I have no doubt that this is not just about criminal activity but any activity that the PRC does not approve of.
It's bad.
There are tons of proof and examples of this being false. Lots of example of police targeting people then finding the law they broke, instead of starting with a crime and finding who did it
The US secret service has offices in over a dozen countries, including China.
Some western people are completely out of bounds. You're basically suggesting trading humans. It's called slavery. To arrest someone and trade him for someone. What's going on. You're not the only person suggesting it. I saw similar comments on other websites. For example someone suggested to arrest some random Russian sportsman and trade him for American sportsman girl who was arrested because of marihuana found on her in airport.
It's just wrong. It creates all the kinds of wrong incentives. If you think that someone is a spy and you can prove it, go ahead and put him in jail or deport him or apply whatever measures law requires. But no human trading.
But all of that would be pretty hard in the current geopolitical situation, there would be a huge price to pay.
Australia was slapped with huge trade war in the order of billions for pointing out that China was lying about COVID origins.
- evict caught spies and other agents (or imprison them, it's no secret China does that as well)
- summon or evict their embassy staff and ambassadors
- harass China-owned companies or make their lives difficult with bureaucracy just like China does
- impose tariffs and trade sanctions
- support CCP-critical groups and dissidents both domestic and in China
- threaten China militarily (e.g. by deploying maritime units just right outside of their maritime borders), just like China does
- support nations whose sovereignty is threatened or violated by China, including African nations where Chinese fish trawlers are stealing fish
- hack Chinese government and corporate entities, just like China does
- impose export bans on technology or resources that China needs (which is already done, e.g. ASML litho machines)
- restrict Chinese citizens from visas, buying real estate
- seizing Chinese-owned assets like real estate (bonus: reduces housing pressure)
Major American corporations have deep ties with China and China would pressure them to tamp this down.
Without some kind of institutional support from probably a few media companies it would be very hard.
The 'Tea Party Movement' was basically nothing until Fox News decided to put them up front, for example.
American corporations have incredible influence over media.
In particular, the massive hypocrisy over the NBA, and some players who scream about injustice, and then repeat Xi's talking points when it comes to China. Even NBA players have their marching orders.
Truly grassroots things are really really rare, it usually takes participation from aligned forces.
Do you notice how 'Tibet' used to be all the rage? It was the hip thing in Hollywood about 2000. The Dalai Lama was a thing. China put huge pressure on everyone to "Shut the F up about the Dalai Lama" and so corporations, NGOs, Hollywood, Governments, go the message. It becomes more rare to have him visit, and corporations no longer talk about Tibet.
Marc Benioff of Salesforce fame, is illustrative of this - he's ostensibly a big supporter of Buddhism etc. and the Tibet issue should be front and centre with him if he was in any way legit, but of course he keeps his mouth shut entirely, because, hey: it's just business.
Hollywood dutifully keeps their mouths shut and will happily kill anything in their periphery (i.e. documentaries) with the word 'Tibet'. Actors who want to not be blackballed/banned from China will stay the F away from the world 'Tibet'. Actors are corporations.
And of course the Uyghur issue - can you imagine any other major nation putting people in camps on the basis of their ethnicity? E. China is an open air police state, with stations every few hundred meters, propaganda everywhere etc.. There would be huge uproar over this if it were any other state. But we are told to keep our mouths shut, 'or else' - so we do.
All of this could change however - with a bit of coordinated action and political will, it could flip.
Lastly, Germany, which mostly controls EU, is one of the few nations to be a net exporter to China, and they don't want to mess that up and so they are the most likely to 'acquiesce' on the issue, which means the EU will 'keep their mouths shut'.
So USA would implement X% tax on China for their authoritarian stuff, Y% for their aggression against Taiwan and Z% for their carbon emissions.
Every nation gets a tariff.
That would push them into line on some things.
Where me and others did not, I did not find these things to be "normal" either.
It all depends on where you place the freedom vs safety metric, I place on the far extreme end of freedom. Which is also why I oppose governments like China in general
https://www.fbi.gov/contact-us/international-offices
It sounds like the Chinese police are operating like they're in their home country. Which they are not. Sooner or later, their activities are going to get them PNG'd (made Persona Non Grata) and they'll be asked to leave.
Even with police cooperation agreements in place, they don't have the usual police power like arresting anyone.
A NYT article from back in 2016 says,
> In 2014 […] That was the year the two countries signed a bilateral police cooperation agreement, the first of its kind between China and a European nation.
