D.卡尔顿 罗西
D. Carlton Rossi

Extradition





                                                  


                                         Sun Yat-sen Statue in Hong Kong

                          photo copyright D. Carlton Rossi


The author tries to keep promises to others by remembering the quote "a promise made is a debt unpaid". However, so often he fails to keep a promise to himself. One of those promises was not to write coherently in logical form with reasoned arguments which flow because it is rather old-fashioned. It is better to simply state an opinion without support or facts and then move on to the next opinion. If you like someone else's opinion then give then a happy face. Let's say though that this post followed by an extradition analysis will be my last posts--at least until another is written.

The subject of extradition has been dealt with extensively by the author in the past. No doubt the reader didn't pay much attention or give much time to the issue; after all, extradition was an existential issue. However, it has now come to the forefront with respect to the extradition of Meng Wanzhou who was arrested on her way from Hong Kong to Mexico as she stopped over in Vancouver. It is also prominent with respect to the extradition bill that the Chinese government tried to impose on the citizens of Hong Kong even though it does not seem to meet the strict criterion of one country and two systems.

The author reminds the reader that he did not primarily regard the extradition of Mdme Meng as a legal issue. He saw it as a moral issue. There are vast differences between the legal systems of China and Canada. Briefly, one can say that Canada follows "rule of law" while China follows "rule by law. For example, Mdme Meng was arrested legally while Spavor and Kovrig were arrested arbitrarily. However, in both countries the people maintain high moral principles based on religion, philosophy and the family.

The author believed that he could solve the issue of Mdme Meng's extradition by focusing on the family. The family has been the center of Confucianism for thousands of years. In Canada, the family is also of importance; although, its definition and constitution has changed. This is why he made two open proposals to the Canadian government beginning in early December 2018. He proposed that Mdme Meng be allowed to join her family and all Canadian prisoners be allowed to return to their families ie. not just Spavor and Kovrig. He volunteered to meet representatives of the Chinese government at their embassy in Ottawa--if he received permission from the Canadian government to do so.

While the return of prisoners would have been easier before formal declarations were made and evidence presented by the US Justice Department regarding Meng's extradition at the end of January 2019 it is still possible to focus on morality as opposed to legality. Realistically speaking, however, Canadian prisoners will not return until after the federal election because Mdme Meng, Huawei and all of our Canadian prisoners have been placed on the back burner by the Canadian government; although, they claim the detention of Spavor and Kovrig has been their highest priority for the last eight months. If the Chinese government is interested in approaching the issue from the standpoint of morality then they should contact Canada's foreign minister to facilitate the matter. With this introduction as background the author will shortly begin an analysis of extradition as it applies to Mdme Meng and as it pertains to Hong Kong.


D. Carlton Rossi

D.卡尔顿 罗西


2019年9月05日







As a blog it would be easy to say that most politicians do not tell the truth most of the time with one exception--when they are not talking. If you disagree with the premise of the argument or consider it a lie then you will not want to proceed to the more lengthy analysis.



                       Extradition Treaties and Bill







Extradition treaties are now front page news in both Canada and Hong Kong. It is necessary therefore to define an extradition treaty. Simply put it is an act to expedite the delivery of a person who has been accused or convicted in one jurisdiction to another jurisdiction. It is based on rule of law. A problem arises though when the process becomes political as it has in the case of Mdme Meng in Canada and the attempt to impose an extradition bill on Hong Kong by the Chinese government.

With respect to the extradition of Mdme Meng it began in all probability with a call to Prime Minister Trudeau; although, he obfuscates matters by saying that “Ottawa had a few days' prior notice of the arrest”. Ottawa is a city; so, it is uncertain how it could be notified of anything unless he means the government in Ottawa which to all intent and purposes is Justin Trudeau. Both Trudeau and Trump have distanced themselves with regard to any involvement in the affair. If the case were so clear cut under rule of law then Ottawa didn't need any advanced notice—simply arrest her immediately on the plane rather than interviewing her for 3 hours in immigration detention.

The decision by the US justice department in the Eastern District of New York to call for her arrest in Vancouver does not seem to have been a coincidence. She was traveling from Hong Kong to Mexico with a stop-over in Vancouver, Canada. It is important to know which countries have and don't have extradition treaties with China. The United States, Canada and Japan do not have extradition treaties with China while Mexico and China (Hong Kong) do have one. It appears that the US picked a country—namely Canada—which does not have an extradition treaty with China.

