there is no remote violation of export controls, even in educational delivery in a non-STEM field. And what we're seeing is that this—we have our highly sensitive fields, but that kind of scrutiny we're also seeing applied to the institution more broadly. So these seemingly benign programs about language or culture, about fields that are enhanced or help promote so-called American values, are also being watched. So I believe as an institutional leader, again, as I mentioned earlier, having to deal with the possibility of unwanted or unwarranted attention versus not having that program, I think some, as Denis has pointed out, are leaning towards being more cautious. Unfortunately, China—any work with China is considered a risk, even if there is no reason for risk, as we've witnessed under—or, observed under the China Initiative. I don't know if I've fully answered that question, but please follow up if I haven't. And I know others can probably say more to that issue. FASKIANOS: Great. I'll take the next question from Peter—I don't know how to pronounce— LEE: Peter Becskehazy. Hi, Peter. (Laughs.) FASKIANOS: There you go. Thank you very much. LEE: I know Peter. FASKIANOS: All right. Good. Well, I'd love if Peter asked his question directly, if he can. Oh, good. From Pima Community College. Go ahead, Peter. Q: Hello, Jenny. Nice to see you. LEE: Hi, Peter. Q: Now my question is, the University of Arizona and other universities have had an inflow of dozens of countries, adding up to the million that you mentioned. Are other countries trying to fill in slots left vacant by Chinese students and scholars? LEE: Yeah. Great question, Peter. And I think you can also share what you've observed at Pima in terms of the patterns you've witnessed. But for us, and as we are seeing nationally, we're seeing India rise. Not at the—not at higher numbers in many institutions, compared to China, but the rate is rising. It's not so simple, though, because we also have relations in India, and trying to set up agreements, and bring students. The competition in India is intense. So even though there's a relatively so-called large market, and the U.S. has been quite successful in attracting Indian students, that is perhaps where the attention is as a more, I would say—I hate to use the word “market,”—but a stable student market. There's a lot more interest in graduate-level education globally, as we've observed. These countries that formerly didn't have capacity now do have capacity. They have online offerings. They have branch campuses, dual degrees, lots of other options. And so the niche for the U.S., whereas before we didn't really have to think about a niche, is really in graduate education. Now, of course, that's not good news for Pima, that's thinking about a community college and other kinds of educational offerings. But for us, we're thinking about India a lot. Southeast Asia, of course, has always been an important partner to us. Africa continues to be a challenge. We know that when we think about population growth, Africa is the future. There's still challenges and trying to identify places where there is capacity. But also the affordability of a U.S. education is a huge challenge. So it's a great question. And, again, I'm curious to know other places in the world people recommend. Of course, Latin America, given our location, is a key strategic partner. But again, affordability becomes an issue. And again, I'm just talking about the traditional international student who would choose to come to Arizona. Not talking about research collaboration, which is less bound by affordability issues. Irina, you're muted. FASKIANOS: How long have I been doing this? OK. (Laughs.) I'm going to take the next written question from Allison Davis-White Eyes, who is vice president for diversity, equity, and inclusion at Fielding Graduate University: We have tried to work on collaborations with European universities and African universities, and met with much difficulty. What trends are you seeing in these regions? And what are emerging global markets beyond China? LEE: Great question, Allison. I mean, if you could leave the question in the future, so because I am visually looking at the question at the same time. FASKIANOS: Oh, great. Sorry. LEE: So, Allison, I'm not sure if you're referring to academic or research. Of course, within Europe, where the government does highly subsidized tuition, it's just becomes financially a bad deal, I suppose—(laughs)—for a student in the world who would normally get a free or highly reduced tuition to pay full price at our institution. So that kind of exchange of partnership, especially when it's about—when it's financially based, becomes almost impossible from my experience. But thinking about research collaboration, it depends on the level. So if it's an institutional agreement, you know, it's—often, these MOUs tend to just be on paper. It takes quite a bit of—it's very ceremonial. You need to get legal involved. It's a whole process to get an MOU. We really don't need these non-binding MOUs for research agreements. Some countries like it, just to display that they have an MOU with a U.S. institution. But essentially, it doesn't stop me as a professor to reach out to another professor at the University of Oslo, and say, hey, let's do a study. Which we actually are doing. So, yeah, feel free to be more specific, or if you want to raise your hand or speak on—and elaborate on that question. So, again, for educational exchange, it is difficult because we are—there's already a process within the EU that makes it very affordable and highly supported within the EU, or if you're part of that bigger program. Africa, again, my challenge from my role as an institutional leader is identifying places where there is already enough mass education up through high school where one would be able to consider, first of all, being admitted to a U.S. institution, but secondly, to be able to pay the cost. FASKIANOS: Allison, do you want to expand a little bit? Q: Oh, sorry. (Laughs.) FASKIANOS: There you go. There you go. Q: Right. Dr. Lee, thank you for your response. I think it was helpful, especially regarding the subsidizing of education in Europe. We've been working on some research partnerships. And we have just—you know, really, it has just been extremely difficult with European universities. And I do think part of it has to do with the way things are subsidized in Europe. I was just wondering if there were new and different ways to do it. I do appreciate your comment about the MOUs being largely ceremonial. I agree. And would like to see something with a little more substance. And that will take some creativity and a lot of partnership and work. As for Africa, we have tried to create partnerships with South Africa. I think there's some potential there. Certainly, some excitement. We've had a few students from Nigeria, extremely bright and motivated. I just would—you know, would like to hear, maybe from some other colleagues as well on the call, if there are creative ways in working with these students as well. So, thank you. LEE: Yeah, no. And just to follow up quickly, and, again, opportunities for others to share, academic collaboration, as I mentioned during my remarks, is largely built upon mutual trust. And not to say it can't happen from top down, but really does—is most successful from bottom up. And I don't mean to refer to professors at the bottom, but meaning those that are actually engaged with that work. And so just some considerations is rather than a top-down initiative or strategy, is to identify those that are visiting scholars, already from that country, have networks within that country. What's interesting, as I learned in my current role, is how little my predecessors worked with professors in these area's studies programs, because they're oftentimes treated as a separate or having different interests in mind when actually there is a lot of overlap to identify those that are actually there. Allison, by the way, I lived in South Africa for eight years. And I know it actually takes a long time. My Fulbright started off as a one year, and I had to extend it because even getting the data while I was on the ground takes time. And I'll be honest, I think part of it was taking some time just to build trust the intentions of my work, what was I going to do with that data, how is that going to be used? Was it actually going to be ways to empower them? You know, for those who study international collaboration, know this north and south divide, and I think there are places in the world that are—maybe have some guardrails up from those—not saying this is what's happening in your institution—but someone that they don't know coming from the Global North to study someone else in the Global South. And so how do we create or initiate a collaboration that is clearly, expressly mutual at the onset? And, again, this is where trust can be operationalized lots of different ways, but that even begins with that initial message. I mean, I remember when I started my work, nobody responded to me. They're like, who are you? And I don't care who you are or what your CV says. And it takes time. You know, building that relationship, and that person introducing me to that other person. Like, you know, this is how scientific networks form. And I think, to some extent, this is also how institutional collaborative relationships also form. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to David Moore, who has a raised hand. Q: OK, thank you. I just got unmuted. FASKIANOS: Great. Q: Lee, I appreciate your comments. And I heard your reference to Florida earlier. I don't know if we have colleagues on this call from Florida, but I think they'll know what I'm about to say. I'm the dean of international education at Broward College in Fort Lauderdale. And as of tomorrow, December 1, Florida has to—all institutions in Florida, public institutions, colleges and universities, must be completely devoid of any partnerships in China. And not just China. There are seven countries of concern. And you probably can cite them, most of you would know the other six. But of the seven countries, Broward had four partnerships in China alone, none in the other countries that were active. And so we are now officially done, have to be. And I've had to notify the partners as well as our accrediting body, because these were international centers of Broward where they literally offer—we offered associate degrees, two-year degrees. And students could then transfer to an institution in the United States. Now, this didn't catch us too much by surprise because two and a half years ago our Florida legislature started in on this, really probably before that, where they isolated universities in Florida and said: You cannot do research—sensitive research, whatever, you know, engineering, computer science, et cetera—any research without notifying the state. And there's an elaborate process that had to be—you know, they had to go through to do this. But now it's not just research institutions. Now it's not just those kinds of collaborations. It is, in fact, all partnerships of any kind. We had to end our agent agreements where we were recruiting students from China that were—where the companies were based in China. And in course our programs were not research. They're just general education, two-year associate's degree, maybe some business. But we've been informed now it's completely done. And so I'm actually looking for institutions outside of Florida who might be willing to take over the role that we've had in transcripting students who later want to come to the United States. At least for the first two years in China, and then transferring to the upper division to the U.S. So I'm not sure. You're probably quite familiar with this. I don't know if you know the details of how it was worked out in practice. We were the only community college in the state that had any partnerships. So we were the ones that had to desist. So I want to—there are probably people on the call that are familiar with this, but there might be many others. And I just wanted to say that I'm looking to, you know, open that door to other institutions outside of Florida that might be willing in, yes, take a risk to go into China, but to—I've always felt that these kinds of programs were very good to build relationships, partnerships, communication. Ambassadors really. Where we feel like we were representing American education, whatever, you know, we call American values, democracy, you know, community. We thought we were doing good. But we found out we were—we were not. We were—we were doing something that went opposed to the prevailing political climate, at least in Florida. So that's my comment. I think people should know about it. And thank you for letting me speak to it a bit. Maybe someone will speak up and say they're interested in they can get in touch with me, David Moore at Broward College, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. LEE: David, thank you for sharing what you did. This is a really important example of where other states could very well head. And what's interesting, as David noted, we're talking about a community college. When we normally think about cutting ties, it's usually around the concerns about national security. Now, how this translates to a two-year degree that is solely educational based is a pretty far stretch, and yet is being impacted quite severely. So I think we should continue to follow this example—unfortunate example. And, David, yeah, your partners have reached out to my office, and I'm sure to others. But thank you for being available. Q: You're welcome. We have partners—we are also working with your Jakarta, Indonesia center there. So we have that connection. Thank you. LEE: Mmm hmm. Thanks. FASKIANOS: And if anybody wants to share contact information in the Q&A box, you can certainly do that. That would be great. There is a written question from Tutaleni Asino at Oklahoma State University: There was an article today in SEMAFOR highlighting that there are currently 350 U.S. students studying in China compared to 11,000 in 2019. Comparatively, there are 300,000 Chinese students in the United States. Is this a one-way problem, where the U.S. is not investing in international engagements as a result of being more inward looking and other countries having more options of who to collaborate with? LEE: Yeah. Tutaleni, that's—I think your question is an answer. And I think it's—I agree with your observation. So we are seeing that as there's state and public disinvestment in higher education, and including scrutiny about international higher education, we're also seeing a decline and cutting of foreign language programs in the United States. So here we are, a monolingual country whose students mostly go to Europe or other English-speaking countries to study abroad. A very limited number of international—U.S. students who pursue undergraduate degrees in a foreign country. And knowing that the future is global and international, at least in my opinion, does not set the U.S. up well to be globally competitive, even though much of its international policy is around this rhetoric of we need to compete with China. And so you raise a good point. How is this possible if U.S. citizens don't speak Chinese, or have no interest in learning about Chinese culture, or there's reduced opportunities even in our own institutions, I think is something to think about and ask more questions about. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the next question from Zhen Zhu, chair and professor of marketing, director of faculty excellence, and director for international engagement at Suffolk University: How do you see the trend of U.S. students' interest in study abroad to China? LEE: There is actually growing interest. As many of you know, China—offering Chinese language in high schools is not as unusual as it used to be. There is growing interest as students are thinking about employability in global markets in multinational or international organizations or corporations. It would be fundamental, in fact, for someone who has any interest in international work to pick up the language if they can, and at your own institution. FASKIANOS: Great. Let's see. From—I'm going to take the next question from Jeff Riedinger: Is there a role for universities to play in knowledge diplomacy to sustain international relationships and collaborations in addressing global problems such as climate change and pandemics when national governments may be at odds with each other? LEE: Thanks, Jeff. And hi, Jeff. I'm just going to read over that question so I can kind of digest it a bit. Is there a role for institutions to play in knowledge diplomacy, such as climate change, pandemics, when national governments may be at odds with each other? Absolutely, 200 percent. It is occurring—knowledge diplomacy, science diplomacy. That one individual going on a Fulbright or coming to study here for some extended visit, having these collaborations and, ultimately, you know, science—knowledge production—I mean, there's no bounds. And when we think about the kind of research that may not occur because of these national governments are at odds when it comes to addressing climate change or other global issues, you know, the world is paying somewhat of a price when it comes to that in—when there are overarching concerns about national security. So, you know, my issue has always been with policy you overlook nuance, and with sweeping policies that overlook the disciplinary distinctions and contributions, what is lost in the pursuit of trying to stay ahead of another country in fields and areas that really have no economic or military value, right? But yet, have an important cultural value, or maybe will address something bigger, such as COVID-19. So as I mentioned, the work that I referenced earlier about U.S.-Chinese scientists coming together during COVID-19, were actually scientists who studied COVID-19 together. And again, this was not—this was fraught with risks. They were very well aware that there was a lot of scrutiny about any research about COVID-19 coming from China. There was scrutiny about, you know, where the data was held, who was analyzing it, who was funding it. And yet, these scientists took these risks in order to address how does the world deal with the pandemic. And this was based on interviews of those studies that were actually successful and published. This is where that mutual trust, as I've mentioned earlier, is so important. And without that mutual trust, these studies, I'm pretty certain, would never have been published, because it was not an easy path when it comes to that particular geopolitical climate during the pandemic. FASKIANOS: Jenny, I'm just going to ask a question. President Biden and President Xi met during APEC. Did anything come out of that meeting that could affect U.S.-China academic collaboration? LEE: Yeah. You know, this is tough. I mean, how do you analyze political statements? What do they really mean? And what is really going to change? I think what's clear is that there's an acknowledgment that we're interdependent, but we're also adversaries. Almost a love/hate codependent, in a relationship that we can't just easily separate but we do need each other. But the form that it takes, I think there's an understanding it needs to be more specific. And I don't think that has been clarified yet. I realize I missed part of Jeff's question on what can institutions do? That's such a good question. And I got more into the topic than the actual to-do. What can institutions do? Honestly—(laughs)—I'll just speak as a researcher, to back off a bit, right? To let scientists do what they want to do. Yes, we need to follow disclosures. We need to make sure there's no conflicts of interest. We need to follow all of these procedures. But what I also found during the China Initiative, there was also this chilling climate in which there's an overinterpretation that may put institutions at risk. And to my knowledge, institutions were not at risk to the extent to which their scientists, especially those of Chinese descent, felt scrutinized. FASKIANOS: Thank you. We have a raised hand from Dan Whitman. Q: OK, I think I'm unmuted. Thank you, Irina. And thanks, Professor Lee, for mentioning the Great Wall that that prevents us from dealing with even Europeans who have subsidized education or Africans who have no money. And just an anecdote, since you have welcomed anecdotes, I am an adjunct at George Washington University. But totally unrelated to that, just for free and just for fun, pro bono, nobody pays, nobody gets paid. A course that I'm giving by webinar, it's zero cost. The topic is crisis management, but it could be any topic. And in that group, which there are about eighty people who tune in twice a week, fifteen Kenyans, twenty-five Ukrainians, and forty Kazakhs. I mean, I don't know if there's ever been exchange between Kazakhstan and Kenya. Anyway, my point is things can be done. We share it for free. What motivates the students? A certificate. It's so easy to give them a certificate. And in many countries, they very highly value that, even though it's not a—there's no formality, there's no formal academic credit. But the students are very motivated. And possibly, there may be universities in the U.S. that could—that might want to give a professor a small stipendium to do an informal webinar course, which would create connections, which would be zero cost, basically, and would bridge that gap of funding that you've alluded to. Thank you. LEE: Yeah. Dan, thank you for that. And I think this leads to a kind of a spin-off comment about certificates. Absolutely. Micro-credentials or alternative forms of education, where there's maybe not a full-fledged undergraduate degree but some certificate, I think, is important niche, especially for returning adults or communities where they're not able to afford to take time off. So that flexibility, and obviously now with online education, just becomes so much more accessible and very low cost. Something else to keep in mind, though, is that, depending on the institution you're from, that will make a difference in certificates. I mean, an institution like George Washington University offering a certificate may have some symbolic or perceived value that may be higher than an institution that is lower or are not ranked at all. So this is where, unfortunately—I'm a big critic of global rankings. But unfortunately, it does play a role in how that certificate is being perceived and the attractiveness of that certificate. But absolutely, this is definitely a way to open access especially for places in the world that just cannot physically move or have the funds to support their studies. FASKIANOS: Great. There are two comments/questions in the Q&A that I wanted to give you a chance to respond to about Africa, from Tutaleni Asino and Fodei Batty. Dr. Asino talks about English is the language of instruction and governments in Africa where they're funding education to a higher degree, and thinks that there are opportunities there, but it sounds like all fifty-four countries are grouped together. And Dr. Batty talks a little bit about there are a lot of students from African countries pursuing graduate education in the United States. But South Africa is usually an exception to the higher education American norm in Africa. Most South Africans don't like to travel, especially travel to America. I thought maybe you could just clarify some—respond to those comments. LEE: Yeah. Absolutely. Thank you for sharing those comments. There's a book I edited called Intra-Africa Student Mobility. And I agree with the comments. And one of the things I didn't mention that I think is important to help us understand the broader global context is that there's actually considerable international activity within the continent. And there's actually considerable intra-Africa mobility within the continent. South Africa is the most important country player in Sub-Saharan Africa. It is globally ranked—has more globally ranked institutions than any other African country. And so South Africa then becomes an important hub. And, yes, as an English-speaking, among many other languages, country, that does attract African students to go oftentimes for a similar sense of shared culture, despite sometimes different languages and customs and backgrounds. And yet, nevertheless, South Africa is an important player within the continent. Not to say that there is no international mobility occurring, but there is increased capacity within the continent that would allow students and interested students to travel within the continent. Not the same extent, of course, as Europe. But the least we're seeing that rise over time. And so it's called Intra-Africa Student Mobility. Chika Sehoole and I coedited the book. We were able to get about eight African scholars to talk about the various reasons students would choose that particular African country, and what draw them. And what was really interesting about this phenomenon is that it goes against this prevailing notion of Africa's victim of brain drain or all going to the north. That's actually not what is happening. But that there is capacity building within the continent. So in trying to answer a different question, I skirted over a lot of the things I could go further into. But hopefully that book will shed light on what's happening within that continent, at least from the perspective of eight different countries. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. Thank you for that. I'm going to go next to Jonathan Scriven at Washington Adventist University in Maryland: What are some of the strategies universities are using to make education more affordable in the United States? If that is a challenge, are schools investing more or less in setting up campuses in foreign countries as a way to reach foreign students? LEE: I'm just going to read over that question. OK, yeah. Great question, Jonathan. So what's happening in my institution and many others is a way to attract students is we're providing considerable aid, merit aid, financial aid, aid even to international students. The majority may not even be paying the full sticker price. Now this, of course, will affect the revenue that would have otherwise been generated, but nevertheless is a way to deal with the fierce competition across U.S. institutions for these top students. So how to make it affordable? There's a lot of aid going around at the undergraduate, not just the graduate, levels. And so what are institutions doing? Well, for example, at the University of Arizona for our dual degrees, it's a fraction of the cost of what it would cost to be a student at our main campus. When you have a combination of hybrid or online delivery with a campus partner maybe providing most of the gen ed's and then we would teach most of the major courses as an example, that does significantly lower the cost where that student will still get a bona fide University of Arizona degree, just like they would at main campus. So these alternative forms of delivery certainly make it more affordable, especially for those that opt to stay in their home country and receive an online education, or a flipped classroom model, or a dual degree. FASKIANOS: Great. Denis Simon, if you can—why don't you ask your question? Q: Here I am. OK. Recently, on a trip to China in September, a number of faculty have told me they're no longer wanting to send their best students abroad. They want to keep them in China. And this is all part of the rise of Chinese universities, et cetera. And so it may not be simply the souring of Sino-U.S. relations that has causal effect here, but simply the fact that China now is becoming a major, you know, educational powerhouse. And that also could change the dynamics. For example, even the BRI countries could start to send their students to China instead of sending them to the United States. Do you see anything evolving like this or—and what might be the outcome? LEE: Yeah. Spot on, David. That halo effect of a U.S. degree is not the same as it was when I was a university student. Chinese students, as well as students in the world, are much more savvy. They have access to information. They have access to rankings. They know all universities are not the same. And they know that they have some institutions that are highly ranked and may offer better quality education than the U.S. So that the image of a U.S. degree, of course, is not as universally perceived as it may have been, I don't know, pre-internet, or without the—all sorts of rankings in which institutions are rated against one another. And absolutely, Chinese institutions are very difficult to get into, fiercely competitive, producing far more scientific output than some of our leading institutions. And there's another factor when it comes to Asian culture just more broadly speaking, is that social network tie. Sociologists refer to it as social capital. When a Chinese student, a Korean student, Japanese student decides to study in the United States, they may lose that social tie that may possibly put them in a disadvantage when they decide to come back and compete for a position when they may just have that U.S. credential, but may have either lessened or no longer have that relationship that may have allowed them to get a position at the university, or in a place where that alumni network would have been especially useful. So again, I don't want to generalize, you know, in any place to the world, but there is that component that I think sometimes is missed in the literature. Maintaining that social network is pretty key, especially as jobs, of course, global, you know, unemployment—places where students are competing for positions need to have every edge possible. So that also can be part of that reason they decide to stay. FASKIANOS: Great. The next question from Michael Kulma, who's at the University of Chicago. He's following on David Moore's comments about Florida: Do you know how many other states in the U.S. are enacting or are considering such policies against partnerships with China? LEE: I do not know the answer. So if anyone wants to raise their hand and share about their own state, or put it on the answer part of the question and answer. There are related concerns about DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Some of that may spill over to China. Hopefully, at some point at the Council of Foreign Relations will have a discussion on Israel and Hamas conflict and how institutions are dealing with that. And so we're seeing a pretty challenging political environment that is clearly spilling over to our classrooms and to our international activities, our domestic recruitment. But I'm not answering your question, Michael. (Laughs.) I'll leave it up to someone else to answer. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. So we don't have very much time left. I thought maybe you could, given your research and expertise, could suggest resources—recommend resources for higher ed leaders and administrators to better understand how to promote collaboration. LEE: Sure. So promoting collaboration, it really—each person at a time. You know, again, MOUs may be signed, and maybe overarching presidents will come together and have an agreement, but there's no guarantee that will ever happen. I'd love to do a study on how many MOUs never actually materialized into real action. So where do we begin? International affairs SIOs out there, identify who are your area studies experts? Who are your visiting postdocs? Who are your Fulbright scholars from other parts of the world? They all represent their own network and are certainly are valuable resources to consider. What I've sometimes have heard even at my own institution is, you know, how do we bring these people to the table? Why are they not at the table to begin with, and then how do we bring them there? And this is a relatively low-cost way to go about this, right? Like, faculty engaged in service. What kind of opportunities can your university provide for faculty service that is aligned with their area of expertise, the areas of the world they represent, the networks they have? And many of—some of you already have experienced this directly. These partnerships often begin with our alumni, international—former international students who decide to go back home. So, again, there's just a lot of exciting opportunity. I love this field because it's never boring. There's always new ways to grow, expand new partners. But it really does begin with that essential element of trust. And that often begins with our own institutions and identifying those who've already started to build that network. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. Thank you very much. Really appreciate your being with us and for sharing your expertise and background, Dr. Lee. It's been fantastic. And to all of you, for your questions and comments, and sharing your experiences as well. You can follow Dr. Lee on X, the app formerly known as Twitter, at @JennyJ_Lee. I will send out a link to this webinar, the transcript, and the video, as well as the link to the book—your book that you mentioned, and any other resources that you want to share with the group. And I encourage you all to follow @CFR_academic on X, visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. We also—just putting in a plug for our other series, Academic Webinar series, which is designed for students. We just sent out the winter/spring lineup and we hope that you will share that with your colleagues and your students. It is a great way for them to have access to practitioner scholars and to talk with students from around the country. So if you haven't received that lineup, you can email cfracademic@CFR.org, and we will share that with you. So, again, thank you, Jenny, for being with us, and to all of you. And wishing you safe and happy holidays. And good luck closing out this semester before we get to the holidays. (Laughs.) So thank you again. (END)

