China uses Hong Kong security law against US and UK-based activists
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
I'm not an expert but open targeting people who are citizens of other countries feels like, for lack of better terms, war crimes or diplomatic warfare. It doesn't feel like it will achieve much. The US government will strongly protect anyone targeted in such a way and only retaliate and apply sanctions if they continue, right?
It's a rational move. A lot of anti-Chinese activities was/is driven by disgruntled Chinese diaspora abroad i.e. tons of ex-dissidents forming various anti-China human rights NGOs. They've been operating (and ignored) for years but are now mainstreamed in the west due to recent tensions. It's effective only as much as these people ever want to return to China again, which surprisingly many do. It also puts the cross-hairs on dual Chinese nationals in China, particularly HKers who thought their foreign passports will insulate from anti-state activities. Basically there's a legal framework for blocking exits for ANYONE in HK/China now. It negates FVEY efforts to brain/wealth drain HKers, but really the particular targets are potential dissents who could be weaponized for western propaganda if they were to leave the country - aforementioned western anti-China NGO groups. This is a key lesson China is learning, don't export dirty laundry, that's how you get FLG/Epochtimes. Especially to places with free press and votes, i.e. Canadian conservatives were canvasing HK for last election because HK Canadians were more likely to vote for Conservative party based on their more anti-China positions. The only worse than having dissents spilling dirty laundry abroad is those dissents voting on foreign policy.
The major difference is the Magnisky act isn't targeted at it's own citizens (even Samuel Chu, listed in the article as an American citzen, immigrated from Hong Kong and his HK-living father helped lead the Umbrella movement in HK [1]).
Magnisky act was a geopolitical tool to hit back at other countries acting unethically, usually using the Treasury dept to go after individual actors who worked directly within the target governments. Mostly by targeting bank accounts or travel to the US (China would love for these guys to travel to China). It's also not a means to protect American interests at home either, unless human rights = American interests.
China is just doing what every authoritarian dictator does. Lash out at any of their own citizens who dare become political activists - these 6 just happened to be out of their reach so their criminal charges are drawing publicity.
China's HK National Security law is also not 'sanctioning' foreign actors either, it's sending out basic arrest warrants via the domestic criminal law system. Just as China has been using Interpol warrants for political ends for years, now it's expanding to HK citizens/expats.
[1] Samuel Chu's father https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chu_Yiu-ming
Or, you are saying that even though the Magnitsky act does not entail imprisonment, it is the same as the national security law which does.
National Security Law:
- Samuel Chu: an American activist and lobbyist working for democracy in HK, and also fighting hunger as the National Organization for MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger.
- Nathan Law: former LegCo rep and student activist, also working for democracy in HK until he fled to the UK.
- Simon Cheng: a former UK consulate staffer and pro-democracy activist, abducted and tortured by the CCP.
- Wayne Chan: founder of the Hong Kong Independence Union
- Ray Wong: an interior designer and founder of Hong Kong Indigenous
- Honcques Laus: a student (like, look at this kid [1]) who founded the Hongkongers Utilitarian Party, a group that works towards HK democracy and independence.
Real bad people, yeah /s
Magnitsky Acts:
These people [2] all of whom were either:
- Heavily involved in the murder of Russian tax lawyer Sergei Magnitsky (for whom the acts are named)
- Responsible for the murder of Paul Klebnikov
- Responsible for the murder of Umar Israilov
- Heavily involved in involved with the Assassination of Jamal Khashoggi
- Accused by Human Rights Watch of "Crimes against Humanity"
Etc. Etc. Etc.
There is no comparison. This is a false equivalency.
[1]: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/30...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_Act#Individuals_affe...
Also, follow the news, Magnitsky was just applied to XinJiang paramilitary organization XPCC/Bingtuan. They had key XJ leadership on the list already like ChenQuanguo, but just slapped the act 24 hours ago on an organization with 2.4 million people. Prior to this they were threatening to ban all of CCP members and associates - 1/6 of the country. Before they labelled IRGC an terrist organization. US supranational instruments are being interpreted beyond their limits under this admin, especially Pompeo and his Chinahawk clique. China announcing their own supranational instruments is overdue, and all it does is target obviously anti-state actors, instead of something like the entire republican party, or entire US special operations command, which is downright restraint and responsible in comparison.
The Magnitsky acts are the US flexing its power in pursuit of human rights. The NSL is the CCP flexing its power to entrench its authoritarian hold over the Chinese diaspora and international business. That's a fundamental, moral difference.
> Drawing up a list trying to label one group good and other group bad misses the point.
No it perfectly illustrates my point. The targets of the Magnitsky acts are corrupt murderers. The targets of the NSL are democratic activists.
> Each group is bad for interest for the respective countries, that's all that matters.
Yeah but the CCP is evil, so groups that are bad for them (like democratic activists) are good.
> Also, follow the news, Magnitsky was just applied to XinJiang paramilitary organization XPCC/Bingtuan.
The CCP is committing an atrocity in Xinjiang, and the XPCC is the CCP government organization that's largely responsible. This is exactly what the Magnitsky acts are for.
> ...just slapped the act 24 hours ago on an organization with 2.4 million people
Let's have a look at what the order says:
> As a result of today’s action, all property and interests in property of the [XPCC] and individuals named above, and of any entities that are owned, directly or indirectly, 50 percent or more by them, individually, or with other blocked persons, that are in the United States or in the possession or control of U.S. persons, are blocked....
So it's not all 2.4 million XPCC members.
> US supranational instruments are being interpreted beyond their limits under this admin, especially Pompeo and his Chinahawk clique.
Pompeo is, like the rest of the free world, critical of the CCP. That's different than being a "Chinahawk".
> China announcing their own supranational instruments is overdue...
The CCP has no moral authority to do so, therefore these "instruments" are hegemonic at best.
> ...and all it does is target obviously anti-state actors...
If your idea of an anti-state actor is this kid [1], I can't take you seriously. And you should say the whole thing: "anti-authoritarian-state actors". Or, "democracy activists" is shorter.
> instead of something like the entire republican party, or entire US special operations command, which is downright restraint and responsible in comparison.
Look I'm no fan of the GOP, but if they build an insane surveillance state in order to put 1-3 million ethnic/religious minorities in concentration camps indefinitely with no charges or trials where they experience "torture, rape, sterilization, and other abuses" [2], sure, freeze their accounts.
If you're position is US good, China bad, and Pompeo is not a China-hawk (forgone consensus among China watchers) then there's very little we can reconcile on. At the end of the day, these instruments aren't designed to be fair or moral, but welded for self-serving interests and China has hers. China didn't start the decoupling or cold war, nor start and continues to ramp up bellicose escalations. You're welcome to believe US/Pompeo is virtuous in their crusade, and CCP is bankrupt, but it doesn't stop the fact that China is big enough to respond, has responded, and will continue to.
Having a BB gun in your backpack doesn't make you a terrorist [1]. This is absurd.
> If you're position is US good, China bad, and Pompeo is not a China-hawk (forgone consensus among China watchers) then there's very little we can reconcile on.
Pompeo appears to have had no position on China before becoming Secretary of State in '18. Furthermore he drew a clear distinction between the CCP and the Chinese people in his speech last week:
"But our approach can’t just be about getting tough. That’s unlikely to achieve the outcome that we desire. We must also engage and empower the Chinese people, a dynamic, freedom-loving people who are completely distinct from the Chinese Communist Party."
> China didn't start the decoupling or cold war, nor start and continues to ramp up bellicose escalations.
The fact is that the CCP is a fascistic regime, and the US can no longer ignore it. We have been _exceedingly_ cool with them, have worked well together in the region, and we'd super love to get rich together. But we can't ignore the mass surveillance state. We can't ignore the Uighur concentration camps, the Great Firewall (and its DDoS attacks), the human rights abuses in Hong Kong, the invasion of India and the South China Sea, the missile-firing and election interference against Taiwan, the relentless cyberattacks, or honestly, just the fountain of cartoonish fury whenever someone tweets something like "Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong".
> You're welcome to believe US/Pompeo is virtuous in their crusade, and CCP is bankrupt, but it doesn't stop the fact that China is big enough to respond, has responded, and will continue to.
Well in US political terms I'm pretty progressive (the amount I donated to Senator Warren's presidential campaign is, uh, a good measure of my privilege haha) so I wouldn't say I believe either the US or Pompeo are "virtuous". What I will say though--to return to my original point--is that there is absolutely no comparison between the Magnitsky acts and the CCP's National Security Law. The Magnitsky acts target corrupt murderers; the NSL targets Hongkonger democracy activists. Case closed.
I'll change my tune if the CCP writes up racist Alabama prosecutors though. Fair is fair (seriously).
[1]: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/30...
After labors with Uigurs it looks, hmm, "normal" for China. But definitely not normal or even shitty for general people in 2020.