Before one goes on though it is of some importance to describe the China (Hong Kong) extradition treaty with the US. It was signed on December 20, 1996 and came in force on January 20, 1998. Article 3 allows refusal by China (Hong Kong) to surrender a person if it is thought that it “relates to defence, foreign affairs or essential public interest or policy”. Furthermore, refusal to surrender can also be done if prosecution proceedings have already begun in Hong Kong or if the request for extradition were politically motivated. The author highlights details of this treaty because he does not believe it should be a template for a future China-Canada Extradition Treaty which should not be signed under any circumstances.

Why was it important for the US to call for her arrest in a country that did not have an extradition treaty with China? The reason is that if Canada had had an extradition treaty with China then China could have asked for her to be sent back to her home country to by-pass US laws. With respect to Mexico which has an extradition treaty with both China and the US there would have been a tug-of-war between China and the US over which country's claims took precedence. Both the United States and Canada do not have extradition treaties with China, in part, because they don't want prisoners to face execution or torture in a country under “ruled by law” or force.

There may have been other reasons why the United States chose Canada to be the scene of this extradition drama. However, before one outlines these reasons it is necessary to understand China-Canada relations with respect to Canada's foreign policy goals under the Trudeau led Liberal government. Trudeau's father established Canadian relations with China. Justin Trudeau wanted to at least match that achievement through free-trade with China. However, China didn't really want free-trade (or free anything for that matter) because it already had a trade surplus with Canada. What China wanted was an extradition treaty. Canada did not want an extradition treaty, but Buttes and Trudeau were willing to listen to Chinese overtures. It so happens that a treaty would actually undermine the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which was the cornerstone of Pierre Trudeau's just society.

Since the Liberals could only nod their heads as they listened to the Chinese argument about extradition they had to find a way to placate the Chinese in another way. That way was nothing short of selling out to Chinese interests in terms of national security. Minister Bains led the assault on our national security at the instigation of Trudeau when he favoured the sale of Norsat and ITF Technologies. With regard to ITF Technologies the Chinese were mainly interested in the patents to forestall US technological advances in both lasers and photonics. On a larger scale they tried to ensure Canada's third largest infrastructure company became a Chinese company—maybe to benefit SNC Lavalin by eliminating a competitor? There were national security concerns raised over all three sales. The author actually called for Bains' resignation over these egregious errors and giveaways.





                        


                                            Norsat



Needless to say the Amercians were furious over Trudeau's cavalier attitude to national security. By dismantling Canada's national security in favour of China's national security to achieve free-trade with an "unfree" nation whose intentions were potentially hostile in military terms to the US was weakening the security of the United States. For example, Norsat was a supplier to the US military.

The heading image of the Prime Minister clowning says it all. The costumed Trudeau is feeding the dragon. The dragon's hunger will not be slaked with a single chopstick or even a single hand. He tries to satisfy the insatiable hunger of China by putting Canada in the position of a vassal state instead of scaring away the dragon with loud noises.

On August 13, 2019, the Defence Authorization Act forbade U.S. Government agencies from using certain components or services from several companies including Huawei. It means that much of the current technology will have to be thrown out. As a result, compensation will be paid to US companies. This is public information and widely disseminated.

About a week later, on August 22, 2018, an arrest warrant was issued for Mdme Meng. She was charged with conspiracy to defraud multiple international institutions. Apparently, she was aware of the charges and tried to avoid US destinations; although, if true this is not proof of guilt. If Canadian security operations are competent—and there is no doubt about that—then they would also be aware of the charges and our Minister of Public Safety would have been notified and the information passed on to the rest of the Cabinet including the Prime Minister.

At the time, the Liberal government was considering whether or not to allow Huawei to proceed with 5G development in Canada. Security experts were warning the government not to allow Huawei to establish this network because the Canadian information system could be compromised by a foreign government. However, knowledge of the arrest warrant did not dissuade the government from disallowing Huawei's 5G plans. Furthermore, at the time of her provisional arrest for fraud on December 1, 2018, the government still held out hopes for the application of Huawei's advanced technology. Since that time the government has dithered and delayed on any decision about Huawei and has postponed matters until after the election.