Jenny Lee, vice president for Arizona International, dean of international education, and professor of educational policy studies and practice at the University of Arizona, leads the conversation on U.S. international academic collaboration and how U.S.-China tensions are affecting higher education. FASKIANOS: Welcome to CFR's Higher Education Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We're delighted to have Jenny Lee with us to discuss U.S. international academic collaboration. Dr. Lee is vice president for Arizona International, dean of international education, and professor of educational policy studies and practice at the University of Arizona. She is also a fellow of the American Educational Research Association. Dr. Lee formerly served as a senior fellow of NAFSA, the Association of International Educators, as chair for the Council of International Higher Education, and as a board member for the Association for the Study of Higher Education. And she has also served as a U.S. Fulbright scholar to South Africa, as a distinguished global professor at Korea University, and as an international visiting scholar at the City University of London, the University of Pretoria, and the University of Cape Town in South Africa. So, Dr. Lee, thank you very much for being with us for today's topic. I thought you could begin by giving us an overview of current trends in U.S. international academic collaboration, especially looking at what's happening with our relations with China. LEE: Sounds great. Well, thank you for the opportunity, Irina. It's a pleasure to be here and to speak with you and all those listening right now. I'll speak for about ten or so minutes, and then open it up and engage with the audience. Hopefully, you all have some good questions that will come up during my remarks. So, clearly, we're entering a very interesting and somewhat uncertain chapter in how we understand the role of higher education globally. So I will begin with some general observation so all our viewers are on the same page. Now, first and foremost, the U.S. is mostly at the top when it comes to the higher education sector. Most of us already know that the United States houses the most highly ranked institutions. And this allows the country to be the largest host of international students and scholars from around the world. According to the latest IIE Open Doors report published a couple of weeks ago, the U.S. attracted over a million students from all over the world. And we're almost back to pre-pandemic levels. We also host over 90,000 scholars. And the primary purpose for them being here is research, for about two-thirds to 75 percent of them. These international scholars, as well as international graduate students, contribute significantly to the U.S. scientific enterprise. The U.S. is also among the leading countries in scientific output and impact, and the largest international collaborator in the world. In other words, the U.S. is highly sought because of its prestigious institutions, drawing top faculty and students from around the world. And with that comes the ability to generate cutting-edge scientific breakthroughs which further secures the U.S.' global position in academia. At the same time, of course, we've seen China's economy rise significantly as the country surpassed the United States in scientific output, and more recently in impact as measured by publication citations, and is outpacing the U.S. in the extent of R&D investment. Chinese institutions have also made noticeable jumps in various global rankings, which is a pretty big feat considering the fierce competition among the world's top universities. What we're witnessing as well are geopolitical tensions between the two countries that have impacted the higher education sector. While these two countries, the U.S. and China, are the biggest global collaborators—and they collaborate more with each other than any other country—they're also rival superpowers. As global adversaries, what we are witnessing as well is increased security concerns regarding intellectual theft and espionage. I'm going to spend some time summarizing my work for those who are not familiar to provide some further context. I and my colleagues, John Haupt and Xiaojie Li, also at the University of Arizona, have conducted numerous studies about U.S.-China scientific collaboration. And what we're observing across these studies is how the scientific pursuit of knowledge, which is fundamentally borderless, is becoming bordered in the current geopolitical environment. International collaboration, long valued as positive-sum, is being treated as zero-sum. Besides the rise of China and the accompanying political rhetoric that posed China as a so-called threat, tensions also grew among accusations, as you may recall, about the origins of SARS-CoV-2 and a corresponding sharp increase in anti-Asian hate crimes in the United States. Public opinions about China were not favorable, and thus there was not a whole lot of public resistance when the FBI's China Initiative was launched in 2018. This initiative basically signaled that anyone of Chinese descent was a potential enemy of the state, including possible Chinese Communist Party spies in our own universities, even though there was no pervasive empirical or later judicial cases that proved such a damaging assumption. Nevertheless, world-renowned Chinese scientists were falsely accused of academic espionage and their careers and personal finances ruined. In my research that followed with Xiaojie Li, with support from the Committee of 100, we surveyed about 2,000 scientists in the U.S.' top research universities during the China Initiative. And we found that one in two Chinese scientists were afraid that they were being racially profiled by the FBI. We also observed that consequently scientists, especially those with Chinese descent, were less inclined to collaborate with China, less inclined to pursue federal grants, less inclined to even stay in the United States but rather to take their expertise to another country where they felt safer to pursue their research, including in China. In sum, the federal government's attempts to weed out possible Chinese spies was highly criticized as a damaging form of racial profiling affecting even U.S. citizens and, in the end, undermined the U.S.' ability to compete with China. Especially now, as we continue to observe Chinese scientists leaving the U.S. and taking their skills and talents elsewhere. With John Haupt and two academics at Tsinghua University in China, Doctors Wen Wen and Die Hu, we asked about two hundred co-collaborators in China and in the United States how were they able to overcome such geopolitical tensions and the challenges associated with COVID-19 during the pandemic? And we did learn something somewhat unexpected, and I hope valuable. Basically, we found that mutual trust between international collaborators helped overcome such perceived hurdles, including risks of being unfairly targeted. What this tells us is that a chilling effect is certainly real and remains possible, but in the end scientists have tremendous agency on what they study, where they study, and whether or not they seek funds, or where they seek funds. Regardless of the host or home country, international collaboration is important to all countries' scientific enterprise. Coauthors from different countries improve the knowledge being produced, its applicability, enlarges global audiences, and thereby increases the impact of the work. So considering the value, yet risks, where do we begin? Firstly, federal and institutional policies, of course, matter, for better or for worse. But policies do not manufacture trust. The formation of an academic tie does not suddenly occur over a cold call in the middle of a global meltdown, as often portrayed in Hollywood. Rather, this is a gradual process. And the longevity of the relationship helps strengthen that trust over time. According to our research, these collaborative relationships begin as graduate students, postdocs, visiting researchers. They occur at academic conferences and other in-person opportunities. Cutting short-term fellowships, for example, will impact the potential of a future scientific relationship, but its effects may not be felt for years. Same with denied visas and opportunities for travel. Fewer graduate students from particular countries or fields also means a different shape when it comes to global science. U.S. for instance, was not too long ago Russia's biggest foreign scientific collaborator, with the war in Ukraine, those research relationships, as well as much—with much of the Western world, have ceased. All of this, and my related empirical research, was conducted when I was a professor at my home institution. And since July, I've been serving, as Irina mentioned, as the dean and vice president of international affairs at my own institution. And I've been thinking a lot of, what does this mean for institutional practice? For those in university leadership positions, as mine, you know this is a tough challenge. Especially as domestic demand and state funding for higher education is generally declining. And at the same time, internationalization is increasingly central to senior leadership strategies. Universities are continuing vying to attract the world's students, even despite a decline of interest from China. And at the same time, research universities in particular are quite dependent on federal grants. We have our own research security offices that need to ensure our universities have good reputations and relations with our large federal funding agencies and taking every precaution to not be seen as a vulnerable site of intellectual theft. These units tend not to operate within international affairs. And I'm very well aware that in my role of trying to attract as many students from China and develop international partnerships, all of them can be suddenly erased if a Chinese University partner does not pass visual compliance or there is a sudden presidential executive order, as we experienced under the Trump administration. I'm also very well aware that of senior leaders have to choose between my educational offerings and partnerships in China versus risking a major grant from a federal agency, I will lose. We witnessed that with the shutting down of over 100 Confucius Institutes in the U.S., despite a lack of evidence of systematic espionage occurring through these centers. Public perceptions, informed or not, strongly affect the nature of our international work, as in the case of Florida. Such negative perceptions are not one country-sided, of course. A key concern for Chinese and other international students and their parents relate to safety. Gun violence, including on our own college campuses, anti-Asian hate crimes in surrounding neighborhoods, and unfavorable political environment in which studies might be interrupted as in the case of Proclamation 10043, or visa non-renewals are all contributing factors for the decline of interest from China, and uncertain future student exchange as well. In closing, when it comes to China these days no practices are guaranteed. However, I can recommend some while also keeping in mind geopolitical conditions can suddenly change for worse, or perhaps better. I mentioned earlier the value of mutual trust. At my university, we have long-standing relationships with university leaders at Chinese institutions. We've set up dual degree programs in China. Actually, about 40 percent of our international student enrollment are through such partner relationships throughout the world, in which we go to where they are. Hiring staff who speak the language and know the culture are also essential. And, like any relationship, these arrangements have developed over time. They are not built overnight. It takes intention. It takes effort. But in my experience, as trust is established the numbers have grown, and the positive impact is still being felt. Thank you. FASKIANOS: Thank you very much for that. That was terrific. Let's go now to all of you for your questions, comments. You can use this to share best practices and what you're doing to your universities or institutions. Please click the raise hand icon on your screen to ask a question. On your iPad or tablet, you can click the “more” button to access the raise hand feature. And when you're called upon, please accept the unmute prompts, state your name and affiliation, followed by your question. You can also submit a written question, they've already started coming in, by the Q&A icon. And if you can also include your affiliation there, I would appreciate it, although we will try to make sure we identify you correctly. So let's see. I'm looking for—no raised hands yet, but we do have questions written. So first question from Denis Simon, who's a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: Many U.S. universities have curtailed their exchanges and cooperation with China. You referenced that. Officials at these universities are worried that if they appear too friendly toward China they will lose all sorts of federal funding. Are these concerns justified? Are there any regulations or legislation that actually says federal funding can be removed assuming these universities are in compliance with the export controls, et cetera? LEE: All right. Well, thanks, Denis, for your question. I know there—when I saw the list of those who signed up, I know there are many here who can speak to this directly. So I encourage those to also raise their hands and provide input in the Q&A, maybe in the form of an A instead of a Q. But in any case, going to that question, you know, it's a tough environment. And so much in my role, but what I even experienced in my research, is about that perception, that overinterpretation. So maybe signaling that we have this exchange program might draw attention in ways that might lead to suspicions that, oh, well is this, you know, somehow creating an opportunity for us to disclose military secrets? I mean, that's where we take it. A friendly exchange or visit is oftentimes now having to be scrutinized and ensuring that there is no remote violation of export controls, even in educational delivery in a non-STEM field. And what we're seeing is that this—we have our highly sensitive fields, but that kind of scrutiny we're also seeing applied to the institution more broadly. So these seemingly benign programs about language or culture, about fields that are enhanced or help promote so-called American values, are also being watched. So I believe as an institutional leader, again, as I mentioned earlier, having to deal with the possibility of unwanted or unwarranted attention versus not having that program, I think some, as Denis has pointed out, are leaning towards being more cautious. Unfortunately, China—any work with China is considered a risk, even if there is no reason for risk, as we've witnessed under—or, observed under the China Initiative. I don't know if I've fully answered that question, but please follow up if I haven't. And I know others can probably say more to that issue. FASKIANOS: Great. I'll take the next question from Peter—I don't know how to pronounce— LEE: Peter Becskehazy. Hi, Peter. (Laughs.) FASKIANOS: There you go. Thank you very much. LEE: I know Peter. FASKIANOS: All right. Good. Well, I'd love if Peter asked his question directly, if he can. Oh, good. From Pima Community College. Go ahead, Peter. Q: Hello, Jenny. Nice to see you. LEE: Hi, Peter. Q: Now my question is, the University of Arizona and other universities have had an inflow of dozens of countries, adding up to the million that you mentioned. Are other countries trying to fill in slots left vacant by Chinese students and scholars? LEE: Yeah. Great question, Peter. And I think you can also share what you've observed at Pima in terms of the patterns you've witnessed. But for us, and as we are seeing nationally, we're seeing India rise. Not at the—not at higher numbers in many institutions, compared to China, but the rate is rising. It's not so simple, though, because we also have relations in India, and trying to set up agreements, and bring students. The competition in India is intense. So even though there's a relatively so-called large market, and the U.S. has been quite successful in attracting Indian students, that is perhaps where the attention is as a more, I would say—I hate to use the word “market,”—but a stable student market. There's a lot more interest in graduate-level education globally, as we've observed. These countries that formerly didn't have capacity now do have capacity. They have online offerings. They have branch campuses, dual degrees, lots of other options. And so the niche for the U.S., whereas before we didn't really have to think about a niche, is really in graduate education. Now, of course, that's not good news for Pima, that's thinking about a community college and other kinds of educational offerings. But for us, we're thinking about India a lot. Southeast Asia, of course, has always been an important partner to us. Africa continues to be a challenge. We know that when we think about population growth, Africa is the future. There's still challenges and trying to identify places where there is capacity. But also the affordability of a U.S. education is a huge challenge. So it's a great question. And, again, I'm curious to know other places in the world people recommend. Of course, Latin America, given our location, is a key strategic partner. But again, affordability becomes an issue. And again, I'm just talking about the traditional international student who would choose to come to Arizona. Not talking about research collaboration, which is less bound by affordability issues. Irina, you're muted. FASKIANOS: How long have I been doing this? OK. (Laughs.) I'm going to take the next written question from Allison Davis-White Eyes, who is vice president for diversity, equity, and inclusion at Fielding Graduate University: We have tried to work on collaborations with European universities and African universities, and met with much difficulty. What trends are you seeing in these regions? And what are emerging global markets beyond China? LEE: Great question, Allison. I mean, if you could leave the question in the future, so because I am visually looking at the question at the same time. FASKIANOS: Oh, great. Sorry. LEE: So, Allison, I'm not sure if you're referring to academic or research. Of course, within Europe, where the government does highly subsidized tuition, it's just becomes financially a bad deal, I suppose—(laughs)—for a student in the world who would normally get a free or highly reduced tuition to pay full price at our institution. So that kind of exchange of partnership, especially when it's about—when it's financially based, becomes almost impossible from my experience. But thinking about research collaboration, it depends on the level. So if it's an institutional agreement, you know, it's—often, these MOUs tend to just be on paper. It takes quite a bit of—it's very ceremonial. You need to get legal involved. It's a whole process to get an MOU. We really don't need these non-binding MOUs for research agreements. Some countries like it, just to display that they have an MOU with a U.S. institution. But essentially, it doesn't stop me as a professor to reach out to another professor at the University of Oslo, and say, hey, let's do a study. Which we actually are doing. So, yeah, feel free to be more specific, or if you want to raise your hand or speak on—and elaborate on that question. So, again, for educational exchange, it is difficult because we are—there's already a process within the EU that makes it very affordable and highly supported within the EU, or if you're part of that bigger program. Africa, again, my challenge from my role as an institutional leader is identifying places where there is already enough mass education up through high school where one would be able to consider, first of all, being admitted to a U.S. institution, but secondly, to be able to pay the cost. FASKIANOS: Allison, do you want to expand a little bit? Q: Oh, sorry. (Laughs.) FASKIANOS: There you go. There you go. Q: Right. Dr. Lee, thank you for your response. I think it was helpful, especially regarding the subsidizing of education in Europe. We've been working on some research partnerships. And we have just—you know, really, it has just been extremely difficult with European universities. And I do think part of it has to do with the way things are subsidized in Europe. I was just wondering if there were new and different ways to do it. I do appreciate your comment about the MOUs being largely ceremonial. I agree. And would like to see something with a little more substance. And that will take some creativity and a lot of partnership and work. As for Africa, we have tried to create partnerships with South Africa. I think there's some potential there. Certainly, some excitement. We've had a few students from Nigeria, extremely bright and motivated. I just would—you know, would like to hear, maybe from some other colleagues as well on the call, if there are creative ways in working with these students as well. So, thank you. LEE: Yeah, no. And just to follow up quickly, and, again, opportunities for others to share, academic collaboration, as I mentioned during my remarks, is largely built upon mutual trust. And not to say it can't happen from top down, but really does—is most successful from bottom up. And I don't mean to refer to professors at the bottom, but meaning those that are actually engaged with that work. And so just some considerations is rather than a top-down initiative or strategy, is to identify those that are visiting scholars, already from that country, have networks within that country. What's interesting, as I learned in my current role, is how little my predecessors worked with professors in these area's studies programs, because they're oftentimes treated as a separate or having different interests in mind when actually there is a lot of overlap to identify those that are actually there. Allison, by the way, I lived in South Africa for eight years. And I know it actually takes a long time. My Fulbright started off as a one year, and I had to extend it because even getting the data while I was on the ground takes time. And I'll be honest, I think part of it was taking some time just to build trust the intentions of my work, what was I going to do with that data, how is that going to be used? Was it actually going to be ways to empower them? You know, for those who study international collaboration, know this north and south divide, and I think there are places in the world that are—maybe have some guardrails up from those—not saying this is what's happening in your institution—but someone that they don't know coming from the Global North to study someone else in the Global South. And so how do we create or initiate a collaboration that is clearly, expressly mutual at the onset? And, again, this is where trust can be operationalized lots of different ways, but that even begins with that initial message. I mean, I remember when I started my work, nobody responded to me. They're like, who are you? And I don't care who you are or what your CV says. And it takes time. You know, building that relationship, and that person introducing me to that other person. Like, you know, this is how scientific networks form. And I think, to some extent, this is also how institutional collaborative relationships also form. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to David Moore, who has a raised hand. Q: OK, thank you. I just got unmuted. FASKIANOS: Great. Q: Lee, I appreciate your comments. And I heard your reference to Florida earlier. I don't know if we have colleagues on this call from Florida, but I think they'll know what I'm about to say. I'm the dean of international education at Broward College in Fort Lauderdale. And as of tomorrow, December 1, Florida has to—all institutions in Florida, public institutions, colleges and universities, must be completely devoid of any partnerships in China. And not just China. There are seven countries of concern. And you probably can cite them, most of you would know the other six. But of the seven countries, Broward had four partnerships in China alone, none in the other countries that were active. And so we are now officially done, have to be. And I've had to notify the partners as well as our accrediting body, because these were international centers of Broward where they literally offer—we offered associate degrees, two-year degrees. And students could then transfer to an institution in the United States. Now, this didn't catch us too much by surprise because two and a half years ago our Florida legislature started in on this, really probably before that, where they isolated universities in Florida and said: You cannot do research—sensitive research, whatever, you know, engineering, computer science, et cetera—any research without notifying the state. And there's an elaborate process that had to be—you know, they had to go through to do this. But now it's not just research institutions. Now it's not just those kinds of collaborations. It is, in fact, all partnerships of any kind. We had to end our agent agreements where we were recruiting students from China that were—where the companies were based in China. And in course our programs were not research. They're just general education, two-year associate's degree, maybe some business. But we've been informed now it's completely done. And so I'm actually looking for institutions outside of Florida who might be willing to take over the role that we've had in transcripting students who later want to come to the United States. At least for the first two years in China, and then transferring to the upper division to the U.S. So I'm not sure. You're probably quite familiar with this. I don't know if you know the details of how it was worked out in practice. We were the only community college in the state that had any partnerships. So we were the ones that had to desist. So I want to—there are probably people on the call that are familiar with this, but there might be many others. And I just wanted to say that I'm looking to, you know, open that door to other institutions outside of Florida that might be willing in, yes, take a risk to go into China, but to—I've always felt that these kinds of programs were very good to build relationships, partnerships, communication. Ambassadors really. Where we feel like we were representing American education, whatever, you know, we call American values, democracy, you know, community. We thought we were doing good. But we found out we were—we were not. We were—we were doing something that went opposed to the prevailing political climate, at least in Florida. So that's my comment. I think people should know about it. And thank you for letting me speak to it a bit. Maybe someone will speak up and say they're interested in they can get in touch with me, David Moore at Broward College, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. LEE: David, thank you for sharing what you did. This is a really important example of where other states could very well head. And what's interesting, as David noted, we're talking about a community college. When we normally think about cutting ties, it's usually around the concerns about national security. Now, how this translates to a two-year degree that is solely educational based is a pretty far stretch, and yet is being impacted quite severely. So I think we should continue to follow this example—unfortunate example. And, David, yeah, your partners have reached out to my office, and I'm sure to others. But thank you for being available. Q: You're welcome. We have partners—we are also working with your Jakarta, Indonesia center there. So we have that connection. Thank you. LEE: Mmm hmm. Thanks. FASKIANOS: And if anybody wants to share contact information in the Q&A box, you can certainly do that. That would be great. There is a written question from Tutaleni Asino at Oklahoma State University: There was an article today in SEMAFOR highlighting that there are currently 350 U.S. students studying in China compared to 11,000 in 2019. Comparatively, there are 300,000 Chinese students in the United States. Is this a one-way problem, where the U.S. is not investing in international engagements as a result of being more inward looking and other countries having more options of who to collaborate with? LEE: Yeah. Tutaleni, that's—I think your question is an answer. And I think it's—I agree with your observation. So we are seeing that as there's state and public disinvestment in higher education, and including scrutiny about international higher education, we're also seeing a decline and cutting of foreign language programs in the United States. So here we are, a monolingual country whose students mostly go to Europe or other English-speaking countries to study abroad. A very limited number of international—U.S. students who pursue undergraduate degrees in a foreign country. And knowing that the future is global and international, at least in my opinion, does not set the U.S. up well to be globally competitive, even though much of its international policy is around this rhetoric of we need to compete with China. And so you raise a good point. How is this possible if U.S. citizens don't speak Chinese, or have no interest in learning about Chinese culture, or there's reduced opportunities even in our own institutions, I think is something to think about and ask more questions about. FASKIANOS: I'm going to take the next question from Zhen Zhu, chair and professor of marketing, director of faculty excellence, and director for international engagement at Suffolk University: How do you see the trend of U.S. students' interest in study abroad to China? LEE: There is actually growing interest. As many of you know, China—offering Chinese language in high schools is not as unusual as it used to be. There is growing interest as students are thinking about employability in global markets in multinational or international organizations or corporations. It would be fundamental, in fact, for someone who has any interest in international work to pick up the language if they can, and at your own institution. FASKIANOS: Great. Let's see. From—I'm going to take the next question from Jeff Riedinger: Is there a role for universities to play in knowledge diplomacy to sustain international relationships and collaborations in addressing global problems such as climate change and pandemics when national governments may be at odds with each other? LEE: Thanks, Jeff. And hi, Jeff. I'm just going to read over that question so I can kind of digest it a bit. Is there a role for institutions to play in knowledge diplomacy, such as climate change, pandemics, when national governments may be at odds with each other? Absolutely, 200 percent. It is occurring—knowledge diplomacy, science diplomacy. That one individual going on a Fulbright or coming to study here for some extended visit, having these collaborations and, ultimately, you know, science—knowledge production—I mean, there's no bounds. And when we think about the kind of research that may not occur because of these national governments are at odds when it comes to addressing climate change or other global issues, you know, the world is paying somewhat of a price when it comes to that in—when there are overarching concerns about national security. So, you know, my issue has always been with policy you overlook nuance, and with sweeping policies that overlook the disciplinary distinctions and contributions, what is lost in the pursuit of trying to stay ahead of another country in fields and areas that really have no economic or military value, right? But yet, have an important cultural value, or maybe will address something bigger, such as COVID-19. So as I mentioned, the work that I referenced earlier about U.S.-Chinese scientists coming together during COVID-19, were actually scientists who studied COVID-19 together. And again, this was not—this was fraught with risks. They were very well aware that there was a lot of scrutiny about any research about COVID-19 coming from China. There was scrutiny about, you know, where the data was held, who was analyzing it, who was funding it. And yet, these scientists took these risks in order to address how does the world deal with the pandemic. And this was based on interviews of those studies that were actually successful and published. This is where that mutual trust, as I've mentioned earlier, is so important. And without that mutual trust, these studies, I'm pretty certain, would never have been published, because it was not an easy path when it comes to that particular geopolitical climate during the pandemic. FASKIANOS: Jenny, I'm just going to ask a question. President Biden and President Xi met during APEC. Did anything come out of that meeting that could affect U.S.-China academic collaboration? LEE: Yeah. You know, this is tough. I mean, how do you analyze political statements? What do they really mean? And what is really going to change? I think what's clear is that there's an acknowledgment that we're interdependent, but we're also adversaries. Almost a love/hate codependent, in a relationship that we can't just easily separate but we do need each other. But the form that it takes, I think there's an understanding it needs to be more specific. And I don't think that has been clarified yet. I realize I missed part of Jeff's question on what can institutions do? That's such a good question. And I got more into the topic than the actual to-do. What can institutions do? Honestly—(laughs)—I'll just speak as a researcher, to back off a bit, right? To let scientists do what they want to do. Yes, we need to follow disclosures. We need to make sure there's no conflicts of interest. We need to follow all of these procedures. But what I also found during the China Initiative, there was also this chilling climate in which there's an overinterpretation that may put institutions at risk. And to my knowledge, institutions were not at risk to the extent to which their scientists, especially those of Chinese descent, felt scrutinized. FASKIANOS: Thank you. We have a raised hand from Dan Whitman. Q: OK, I think I'm unmuted. Thank you, Irina. And thanks, Professor Lee, for mentioning the Great Wall that that prevents us from dealing with even Europeans who have subsidized education or Africans who have no money. And just an anecdote, since you have welcomed anecdotes, I am an adjunct at George Washington University. But totally unrelated to that, just for free and just for fun, pro bono, nobody pays, nobody gets paid. A course that I'm giving by webinar, it's zero cost. The topic is crisis management, but it could be any topic. And in that group, which there are about eighty people who tune in twice a week, fifteen Kenyans, twenty-five Ukrainians, and forty Kazakhs. I mean, I don't know if there's ever been exchange between Kazakhstan and Kenya. Anyway, my point is things can be done. We share it for free. What motivates the students? A certificate. It's so easy to give them a certificate. And in many countries, they very highly value that, even though it's not a—there's no formality, there's no formal academic credit. But the students are very motivated. And possibly, there may be universities in the U.S. that could—that might want to give a professor a small stipendium to do an informal webinar course, which would create connections, which would be zero cost, basically, and would bridge that gap of funding that you've alluded to. Thank you. LEE: Yeah. Dan, thank you for that. And I think this leads to a kind of a spin-off comment about certificates. Absolutely. Micro-credentials or alternative forms of education, where there's maybe not a full-fledged undergraduate degree but some certificate, I think, is important niche, especially for returning adults or communities where they're not able to afford to take time off. So that flexibility, and obviously now with online education, just becomes so much more accessible and very low cost. Something else to keep in mind, though, is that, depending on the institution you're from, that will make a difference in certificates. I mean, an institution like George Washington University offering a certificate may have some symbolic or perceived value that may be higher than an institution that is lower or are not ranked at all. So this is where, unfortunately—I'm a big critic of global rankings. But unfortunately, it does play a role in how that certificate is being perceived and the attractiveness of that certificate. But absolutely, this is definitely a way to open access especially for places in the world that just cannot physically move or have the funds to support their studies. FASKIANOS: Great. There are two comments/questions in the Q&A that I wanted to give you a chance to respond to about Africa, from Tutaleni Asino and Fodei Batty. Dr. Asino talks about English is the language of instruction and governments in Africa where they're funding education to a higher degree, and thinks that there are opportunities there, but it sounds like all fifty-four countries are grouped together. And Dr. Batty talks a little bit about there are a lot of students from African countries pursuing graduate education in the United States. But South Africa is usually an exception to the higher education American norm in Africa. Most South Africans don't like to travel, especially travel to America. I thought maybe you could just clarify some—respond to those comments. LEE: Yeah. Absolutely. Thank you for sharing those comments. There's a book I edited called Intra-Africa Student Mobility. And I agree with the comments. And one of the things I didn't mention that I think is important to help us understand the broader global context is that there's actually considerable international activity within the continent. And there's actually considerable intra-Africa mobility within the continent. South Africa is the most important country player in Sub-Saharan Africa. It is globally ranked—has more globally ranked institutions than any other African country. And so South Africa then becomes an important hub. And, yes, as an English-speaking, among many other languages, country, that does attract African students to go oftentimes for a similar sense of shared culture, despite sometimes different languages and customs and backgrounds. And yet, nevertheless, South Africa is an important player within the continent. Not to say that there is no international mobility occurring, but there is increased capacity within the continent that would allow students and interested students to travel within the continent. Not the same extent, of course, as Europe. But the least we're seeing that rise over time. And so it's called Intra-Africa Student Mobility. Chika Sehoole and I coedited the book. We were able to get about eight African scholars to talk about the various reasons students would choose that particular African country, and what draw them. And what was really interesting about this phenomenon is that it goes against this prevailing notion of Africa's victim of brain drain or all going to the north. That's actually not what is happening. But that there is capacity building within the continent. So in trying to answer a different question, I skirted over a lot of the things I could go further into. But hopefully that book will shed light on what's happening within that continent, at least from the perspective of eight different countries. FASKIANOS: Fantastic. Thank you for that. I'm going to go next to Jonathan Scriven at Washington Adventist University in Maryland: What are some of the strategies universities are using to make education more affordable in the United States? If that is a challenge, are schools investing more or less in setting up campuses in foreign countries as a way to reach foreign students? LEE: I'm just going to read over that question. OK, yeah. Great question, Jonathan. So what's happening in my institution and many others is a way to attract students is we're providing considerable aid, merit aid, financial aid, aid even to international students. The majority may not even be paying the full sticker price. Now this, of course, will affect the revenue that would have otherwise been generated, but nevertheless is a way to deal with the fierce competition across U.S. institutions for these top students. So how to make it affordable? There's a lot of aid going around at the undergraduate, not just the graduate, levels. And so what are institutions doing? Well, for example, at the University of Arizona for our dual degrees, it's a fraction of the cost of what it would cost to be a student at our main campus. When you have a combination of hybrid or online delivery with a campus partner maybe providing most of the gen ed's and then we would teach most of the major courses as an example, that does significantly lower the cost where that student will still get a bona fide University of Arizona degree, just like they would at main campus. So these alternative forms of delivery certainly make it more affordable, especially for those that opt to stay in their home country and receive an online education, or a flipped classroom model, or a dual degree. FASKIANOS: Great. Denis Simon, if you can—why don't you ask your question? Q: Here I am. OK. Recently, on a trip to China in September, a number of faculty have told me they're no longer wanting to send their best students abroad. They want to keep them in China. And this is all part of the rise of Chinese universities, et cetera. And so it may not be simply the souring of Sino-U.S. relations that has causal effect here, but simply the fact that China now is becoming a major, you know, educational powerhouse. And that also could change the dynamics. For example, even the BRI countries could start to send their students to China instead of sending them to the United States. Do you see anything evolving like this or—and what might be the outcome? LEE: Yeah. Spot on, David. That halo effect of a U.S. degree is not the same as it was when I was a university student. Chinese students, as well as students in the world, are much more savvy. They have access to information. They have access to rankings. They know all universities are not the same. And they know that they have some institutions that are highly ranked and may offer better quality education than the U.S. So that the image of a U.S. degree, of course, is not as universally perceived as it may have been, I don't know, pre-internet, or without the—all sorts of rankings in which institutions are rated against one another. And absolutely, Chinese institutions are very difficult to get into, fiercely competitive, producing far more scientific output than some of our leading institutions. And there's another factor when it comes to Asian culture just more broadly speaking, is that social network tie. Sociologists refer to it as social capital. When a Chinese student, a Korean student, Japanese student decides to study in the United States, they may lose that social tie that may possibly put them in a disadvantage when they decide to come back and compete for a position when they may just have that U.S. credential, but may have either lessened or no longer have that relationship that may have allowed them to get a position at the university, or in a place where that alumni network would have been especially useful. So again, I don't want to generalize, you know, in any place to the world, but there is that component that I think sometimes is missed in the literature. Maintaining that social network is pretty key, especially as jobs, of course, global, you know, unemployment—places where students are competing for positions need to have every edge possible. So that also can be part of that reason they decide to stay. FASKIANOS: Great. The next question from Michael Kulma, who's at the University of Chicago. He's following on David Moore's comments about Florida: Do you know how many other states in the U.S. are enacting or are considering such policies against partnerships with China? LEE: I do not know the answer. So if anyone wants to raise their hand and share about their own state, or put it on the answer part of the question and answer. There are related concerns about DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion. Some of that may spill over to China. Hopefully, at some point at the Council of Foreign Relations will have a discussion on Israel and Hamas conflict and how institutions are dealing with that. And so we're seeing a pretty challenging political environment that is clearly spilling over to our classrooms and to our international activities, our domestic recruitment. But I'm not answering your question, Michael. (Laughs.) I'll leave it up to someone else to answer. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. So we don't have very much time left. I thought maybe you could, given your research and expertise, could suggest resources—recommend resources for higher ed leaders and administrators to better understand how to promote collaboration. LEE: Sure. So promoting collaboration, it really—each person at a time. You know, again, MOUs may be signed, and maybe overarching presidents will come together and have an agreement, but there's no guarantee that will ever happen. I'd love to do a study on how many MOUs never actually materialized into real action. So where do we begin? International affairs SIOs out there, identify who are your area studies experts? Who are your visiting postdocs? Who are your Fulbright scholars from other parts of the world? They all represent their own network and are certainly are valuable resources to consider. What I've sometimes have heard even at my own institution is, you know, how do we bring these people to the table? Why are they not at the table to begin with, and then how do we bring them there? And this is a relatively low-cost way to go about this, right? Like, faculty engaged in service. What kind of opportunities can your university provide for faculty service that is aligned with their area of expertise, the areas of the world they represent, the networks they have? And many of—some of you already have experienced this directly. These partnerships often begin with our alumni, international—former international students who decide to go back home. So, again, there's just a lot of exciting opportunity. I love this field because it's never boring. There's always new ways to grow, expand new partners. But it really does begin with that essential element of trust. And that often begins with our own institutions and identifying those who've already started to build that network. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. Thank you very much. Really appreciate your being with us and for sharing your expertise and background, Dr. Lee. It's been fantastic. And to all of you, for your questions and comments, and sharing your experiences as well. You can follow Dr. Lee on X, the app formerly known as Twitter, at @JennyJ_Lee. I will send out a link to this webinar, the transcript, and the video, as well as the link to the book—your book that you mentioned, and any other resources that you want to share with the group. And I encourage you all to follow @CFR_academic on X, visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. We also—just putting in a plug for our other series, Academic Webinar series, which is designed for students. We just sent out the winter/spring lineup and we hope that you will share that with your colleagues and your students. It is a great way for them to have access to practitioner scholars and to talk with students from around the country. So if you haven't received that lineup, you can email cfracademic@CFR.org, and we will share that with you. So, again, thank you, Jenny, for being with us, and to all of you. And wishing you safe and happy holidays. And good luck closing out this semester before we get to the holidays. (Laughs.) So thank you again. (END)

