10 ms·

As long as you or any relation/acquaintance/company/nation you belong to do not offend China, you're cool. Case in point: the two Michaels from Canada detained

by canucker2016 3y ago

As long as you or any relation/acquaintance/company/nation you belong to do not offend China, you're cool. Case in point: the two Michaels from Canada detained 'suddenly' after a Huawei executive was detained in Canada in relation to a US govt case: https://globalnews.ca/news/8224094/canada-china-two-michaels-tension-detention/ https://globalnews.ca/news/8224094/canada-china-two-michaels... Though a third Canadian had his conviction retried to a worse sentence - death.

modzu 3y ago
for context, a million canadians visit china every year
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
woooooo 3y ago
Why is it just accepted that Huawei executives can be detained by the west, though? I don't think taking vengeance on random civilians is justified, but it was a response to us doing the same thing to one of theirs. It's only bad when they do it?
- richbell 3y ago
  > Why is it just accepted that Huawei executives can be detained by the west, though? The claim behind that at least appeared to have merit, so she — ostensibly — wasn't just detained because someone didn't like her. She also enjoyed the full benefit of the western legal system and lived lavishly, meanwhile the two Michaels were basically political prisoners. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-iran-sanctions-exclusive-idUSKBN20P1VA https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-iran-sanctions-exc...
  - woooooo 3y ago
    Neither she nor the nation of China are party to sanctions on Iran. They have no obligations to follow American foreign policy. If you're saying, ultimately, "because we can", then fine but that's not great moral ground.
    - richbell 3y ago
      > Neither she nor the nation of China are party to sanctions on Iran. They have no obligations to follow American foreign policy. Huawei operates outside of China, therefore it's reasonable to expect them to comply with laws and sections from other countries. At the very least, if you're going to violate US sanctions, I wouldn't live in or travel to the US or an affiliated country. > If you're saying, ultimately, "because we can", then fine but that's not great moral ground. I am not making any such claim, nor am I American. I'm just pointing out that "person arrested for being involved in explicitly breaking sanctions" and "two random citizens held hostage on vague charges" aren't comparable.
      - woooooo 3y ago
        We already forbid export of chips and other technology to them. I suppose it was unwise of her to enter Canada, but again, you're ceding any moral high ground here.
        richbell 3y ago
        > I suppose it was unwise of her to enter Canada, but again, you're ceding any moral high ground here. I'm not sure I understand your point about "moral high ground". Is the implication that US sanctions or arresting people for violating sanctions is immoral?
        woooooo 3y ago
        I'm saying we did it to their people first, and then they responded tit-for-tat. If you're selectively outraged at their response, ignoring what we did to provoke it... that starts sounding awfully motivated. And, yes, arresting non-citizens for insufficient loyalty to our state is immoral unless there's a war on, in which case you can shoot them. They never pledged loyalty and are not breaking any faith.
- canucker2016 3y ago
  Two wrongs don't make a right. (I am bursting to edit my comment to make it more punny in light of the Asian connection of the comment material, but at least I am taking the high road here - but know this, I am chuckling to myself and don't play the race card, you can't trump me)
  - woooooo 3y ago
    Absolutely true but it sounds like people think there's only one wrong here.
    - canucker2016 3y ago
      The US govt seemed to play by the international rule book - they claimed that Huawei knowingly did business with Iran. From memory, Huawei didn't want to respond and execs avoided going to the US. So the US asked Canada to detain the Huawei CFO when she had a layover in Canada. Canada didn't have much choice since it was a legal request based on some treaty. So while Huawei's expensive lawyers work to free the Huawei CFO, China suddenly picks three Canadians for extra special attention. The Canadians are dealing with jail while the Huawei CFO is in her Vancouver mansion with a monitored ankle bracelet - at least the Canadian media made it look like that. That's how it was viewed in Canada.
winrid 3y ago
Did that person try to sell drugs in China? Pretty well known that's a death penalty.
- defrost 3y ago
  They tried to smuggle Chinese sourced drugs to Australia - but that's not the issue. They were charged, went to trial, sentenced to 15 years and appealed. When the appeal failed the original court upped the sentence to a death sentence. This appeared be a violation of a Chinese "no additional sentence for appeal" rule and a petty example of hostage diplomacy wrt the Canadian Government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schellenberg_smuggling_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schellenberg_smuggling_inciden...
  - winrid 3y ago
    He should have got the death penalty the first time around according to Chinese law. They were being nice, and the second time they said, fine :)
    - defrost 3y ago
      could have not "should have" - the law in question didn't stipulate either. However, he wasn't sentenced to death the first time. Do you have any comment on the apparent violation of the "no additional sentence for appeal" rule ?
      - winrid 3y ago
        Nope, I don't know anything about that. Was it the same judge? My understanding is that it's fairly common to get the death penalty for transporting or selling drugs in China. At least, that's what mainland chinese folks tell me.
ecshafer 3y ago
The US detaining people in foreign countries for breaking us “law” makes me think that China isn’t the country I should be afraid of. Sanctions are already a morally dubious set of actions that mainly harm the poor.
- xtracto 3y ago
  I laugh a lot in these kind of threads. Undoubtedly they show the US bias of this forum. It's OK, I like it in other aspects. But for these subjects, you just see comments like "aren't you afraid of losing your freedoms!!" Which reads so American that it may have blue/red/white colours. The number of US related detainees, both legally or illegally. For undubious or dubious reasons, and all around the world is soooooo high, I just chuckle when I see US people riding in their high horse. I'm from a third party country, so I just sit and read with fresh popcorn.
airgapstopgap 3y ago
Do you not consider that Huawei "executive's" detention (actual makes for a similar case against Canada? It was a purely political move, Meng Wanzhou was detained on grounds of a broader anti-Huawei campaign by the US.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  Meng committed a crime she knew she wasn't supposed to commit Do you not consider that China retaliating by arresting arbitrary civilians from a totally different country and ransoming them back for their criminal executive is wrong?
  - ecshafer 3y ago
    A Chinese company sells to Iran. America says they can't and asks (Tells) Canada to arrest Meng. This seems more than a little illogical.
    - richbell 3y ago
      > A Chinese company sells to Iran. America says they can't and asks (Tells) Canada to arrest Meng. This seems more than a little illogical. A Chinese company sells American hardware and software to Iran. They intentionally helped Iran bypass sanctions, and lied to institutions like HSBC because they knew they'd get in trouble. There is nothing illogical about the USA being upset about that and wanting to pursue legal action. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-iran-sanctions-exclusive-idUSKBN20P1VA https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-iran-sanctions-exc...
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      Do you not consider that China retaliating by arresting arbitrary civilians from a totally different country and ransoming them back for their criminal executive is wrong?
czDRZ-akk 3y ago
The arrest of the Michaels may or may not have been justified, but they were hardly average Canadian tourists. To put this into context: Michael Kovrig is a former diplomat who at the time of his arrest worked for International Crisis Group, an NGO which is directly funded by a number of government organizations. Michael Spavor was deeply and highly visibly involved in North Korean international affairs, and reportedly met Kim Jong-Un himself. Most people will never come close to the government relationships and risk profiles these two had.

modzu 3y ago

for context, a million canadians visit china every year

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

woooooo 3y ago

Why is it just accepted that Huawei executives can be detained by the west, though? I don't think taking vengeance on random civilians is justified, but it was a response to us doing the same thing to one of theirs. It's only bad when they do it?

richbell 3y ago
> Why is it just accepted that Huawei executives can be detained by the west, though? The claim behind that at least appeared to have merit, so she — ostensibly — wasn't just detained because someone didn't like her. She also enjoyed the full benefit of the western legal system and lived lavishly, meanwhile the two Michaels were basically political prisoners. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-iran-sanctions-exclusive-idUSKBN20P1VA https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-iran-sanctions-exc...
- woooooo 3y ago
  Neither she nor the nation of China are party to sanctions on Iran. They have no obligations to follow American foreign policy. If you're saying, ultimately, "because we can", then fine but that's not great moral ground.
  - richbell 3y ago
    > Neither she nor the nation of China are party to sanctions on Iran. They have no obligations to follow American foreign policy. Huawei operates outside of China, therefore it's reasonable to expect them to comply with laws and sections from other countries. At the very least, if you're going to violate US sanctions, I wouldn't live in or travel to the US or an affiliated country. > If you're saying, ultimately, "because we can", then fine but that's not great moral ground. I am not making any such claim, nor am I American. I'm just pointing out that "person arrested for being involved in explicitly breaking sanctions" and "two random citizens held hostage on vague charges" aren't comparable.
    - woooooo 3y ago
      We already forbid export of chips and other technology to them. I suppose it was unwise of her to enter Canada, but again, you're ceding any moral high ground here.
      - richbell 3y ago
        > I suppose it was unwise of her to enter Canada, but again, you're ceding any moral high ground here. I'm not sure I understand your point about "moral high ground". Is the implication that US sanctions or arresting people for violating sanctions is immoral?
        woooooo 3y ago
        I'm saying we did it to their people first, and then they responded tit-for-tat. If you're selectively outraged at their response, ignoring what we did to provoke it... that starts sounding awfully motivated. And, yes, arresting non-citizens for insufficient loyalty to our state is immoral unless there's a war on, in which case you can shoot them. They never pledged loyalty and are not breaking any faith.
canucker2016 3y ago
Two wrongs don't make a right. (I am bursting to edit my comment to make it more punny in light of the Asian connection of the comment material, but at least I am taking the high road here - but know this, I am chuckling to myself and don't play the race card, you can't trump me)
- woooooo 3y ago
  Absolutely true but it sounds like people think there's only one wrong here.
  - canucker2016 3y ago
    The US govt seemed to play by the international rule book - they claimed that Huawei knowingly did business with Iran. From memory, Huawei didn't want to respond and execs avoided going to the US. So the US asked Canada to detain the Huawei CFO when she had a layover in Canada. Canada didn't have much choice since it was a legal request based on some treaty. So while Huawei's expensive lawyers work to free the Huawei CFO, China suddenly picks three Canadians for extra special attention. The Canadians are dealing with jail while the Huawei CFO is in her Vancouver mansion with a monitored ankle bracelet - at least the Canadian media made it look like that. That's how it was viewed in Canada.

winrid 3y ago

Did that person try to sell drugs in China? Pretty well known that's a death penalty.

defrost 3y ago
They tried to smuggle Chinese sourced drugs to Australia - but that's not the issue. They were charged, went to trial, sentenced to 15 years and appealed. When the appeal failed the original court upped the sentence to a death sentence. This appeared be a violation of a Chinese "no additional sentence for appeal" rule and a petty example of hostage diplomacy wrt the Canadian Government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schellenberg_smuggling_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schellenberg_smuggling_inciden...
- winrid 3y ago
  He should have got the death penalty the first time around according to Chinese law. They were being nice, and the second time they said, fine :)
  - defrost 3y ago
    could have not "should have" - the law in question didn't stipulate either. However, he wasn't sentenced to death the first time. Do you have any comment on the apparent violation of the "no additional sentence for appeal" rule ?
    - winrid 3y ago
      Nope, I don't know anything about that. Was it the same judge? My understanding is that it's fairly common to get the death penalty for transporting or selling drugs in China. At least, that's what mainland chinese folks tell me.

ecshafer 3y ago

The US detaining people in foreign countries for breaking us “law” makes me think that China isn’t the country I should be afraid of. Sanctions are already a morally dubious set of actions that mainly harm the poor.

xtracto 3y ago
I laugh a lot in these kind of threads. Undoubtedly they show the US bias of this forum. It's OK, I like it in other aspects. But for these subjects, you just see comments like "aren't you afraid of losing your freedoms!!" Which reads so American that it may have blue/red/white colours. The number of US related detainees, both legally or illegally. For undubious or dubious reasons, and all around the world is soooooo high, I just chuckle when I see US people riding in their high horse. I'm from a third party country, so I just sit and read with fresh popcorn.

airgapstopgap 3y ago

Do you not consider that Huawei "executive's" detention (actual makes for a similar case against Canada? It was a purely political move, Meng Wanzhou was detained on grounds of a broader anti-Huawei campaign by the US.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
Meng committed a crime she knew she wasn't supposed to commit Do you not consider that China retaliating by arresting arbitrary civilians from a totally different country and ransoming them back for their criminal executive is wrong?
- ecshafer 3y ago
  A Chinese company sells to Iran. America says they can't and asks (Tells) Canada to arrest Meng. This seems more than a little illogical.
  - richbell 3y ago
    > A Chinese company sells to Iran. America says they can't and asks (Tells) Canada to arrest Meng. This seems more than a little illogical. A Chinese company sells American hardware and software to Iran. They intentionally helped Iran bypass sanctions, and lied to institutions like HSBC because they knew they'd get in trouble. There is nothing illogical about the USA being upset about that and wanting to pursue legal action. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-iran-sanctions-exclusive-idUSKBN20P1VA https://www.reuters.com/article/us-huawei-iran-sanctions-exc...
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    Do you not consider that China retaliating by arresting arbitrary civilians from a totally different country and ransoming them back for their criminal executive is wrong?

czDRZ-akk 3y ago

The arrest of the Michaels may or may not have been justified, but they were hardly average Canadian tourists. To put this into context: Michael Kovrig is a former diplomat who at the time of his arrest worked for International Crisis Group, an NGO which is directly funded by a number of government organizations. Michael Spavor was deeply and highly visibly involved in North Korean international affairs, and reportedly met Kim Jong-Un himself. Most people will never come close to the government relationships and risk profiles these two had.