4 ms·

This seems like a risky move for China that will only hurt them. I'm not an expert but open targeting people who are citizens of other countries feels like, fo

This seems like a risky move for China that will only hurt them. 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?

082349872349872 6y ago
It seems doubtful the US government, on general principle, would be against targeting people who are citizens of other countries.
- bloodorange 6y ago
  Given you are talking about a country which had no qualms about kidnapping people from other countries and also holds people indefinitely without trial, I suppose you are right.
dirtyid 6y ago
It's Chinese Magnisky act. Sanction and ban those who undermine Chinese interests. Tit-for-tat retaliation for US new sanctions in XJ and HK. 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.
- dmix 6y ago
  > It's Chinese Magnisky act. Sanction and ban those who undermine Chinese interests. 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chu_Yiu-ming
  - dirtyid 6y ago
    As a geopolitical tool, they serve the same purpose. China doesn't control SWIFT, so it will coerce in other ways. There's no meaningful difference unless you honestly think Magnisky is for human rights in which case we'll just have to agree to disagree. The significance is overall signalling method, China is stating their national security concerns _publicly_ extends around the world the same way US does. They're not going the oblique route of exploiting interpol or quietly coercing with United Front in this case. It's a new development. It has nothing to do with authoritarianism, just a growing power declaring it's claims on customary supranational privileges that comes with the territory. Though it's hardly enforceable, that said countries with extradition treaties to China aren't insignificant. In the meantime it's designed to chill anti-China diasphora abroad.
    - hker 6y ago
      Saying so is like saying that all laws are the same as a tool, they serve the same purpose, and there is no difference between felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions. 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.
op03 6y ago
Maybe the US 15-20 years ago. Now it really depends on how many friends you have in DC.
paulcarroty 6y ago
> This seems like a risky move for China After labors with Uigurs it looks, hmm, "normal" for China. But definitely not normal or even shitty for general people in 2020.

082349872349872 6y ago

It seems doubtful the US government, on general principle, would be against targeting people who are citizens of other countries.

bloodorange 6y ago
Given you are talking about a country which had no qualms about kidnapping people from other countries and also holds people indefinitely without trial, I suppose you are right.

dirtyid 6y ago

It's Chinese Magnisky act. Sanction and ban those who undermine Chinese interests. Tit-for-tat retaliation for US new sanctions in XJ and HK. 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.

dmix 6y ago
> It's Chinese Magnisky act. Sanction and ban those who undermine Chinese interests. 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chu_Yiu-ming
- dirtyid 6y ago
  As a geopolitical tool, they serve the same purpose. China doesn't control SWIFT, so it will coerce in other ways. There's no meaningful difference unless you honestly think Magnisky is for human rights in which case we'll just have to agree to disagree. The significance is overall signalling method, China is stating their national security concerns _publicly_ extends around the world the same way US does. They're not going the oblique route of exploiting interpol or quietly coercing with United Front in this case. It's a new development. It has nothing to do with authoritarianism, just a growing power declaring it's claims on customary supranational privileges that comes with the territory. Though it's hardly enforceable, that said countries with extradition treaties to China aren't insignificant. In the meantime it's designed to chill anti-China diasphora abroad.
  - hker 6y ago
    Saying so is like saying that all laws are the same as a tool, they serve the same purpose, and there is no difference between felonies, misdemeanors, and infractions. 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.

op03 6y ago

Maybe the US 15-20 years ago. Now it really depends on how many friends you have in DC.

paulcarroty 6y ago

> This seems like a risky move for China After labors with Uigurs it looks, hmm, "normal" for China. But definitely not normal or even shitty for general people in 2020.