This week on Sinica, we're running an interview with Jeffrey Bader from early last year. We learned on Monday morning that Jeff had died, and we dedicate this interview to his memory.___This week on Sinica, Kaiser chats with Jeff Bader, who served as senior director for Asian affairs at the National Security Council during the first years of the Obama presidency, until 2011. Now a senior fellow at the John L. Thornton China Center at the Brookings Institute, Jeff was deeply involved in U.S.-China affairs at the State Department from his first posting to Beijing back in 1981 continuously for the next 21 years, through 2002. He later served as U.S. ambassador to Namibia and was tapped to head Asian Affairs at the NSC after Obama took office. Jeff is the author of a fascinating book on Obama's China policy, Obama and China's Rise: An Insider's Account of America's Asia Strategy. In this conversation, he offers a candid critique of the Biden China policy to date.Note that this conversation was taped in mid-February — before the Russian invasion of Ukraine began, and before the Department of Justice announced the end of the “China Initiative.”Note that this conversation was taped in mid-February — before the Russian invasion of Ukraine began, and before the Department of Justice announced the end of the “China Initiative.”3:23 – How viewing China over 40 years of rapid development has shaped the way Jeff thinks about China8:54 – Jeff Bader's critique of the Biden administration's China policy19:40 – Is it important to have a China strategy?24:55 – Right-sizing China's ambitions: Is Rush Doshi right?31:17 – Defining China's legitimate interests38:31 – Has China already concluded that the U.S., irrespective of who is in power, seeks to thwart China's rise?43:16 – How can China participate in the rules-based international order?47:52 – Is it still possible for Biden to change his tune on China?52:57 – How much room does Biden have politically? Can he exploit to electorate's partisan divide on China?59:54 – What is the “low-hanging fruit” that Biden could pluck to signal a lowering of temperature?1:12:09 – Jeff Bader's precepts for better understanding of — and better policy toward — ChinaRecommendationsJeff: Autumn in the Heavenly Kingdom, a book by Stephen Platt about the Taiping Civil War focusing on Hong Rengan.Kaiser: Re-recommending two previous guests' recommendations: Iaian McGilchrists's The Master and his Emissary recommended by Anthea Roberts; and Unfabling the East: The Enlightenment's Encounter with Asia by Jurgen Osterhammel, recommended by Dan Wang.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

On today's episode, we explore an editorial about why chiropractic care should be included in the Healthy China Initiative 2030. The editorial includes great takeaways that can be applied wherever your practice. Episode Notes:The Inclusion of Chiropractic Care in the Healthy China Initiative 2030Patient Pilot by The Smart Chiropractor is the fastest, easiest to generate weekly patient reactivations on autopilot…without spending any money on advertising. Click here to schedule a call with our team.ChiroMatchMakers specializes in DC and CA hiring. We have over 100 positions available right now with salaries starting at $85K. Discover the available positions today by clicking here. Our members use research to GROW their practice. Are you interested in increasing your referrals? Discover the best chiropractic marketing you aren't currently using right here!

ANNOUNCEMENT: We'll be moving to a bi-weekly cadence in regards to episodes because life has gotten very busy and we want to make sure that we keep this sustainable for us. THANKS! This week in Asian American news: An Asian guy sues his company for discrimination after they fire him despite his 22 years working there and developing a $1 billion product. He claims they banned speaking Mandarin and made rice jokes. Republicans get creative with laws to target people who assist others in voting. Asian Americans who help grandpa read a ballot or hand an aunty some water can now fear a fine as big as $50,000. Hindu nationalism isn't on the rise in just India, it's also on the rise in the United States. We discuss the parallels between Hindu nationalism and Christian nationalism. Chinese scientists are fleeing America thanks to the fallout from the China Initiative, an effort that sought to “weed out” (non-existent) Chinese spies. Relatedly, China overtook the US in most-cited publications. Hm. And lastly, Hollywood execs say they hope to wait out writers until they lose apartments and houses. Meanwhile, SAG-AFTRA announced actors are now on strike with the WGA, the first strike together since 1960.  -- WHAT'S POLITICALLY ASIAN PODCAST? -- We're two Asian American comedians talking about politics and the Asian American community to get more Asians talking about politics! Join Aaron Yin (he/him) and Gerrie Lim (they/them) for 45 minutes-ish each week as we discuss current topics and events related to Asian Americans through the lenses of history, class, and advocacy. CHECK US OUT ON SOCIAL MEDIA:  Instagram: https://instagram.com/politicallyasianpodcast/  Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@politicallyasianpodcast  Twitter: https://twitter.com/politicasianpod  Website: https://politicallyasianpodcast.com Support us at https://buymeacoffee.com/politicalasian  COMMENTS, THOUGHTS, OPINIONS, HOT TAKES, FEEDBACK: politicallyasianpodcast@gmail.com  MUSIC by Clueless Kit: https://soundcloud.com/cluelesskit Song title: live now

