Global Courant
The Hong Kong government has expanded its efforts to suppress political dissent abroad by issuing arrest warrants for eight pro-democracy figures in exile and offering premiums of HK$1 million (US$128,000) each.
The targeted pro-democracy figures, now living in Australia, the US and the UK, were selected from a longer list of wanted dissidents. There’s a compound sense in their profiles — three ex-lawmakers, three activists, a trade unionist, and a lawyer — that suggests the list is both symbolic and pragmatic.
It reminds of the infamous “Umbrella Nine” trial which ended years of persecution after the 2014 “Umbrella Movement” protests in Hong Kong. Three academics, three politicians and three activists were tried and sentenced together to send a signal to ‘difficult’ sectors of the Civil society.
The mug shots of that arrest warrants issued depict not gun-wielding thugs this week, but lovable-looking intellectual types.
Their “very serious crimes,” police said, mainly consist of calling for sanctions to stem the tide of political repression in Hong Kong. In terms of the controversial national security law under which the arrest warrants were issued, this is considered “subversion of state power”, a crime punishable by life imprisonment.
How extradition works with Hong Kong
Hong Kong is nominally an autonomous region of China under the “one country, two systems” model agreed upon when the UK handed the territory back in 1997.
however, the national security law was drafted in Beijing and applied to Hong Kong following the tumultuous, protracted protests that gripped the city in 2019. Ironically, these were prompted by fears that the region’s autonomy was crumbling.
A curious feature of national security law is its supposed extraterritorial effect. It claims jurisdiction over any person of any nationality who has committed any of its offenses anywhere in the world.
Whether the Hong Kong government can realistically bring these people to justice is another matter.
International extradition law (technically, in the case of Hong Kong, the surrender of fugitive offenders, as only states grant extradition) contains certain safeguards. The act must be a sufficiently serious crime in both places and must not be a political crime.
The warrants in question fail both tests, despite the Hong Kong government’s hyperbolic claims of national security.
In addition, extradition is guided by bilateral agreements between jurisdictions. Numerous Western countries, including the UK, US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand have their extradition agreements with Hong Kong when the national security law was imposed, which provided for the politicization of criminal law.
A billboard referencing Beijing’s national security law for Hong Kong, seen behind a Chinese national flag held by a pro-China activist at a rally outside the US consulate in the city. Photo: Global Courant Files/AFP/Anthony Wallace
The pro-democracy figures targeted this week knew which way the wind was blowing when they left Hong Kong. They will probably never return there, a sad fact that they may have already reconciled to.
However, they may need to reconsider their travel to jurisdictions that do have extradition agreements with Hong Kong or China.
The risk goes beyond formal arrest and extradition. The bounties offered could raise vigilance, and sympathetic governments could turn a blind eye to or even facilitate the extralegal extradition of the eight exiled activists.
This is illustrated by the case of the five from 2015 Booksellers in Hong Kong who disappeared from several locations, including Thailand, and later resurfaced in China, where they “confessed” to crimes to the state media.
The existence of dissidents abroad has long preoccupied Beijing – as the life of feuds with the Dalai Lama illustrates – but in recent years it has shown a greater determination to monitor and influence overseas Chinese diaspora.
The government even has secretforeign police stationsin Europe, North America and elsewhere, as a basis for information gathering and harassment.
Hong Kong hot on the heels
In the past, China and Hong Kong could be considered separate political entities, but over the past decade, the “firewall” between the mainland and the region has gradually collapsed. Hong Kong’s government and political system have been stripped of democratic elements, and the national security and law enforcement apparatus is now dictated by the mainland.
Compared to its mainland counterpart, the Hong Kong government puts more effort into documenting its actions with a layer of law and legal process.
However, this tactic is becoming increasingly transparent as the pursuit of authoritarian goals is ramped up. The co-optation of Hong Kong’s once-celebrated legal institutions is undermining their already damaged legitimacy.
Hong Kong’s civil society has been mobilized through a series of repressive reforms in the legal, political, educational and media sectors. These new arrest warrants are the latest sign that China will never stop trying to silence its critics, as long as they are willing to speak out.
In the end, these orders may be pointless overstepping – for the sake of their goals we can only hope they are – but the intent behind them remains reprehensible.
Brendan Clift is a teacher, The University of Melbourne
This article has been republished from The conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Similar:
Loading…
