Expand China Spy Probe

U.S. officials acknowledge that a major spying operation by China took place at the government’s Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory in New Mexico and might contain the seeds of a new political scandal. While leaks of nuclear secrets apparently began in the 1980s, during the Reagan and Bush administrations, some congressional Republicans are blaming the Clinton administration for responding too slowly once it found out about the security breaches. According to reporting by the Wall Street Journal in January and over the weekend by the New York Times, the White House was informed of the spying in early 1996. But not until late last year, says Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, were tighter counterespionage measures instituted. And not until Monday was the Los Alamos employee under suspicion fired.

It’s too soon to accept Republican contentions that the administration’s reaction was less than urgent when it came to safeguarding nuclear secrets because it didn’t want to jeopardize its efforts to build better relations with China. It’s also too soon to dismiss such allegations as partisan imaginings. Under Richardson’s predecessor, Federico Pena--as under earlier Republican administrations--security measures at the weapons lab seem to have been remarkably lax. China has long tried to obtain American nuclear secrets, with federal weapons facilities known to be particular targets. Why better protective measures were not put in force long ago demands an explanation.

How much damage was done by the spying? Richardson admits, “We don’t know,” but he describes the leaks as serious. No less serious is the whole spectrum of Chinese efforts to obtain U.S. military information, a matter dealt with in a 700-page report issued last year by a House panel headed by Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach). It’s time to declassify that report so that its findings can be publicly examined.

Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) says his Intelligence Committee will soon hold hearings on the loss of secret military information to China. Those hearings should focus on how well the Clinton administration has tried to protect security, but they would be incomplete if they failed to also scrutinize the adequacy of the measures taken in the 1980s by Clinton’s Republican predecessors. From all indications the laxity goes back a long time. It’s important to find out why.