Vorträge der Politikwissenschaftlerin Nadine Godehardt und dem Wirtschaftswissenschaftler Holger GörgModeration: Sibylle Salewski ********** China ist eine große Wirtschaftsmacht geworden, von der Deutschland und Europa in vielen Hinsichten abhängig sind. Wie sollten wir damit umgehen? Vorträge der Politikwissenschaftlerin Nadine Godehardt und des Wirtschaftswissenschaftlers Holger Görg.Nadine Godehardt ist Politikwissenschaftlerin und ist Mitglied der Arbeitsgruppe Asien der Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik. Zu ihren Forschungsschwerpunkten zählen China, Geopolitik und Politische Ordnungen. Ihren Vortrag "Geopolitik im Rohstoffmarkt: Wie balanciert Europa Chinas Zentralität?" hat sie am 11. Mai 2023 gehalten.gehalten.Holger Görg lehrt Außenwirtschaft an der Christian-Albrecht-Universität zu Kiel und ist Leiter des Forschungsbereichs 'Internationaler Handel und Investitionen' am Kiel Institut für Weltwirtschaft. Seit 2016 leitet er das Kiel Centre for Globalization. Sein Vortrag "Braucht Deutschland eine China-Strategie?" stammt vom 16. Mai 2023.Beide Vorträge waren Teil der Veranstaltungsreihe "Global China Conversations" die von der China Initiative des Kiel Instituts für Weltwirtschaft (IFW) in Kooperation mit dem Center for Modern East Asian Studies (CeMEAS) der Universität Göttingen, der KOF Konjunkturforschungsstelle der ETH Zürich und der Technischen Hochschule Wildau veranstaltet wird. **********Schlagworte: +++ China +++ Wirtschaft +++ Welthandel +++ Handel +++ Handelspartner +++ Import +++ Export +++ Politik +++ Globalisierung +++ Rohstoffe +++ Vorprodukte +++ Industrie +++ Chipmangel +++ Containermangel +++**********Den Artikel zum Stück findet ihr hier.**********Ihr könnt uns auch auf diesen Kanälen folgen: Tiktok und Instagram.

We speak with activist Brandon Straka—a man who was silenced by most media after Jan. 6—about the experience he had with the mainstream media and Tucker Carlson. April's jobs report beat expectations. Over 200,000 jobs were added, with unemployment going down, but will this help or hurt other areas of the economy? Heated testimony takes place over climate policy. Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) challenged a Biden administration official to answer a key question over plans to attain carbon neutrality. Dr. Rochelle Walensky will be stepping down as director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. She's served in the role since President Joe Biden took office. Could a TikTok ban be included in a China Bill 2.0? We hear from Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and Senate Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and why some Republicans are criticizing the Democrat-led China Initiative. There have been reports about a new chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. Biden is reportedly planning to make the nomination soon—replacing General Mark Milley. ⭕️ Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

On this edition of Parallax Views, Mel Gurtov, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Portland State University, Editor-in-Chief of Asian Perspective, blogger at In the Human Interest, and author of Engaging China: Rebuilding Sino-American, joins us to discuss the 2023 Chinese Spy Balloon Incident aka #Balloongate that has further inflamed tensions between the U.S. and China. The incident caused an uproar on Capitol Hill and led to Secretary of State Antony Blinken cancelling a diplomatic trip to China. Initially China claimed it was merely a weather balloon that veered off course. The U.S. has said otherwise. The reporting has been that it was indeed a surveillance balloon. The ballon was first believed to enter U.S. airspace near Alaska on January 28th before moving over Canada. On February 1st the ballon was spotted over Montana before being shot down by a U.S. fighter jet on February 4th. We discuss the importance of this story, the response by the U.S. and China, how the situation could've been handled differently/better, the growing tensions between the U.S. and China, and the future of Sino-American relations. Among the topics covered: - The Biden administration vs. the Trump administration on China - The bipartisan consensus in Washington, D.C. and it's hostility to China; tariffs, trade wars, and Trump's China policy; China as a strategic threat from the Biden administration's point-of-view - Why Blinken's diplomatic visit to China being cancelled could be seen as a missed opportunity - Republican pressure for a hawkish, hardline response to China in regards to the spy balloon incident - The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue, AUKUS, Japan, the Philippines, Guam, and security treaty partnerships - The U.S. role in Taiwan, strategic ambiguity vs. strategic clarity positions on Taiwan, China, and foreign policy - The issue of human right abuses in China; the Uyghur Muslims in China; Hong Kong - China's response to the spy balloon incident; U.S. surveillance in China; satellite technology and spying; was the balloon an immediate threat? - President of the People's Republic of China Xi Jinping,  the People's Liberation Army, the nature of bureaucracy as it relates to Balloongate, China's Foreign Ministry and the U.S. State Department, and the spy balloon - The potential consequences/blowback of the Chinese Spy Balloon Incident; the hawkish element in China and its press is being fed by the U.S. response; paranoia begets paranoia; the blame game is being played by the U.S. and China and is making diplomatic engagement more difficult - International security, the U.S., and China; can the U.S. and China find common ground on pandemic response research, climate change, and nuclear weapons? - Are we in a New Cold War? - The U.S., China, and the global economy - Lessons to be learned from the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union - Comparing the Chinese spy balloon incident to other tense U.S.-China moments such as the shooting down of a Chinese jet over Hainan in 2001 - What has happened to diplomacy and use of the diplomatic toolbox in U.S. foreign policy?; the national security apparatus, the Cold War mindset, ossifying institutions, and opposition to diplomatic engagement with adversaries - Former World Bank President Robert B. Zoellick's Washington Post op-ed "Opinion Engage, don't cancel, China over the balloon" - Anti-Chinese violence and racism; the Justice Department, the China Initiative, and the McCarthyite crackdown against visiting Chinese scientists that's been called racial profiling - The pandemic, U.S. vs China's response to the pandemic, Zero COVID policy and protests against Xi, anti-China conspiracy theories about the pandemic, China's handling of the pandemic, and Donald Trump use of the term the "China" virus - Misperceptions about China; China is not a monolithic Borg entity; the limited understanding many American have of China even at a professional (even government level); looking at the world through Chinese eyes; China, cultural differences, and the pros and cons of U.S. individualism - Stereotyping and demonization of the Chinese; China as a diverse country - And more!

The saga of the Chinese spy balloon that floated unhindered for days over the nation's airspace is a huge story in its own right. But it also encapsulates a larger problem—the successful efforts by China to spy on the United States—and how the Biden administration has allowed these efforts by China to continue with little or no hindrance. A fact that is exemplified by Biden's suspension of the China Initiative—a program that was designed to counter China's theft of intellectual property. The Chinese spy balloon also highlights an often neglected impact of the fabricated Russia-Collusion narrative. A narrative that fundamentally altered U.S. foreign policy and took attention away from the true adversary—China. ⭕️ Watch in-depth videos based on Truth & Tradition at Epoch TV

A senior official says China has made major progress in improving the country's ecology and environment over the past decade.

This episode features a much deeper, and more diverse, examination of the Fifth Circuit decision upholding Texas's social media law. We devote the last half of the episode to a structured dialogue about the opinion between Adam Candeub and Alan Rozenshtein. Both have written about it already, Alan critically and Adam supportively. I lead off, arguing that, contrary to legal Twitter's dismissive reaction, the opinion is a brilliant and effective piece of Supreme Court advocacy. Alan thinks that is exactly the problem; he objects to the opinion's grating self-certainty and refusal to acknowledge the less convenient parts of past case law. Adam is closer to my view. We all seem to agree that the opinion succeeds as an audition for Judge Andrew Oldham to become Justice Oldham in the DeSantis Administration.   We walk through the opinion and what its critics don't like, touching on the competing free expression interests of social media users and of the platforms themselves, whether there's any basis for an injunction today, given the relative weakness of the overbreadth argument and the fundamental disagreement over whether “exercising editorial discretion” is a fundamental right under the first amendment or just an artifact of older technologies. Most intriguing, we find unexpected consensus that Judge Oldham's (and Clarence Thomas's) common carrier argument may turn out to be the most powerful point in the opinion and when the case reaches the Court. In the news roundup, we focus on the Congressional sprint to pass additional legislation before the end of the Congress. Michael Ellis explains the debate between the Cyberspace Solarium Commission alumni and business lobbyists over enacting a statutory set of obligations for systemically critical infrastructure companies. Adam outlines a strange-bedfellows bill that has united Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in an effort to give small media companies and broadcasters an antitrust immunity to bargain with the big social media platforms over the use of their content. Adam is a skeptic, Alan less so. The Pentagon, reliably braver when facing bullets than a bad Washington Post story, is performing to type in the flap over fake social media accounts. Michael tells us that the accounts pushed pro-U.S. stories but met with little success before Meta and Twitter caught on and kicked them off their platforms. Now the Department of Defense is conducting a broad review of military information operations. I predict fewer such efforts and don't mourn their loss. Adam and I touch on a decision of Meta's Oversight Board criticizing Facebook's automated image takedowns. I offer a new touchstone for understanding content regulation at the Big Platforms: They just don't care, so they've turned to whole project over to second-rate AI and second-rate employees. Michael walks us through the Department of the Treasury's new flexibility on sending communications software and services to Iran.  And, in quick hits, I note that: The Justice Department's China Initiative continues to suffer from pushback.  We should all expect bad things from the emergence of  violence as a service Russian botmasters have suddenly discovered that extradition to the U.S. may be better than going home and facing mobilization.

This episode features a much deeper, and more diverse, examination of the Fifth Circuit decision upholding Texas's social media law. We devote the last half of the episode to a structured dialogue about the opinion between Adam Candeub and Alan Rozenshtein. Both have written about it already, Alan critically and Adam supportively. I lead off, arguing that, contrary to legal Twitter's dismissive reaction, the opinion is a brilliant and effective piece of Supreme Court advocacy. Alan thinks that is exactly the problem; he objects to the opinion's grating self-certainty and refusal to acknowledge the less convenient parts of past case law. Adam is closer to my view. We all seem to agree that the opinion succeeds as an audition for Judge Andrew Oldham to become Justice Oldham in the DeSantis Administration.   We walk through the opinion and what its critics don't like, touching on the competing free expression interests of social media users and of the platforms themselves, whether there's any basis for an injunction today, given the relative weakness of the overbreadth argument and the fundamental disagreement over whether “exercising editorial discretion” is a fundamental right under the first amendment or just an artifact of older technologies. Most intriguing, we find unexpected consensus that Judge Oldham's (and Clarence Thomas's) common carrier argument may turn out to be the most powerful point in the opinion and when the case reaches the Court. In the news roundup, we focus on the Congressional sprint to pass additional legislation before the end of the Congress. Michael Ellis explains the debate between the Cyberspace Solarium Commission alumni and business lobbyists over enacting a statutory set of obligations for systemically critical infrastructure companies. Adam outlines a strange-bedfellows bill that has united Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in an effort to give small media companies and broadcasters an antitrust immunity to bargain with the big social media platforms over the use of their content. Adam is a skeptic, Alan less so. The Pentagon, reliably braver when facing bullets than a bad Washington Post story, is performing to type in the flap over fake social media accounts. Michael tells us that the accounts pushed pro-U.S. stories but met with little success before Meta and Twitter caught on and kicked them off their platforms. Now the Department of Defense is conducting a broad review of military information operations. I predict fewer such efforts and don't mourn their loss. Adam and I touch on a decision of Meta's Oversight Board criticizing Facebook's automated image takedowns. I offer a new touchstone for understanding content regulation at the Big Platforms: They just don't care, so they've turned to whole project over to second-rate AI and second-rate employees. Michael walks us through the Department of the Treasury's new flexibility on sending communications software and services to Iran.  And, in quick hits, I note that: The Justice Department's China Initiative continues to suffer from pushback.  We should all expect bad things from the emergence of  violence as a service Russian botmasters have suddenly discovered that extradition to the U.S. may be better than going home and facing mobilization.

