If you travel to China, be aware of an exit ban
harrisbricken.com
harrisbricken.com
> "Reconsider travel to Mainland China due to the arbitrary enforcement of local laws, including in relation to exit bans, and the risk of wrongful detentions."
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/...
I doubt that the US will do it for small numbers of citizens, esp. after these travel advisories given. These travel advisories are essentially saying that you're on your own if you get fucked by china, so don't visit there.
The state department has essentially no such general capability beyond negotiation, and in the case of China, specifically, in practice the US government as a whole has little beyond that, too. (They might be able to, if interested, come up with an ad hoc and probably high-risk workaround outside of diplomatic channels if sufficiently motivated and the right confluence of other factors, but I wouldn’t rely on it.)
One would have thought that continuing to pay tax to the motherland despite living overseas would help cover the cost of one's evacuation, but I guess not.
It's pretty much a negotiation. The State Dept can try back channels if they think you've been unfairly denied an exit visa, but other than than, there is nothing they can do.
https://old.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/15kh611/travel_adv...
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...
Though a third Canadian had his conviction retried to a worse sentence - death.
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-exc...
If you're saying, ultimately, "because we can", then fine but that's not great moral ground.
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.
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?
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.
This is being reductive and making a false equivalence. These scenarios are not comparable:
1. Arresting an executive of a company that intentionally evaded sanctions and provided supplies to a country that is hostile to the US.
2. Arresting two random Canadian citizens, who are of no importance, and holding them as political prisoners until another nation capitulated to your demands.
> If you're selectively outraged at their response, ignoring what we did to provoke it... that starts sounding awfully motivated.
See above. Are you willing to acknowledge that there is a difference?
This is actually a pretty common restriction for companies operating in China. There are lots of rules they have to follow, that they wouldn't need to follow if they weren't operating in China.
She wasn't shipping stuff out of Canada to Iran, the problem is that Huawei generally does business there.
It's a "rule by law" situation if they're grabbing her for things her company does outside of US/Canadian borders.
Now...let's say some American executive happened to be in China and China accused this company of re-exporting something made in China to another country that China was sanctioning. Yes, they would go to jail, there wouldn't even be an outcry over it. There are other things the Chinese could get them on, so not even this pretext is needed, but you better believe they would do it.
Now, let's say some Swedish citizen is accused of violating Chinese law but is not in China, rather they happen to be in Thailand. Yes, the Chinese are still going after that person as well, but no, the Thai government isn't involved. They just go and kidnap the guy.
Ok, so now we get to Canada, who has an extradition agreement with the USA. The USA puts in a request for her extradition because they accuse her of violating American law. There is a valid accusation, though it is questionable if she would have been convicted. Canada says: ok, we have to evaluate if this order is correct, so they arrest Huawei daughter, and then it goes to the courts. China tit for tat grabs some random Canadians off the street, throws them in jail for a couple of years (Huawei daughter is in jail for a couple of weeks then at home under house arrest for the rest of the time, but that's canada for you). Eventually, Canadian courts decide on their own that America's request isn't valid and they decide not to extradite Huawei daughter to the USA (the Canadians arrested in China wouldn't have mattered, because the courts are independent and they can't make "deals" with other countries).
China is really just rule by law: they don't like you, you are going to jail. The USA, and Canada, have laws, independent courts that aren't subject to whims of prime minsters or presidents, etc...they even have bail where you can spend 2 years in your Vancouver mansion rather than a Chinese prison while your case works its way through the system.
They are not comparable.
I'm saying with the Huawei exec, we started it and we were over the line. Arresting a foreign national for activities not on our soil which are not illegal in their home country, just because we had the opportunity to grab her. Almost any other topic they are worse than us on legal fairness issues.
Russia has government-sanctioned hacking groups who operate outside of the US. If a member of one of those groups, known to law enforcement, traveled to the USA or Canada do you feel it would be unjust to arrest them?
This is a flimsy argument for why the Huawei CFO being detained was unjust, IMO.
Politics exists and it drives these decisions, there's nothing more hideous than someone who exercises power to destroy lives and pretends its merely procedure.
Sure they would. What makes you think otherwise?