> The Chinese officers do not have arrest powers in Italy, but they are paired with Italian officers who could arrest someone, except no arrests have been needed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/world/europe/chinese-poli...
I know the US is a special case, but in most of Europe, free speech does not cover threats, intimidation and blackmail.
I'm trying to figure out what you mean here, and wondering if you have a typo. Would you please elaborate?
> The court in Ningbo acknowledged Gui had become Swedish in the 1990s but added that he had applied to restore his Chinese citizenship in 2018. China does not recognise dual citizenship and restoring his Chinese passport may have been a way to block Swedish diplomats from visiting him, observers said.
That was after he was detained (china kidnapped him in Thailand).
...
> he had applied to restore his Chinese citizenship in 2018
Unless I'm misreading this, or if the latter claim is false, these are two very different scenarios, no?
I haven't actual lived in my parents house in decades, and yet when I go there to visit them I still think of it as "going home".
In the case above, I assume we are talking about people born in China, who have left to live in another country, and are then involuntarily returned to China. In my head, China is still the home country.
All of that said, having read your comment, I just now realized that is and uncommon understanding of the words. Your interpretation is certainly closer to the emotional meaning of them for the people involved.
My point is that, politics is never about the people/victims.
Well, some conspiracy theories are considered facts now.
There are mainstream sources detailing evidence of Saudi funding for Al Quaeda. [1] Whether they approved of/sanctioned 9/11 is another matter.
1. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/documents/evide...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-saudi-sept11/saudi-ar...
First of all this is a civil case of liability which ranges from indirect responsibility to facilitated thru incompetence/ambivalence
Second this article is about dismissal of the case over jurisdiction for parts of the claim
Third “The judge also dismissed claims … lack … jurisdiction”
Maybe the case is over with a ruling, maybe there is an article proving a link, maybe maybe but this article doesn’t make that Proof
Robin Cook, British Foreign Secretary from 1997 to 2001, has written that al-Qaeda and bin Laden were "a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies", and that "Al-Qaida, literally 'the database', was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians."
So basically US sponsored 9/11. Is there any moral grounds to blame Saudi Arabia?
The US did supply the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s and Al Qaeda did eventually arise from the Mujahideen so 9/11 is certainly blowback but the CIA would need to be funding and aiding Al-Qaeda operatives during the late 90s to 2001 for there to be equivalency with Saudi but I’m not aware of any evidence to support that. Besides, the point wasn’t that the CIA was innocent it was that Saudi was guilty.
If a very rich American went to South America for a decade and then bombed a building in Rio, he would have 'financial relationship' to the US via a number of investments. It doesn't mean that it has anything to do with US foreign policy, the government, or anything.
Osama Bin Laden was a member of a big, sprawling, super rich Oligarchic family in Saudi. Obviously, there were dealings, and obviously some Saudis probably funded some things here and there. Just like a Texan Evangelical Oil Billionaire might fund Christian Schools in Peru, which may even be good schools. But the charity run by a guy with ties to 'American Rio Bomber'.
Everything at that level is intertwined, it's not sufficient to suggest that proves anything.
The 'State' of Saudis is 'mostly a good actor to the outside world, even if they are bad in many ways internally. They allow the free flow of oil at market prices, 'per the deal' and don't align with China, Russia, or some other crazy state, and they are not trying to invade Iran or get nukes (though there are backup plans). And they play nice with Israel, not directly trying to start a war with them, or 'create' one between them and Israel. Most of their vast holdings are invested reasonably.Also, in the 'war on terror' which is actually a financial network and intelligence war, they have been playing 'on the right side' - as 'terrorists' are more dangerous to them than the US anyhow. So that's kind of what we can expect from them. In 100 years, hopefully things will be a bit better.
The evidence points to the Saudi royal family funding a terrorist organization. That’s a lot more than just a rich citizen, that is their autocratic ruling family and the evidence is very convincing. Their reasoning probably was more about regional concerns rather than attacking the US, however when you fund fanatics they don’t always follow the script.
this is false. there is a great deal of direct and circumstantial evidence that has come out in the last two years. this isn't "bin laden knew people", this is "the 9/11 hijackers received assistance from saudi diplomats in the US"
https://theintercept.com/2021/09/11/september-11-saudi-arabi...
The intercepts notions of 'this was possibly a false flag' is literally the definition of conspiracy theory.
While there certainly might be more going on than we know, there isn't evidence of that much.
It's not going to be a surprise that a conduit for clandestine money might have some kind of governmental status or what have you.
It's basically insane to suggest House of Saud would want to do 9/11 or even a 'filed false flag', there is no benefit whatsoever in either. 9/11 did not help the Saudis, and even a 'failed false flag' like a pretend attack on a building in NYC would have the objective of what, trying to get more US troops in the Middle East for who's benefit?
More importantly, the likelihood of such a thing getting found out would be extremely high. The ruler of Saudi Arabia is going to blow up the Trade Centre knowing that the CIA/FBI would be able to nail him, and even all of Humpty Dumpty's men probably could not keep that secret contained? And if the US public found out, literally Saudi Arabia would cease to exist?
For what purpose?
No, this insane.
There are ultra Wahhabi nationalists in Saudi Arabia, they have money. We already know that. They are funding odd stuff around the world, just like many other billionaires. As part of the 'war on terror' a lot of that activity was shut down and now it's really scrutinized.
There’s a reason the CIA pushed the idea of conspiracy theory as something ridiculous, it’s great cover.
China speaks with one voice, Xi, everyone else a thousand voices. US has 10 000 people at least who make up the power of Xi. President, senator, CEO, senior bureaucrat, judge, heads of NGOs, Universities, police, military etc. all 'put in one group and coordinated with an ambitious 50 year plan' in the West. Even in a single country.
Europe, N. America, Japan, Korea, Australia have to partner with 'everyone else' in a comprehensive way to stand up to this. Trans Pacific was a big opportunity that Trump didn't have the foresight to grasp - he wanted to have 'unipolar power' in a world where the US just does not have the leverage it did after WW2 and no amount of 'wishing' or even exceptional leadership will change that. US could 'solve all it's problems' and it would still be the reality that % of global GDP would be declining because other nations are 'coming on line'.
Oddly, a panacea of 'other voices' may serve to counterbalance. Even if they are acting in self interest, to the extent they are not overrun by China, their own voices add up to something. We are seeing the beginning of that in Africa, with their stance on the Ukraine issue. While they should definitely be taking a more assertive stance via Russia, the fact they are where they are (and partly due to the fact Russia is their 'breadbasket') is an indication of coherent self interest on some level.
I don't think it's cause for world wide alarm, but there needs to be a plan.
This is an orientalist and simplistic take. The CCP is an enormously complicated system and there are many cliques and ideological debates within it. As any sinologist will tell you, the power struggles at the very top are mostly unknown to us (except years later, to historians) but even in Mao's era there was certainly not a single voice.
That the CCP is an 'enormous and complex system with many debates within' doesn't matter if the party speaks very directly and coherently, and the party is very tightly controlled and of course they have all of the power.
The degree of centralization of authority by Xi is unlike we've seen since Mao, and due to universal power of technology, you could say 'more power than any leader in history'.
Xi very quickly and arbitrarily grabbed the nations top tech leaders off of the street. Literally disappeared. He imposed aggressive governmental oversight and controls over those organizations (and others) including government ownership, board seats, CCP members as staffers for internal oversight, censorship requirements, etc. etc.. It's unthinkable outside China, in any normal kind of country.
If any 'outside' leader speaks up against China - be it a Dean, or Prime Minster - the CCP will respond assertively and quickly.
When China does some questionable or malign act - where is the response? Who should respond? Is anyone powerful enough to respond? Can there be a coordinated action?
As the Australian political leadership spoke up against Chinese lies over COVID origins, they were slapped with billions in trade damages, and was attacked in a number of indirect ways. Were Australia to have acted in concert and direct cohesion with USA, EU and UK on that, and were policy and actions to be aligned, it would be a different story.
There's nothing comparable to Xi outside of China (in any normal country - I won't say 'western' country because it goes way beyond that), not even Putin.
This is in fact where the orientalism comes in: the rejection of granularity. If you think about it for a few seconds, it really makes no sense that a single person would be able to entirely control a structure of 96 million adherents, or that this latter structure would have no internal dissension and tumult. The only reason we might come to these conclusions is if we are deeply unfamiliar with the history, culture, ideology, way of doing things that apply and thus reject the individuality and complexity that are part of these systems. Few Westerners would qualify Western institutions in this way. I don't mean in terms of agreeing or disagreeing with what they do, but analyzing them as just a unified blob and thinking nothing of it.
So what do they do? I can't imagine they are detaining people, giving out fines, etc. So what makes them police? Shouldn't we call them spies instead?
Wow. Actual gangster tactics.