                      


                                                  Transmountain Pipeline




You may ask yourself why the government is so obstinate regarding its position on Huawei? The author suspects that there is a secret understanding between the governments of China and Canada (including powerful commercial vested interests) regarding the matter. The Liberal government wants to sell heavy oil to China. They bought a pipeline to facilitate the matter. It can be assumed that they wanted to sell the pipeline to China at a later date. When Trudeau was asked why he bought a pipeline he replied flippantly that it was for sale. The Chinese didn't really want bitumen from Canada, but rather were interested in supporting their strongest and most advanced technology company—namely Huawei which leads the vanguard of the AI revolution. Is this really a fair and free trade where bitumen contributing to global warming is swapped for 5G technology from a company which must follow the dictates of an authoritarian regime thus potentially undermining the national security and infrastructure of Canada.

It may be that the reader is somewhat confused about the hypothesis that one might perceive a link between bitumen and high technology. The reason is that the bitumen has always been contrasted with the environment in terms of deleterious effects. Burning refined bitumen produces CO2. While this fact is uncontested it is also true that coal plants produce higher levels of CO2 along with the release of sulfur and heavy metal contaminants into the air or left over in fly ash. Therefore, the Chinese see that burning refined bitumen is better for the environment than coal without costly gasification.



              


Canadians understand the advantages of 5G technology to their lives. Like most technologies they underestimate the hidden dangers of these advances--especially in the area of privacy. While Huawei with its advanced 5G technology may be a Chinese private company unlike a State Owned Enterprise (SOE); nevertheless, it must answer to the State regarding national security concerns which in China mean almost anything. Therefore, Canadians cannot be assured that information is private nor that the national security of both Canada and the United States may be compromised at some future time.

To refine further the analysis regarding the relationship between heavy oil and 5G technology one must better understand vested commercial interests and their relationship to political concerns. Those interests don't care which political party holds sway because they financially support the two leading parties or the Liberals and Conservatives in order to further their own long-term agenda.

Recently, the Liberal government made two important decisions which involved a matter of delay. They were not represented at the latest hearing regarding the Transmountain Pipeline (TMP). With respect to Huawei they postponed any decision about 5G technology until after the election. The former decision may have been made as a concession to environmentalists and indigenous peoples. The latter one was made in the event the Conservatives gain a majority.

If the Conservatives ban Huawei from participating in 5G technology then they must compensate companies to the tune of over one billion dollars. More importantly though they would lose the opportunity to have China purchase the TMP, build a new pipeline and sell heavy oil to China. If they support 5G of Huawei then the Liberals will benefit through its application in Ontario and Quebec while the Conservatives benefit with regard to remote areas. However, the main advantage to the Conservatives would be in the province of Alberta with regard to the heavy oil industry.

Should the liberals gain a majority they will renew efforts to "trade" Meng Wanzhou for Spavor and Kovrig. This will set the stage for support of the Huawei 5G network. In addition, they will promote the growth of the heavy oil industry and pipelines--even though they are not meeting Canada's commitment to reduce greenhouse gases.

The real point though is that the political process is rigged. It is commercial interests, for example, as represented by the Canada-China Business Council, which are calling the shots. They have embraced the unlikely union between heavy oil and 5G for the purpose of power and profit. They will meet their objective whether it is through a conservative or liberal government. They are not concerned about compromising national security nor international security and survival of species threatened by global warming.


              


                     Canadian evangelist Keven Garrett



There are two main reasons why the author has seemingly digressed to the heavy oil and 5G link from the theme of extradition treaties and bills. The first is that China's proposal for an extradition treaty with Canada was to forestall any attempt by the US to seek extradition of a Chinese citizen from Canada. The SU Bin case where a Chinese citizen in Canada was accused of spying on the United States comes to mind. The second reason is that just as there was a secret understanding between parties regarding heavy oil and 5G there was also a secret understanding never confirmed by the government but indicated linking free-trade with a China-Canada extradition treaty. The most obvious example was the arrest and conviction of the Canadian Kevin Garrett on spying charges while the Chinese said that they had detected pests in the canola.


to be continued




D. Carlton Rossi

D.卡尔顿 罗西


2019年9月08日












                        
                                           



Part II of the analysis called Extradition



The arrest of Meng Wanzhou on December 1, 2018 or nearly three months after an arrest warrant was issued made international headlines. Of course, her position as Deputy Chairperson and CFO of Huawei as well as the daughter of the founder Ren Zhengfei ( 任正非) signalled the significance of the arrest. Of equal prominence and importance though was the timing of the arrest.

However, the arrest of Meng did not happen in isolation. At about the same time in Buenos Aries, both the US and Chinese governments had agreed to a suspension of tariffs for 90 days. Unbeknownst to the Chinese side Canadian border officials at the instigation of the US Justice Department were arresting Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver. It would stretch credulity to believe these circumstances were a coincidence. Trump was sending a clear message to the Chinese that not only did not a truce exist in the trade war, but that a new Cold War was to begin. Trump's about face was intended for President Xi to lose face.

