‘Rape of Nanking’ Author Denounces Cox Report
Iris Chang tells conventioneers that her research was misused
by Perla Ni

Iris Chang, the best-selling author of The Rape of Nanking, attacked the Cox report’s accusation that a Chinese spy was responsible for revolutionizing the Chinese ballistic missile program in the late 1950s.

“If you think that stereotyping is a thing of the past because we now live in a multicultural and progressive society, just read the Cox report on alleged Chinese spying in this country,” said Chang, speaking in front of a crowd of 600 at Aspire ‘99, an Asian American leadership conference in Burlingame last Saturday.

Chang, who was speaking on the “Right to Historical Accuracy,” said she was especially furious when she saw that the report cited her research as proof that Dr. Tsien Hsue-shen was a Chinese spy.

“This was news to me,” said Chang, whose biography of Tsien, Thread of the Silkworm (Basic Books, 1995), appeared to be the source of much of the Cox report’s information on Tsien.

The so-called Cox report, named after subcommittee chair Chris Cox, includes allegations that spying by Chinese scientists stretches back as far as the 1950s. The report alleges that Tsien -- a former professor of aeronautical engineering at MIT and Cal Tech, and a founder of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of Pasadena -- was a spy. Tsien was later deported, and ended up working on Chinese missiles.

The report concluded: “The allegations that he was spying for the PRC are presumed to be true.” The Washington Times last week led a story this way: “The father of China’s long-range strategic-missile program was an American-educated Chinese scientist and colonel in the U.S. Air Force who turned out to be a spy.”

The research that the report used to support the allegations come largely from Chang’s research, which was footnoted nine times.

“As the person who wrote the definitive biography of Tsien, all I know is that the U.S. never officially charged Tsien with espionage ... [and] in the end they found no convincing evidence that he was either a Communist or a spy,” Chang said.

In 1950, Tsien was accused of being a Communist spy and was denied a security clearance at work. The INS kept Tsien under virtual house arrest for five years but failed to find any evidence of his either being a spy or of ever having been a Communist. Nonetheless, in 1955, Tsien was deported to China in a negotiated exchange for American pilots shot down by the Chinese during the Korean War. After Tsien was returned to China, he developed the Chinese Titan ballistic missile program. Although Tsien was never a naturalized U.S. citizen, in 1949, shortly before his troubles with the U.S. government, he had applied for U.S. citizenship.

“After three years of researching Tsien’s life, I was not able to determine whether he was a spy or even a Communist,” said Chang, who said that her Freedom of Information Act requests have yet to yield any documents proving that Tsien did or did not pass classified information to China before his deportation. “I was honest with my readers and said the riddle would remain unsolved until the U.S. government or Chinese government declassified all of its records on the subject.”

Upon reading the Cox report, Chang called the Select Committee to ask whether it had documents proving Tsien’s espionage. According to Chang, the committee’s press secretary responded that if the sources of the allegations could not be found in the footnote section, then it is safe to assume that the Select Committee had used classified information to make those allegations. Chang was told that she would simply have to take the committee’s word that the report was factually correct.

“My position is simple,” Chang said. “I’m not here to defend of accuse Tsien. But if the U.S. government is going to make serious accusations about a man who isn’t here to defend himself, then they should be prepared to back up their accusations with evidence. There’s a big difference between accusation and actual proof.”

Chang believes that much more is now at stake than the issue of whether Tsien was a spy. “I think the Asian American community is entitled to historical accuracy and honesty from the U.S. government. If they’re going to call Tsien a spy, then they should open up their records and prove it ... You can’t have a government arbitrarily labeling people as Communists or spies.”