When they do it: Gangsters
I haven’t encountered a monolithic opinion in the United States on rendition, mostly disgust and self loathing except amongst the most terminally committed to the “war on terror.” I’ve found many friends in considering it a criminal activity.
The moral equivalence argument with China is tiring, and it's actually part of their horrible communications strategy.
The equivalent would be: 'nobody' US citizen 'Joe Smith', living in Paris, mocks Joe Biden on Facebook. As a result, FBI in USA threatens family with prison for arbitrary reasons with fabricated evidence, and clandestinely threatens US citizen in Paris to come home and 'face justice'.
So please.
spoiler: most of us actually don't like the bullshit war on terror/war on drugs tactics.
and is there evidence we've threatened American citizens at home to get to expats?
2. Even if it did, that would also be bad and it wouldn’t make what China does good.
These tu quoque arguments always crop up in threads describing whatever horror out of China’s genocidal, inhumane government.
If citizens want a new legal category for extra-territorial operations, beyond extradition, this can be negotiated in a formal international treaty.
States will do whatever states CAN do. Treaties mean nothing by themselves, especially in this context.
(side note: nearly all treaties are both formal and international by default)
Of course. But there's a big difference between doing covertly and doing in daylight with an office.
Should foreign countries open US "Corporate Intellectual Property Donation" physical offices?
Treaties set a floor on behavior. For those who claim laws don't matter, remember that contracts and all global supply chains are based on laws of trade and finance. No law = no economy = war until agreement and law is re-established.
This is even official in some cases. For example, the USA does not recognize any authority of the the International Criminal Court (neither do China, Russia and a number of other big states), but that doesn't stop them from occasionally using it against smaller nations.
You can look for a long time, but you'll never find an example of a superpower/empire, or a close ally of one, submitting to any kind of international judgment against it, criminal or in a trade dispute. At most, they may accept a negative ruling to a case they brought against someone else.
This is not true. The USA is not a party to the Rome Statute and asserts that the conditions which would otherwise subject its citizens to ICC jurisdiction categorically do not exist, and has authorized unlimited measures should the ICC disagree with the last point, but does not dispute the authority of the ICC.
> You can look for a long time, but you’ll never find an example of a superpower/empire, or a close ally of one, submitting to any kind of international judgment against it, criminal or in a trade dispute.
Well, states are not subjects of criminal law, so the criminal part is trivially true. As for trade disputes, the US has complied with numerous adverse decisions in WTO proceedings.
Well, that’s the position of US law.
There are certainly cases one might point to and make the argument that the US domestic system does not always effectively deal with US war crimes and the crime of aggression.
Please let me know when we find mass graves of women and children defiled and murdered by US soldiers, which is unfortunately common behavior for the militaries of many other states, which the ICC has been involved in prosecuting.
The crime of aggression (aka crime against peace) is, like war crimes and crimes against humanity, a widely recognized crime, prosecuted in the various peri-/post-WWII tribunals, though it took a while for the ICC to settle on its operationalization.
> There are times when the US has had soldiers commit war crimes, and it’s debatable how effective the US has been at prosecuting such things historically, but it does make a realistic attempt to do so.
The standard for ICC jurisdiction isn’t general adequacy, it is specific good faith action in the particular case.
Since 2020, China's Huawei has been subject to semiconductor supply chain restrictions which have been enforced by multiple countries. This has materially impacted Huawei consumer smartphone revenues.
But in the long term, such restrictions are likely to accelerate technical self-sufficiency, https://www.theregister.com/2022/07/22/china_smic_7nm_chips/
Yes, countries can break agreements, but good agreements provide benefits to all parties, such that breaking an agreement results in reciprocal loss of benefits. There are always edge cases, but by definition, not everything is an edge case and there are countless routine, negotiated agreements which benefit everyone and are happily followed.
If this is allowed to stand after global public disclosure, it can be taken as implicit "consent" having been granted by citizens and their elected representatives, which means the next phase of extra-territorial activity (e.g. new laws on 1st December 2022) will push boundaries even further.
If some countries want to sell their territorial integrity and citizen safety down the proverbial river, at least they can negotiate a good price, e.g. bounty per head, prisoner exchange, or reciprocal global kidnapping by <foreign-country> of <host-country> targets. Good luck recruiting nomadic tech talent after opening such Dantean doors.
> All were in areas with large Chinese populations, but no one The Globe spoke to was aware of a police service station or had heard of the Fuzhou Public Security Bureau. One address in Markham was a private home, while the other was a mall full of small Chinese businesses and restaurants. The third property, in a business park near a highway, is owned by the Canada Toronto FuQing Business Association, a federally incorporated non-profit.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-china-police-s...