While the trip to Canada was Mdme Meng's 52nd over a period of nine years it was not the first since the arrest warrant was issued in August. In fact, she had visited Canada on October 5, 2018. On that date Vice-President Pence delivered what was called an earth shattering speech at the Hudson Institute. He attempted to shift public concern about how Russia had interfered in the election to the topic of China according to Ryan Hass of the Brookings Institute. The headline in The New York Times that day read "Pence China Speech Seen as Portent of New Cold War".

One wonders though why Mdme Meng was not arrested earlier on October 5th when she visited Canada? The reason is that the United States wanted maximum leverage with respect to Huawei, the USMCA, trade and tariff issues with China. Matters would have to wait until a later date.


                


While the 1.2 trillion dollar USMCA trade agreement was signed at the last minute on the night of Septemeber 30th it was not announced until October 1, 2018. That just happened to be the beginning of the Chinese National Holiday. In other words, it was an incontrovertible sign to both China and Canada that free-trade is between North American allies. If Canada signed a free-trade agreement with China it would jeopardize the USMCA as far as the United States was concerned.

The three-way agreement though was not signed on September 30th. It had been said on October 1, 2018 that Trump would sign the USMCA agreement at the end of November. Therefore, an arrest of Mdme Meng on October 5th would be premature before the signing of the USMCA at the G20 Summit. The USMCA was actually signed by all three parties on November 30, 2018. That was one day before the arrest of Mdme Meng on December 1, 2018.

Trudeau has said publically that he knew of the forthcoming arrest for a couple of days which would include November 30, 2018. In other words, it is probable that if Trudeau did not co-operate with the provisional arrest of the Huawei executive on December 1, 2018 then Trump might not sign the USMCA! Whether or not it was explicitly said to Trudeau by Trump or implicitly implied by the concatenation of seemingly coincidental events which look more planned than random over the preceding months is uncertain.

This hypothetical scenario weakens the "rule of law" argument which the Trudeau government treated as an absolute. For Trudeau, it was all about jobs provided by the USMCA. The domestic parallel was with the SNC-Lavalin Remediation Agreement which was justified on the basis of jobs. For Trudeau though the most important job to be saved was his own as Prime Minister.

The deck had already been stacked against Mdme Meng. The arrest warrant issued on August 22, 2018 was at the instigation of Robert Donaghue who had been appointed United States Attoney for the Eastern District of New York on January 03, 2018. Earlier, he had served as the Chief Litigation Counsel on a world-wide basis for CA Technologies. It so happens that CA Technologies' major competitor is Huawei Technologies.


            


                                                 Weirdest Acquisition Ever


Let's not forget that on July 11, 2018 a company called Broadcom which makes chips and software bought out CA Technologies which provides enterprise software and services in a $18.9 billion deal. The deal may be designed to take advantage of the IoT or internet of things. One should note that Huawei's technologies "encompass IoT, cloud computing and big data to provide a standard, secure, open and industrial vertical enabled solutions". In other words, from about six weeks after the announcement of the Broadcom-CA Technologies deal an arrest warrant for Huawei's chief executive is coincidentally issued or should one say correspondingly?


                


Mdme Meng's plane arrived at Vancouver airport at 11:15 am on December 1, 2018. Why wasn't she wasn't arrested immediately since the arrest warrant dictated it? It seems that Customs and Immigration wanted to question Meng for an extended period of time so that she could not avail herself of rights under the Charter. There was however another reason which has not been talked about.

She had arrived on Cathay Pacific Flight 838 from Hong Kong. The plane was owned by Cathay Pacific of Hong Kong. This might be interpreted to mean that she was on Hong Kong territory. Border officials waited until she had left the plane and had clearly entered Canadian territory so that there was no issue of jurisdiction.


                

Of more interest to the judge at the time of the bail hearing of the accused was the passport or passports. She held one valid passport which was used at the time of the entry into Canada along with two expired passports which had some valid visas. The valid passport was from Hong Kong as were the other two. The valid passport was obtained because she had acquired permanent residency status in Hong Kong. In addition, she owned a valid Chinese passport which her lawyers had shipped to Vancouver after her arrest. As a matter of fact, over a period of 11 years she had held seven passports or possibly eight. The passport issue became important to discern if Mdme Meng was a flight risk; however, it was determined that bail could be granted.

