5 ms·

I think there is a strong case to be made that WeChat is, as a practical matter, a public minister as defined in Article 2. Therefore, the executive has the rig

I think there is a strong case to be made that WeChat is, as a practical matter, a public minister as defined in Article 2. Therefore, the executive has the right to refuse their presence in the US. All Chinese companies operate under the direction and control of the CCP; we can arrive at the conclusion that a company is a public minister if companies are people, and they act at the behest of their home government. https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/32-the-conduct-of-foreign-relations.html https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/32-the-cond...

thinkingemote 6y ago
To clarify the CCP control of companies: 1) The CCP has to have a representative on the board. The ccp say it's like a union rep(!) since they are communists. But they don't have a veto, just a vote like other board members. 2) This condition is only for companies over a certain size. 3) This also applies to large foreign companies not just domestic.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- zepto 6y ago
  They may technically not have a veto within the company, but that’s not really that relevant. 1. The CCP has advanced access to the company’s plans. 2. The representative can always say something like, “this would meet with disapproval by the party”. It’s not a formal veto, but it is an implied threat.
  - derex 6y ago
    Can you link reports on this or the source where you obtained this information? In the US at least, the claim that “all Chinese companies are controlled government” is thrown around way too often without evidence backing it up. People seem to accept it as common sense that doesn’t need fact-checks anymore. I’m not saying you are one of them; I just wish we all verify non-obvious claims for our own benefits
    - zepto 6y ago
      This seems like a ‘citation needed’ kind of dismissal. These are obvious consequences of being required to have a CCP board member. The government having a board member is by definition a form of government control. These are not ‘non-obvious’ claims and as such they don’t need citations. If you want to argue that somehow these conclusions aren’t reasonable, by all means do so. But no citation is needed.
      - zepto 6y ago
        Since people don’t seem to think this is obvious - the board has access to the company’s plans, therefore so does the CCP if there is a CCP board member. Board members have access to the CEO and other managers, therefore the CCP board member can obviously make statements to management about what the CCP does and does not approve of. No citation is needed to know that these are the consequences of having a CCP board member.
    - stjohnswarts 6y ago
      You actually think that the largest communication app in China isn't under complete control of the CCP and that they don't have complete access to every transaction that flows through Wechat servers?
- dane-pgp 6y ago
  > 2) This condition is only for companies over a certain size. That may not be the case for much longer: "According to the new provisions, private firms will need a certain amount of CCP registered employees, which is already a long-term practise in large private firms but not smaller ones." https://www.asiatimesfinancial.com/ccp-announces-plan-to-take-control-of-chinas-private-sector https://www.asiatimesfinancial.com/ccp-announces-plan-to-tak...
- PixyMisa 6y ago
  Same thing as a political officer. They don't officially have a veto, but if you cross them, you'll find yourself promoted to permanent deputy assistant undersecretary at the branch office in Nyingchi.
mumblemumble 6y ago
There absolutely is a case. I was not meaning to imply that there wasn't. I was meaning specifically to address the idea that the rights of a sovereign nation can be invoked to decide whether any particular action legal under the laws of the United States. As long as the USA remains a country that is bound by rule of law rather than rule of dictate, one can't reasonably argue with due process simply by invoking the fact that the USA is a sovereign nation, because the US government is comprised of more than just its executive leadership. The executive branch is bound by laws as drafted by the legislative branch and interpreted by the judicial branch.
- politician 6y ago
  Agreed completely, so I don’t think the judicial review here is unnecessary or unwarranted.

thinkingemote 6y ago

To clarify the CCP control of companies: 1) The CCP has to have a representative on the board. The ccp say it's like a union rep(!) since they are communists. But they don't have a veto, just a vote like other board members. 2) This condition is only for companies over a certain size. 3) This also applies to large foreign companies not just domestic.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
zepto 6y ago
They may technically not have a veto within the company, but that’s not really that relevant. 1. The CCP has advanced access to the company’s plans. 2. The representative can always say something like, “this would meet with disapproval by the party”. It’s not a formal veto, but it is an implied threat.
- derex 6y ago
  Can you link reports on this or the source where you obtained this information? In the US at least, the claim that “all Chinese companies are controlled government” is thrown around way too often without evidence backing it up. People seem to accept it as common sense that doesn’t need fact-checks anymore. I’m not saying you are one of them; I just wish we all verify non-obvious claims for our own benefits
  - zepto 6y ago
    This seems like a ‘citation needed’ kind of dismissal. These are obvious consequences of being required to have a CCP board member. The government having a board member is by definition a form of government control. These are not ‘non-obvious’ claims and as such they don’t need citations. If you want to argue that somehow these conclusions aren’t reasonable, by all means do so. But no citation is needed.
    - zepto 6y ago
      Since people don’t seem to think this is obvious - the board has access to the company’s plans, therefore so does the CCP if there is a CCP board member. Board members have access to the CEO and other managers, therefore the CCP board member can obviously make statements to management about what the CCP does and does not approve of. No citation is needed to know that these are the consequences of having a CCP board member.
  - stjohnswarts 6y ago
    You actually think that the largest communication app in China isn't under complete control of the CCP and that they don't have complete access to every transaction that flows through Wechat servers?
dane-pgp 6y ago
> 2) This condition is only for companies over a certain size. That may not be the case for much longer: "According to the new provisions, private firms will need a certain amount of CCP registered employees, which is already a long-term practise in large private firms but not smaller ones." https://www.asiatimesfinancial.com/ccp-announces-plan-to-take-control-of-chinas-private-sector https://www.asiatimesfinancial.com/ccp-announces-plan-to-tak...
PixyMisa 6y ago
Same thing as a political officer. They don't officially have a veto, but if you cross them, you'll find yourself promoted to permanent deputy assistant undersecretary at the branch office in Nyingchi.

mumblemumble 6y ago

There absolutely is a case. I was not meaning to imply that there wasn't. I was meaning specifically to address the idea that the rights of a sovereign nation can be invoked to decide whether any particular action legal under the laws of the United States. As long as the USA remains a country that is bound by rule of law rather than rule of dictate, one can't reasonably argue with due process simply by invoking the fact that the USA is a sovereign nation, because the US government is comprised of more than just its executive leadership. The executive branch is bound by laws as drafted by the legislative branch and interpreted by the judicial branch.

politician 6y ago
Agreed completely, so I don’t think the judicial review here is unnecessary or unwarranted.