Russian state-sponsored hackers oppose American interests. British, the opposite.
Also, your response has nothing to do with your original claim that it's unfair to arrest a non-American citizen for actions committed outside of US soil for something that is not illegal in their home country.
this false narrative claiming a false equivalence was debunked in the below post:
“Her admissions in the statement of facts confirm that, while acting as the Chief Financial Officer for Huawei, Meng made multiple material misrepresentations to a senior executive of a financial institution regarding Huawei’s business operations in Iran in an effort to preserve Huawei’s banking relationship with the financial institution. The truth about Huawei’s business in Iran, which Meng concealed, would have been important to the financial institution’s decision to continue its banking relationship with Huawei. Meng’s admissions confirm the crux of the government’s allegations in the prosecution of this financial fraud — that Meng and her fellow Huawei employees engaged in a concerted effort to deceive global financial institutions, the U.S. government and the public about Huawei’s activities in Iran.”
She was a C-suite executive of Huawei, not some random employee.
> Would you be supporting their right to detain arbitrary American businessmen for doing business with France? The same exact way you're supporting our detention of their nationals over Iran?
If an American company intentionally evaded sanctions and did something they knew China wouldn't like, and then a C-suite executive of that company traveled to China or an affiliated country and was detained, that would be entirely their fault.
I don't think you're making the point that you think you are.
I would apparently be more upset than you about it.
She's subject to US law, and the consequences thereof.
> that's not great moral ground
It's a question of law, not morality. The rule of law is applied pretty fairly in the US and backstopped by the democratic process, whereas it's applied arbitrarily by Chinese dictatorial leadership when it suits them. That's where the moral ground lies.
What you're talking about is a false equivalence.
Do you consider yourself subject to Chinese export law?
I know, empire, we can do what we want, but like I said. Shaky moral ground.
Because she is accountable as a C-suite executive of Huawei, and she was traveling in a country that is closely allied with the United States.
It's funny that you're making this argument when the point of TFA is that China punishes and detains people for merely being associated with a company or group they don't like.
no?
then Chinese laws and Chinese-imposed sanctions (or lack thereof) don't apply, and Canada is under no obligations to follow Chinese foreign policy
(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)
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.
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_inciden...
They were being nice, and the second time they said, fine :)
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 ?
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.
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.
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?
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-exc...
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.
"in the second quarter of 2023 foreign investors “only put about $5bn of fresh capital into China […] in 2021, we saw close to $100bn per quarter!”
https://unherd.com/thepost/foreign-investment-plummets-as-th...
The whole welding people into a building that then burns down is a difficult thing for Tourism Departments to compensate for.
Good advice for people scared of their own shadow, bad advice for everyone else.
Because honestly:
> The typical reasons for the Chinese government imposing an exit ban that prohibits a foreigner from leaving China is for allegedly committing a crime, allegedly owing money to a Chinese company, or being in some other sort of dispute with a Chinese company or individual.
This is something that I would expect visiting literally any country.
It is probably not something that people faring from the western world and traveling over that western world (so no visas, no suspicion, excellent consulate support) are used to, but this is kinda how the rest of the world lives, even when traveling to western countries.
It's kind of ironic how the article also ropes in Russia, given that Russians are regularly arrested by the US (sometimes not even necessarily on the US soil) - over a hundred people currently detained. When normalized by population (roughly 150 mil in Russia, and 300 mil in the US), this is pretty much similar to the number of American citizens detained in China (over 2 hundred people). So what, don't go to the US or countries that extradite there? I don't think so either.
EDIT: added some rough stats
To an extent, yes. However, context is key as the fairness and/or arbitrariness of those laws and how they are enforced vary wildly between countries. Merely avoiding breaking the law is a lot more difficult in an outright fascist dictatorship surveillance state like China than even the most surveillance happy western nations. So, while you should follow the law in all countries you visit (or at least know what you’re risking), some countries make that more like a tap dance across a minefield.
Visiting a foreign culture is always a dance across a minefield if you are careless and don't bother researching how to be a proper guest.
For example, experienced tourists from my country visiting the US recommend thoroughly researching the rules and protocol of interacting with the police, including properly managing your body language and being VERY conscious about not making unconscious moves you might be used to (moving your hands, reaching for pockets or gloves compartment) - all that just so that you don't get accidentally shot and killed (completely legally!)
Is it a fascist police state, or just a different set of expected behavior patterns?
it's closer to the first one: fascist police
that's unfortunately absolutely something all people in the US have to worry about
the threat of them organizing and doing so as a result of you displeasing the government, however, is far more remote in the US than in China
in essence, China presents just another, higher and more abstracted level of unchecked arbitrary exercise of power, and thus you logically must concern yourself with those higher level threats as well as the lower level ones
Unequivocally yes, it absolutely is a fascist police state by any definition of the notion, even when compared to other notoriously authoritarian states. Sure, many countries have their flaws and legal quirks, but to claim legal ambiguity about the status of China despite absolute mountains of evidence to the contrary on all kinds of scales is either a case of utter ignorance or flagrant dishonesty.
China is the 21st century's closest example of a pre-genocide Nazi-type state in the sense of it being an economically successful major power with plenty of international influence while blatantly repressing millions of people based on their ethnicity or religious affiliation, while also obliging the rest of its population into a constant state of Gleichschaltung, or roughly, "coordination" as the Nazis called their version of it.
The CCP treatment of the Uighur is unequivocally a genocide. They are not pre-genocide anything.
It gets harder and harder to take this kind of rhetorics seriously these days, especially the last few years - everyone labels everyone else they don't like as "nazis".
This is borderline Nazi apologizm. They recycled people into furniture, butchered millions based on genetics alone.
I honestly couldn't care less for that westsplaining about China at this point (or any other culture European civilization considers foreign), especially after seeing how does the receiving end of some darker western politics looks like.
Honestly, that xenophobic supremacism is so tiresome. Being an outside observer I hardly see white European descendants doing too much better. What I do see is extreme circejeeking, projections and boring 2 minutes hate at every other corner, while having disappointingly little substance to show for, when you visit and check out their way of living personally.
Second: I don't give a shit what the west did in its past or how anyone is ignoring that. It doesn't change the basic realities of how the Chinese state, now, today, treats a certain minority in its borders (and outside them too) and how it controls the rest of its population. The history of the west is irrelevant in the context of condemning a current repression and to say that this repression shouldn't be called out because of some past event by another culture to which someone belongs is ridiculous.
As for "westplaining" what the hell are you even talking about? What a cheap label for shutting down legitimate arguments about specific real events happening now that fully deserve condemnation.
If you feel like the matter of "a certain minority" in China is any way relevant to what Nazis did, then maybe you wasted your time at school and should open up a history book and look up what exactly was the context of what Nazi were doing to Jewish and Romani people.
As distasteful as China's actions might seem to be, their end goal is assimilation, unlike Nazi's goals of isolation and physical extermination - I'll refer you to the fate of "The Association of German National Jews" on this one.
Westsplaining is just a phenomenon of certain people rationalizing their own xenophobia without actually caring about the principles they talk about so much when trying to take some moral highground. Which is why the "history" (as if it happened too long ago or seized to be the case now, yeah, right) of western civilization dealing with similar issues is "irrelevant". This term should be in the "see also" section under "looking at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and paying no attention to the plank in your own eye".
You can condemn all you want, but I don't personally see why objectively China should deserve to be treated any worse than say United States, that had fared far worse in similar situations, like it's reaction to 9/11 with torching a whole other fucking side of the planet, or it's ICE detention camps - the last one being actually much closer to Nazi isolation policies than China's assimilation policy of Wahhabism-leaning minorities.
Australia?
Even for a caucasian woman from a long term ally in both war and security, interactions with trigger happy US police can be fatal:
Compare the per capita deaths at the hands of the police figures for the US against the UK, Australia, France, Germany, Japan, etc.
There's a staggering jump.
Once again the US excels.
1,100 in 2022. So about 2.5% of the chance of dying in a car accident.
I don't wake up worried about dying in a car accident.
You've somehow normalised your own employees killing your own citizens.
And an exceptionally rare event that is 2-10x more common is still exceptionally rare.
Don't scare monger.
Just one. Ballpark 10x greater. Per capita.
I'm being numerically accurate.
Next you'll be telling us that school shootings are exceptionally rare .. and what, they don't matter because of that?
As I said, the US has normalised behaviour considered abhorent and deviant elsewhere.
Both morally and numerically.
Them's the facts.
Why did you avoid addressing that question?
And saying "them's the fact" doesn't really change anything if you don't address the fact shown.
And I as said (and you ignored), you stand a 20x higher chance of dying in a car accident. Do you avoid using cars at all? If you have to travel in a car, do you say "I'm not doing that! Too risky!"
If not, why would you be concerned at all about something with 20x less risk?
I'm fairly sure why Russians are arrested in the USA is fairly unrelated to them being Russian. Russians also get arrested in China, it usually involves some alcohol at some nightclub and maybe concerns girls. The Chocolate Bar behind Ritan park in Beijing's Russian district was a pretty intense place.
> So what, don't go to the US or countries that extradite there? I don't think so either.
In general, prefer rule of law countries and avoid rule by law countries if you are worried about fair treatment. Even if they aren't perfect, you have a much better chance of being treated fairly in a rule of law country (China explicitly rejects rule of law as a governing principle, which is why their constitution can guarantee freedom of speech, the press, and religion, without it coming off as inconsistent).
It's often spying accusations for individuals or sanctions related for businesspeople, so...
> Russians also get arrested in China
Of course. Everyone gets arrested everywhere from time to time. My point that China isn't in any way unique in this matter.
> In general, prefer rule of law countries and avoid rule by law countries if you are worried about fair treatment.
Not to call out on a bad advice, but as a tourist I personally prefer "no one cares about you once you've passed customs, just don't be evil" countries. I'd rather talk my way out of an awkward situation, than risk getting in a "rule of law" trouble for accidentally making a wrong turn and breaking a vague traffic rule on an empty road.
On the other hand, as a traveller, every new country is a good country.
In principle though, see my comment in the neighboring thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37071541
In America, you can take pictures of anything you want as long as you are allowed to be there. Some Chinese guy could (and often do!) take a picture of an Aircraft Carrier in port in San Diego and not go to jail for spying, while some American guy doing the same thing in Qingdao is in huge trouble if the police decide to bother. This is in a perfectly touristy place, where you could just be taking pictures of scenery or something.
The only issue is when you gain access to somewhere you aren't supposed to be (say a military base) and start taking pictures; e.g. https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdfl/pr/three-chinese-nationals.... In that case, the judge is going to take into account if they knew they were in an naval air station or not (rather than strolling along the road in San Diego).
> Not to call out on a bad advice, but as a tourist I personally prefer "no one cares about you once you've passed customs, just don't be evil" countries. I'd rather talk my way out of an awkward situation, than risk getting in a "rule of law" trouble for accidentally making a wrong turn and breaking a vague traffic rule on an empty road.
At least go to countries where the laws aren't considered state secrets. Because if what they can get you for is a secret, you are screwed (but in general, you are screwed anyways, because laws in those countries are just tools anyways). And yes, don't be an evil jerk and 99.9% of the time nothing is happening to you, but in the USA you usually just need a good lawyer while in China you are at the mercy of whether the local party official wants to make an example of you or not.
Anyways, if you are afraid of rule of law, don't go to Singapore. They will fine you a few thousand dollars for making that wrong turn, or stopping at the wrong time...etc...the exact opposite of China actually.
My whole point is that it is entirely subjectivist and boils down to whatever people are used to.
If you want everything to be the way you are used to - maybe traveling just isn't your thing and that's ok.
China is worse now than it was in 2007 when I moved there. They had a huge backslide in liberalization after the Olympics, which got worse with Xi (who, as you know, is now president for life). Now it’s like 1999 again.
But that's the whole point!
I don't understand this sensationalism, tbh.
'Pay my extortion fee, or I'll tell the government that you owe me money or we have a dispute, then you will miss your flight and you'll have to buy new, more expensive plane tickets.'
The fact that sometimes you can't leave isn't the story. The fact that a citizen business can report theft and block your right to go home is.
and yet, when another country does it, China retaliates by arresting arbitrary foreign national civilians and holding them for ransom [0]
[0]: https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-canada-china-arrests-...