Mdme Meng had intended to simply stopover in Vancouver on her way to Mexico City along with her colleague whose name is Hui Ji. That trip would have taken about seven hours. There is no mention to my knowledge about why she was headed to Mexico rather than to the G20 Summit in Buenos Aires.


                


In Buenos Aires, the free-trade deal had been signed a day earlier on November 30, 2018 at about 8:35 am. There were three signatories. They were Trump, Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. It was President Nieto's last day in office. One of the two topics that he stressed of importance in reference to USMCA was information technology.


                


It is surmised by the author that Mdme Meng intended to meet Mexico's newly elected president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador who was to be sworn in at 11 am. She would arrive that evening and presumably be prepared to meet President Obrador on Monday perhaps on invitation to discuss business. There was much to talk about concerning the LTE and 5G-ready wholesale network in Mexico reaching 92% of the population.

Both Huawei and Nokia had been named as technology partners to implement a nation-wide telecommunications network. Theoretically, it would weaken the monopoly of América Móvil whose Telcel brand controlled about 65% of the mobile market share. Basically speaking, Huawei will be involved in the central and southern regions of Mexico along with providing the backbone; whereas, Nokia will be concerned with the northern part of the country, as well as construction of the network’s core, including the Network Operation Center (NOC) and Security Operation Center (SOC).


                  


It appears that the Nokia-Huawei partnership was structured to allay any security concerns that the Mexican government might have. It also seems to have addressed any potential national security issues that the United States might have since Huawei was not on the southern border of the US nor part of the network's core. Despite these precautions it seems that the arrest of Mdme Meng might be intended to delay and defer the plans of the partnership while perhaps setting the stage for a US company such as ATT and Broadcom to replace Huawei.

A week before the arrest of Mdme Meng the United States government asked its allies to drop Huawei from their 5G networks. One of these allies is Canada which has been dithering about what to do concerning Huawei's involvement in its advanced telecommunications network while earlier offering fire sales to the Chinese of ITF Technologies and Norsat International which alarmed intelligence and defence experts on both sides of the border. It seems that Ralph Goodale who is our Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness has forgotten two words with respect to Huawei: Northern Telecom. The arrest of a Huawei executive would delay Canada's decision about Huawei's 5G network--especially with the arrest of Spavor and Kovrig.


                


The trap had now been set to arrest Mdme Meng based on political considerations. One might call it the "Thucydides Trap". To rephrase the Athenian general Thucydides "What made Cold War inevitable was the growth of Chinese power and the fear which this caused in the United States".

The term "Thucydides Trap" appeared in an Op Ed Ad in The New York Times at the time that Trump met Xi on April 06, 2017. It said that "Both major players in the region share a moral obligation to steer away from Thucydides's Trap." The key phrase here is "moral obligation". The arrest of Mdme Meng was an immoral act and the arrest of Kovrig and Spavor were immoral acts in a techno-trade war. If leaders of countries are capable of arresting individuals for political reasons in a techno-trade war then they may not be far away from conducting an immoral Cold War involving millions of individuals through proxy regional conflicts.

The Thucydides Trap is one of the Three Trap Laws 三个陷阱定律. The author has written about the traps as early as 2016.

Refer to the heading called Three Trap Laws which can be found at the following address: https://sundawu.ca/Three_Trap_Laws.html

This analysis will conclude with a mention of the Amendments to the Fugitives Offenders Ordinance (FOO) which was formally known as The Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation or MLACML (Amendment) Bill 2019 (年逃犯及刑事事宜相互法律協助法例(修訂)條例草案) proposed by the Hong Kong Security Bureau in February 2019. It is commonly known as the Extradition Bill. It would have allowed individuals--including foreigners--to be deported to mainland China to face trial in courts controlled by the one and only party. Those were the same courts to which Xiao Jianhua--who was citizen of several countries including Canada--was whisked off from a Hong Kong hotel against his will as he was forced to wear a black hood and Mao overcoat.


                 

                                June 16, 2019 March


Hong Kongers reacted strongly to FOO through mass demonstrations numbering in the millions. Basically, they were saying "FOO to you". The streets of Hong Kong are still filled to date with demonstrations which have become violent even though FOO has been withdrawn. It seems that 福 fú has brought neither good fortune or luck to mainland China.