Their work can be subtle and unseen, but neighborhood associations often play a key role in building connections among neighbors and setting the vision for a community. But running an association is no small job. Their myriad tasks can include staying on top of changes within the city, advocating for Metro services, organizing local events, and also recruiting participants to serve on the association itself. What does it take for a neighborhood association to remain relevant to the average (extremely busy) resident? On top of all that, the pandemic has tested the bonds of communities, and the city continues to change quickly, with newcomers arriving in droves. That's been challenging for neighborhood groups, so on today's episode we'll explore how they're adapting and hearing from the leader of Neighbor 2 Neighbor, which offers training to neighborhood association leaders. In fact, there's one day left to enroll in the nonprofit's Emerging Neighborhood Leaders Academy, and their annual Good Neighbor Day Festival is happening Saturday in Madison. We'll also drop in on a community project in Cane Ridge, where the founder of the Tennessee Nature Academy has been working with teenagers to grow a massive pumpkin patch that will be the centerpiece of a new fall festival on Oct. 1. The effort has soaring ambitions of creating a bridge between the area's agricultural heritage and the wave of new residents. But first, we'll dig into the controversy over the attorney that the Biden administration has nominated for the top prosecutor job in the Eastern District of Tennessee. Host Khalil Ekulona and WPLN All Things Considered host Marianna Bacallao will unpack why advocates for Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders are calling for the nomination to be withdrawn, and hear from the University of Tennessee professor who was prosecuted — but acquitted — after he says he was ensnared by the so-called “China Initiative.” Guests: Twana Chick, president of Cane Ridge Community Club Jim Hawk, president of Neighbor 2 Neighbor Tiffany Archer, leader with North Nashville Organization for Community Improvement Carson Cooper, resident of District 30

This week in Asian American Politics - Chinese international students have poorer views on America and American universities (finally!) - Biden cancels some student debt. Is this moment a "We did it, Joe" or not? - Gang Chen, a natural US Citizen and MIT Professor, discovers groundbreaking battery with fellow MIT researchers after being terrorized for years by the FBI and Department of Justice for being a "Chinese spy" - Trader Joe's? More like Traitor Joe's. The company union busts its workers who were organizing at the famous NYC Union Square wine shop. - NYC looks into congestion pricing for drivers, so the City can repair the MTA that we all love and hope does not collapse beneath our feet. If you wanna help us out, please go to the Apple Podcast app or Spotify app on your phone and tap 5 stars. We also have a Patreon and Venmo @PoliticallyAsianPodcast if you want to help us financially! Currently fundraising for podcast transcriptions, a video editor, and Canva Premium. -- WHAT'S POLITICALLY ASIAN PODCAST? Two Asians talking about politics and the Asian American community to get more Asians talking about politics! Join comedians Aaron Yin (he/him) and Gerrie Lim (they/them) for 45 minutes-ish each week as they discuss current topics and events related to Asian Americans through the lenses of history, class, and advocacy. Think John Oliver's show, but there's two of us, and we're Asian. -- CHECK US OUT ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Our memes are so good Asian people will mention them when they meet us in real life. ➤ Instagram: https://instagram.com/politicallyasianpodcast/ ➤ Twitter: https://twitter.com/politicasianpod ➤ Website: https://politicallyasianpodcast.com -- INQUIRIES: politicallyasianpodcast@gmail.com -- SUPPORT US ON PATREON (currently fundraising for episode transcription services and a video editor): https://patreon.com/politicallyasian -- ALGORITHM? Chinese American Politics, Korean American Politics, Japanese American Politics, South Asian politics, Asian American politics, AAPI politics, Asian American Political Alliance, Asian American leader, Asian American Protests 1960s, Asian American policy, Asian leftist, Asian American leftist, Asian American leftist podcast

Auch in den USA ist die Sorge groß, dass sensible Forschungen in die Hände Chinas geraten könnten. 2018 startete die damalige Trump-Regierung eine "China Initiative", um Spionage zu bekämpfen. Das Programm hat administrative Versäumnisse aufgedeckt, aber der US-Wissenschaft vermutlich mehr geschadet als genützt.Reintjes, Thomaswww.deutschlandfunk.de, Forschung aktuellDirekter Link zur Audiodatei

While the controversial China Initiative targeted mainly academics and researchers of Chinese descent for alleged espionage, the nascent Nation-State Threat Strategy significantly expands its enforcement scope to broader economic and ideological interests. Read the article by Wade Weems, Chang Liu and Kairu Huang: https://www.caixinglobal.com/2022-04-20/opinion-the-us-isnt-going-to-slacken-scrutiny-after-ending-the-china-initiative-101873344.html Narrated by Elyse Ribbons. Are you a big fan of our shows? Then please give our podcast account, China Business Insider, a 5-star rating on Spotify, Apple, or wherever you listen to podcasts!

This week on Sinica, Deborah Seligsohn returns to the show to talk about the sad state of U.S.-China scientific collaboration. As the Science Counselor at the U.S. Embassy in Beijing from 2003 to 2007 — arguably the peak years for collaboration in science — she has ample firsthand experience with the relationship. Debbi, who is now an assistant professor of political science at Villanova University in Philadelphia, sees the U.S. decision to dismantle what was a diverse and fruitful regime of collaboration as a consequence of the basic American conception of the relationship: our tendency to see that relationship as one of teacher and student. She also argues that the American obsession with intellectual property protection is fundamentally misguided and inapplicable to scientific collaboration, which rarely deals with commercial IP.3:15 – The rationale for prioritizing U.S.-China scientific collaboration in the 1970s9:11 – A highlight reel of Sino-American scientific collaboration across four decades31:03 – The stubborn American belief that freedom and democracy are necessary — or even sufficient — conditions for technological innovation39:37 – The price we've paid and will continue to pay for the collapse of collaboration44:00 – The end of collaboration and the DOJ's "China Initiative"48:17 – How to rebuild the U.S.-China scientific partnershipA full transcript of this podcast is available on SupChina.com.Recommendations:Deborah: A Buzzfeed story by Peter Aldous about the strange origins of the "lab-leak theory" in the right-wing of the animal rights activist community; and two podcasts — Bloomberg's Odd Lots podcast and the Brookings podcast by David Dollar, Dollar and Sense.Kaiser: The sci-fi thriller Severance on AppleTV.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

While the controversial China Initiative targeted mainly academics and researchers of Chinese descent for alleged espionage, the nascent Nation-State Threat Strategy significantly expands its enforcement scope to broader economic and ideological interests.Read the article by Wade Weems, Chang Liu and Kairu Huang: https://www.caixinglobal.com/2022-04-20/opinion-the-us-isnt-going-to-slacken-scrutiny-after-ending-the-china-initiative-101873344.htmlNarrated by Elyse Ribbons.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Increased funding requests are evidence that the United States is not weakening its efforts to counter the Chinese espionage efforts, according to the testimony of U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, who appeared before the House Appropriations Committee on April 28. 

On January 20, 2022, a federal court in Boston dismissed charges against Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineering professor Gang Chen, who had been accused of concealing his affiliations with Chinese government institutions. The dropping of all charges against Dr. Chen was a major setback for the China Initiative, a U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) program meant to combat economic espionage and intellectual property theft conducted by the Chinese government. Some argue that the DOJ's efforts to counter Chinese national security threats led to racial profiling and created a climate of fear among academics and researchers of Chinese descent in the United States. On February 23, 2022, the DOJ announced that it had terminated the China Initiative. In an interview conducted on April 13, 2022, Professor Gang Chen talks about his case and his reaction to the end of the China Initiative, what it means to him and the broader scientific community. Gang Chen is the Carl Richard Soderberg Professor of power engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He served as the head of the MIT department of mechanical engineering from 2013 to 2018. His research interests center on nanoscale thermal transport and energy conversion phenomena and their applications in energy storage and conversion, thermal management, and water treatment and desalination. He has received numerous awards, including the National Science Foundation Young Investigator Award, an American Society of Mechanical Engineers' (ASME) Heat Transfer Memorial Award, an ASME Frank Kreith Award in Energy, and a Nukiyama Memorial Award by the Japan Heat Transfer Society, among others. He is a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Physical Society, the ASME, and the Guggenheim Foundation. He is an academician of Academia Sinica, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the U.S. National Academy of Engineering.

Chrome Zero-Day, CISA Must Patch Grows, Okta, China and North Korea   Cybersecurity News CyberHub Podcast March 28th, 2022   Today's Headlines and the latest #cybernews from the desk of the #CISO: Google Issues Emergency Fix for Chrome Zero-Day North Korean hackers target employees of news outlets, software vendors and more through Chrome vulnerability CISA Adds 66 Vulnerabilities to 'Must Patch' List Okta: "We made a mistake" delaying the Lapsus$ hack disclosure 'Purple Fox' Hackers Spotted Using New Variant of FatalRAT in Recent Malware Attacks Ending DoJ's China Initiative was ‘misguided and dangerous,' 8 senators say   Story Links: https://www.securityweek.com/google-issues-emergency-fix-chrome-zero-day https://therecord.media/north-korean-hackers-target-employees-of-news-outlets-software-vendors-and-more-through-chrome-vulnerability/ https://www.securityweek.com/cisa-adds-66-vulnerabilities-must-patch-list https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/okta-we-made-a-mistake-delaying-the-lapsus-hack-disclosure/ https://thehackernews.com/2022/03/purple-fox-hackers-spotted-using-new.html https://therecord.media/ending-dojs-china-initiative-was-misguided-and-dangerous-8-senators-say/   “The Microsoft Doctrine” by James Azar now on Substack https://jamesazar.substack.com/p/the-microsoft-doctrine   The Practitioner Brief is sponsored by: KnowBe4: https://info.knowbe4.com/phishing-security-test-cyberhub  ****** Find James Azar Host of CyberHub Podcast, CISO Talk, Goodbye Privacy, Digital Debate, and Other Side of Cyber James on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-azar-a1655316/ Telegram: CyberHub Podcast ****** Sign up for our newsletter with the best of CyberHub Podcast delivered to your inbox once a month: http://bit.ly/cyberhubengage-newsletter ****** Website: https://www.cyberhubpodcast.com Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheCyberHubPodcast Rumble:  https://rumble.com/c/c-1353861 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CyberHubpodcast/ Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/cyberhubpodcast/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/cyberhubpodcast Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cyberhubpodcast Listen here: https://linktr.ee/cyberhubpodcast   The Hub of the Infosec Community. Our mission is to provide substantive and quality content that's more than headlines or sales pitches. We want to be a valuable source to assist those cybersecurity practitioners in their mission to keep their organizations secure.   Thank you for watching and Please Don't forget to Like this video and Subscribe to my Channel!   #cybernews #infosec #cybersecurity #cyberhubpodcast #practitionerbrief #cisotalk #ciso #infosecnews #infosec #infosecurity #cybersecuritytips #podcast #technews #tinkertribe #givingback #securitytribe #securitygang #informationsecurity

⭕ EpochTV Special 14days FREE TRIAL

Controversy behind the China initiative, explained - Part 2

Controversy behind the China initiative, explained: Part 2

Controversy behind the China initiative, explained Chinese man convicted of U.S. visa fraud: DOJ EU Russian oil ban would raise prices: Expert N. Korea launches new ICBM: Officials

As evidence continues to mount that President Biden is personally, deeply compromised by our mortal enemy, the Chinese Communist Party, everything he is doing to help the CCP demands urgent national security scrutiny. Fortunately, eight U.S. Senators have just added a new item to that list – and are calling for corrective action. Last month, the Biden administration announced that it was terminating a Justice Department program called “the China Initiative” that was successfully exposing and rooting out CCP espionage inside the United States. The pretext for terminating the Initiative is that it was “racist” thanks to the Chinese Communists' practice of using PRC nationals, students and naturalized American citizens from China as spies. The Senators are right: The CCP is a threat that cannot safely be ignored on such grounds. If anything, the effort to defeat it requires a vastly redoubled effort. This is Frank Gaffney. The Secure Freedom Minute - the most interesting, informative and life-saving 60 seconds of your day Follow Frank| @Frank Gaffney | Securing America Instagram Twitter Facebook Gettr Parler Gab Rumble YouTube

Controversy behind the China initiative, explained

Susan Shirk, Chair of the 21st Century China Center, and former U.S. Attorney Carol Lam sit down to discuss the ways the China Initiative, from flaws in its inception to views towards the future of DOJ espionage prosecutions.

John Yang, president and executive director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice talks about how his group and others got DOJ to dump the controversial program that was widely viewed as an initiative that unfairly targeted Asians in the U.S.

In 2019, Franklin Tao, a professor of chemistry at the University of Kansas, was arrested on suspicion of spying for the Chinese government. Tao's case was the first under a program called the China Initiative, a collaboration between the Justice Department, the F.B.I., and other federal agencies to combat what was perceived as a growing vulnerability to Chinese espionage, particularly in the realms of economics, technology, and academia. But Tao was never charged with espionage, and his became one of many controversial cases undertaken by the China Initiative, whose critics accuse it over pursuing unsubstantiated and overblown cases, and of stoking anti-Asian sentiment. Gideon Lewis-Kraus joins the guest host Evan Osnos to discuss Tao's case, the origins and impacts of the China Initiative, and the complexities of battling international espionage.

We are joined on today's show by Amanda Yee, host of the podcast Radio Free Amanda to discuss the one-year anniversary of the Atlanta Spa shooting. The epidemic of anti-Asian violence has grown exponentially since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, Asian Americans have always been viewed as “enemy aliens” as the FBI and U.S. government had historically called it. We discuss the CIA launching of the “China Initiative” in 2018 and the new cold war on China, and what all this has to do with the tragedy of Atlanta and the rising hate crimes against Asian Americans.We also discuss the massive spending bill that Biden signed off on Tuesday, dedicating billions of dollars in what the Pentagon is calling “aid” to Ukraine. Meanwhile sanctions deepen on Russia, pushing everyday Russian people into a deeper crisis. Additionally, Clearview AI has been using facial recognition technology in the crisis in Ukraine while big data and analytics company Palantir wants to expand in Europe. What does this mean? We dive deeper into that story and the threats of the surveillance state in time of war. 

In 2018, the Trump Administration established “The China Initiative” to investigate growing concerns and evidence of inappropriate and illegal Chinese involvement in US laboratories, universities, and businesses. Now, the Justice Department under Biden has ended that investigation because they have determined it could be perceived as racist.  The Nightly Nuge featuring Ted Nugent S01-E056 - US Justice Dept. Abruptly Ends Investigation Into Chinese Espionage, Why? - 220308

After a tumultuous and historic week, Brian and Tim gather themselves to discuss the U.S. (and global) response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine. They start by diving in to the broad, coordinated economic sanctions aimed at debilitating Russia's financial sector and Putin's inner circle, debate how well the new measures will work, and contemplate what could be coming next. They next turn to the significant expansion of export controls implicating Russia and discuss the likely impact. Finally, in the Lightning Round, Brian and Tim bid farewell to DOJ's China Initiative and read between the lines to decipher DOJ's ongoing priorities. ******** Questions? Contact us at podcasts@milchev.com. EMBARGOED! is not intended and cannot be relied on as legal advice; the content only reflects the thoughts and opinions of its hosts. EMBARGOED! is intelligent talk about sanctions, export controls, and all things international trade for trade nerds and normal human beings alike, hosted by Miller & Chevalier Members Brian Fleming and Tim O'Toole. Each episode will feature deep thoughts and hot takes about the latest headline-grabbing developments in this area of the law, as well as some below-the-radar items to keep an eye on. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts for new bi-weekly episodes so you don't miss out! Roadmap:  Introduction The Rundown U.S. Response to Russian Invasion of Ukraine (Sanctions) U.S. Response to Russian Invasion of Ukraine (Export Controls) Lightning Round DOJ's China Initiative = DONE Final Thoughts ***Stay sanctions free.***

Against the backdrop of the continued Russian invasion of Ukraine, Megan Stifel, NSI Visiting Fellow and Chief Strategy Officer at the Institute for Security and Technology, addresses the cyberattacks that have played a role in Russia's efforts. How has Ukraine fended off the cyber attacks? Has collaboration between the U.S. and Ukraine been successful? We then pivot to last week's news that the Department of Justice is ending the China Initiative. How frequent were the cases of false convictions and racial discrimination that drove the DoJ to end the initiative? Does ending the initiative change the work the DoJ is doing? Will the DoJ's focus shift given the violence in Ukraine? These questions and more are addressed on this week's episode of Fault Lines.Like this episode? Be sure to rate, review, and subscribe for more. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Putin announces "special military operation" in Donbas region. We take a look at what lies ahead. US Justice Department ends Trump-era "China Initiative". What is behind this move?

In today's episode:Jim Jordan declines the illegitimate 1/6 committee's offer to testifyTrust in the covid narrative and its purveyors continues to erode as the CDC director has a disastrous appearance on Fox News Sunday and the Democrat-appointed Supreme Court justices disseminate medical misinformation in oral argumentsThe formal policy of the fake administration is to ration 'lifesaving' covid treatments on the basis of race, but don't worry, it's just the white who are de-prioritizedMichelle Obama plans to hire 100,000 foot soldiers to register a million new voters, but will any of them be real, legal, American voters?In an October election in Alaska, one in twelve mail-in ballots were rejected - whoops!Nervous Stanford professors sign a letter asking the illegitimate DOJ to end Trump's 'China Initiative' meant to root out intellectual theft and espionage in our universities by the CCP, because of potential racism that might happen someday and not because they're in troubleTo support directly:anchor.fm/imyourmoderator or ko-fi.com/imyourmoderatorbtc via coinbase: 3MEh9J5sRvMfkWd4EWczrFr1iP3DBMcKk5Merch site: www.cancelcouture.com or shop.spreadshirt.com/cancel-coutureWriting at: imyourmoderator.substack.comFollow the podcast info stream: t.me/imyourmoderator or on Gab or Gettr @imyourmoderatorSupport the show (https://www.ko-fi.com/imyourmoderator) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/be-reasonable-with-your-moderator-chris-paul.

U.S. federal prosecutors recently dropped the case against MIT nanotechnology professor Chen Gang. This once again brought into spotlight the China Initiative, established by the U.S. Department of Justice for the alleged purpose of "identifying and prosecuting those engaged in trade secret theft, hacking, and economic espionage." Is the China Initiative an effort of racial profiling against Asian American scholars as widely criticized? Is the end of the Initiative looming amid growing public pressure? Host Liu Kun talks to Dr. Sara Hsu, Clinical Associate Professor, University of Tennessee at Knoxville; Dr. Liu Yawei, director of the China Program at the Carter Center; and David Moser, Associate Professor, Beijing Capital Normal University.

One of the good things about coming back from Christmas break are all the deep analyses that news outlets save up to publish over the holidays—especially those they can report from countries where celebrating Christmas isn't that big a deal. At least that's how I account for the flood of deep media dives on China technology issues. Megan Stifel takes us through a couple. The first is a Washington Post article on China using its tools for measuring internal dissent online and focusing them on the rest of the world. The second is a New York Times article that tells us what tools the Chinese government can use when the rest of the world says things it doesn't like. Utterly unsurprising, to me at least, is that social media companies like Twitter have become hapless enablers of China's speech police. Later in the podcast, Megan covers another story in the same vein—the growing global unease about China's success in building Logink, a global logistics and shipping database. Scott Shapiro and Nick Weaver walk us through the conviction of a Harvard professor for lying about his China ties. It may be too cynical to say that the Justice Department wanted Professor Charles Lieber especially badly because he's not Asian, but there's no doubt he'll be Exhibit A when it defends the China Initiative against claims of ethnic profiling. Megan takes us through another great story of hack-enabled great story of hack-enabled insider trading, helicopters to Zermatt, dueling extraditions and as the piece de resistance, hints we may learn more about Russian interference with the 2016 presidential election.   Scott explains how Apple AirTags are being used to track people. Nick gives us a feel for just how hard it is to separate good from bad in designing Air Tags. I suggest that this is a problem we could leave to the plaintiffs' lawyers.  Nick lays out the economics of hacking as a service and introduces us to yet another company in that business—Cytrox. No one seems to last long in the business without changing their name. Nick and I explore the reasons for that, and the possibility that soon the teams that work for these companies will move on every year or two.  Nick also explains why bitcoin isn't always a cybercriminal's best friend. It turns out that cryptography isn't proof against rubber hose cryptanalysis, or maybe even plea bargaining.  Drawing from research I'm doing for an article about why bias in face recognition has been overblown, I note that Canada, France and the entire Western world is imposing sanctions on Clearview AI for privacy violations, but Clearview AI is the only U.S. company doing as good or better at face recognition than Chinese and Russian suppliers. I argue that's because a dubious bias narrative has forced IBM, Amazon, Microsoft and Meta to retreat from the market, leaving us at the mercy of Russian and Chinese tech.  Megan explains why financial regulators and not the FBI turn out to be the biggest enemies of end-to-end encryption, as they fine JPMorgan Chase a cool $200 million for using WhatsApp and other unbreakable encrypted messaging systems. Finally, in quick hits, I point out that soft power isn't always America's friend, as shown by Intel's apology to the Chinese public for obeying U.S. law, Apple's determination to double down on a Chinese supply chain, and a SenseTime IPO that was enormously successful for everyone except U.S. sanctions and U.S. investors. Scott shows the remarkable erosion of Silicon Valley's power in its conflicts with Putin's Russia. Google and Meta are facing huge fines for not taking down content Russia doesn't like. And the Russians whose content they have taken down are winning big judgements in Russia—so big that I'm expecting Breitbart to bring their next Big Tech censorship lawsuit in Moscow. Download the 388th Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families or pets.

This week it's just us, but there's so much to talk about. We start by talking about the China Initiative, and how the first person found guilty of being a "Chinese spy" is a WHITE GUY HARVARD PROFESSOR (lmao). We then go into Joe Biden's new AANHPI advisory group (Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander) and how we feel about this roster, which includes Daniel Dae Kim. We wrap it up unpacking how we feel about all these celebrities coming out of nowhere who are making China their whole personality. As always, if you like us, please give us a 5 star review on Apple Podcasts! WHAT'S POLITICALLY ASIAN PODCAST? Two Asians talking about politics and the Asian American community to get more Asians talking about politics! Join comedians Aaron Yin (he/him) and Gerrie Lim (they/them) for 45 minutes-ish each week as they discuss current topics and events related to Asian Americans through the lenses of history, class, and advocacy. Think John Oliver's show, but there's two of us, and we're Asian. CHECK US OUT ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Our memes are so good Asian people will mention them when they meet us in real life. ➤ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/politicallyasianpodcast/ ➤ Twitter: https://twitter.com/politicasianpod ➤ Website: https://politicallyasianpodcast.com INQUIRIES: politicallyasianpodcast@gmail.com SUPPORT US ON PATREON (currently fundraising for Canva Premium for even better memes and for episode transcription services): https://patreon.com/politicallyasian ALGORITHM? #asian #asianamerican #asianpodcast #asianpodcasters #podcast #asianpodcasts #aapi #stopasianhate #stopaapihate #apimedia #apahm #asiancomedy #asianjokes #asianmemes #subtleasiantraits #boba #asianpolitics #representation #representationmatters #asianculture #asianamericans #politics #asianpolitics #representasian #chinatown #abolition #aapihistory #crazyrichasians #shangchi #leftist

On September 9, 2021, federal judge Thomas A. Varlan acquitted former University of Tennessee professor Dr. Anming Hu of all charges related to a Department of Justice investigation that alleged that Hu committed wire fraud and made false statements about his alleged Chinese government research ties. On November 5, 2021, a federal jury convicted Yanjun Xu, a Chinese national and an official in the Chinese Ministry of State Security, of attempted economic espionage and theft of trade secrets. The differing outcomes of these two cases involve a common thread: the Department of Justice's China Initiative, an investigative program launched in 2018 to deter and disrupt alleged or actual Chinese government espionage or intellectual property (IP) theft targeting U.S. researchers, universities, and businesses. These two cases raise key questions. How extensive is Chinese government espionage and IP theft targeting the United States? Is the China Initiative a form of racial or ethnic profiling? How has the China Initiative impacted U.S.-Chinese information and technology exchanges and cooperation? How has the U.S. academic community responded to these events? Join us as our expert panel explores all these issues. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Washington Post intelligence reporter Shane Harris discusses odd happenings in the spook world with Jeff Stein, and former Secret Service Special Agent Jonathan Wackrow analyses a new report on tanking morale in the uniformed division with Jeanne Meserve. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices