3 ms·

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 m

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.
    - dirtyid 6y ago
      I'm saying supranational instruments like this is designed to influence behavior beyond the borders of the origin country, to said countries interests. Countries have different interests and capabilities, so who the target and how they sanction will be different. US uses SWIFT because only she can, Russia publicly assassinates while denying with a wink, China is... just calling for arrest so far. It's not particularly credible outside of diaspora chilling affect because many countries will never accede to it. The important highlight is that China is formalizing it's supranational toolset. Like this list is no where near GuoWenGui / Miles Kwok tier of irritant for CCP, but China was only trying to arrest him via Interpol in 2017.
  - camgunz 6y ago
    Your posts defending the CCP are full of false equivalencies and whataboutism. Let's look at the people targeted under the CCP's National Security Law vs. the people targeted under the Magnitsky Acts: 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/3024883/hong-kong-judge-rejects-retrial-teenage-independence https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/30... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_Act#Individuals_affected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_Act#Individuals_affe...

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.
  - dirtyid 6y ago
    I'm saying supranational instruments like this is designed to influence behavior beyond the borders of the origin country, to said countries interests. Countries have different interests and capabilities, so who the target and how they sanction will be different. US uses SWIFT because only she can, Russia publicly assassinates while denying with a wink, China is... just calling for arrest so far. It's not particularly credible outside of diaspora chilling affect because many countries will never accede to it. The important highlight is that China is formalizing it's supranational toolset. Like this list is no where near GuoWenGui / Miles Kwok tier of irritant for CCP, but China was only trying to arrest him via Interpol in 2017.
- camgunz 6y ago
  Your posts defending the CCP are full of false equivalencies and whataboutism. Let's look at the people targeted under the CCP's National Security Law vs. the people targeted under the Magnitsky Acts: 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/3024883/hong-kong-judge-rejects-retrial-teenage-independence https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/30... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_Act#Individuals_affected https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnitsky_Act#Individuals_affe...