The Chief Executive Carrie Lam of Hong Kong denies that the mainland was intentionally excluded from the extradition laws ahead of the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997. However, both the last colonial governor of Hong Kong Chris Patten and then Chief Secretary Anson Chan have said that Hong Kong and China knew very well that "there had to be a firewall between the different legal systems." Legally speaking, there is a subtle but sublime difference between the old ordinance and the proposed one. Under the old ordinance "the Beijing Government can only order the Chief Executive not to surrender a fugitive offender to other countries, but cannot “protect” him by surrendering to Mainland China. If the Ordinance is amended, then the “protection” can be further enhanced by surrendering to Mainland China."1

More importantly, it seems that the young people of Hong Kong knew intuitively and instinctively that there had to be a divide between the two systems in order to protect the rule of law from rule by law. They did not want to be deported to China for any one of the initially stated forty-six crimes of the special surrender arrangements. Among the offences were mischief including mischief in relation to computer data, the unlawful use of computers and offences against the law relating to environmental pollution or protection of public health. These might be put under the general category of civil disobedience.


                 


It goes without saying (although it is denied by all) that Kovrig and Spavor were held as hostage by the Chinese in retaliation for the arrest of Mdme Meng who was held as hostage through an American provisional arrest warrant recognized by Canada which happens to be a free-trade partner of the United States. If Canada had had an extradition treaty with China as the mainland had wanted in return for free-trade then the likely arrest of Meng, if it had taken place at all, would probably have meant that she would have been returned to China rather than go through a lengthy extradition process to the United States.


                        


    Chan Tong-kai (陳同佳) Left   Poon Hiu-wing (潘曉穎) Right.png



The purpose of FOO and MLACMl for the Hong Kong government was ostensibly to provide a dispute solving mechanism for Hong Kong and Taiwan to resolve interrelated problems concerning serious crimes. A particular heinous crime was referenced concerning the murder of a Hong Kong citizen by another Hong Kong citizen who as lovers had travelled to Taipei on February 08, 2018 to celebrate Valentine's Day.

The Chief Executive Carrie Lam said “There is no time to lose. We must strive to pass the law by the 2018-2019 session of the Legislative Council meetings – that is, by this summer,” “The Taiwan murder case has set the clock ticking. We don’t want the suspect to escape.” One could argue though that it could not be applied to the murder case because then it would be on a retroactive basis which is counter to the principles of rule of law. In addition, the author interprets Bill 2019 to mean that the suspect Chan Tong-kai (陳同佳) who confessed to the murder in front of Hong Kong police could potentially be extradited to mainland China. "Under the principle of independence of legal system in Hong Kong Basic Law, Hong Kong has continued its repudiation of capital punishment after its handover to the People's Republic of China despite the fact that capital punishment is still effectively carried out in Mainland China." Wikipedia


                

                                         Edward Yiu

The author is in accordance with the views expressed by Edward Yiu in an updated report at the time of one of the largest protests in Hong Kong on June 06, 2019 regarding the extradition proceedings against Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver and Bill 2019 in Hong Kong. Yiu states that "The intended effects of the amendments can be regarded as a mirrored counterpart of the legal rights utilsed by the US government in Meng’s case." The amendments were proposed only about two months from the arrest of the Huawei executive and in response to it.

The author goes on to say that the issue concerning the murder suspect Chan Tong-kai (陳同佳) was a red herring to frighten and coerce the citizens of Hong Kong into accepting amendments to previous ordinances. Furthermore, the request by Taipei officials to resolve the knotty cross-straits' problems met with tepid response from Hong Kong authorities. Previously, two agencies had been set up to handle issues like this since an extradition treaty did not exist between Taiwan and Hong Kong. This demonstrates that the case was of peripheral importance to the office of the Chief Executive whose new legislation would give her the final word (after consultation with Beijing) concerning extradition to mainland China.

However, Bill 2019 would be a much more powerful instrument than the United States-Canada Extradition Treaty to allow the arrest of anyone living or visiting Hong Kong--including the 300,000 Canadians ex-pats in Hong Kong--and then extradited to mainland China. Furthermore, its effect would be to prevent the extradition of mainland Chinese in Hong Kong to the West. Finally, the young people of Hong Kong undertook peaceful demonstrations in the millions on the streets because they realized anyone could be arrested for any sign of activism or civil disobedience and deported to China if the law were enacted.



1. The relationship between Fugitive Offenders Ordinance Bill HK and Meng Wanzhou Case, Edward Yiu, March 07, 2019.

https://medium.com/@edwardyiu/the-relationship-between-fugitive-offenders-ordinance-bill-hk-and-meng-wanzhou-case-7e79e1622a04



D.卡尔顿 罗西

D. Carlton Rossi

2019年10月13日