I don't think my freedom is at risk when I go there honestly. There are probably people in some fields or businesses that do have some risk. But I think the fears are overblown.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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.”
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.
this false narrative claiming a false equivalence was debunked in the below post:
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.
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.
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.