Is Bratislava too small?
For another thing, what "traditional" American values are you referring to, in particular? Slavery? Racism? Institutionalized oppression? Police brutality? The military-industrial complex? The prison-industrial complex -- the fact that we have such a high percentage of our population incarcerated? Our legally-enshrined puritanical fear of victimless "crimes" like smoking a plant? The disenfranchisement of the poor? Income and wealth inequality? The continued weakening of labor movements? A small but loud and influential contingent of religious nuts who seem to believe that their god should be calling the shots in our legal system (hypocritically many of the same people who have wrung their hands over "Sharia law")?
Sure, I'm focusing on the negative here, and as much as I'm a bit cynical these days, there is plenty of good to come out of our country, even today. But this whole "wave the flag", "everyone should be more like us" stuff is pretty gross and short-sighted. The better values "dying" of late bit may be true (or not, I don't know anymore), but also overlooks a lot of bad stuff that has been in our national DNA for centuries.
Furthermore, most of your gripes SUPPORT my point, except of course for the tired catch-alls of "slavery" and "racism." As for the rest of what you cite (mass incarceration, worker oppression, the "religious" oppressing others): THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
Then of course there's democracy, and the alleged "resilience" of the American people. What a joke. Voting rights are being rolled back across "red" states nationwide. And "we" once rebuilt destroyed cities like Chicago and San Francisco in a few years... but it took over a decade to replace TWO buildings in New York after 9/11. And what have we built since?
If you want to roll out time-honored issues, how about abortion? Now a significant portion of the USA wants to (and has been given the go-ahead to) use women as baby farms. Even IRELAND abolished this disgusting regime.
Anyway, instead of a strawman, just create your own original post.
If Chinese want to do covert action overseas they don't send police to do it I think... It would not be covert.
This mushing together is like a racist smear fear mongering. It's bad.
These Chinese police patrol around tourist areas with local police. You don't go to a consulate when you lose your mobile phone or someone steals your wallet.
These are police who operate in concert with local police. The whole point is to help Chinese tourists I think. It's not for anything nefarious...It's too racist to be smearing everything Chinese under the banner of the current Western-'China-bogeyman'-hysteria
I personally think it is outrageous that the US government (or state or local governments) allows China to station police officers on US soil, and gives them the right to act in a police capacity. I am not ok with that at all, even if what you suggest as their purpose is correct.
Why would this even be necessary, if they're here for the purpose you suggest? Local police can handle these sorts of cases, and cities where tourists tend to travel certainly have translators on staff. Hell, cities in the US have translators to help with residents whose English skills are poor.
Also: it's not "racist" to dislike this sort of thing if the foreign government in question is not aligned values-wise with your own. I don't think it's remotely appropriate for an authoritarian anti-democratic country to have law enforcement influence on our soil.
I wouldn't have the same reaction if, say, a tight US ally (South Korea or Japan, to pick examples from the same part of the world) were to have an informal police presence in the US. But even then, I would expect them to be working with the FBI (or similar) on higher-level international crime matters (sorta like an Interpol type thing), not working on local crime. Foreign police forces should not have any kind of jurisdiction in "local" crimes.
> Amsterdam, Athens, Belgrade, Buenos Aires, Barcelona, Budapest, Dublin, Florence, Frankfurt, Glasgow, Lisbon, London, Madeira, Madrid, Milan, New York City, Paris, Porto, Prague, Quito, Rio de Janeiro, Rome, Sao Paulo, Slovakia, Stockholm, Rotterdam, Toronto, Tokyo, Valencia, Viña del Mar, Vienna.
https://jamestown.org/program/future-global-policeman-the-gr...
> some countries where fugitives may have fled have either avoided signing extradition agreements with the PRC or have rescinded them following the introduction of the National Security Law to Hong Kong in 2020. These include Australia, Canada, Germany, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands, the UK, and the United States.
> ..PRC authorities ..use alternative means to apprehend fugitives. “Persuasion” has become a common tactic, which human rights groups have called “involuntary returns.” Such returns are achieved by threats against family members in the PRC, directly approaching and intimidating the fugitive overseas, or outright kidnapping ..Involuntary returns ..comprise a mix of genuine criminal fugitives, officials who have fallen out of favor with the CCP leadership, and others pursued for their religious or political beliefs.
Earlier thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33049729