Why Is NASA Looking for Contractors To Support Banned Interactions With China?
NASA Letter from SARA: China FAQ and New Volunteer Reviewer Form, NASA SMD
“Dear Colleagues, If you collaborate with anyone in China you should read our new FAQ. Our appropriation (Public Law 112-55, SEC. 539) contained a brief statement, the bottom line if which is that NASA funds, including ROSES research grants, cannot be used “…to participate, collaborate, or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China…”
NASA Solicitation: Intepretation Translation, Visa Processing, and Logistical Support, NASA
“Oral interpretation and written translation of official and technical/scientific/engineering documents … China, Visa processing for … and China … Administrative coordination, advance preparation and support of conducting onsite overseas official meetings and high level visits; 8) Overseas logistics support primarily for the Former Soviet states and China, providing administrative, clerical and in-country ground transportation logistic services …”
Keith’s note: If NASA is prohibited by Public Law 112-55, SEC. 539 from interactions with China, why is NASA soliciting contractors to support NASA interactions (visits, translations) with China?
Because Obama is going to do what he does with other law he doesn’t agree with – ignore them and just make another finding and/or executive order. Never mind Congress, SCOTUS etc. – just denigrate them as ‘do-nothing’ and play to his own mental crowd.
Because NASA’s a rogue cop who plays by his own rules, and is played by Steven Segal.
Because Rep. Wolf’s legislative language refers specifically to “bilateral” (meaning just China and us) interactions and _not_ multilateral interactions such as participation in the International Astronomical Union General Assemblies and Symposia in China next month. I believe NASA is playing exactly according to the letter of the legislation. As for spirit, you’d have to ask the Hon. Mr. Wolf.
According to the National Space Act:Aeronautical and Space Activities for Welfare and Security of United
States.–Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the
United States require that adequate provision be
made for aeronautical
and space activities. Congress further declares that such activities
shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian
agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities
sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or
primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military
operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research
and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of
the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be
directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to
which agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity
shall be made by the President.
This is a small part of the declaration that sets up the operations and goals of NASA. I sent this out because it appears that NASA is violating its own accord by attempting to sign a treaty with China who hasn’t sign any treaties presented to them.
I would think that if ITAR raises no objections to the specific contract involved, then it is civil, not military, and falls under NASA’s rules, because it breaches no national security issues. In others words, it would be no different than a US shoe company having their labor done in China. Isn’t this exactly what Nixon arranged for way back when? Or is NASA specifically prohibited from doing what private industry has been doing for years?
Steve
Stop blaming Obama for everything! It was the Bush administration that grounded the essential shuttle program and exposed our future in space to
“privatization”,”‘venture capitalism”‘, and international control.
Aren’t you being a little bit ridiculous? Even if it were reasonable to prohibit bilateral cooperation with China on a substantive project, wouldn’t we still want to meet with them in various bilateral and multilateral forums, translate their technical documents to see what they’re up to, etc., etc.? After all, our military is constantly pressing China to open bilateral mil-to-mil relations in the name of transparency. Shouldn’t NASA be doing exactly the same thing? Otherwise….sticking your head in the sand is good policy?
Isn’t this a little ridiculous? Even if it were smart to not cooperate with China on any kind of substantive bilateral project, wouldn’t we still want to meet with them at various bilateral and multilateral forums, translate their technical documents and generally follow what they’re doing as closely as we can? Isn’t this what DOD wants to do when they constantly push China to re-establish direct mil-to-mil relations in the interests of transparency? Otherwise, burying your head in the sand is a good policy?