It's not ironic that they are being checked extra while they are threatening with nuclear war every week :)
> It's not ironic
In the context of the narrative the OP article pushes - it is. But this is arguing perspective, which is pointless in the culture this forum is centric to.
The level of dislike of foreigners, especially for dark skin folks, is sadly quite rampant. For my own safety, I no longer accept business travel assignments to China, being a PoC.
Pretty incredible that a law firm would actually recommend this strategy!
Or at least, the lack of it
It is.
That said, the website is legitimate. They’ve put out a lot of very good content, for years, albeit with a pessimistic slant. The firm founder is also active on Twitter.
So they claimed; I don't think this was ever substantiated.
But these laws are rarely enforced, except when they need someone for an example.
When Australian politicians said some firm things about China there was a spate of Australian reporters of Chinese origin being detained, this spread to Australian reporters in general.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-08-31/australian-detained-i...
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-08/bill-birtles-mike-smi...
First, there has to be some conflict going on, they might want to do some tit for tat. so if for example China has some problem with Canadians considering extradition of Huaweiwei's daughter, they will definitely single out some Canadian business people of European descent (not very common in China) rather than Canadians of Chinese descent (much more common in China). There is always enough to get you for something if they really want to, like taking pictures of a mountain and surprise...it is really a PLA military installation (but not really, it could just be a place where they have a hotel or something). Remember China is a rule by law country, not a rule of law one, so you can't really count on being treated fairly unless they want to treat you fairly.
Given the recent problems, right now probably isn't the best time for Americans (especially Americans of non-Chinese descent), but it probably isn't that bad either (no obvious singular dispute that necessitates tit for tat reaction). I guess I would go right now if I could get my kid's visa situation worked out (so he can go see grandma).
You are also just as likely not to be arrested for being a foreigner when Chinese are processed for similar violations. For example, hitting a roadblock that is targeting college kids who have smoked marijuana, they will drug test all the Chinese kids on the bus and will ignore the foreigners as too much trouble.
> This person was held hostage for five days in a high-end U.S. hotel room in Qingdao and had to be led out of that room and driven to Beijing by what was essentially a swat team we organized to get her out. She was able to fly out of China because she was not subject to an exit ban. I write about this because it makes for a great story and because it highlights how exit bans and hostage taking can overlap
It’s a completely different story for Chinese nationals. Many are barred from exiting the country to the point where many Malaysian travel agencies (small/family owned ones) have gone bankrupt (due to outsized reliance on Chinese customers)
Violate the law and you can be held for criminal prosecution.
That is certainly not how things are in most Western countries.
While I suppose its technically distantly parallel to the description in the article, in that there is nothing stopping a private party from asking the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center to add someone to thie No Fly List, there’s actually no established process for such a request and no set of criteria that would make it particularly applicable to a foreign national against whom a local has civil litigation pending, so, substantively, the analogy is badly strained, especially since the No Fly List is not a general exit control.
Also, recourse for denied boarding and denied entry (but not denied exit, because the US, again, doesn’t have exit controls) is available through the DHS TRIP process, which is appealable if a satisfactory result is not received to the appropriate US Court of Appeals.
This is an extremely bad faith claim. Unless you're claiming the two Michaels detained by China (in retaliation) also got to live a lavish lifestyle in a mansion.
A court in the USA had issued an arrest warrant for the Huawei CFO.
The USA had to issue a request for Canada to detain her for extradition to the USA due to the arrest warrant.
Why would I? I live in the best country in the world. For tech, startups, lifestyle, food (i can eat any cuisine from around the world and access to amazing restaurants), hiking, etc.
The last place I'd visit is some authoritarian place.
it’s never appropriate to think one cannot learn from others or try new experiences
The USA is a great place, but there are so many cool things to see and experiences to have that you simply can’t without leaving the country.
And, professionally, there’s always new things to learn. Not every good idea in the world originates in Silicon Valley.
You're probably getting some downvotes for saying it's the best country, as that is very subjective and depends how you measure. You're also probably getting downvotes because of your dismissive-ness.