Huawei Technologies Co chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou (孟晚舟) was taken into custody by the Canadian authorities on Dec. 1 while transiting through Vancouver International Airport after an arrest warrant was issued by the US government on charges of fraud and breaching sanctions against Iran.
The arrest took place just hours after Trump held a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Buenos Aires, during which the two leaders agreed on a temporary halt to a further escalation of the US-China trade dispute.
Whether or not the timing was intentional, Xi must have been left hopping mad, and suspected that the arrest was linked to the US and other allied nations’ ongoing efforts to stymie further penetration by Huawei into their telecommunication networks because of national security concerns.
Two days after Meng’s arrest, two Canadians — a former diplomat named Michael Kovrig and a businessman named Michael Spavor — were detained by the Chinese authorities on charges relating to “national security.” Most Western diplomats, including former Canadian diplomats, believe it was a tit-for-tat detention designed to punish Canada and exert maximum pressure on Ottawa.
The case highlights the stark contrast between Canada’s independent and transparent judiciary, and China’s byzantine and state-controlled legal system. For example, following a three-day bail hearing at the British Columbia Supreme Court on Tuesday last week, Meng was granted bail of C$10 million (US$7.5 million) on the condition that she wears an ankle bracelet, surrenders her passports, does not leave Vancouver and its suburbs, and stays confined to one of her two Vancouver homes from the hours of 11pm to 6am.
Meng’s trial is scheduled to take place on Feb. 6 and if the judge finds the case is strong enough, Canada’s minister of justice will decide whether Meng should be extradited to the US.
Contrast this with the treatment of the two Canadians detained in China. So far, the Chinese authorities have not provided any further information on the nature of their charges other than that they relate to “national security” issues. They have not disclosed where the two are being detained nor have they said whether they will be given a hearing before a judge.
What information we do know has been uncovered through an investigation by Reuters published yesterday. Multiple sources familiar with the case of Kovrig say he was spirited away by security officials from a street in Beijing on Monday night last week. The former diplomat was informed of his arrest two days later and he finally gained consular access at a police station on Friday last week.
The sources said that Kovrig is not allowed to apply for bail, has been denied legal representation and his consular visits are limited to one a month.
One source said that he is confined to a single room, is being questioned every morning, afternoon and evening, and is not allowed to turn the lights off at night.
No information has surfaced regarding the whereabouts and condition of the businessman, Spavor.
In short, the two unfortunate individuals are trapped in the vortex of China’s opaque legal system, pawns in a high-stakes game of chess between the US and China, and wholly at the mercy of Xi’s whim.
Following the extrajudicial abductions of Hong Kong booksellers and a publisher in Thailand, who were guilty of nothing more than the dissemination of writings critical of the Xi regime, it is yet another reminder that China is a police state without rule of law.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations