back
34 comments
As the article briefly mentions, these sort of Chinese police outposts have been discovered in multiple countries. This issue was also in Dutch news one or two years ago. Apparently China uses these outposts to police Chinese citizens (and maybe their descendants?) living abroad, with the goal of instilling loyalty towards China. The Chinese government may also pressure their family in China in order to coerce compliance. It's basically mafia tactics applied by a government in order to control people who have left the country.
https://archive.ph/tgC41
Interested to see if they make anything stick, is this under the recent DOJ initiative [1]? That doesn't seem to have a great track record [2][3].

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210216044709/https://www.justi... - linked in [2], though the original is apparently no longer available

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/20/science/gang-chen-mit-chi... - 'U.S. Drops Its Case Against M.I.T. Scientist Accused of Hiding China Links'

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/16/nyregion/nypd-officer-chi... - 'U.S. Asks to Drop Case Accusing N.Y.P.D. Officer of Spying for China'

>Officials in Ireland, Canada and the Netherlands have called on China to shut down similar operations in their countries.

So we are politely asking the Chinese Communist Party to stop spying on us, rather than closing down these outposts ourselves. Is this a sustainble/durable option? Our open systems are simply a vulnerability for daring autocracies.

When some EU countries arrested Iranian assasins send to kill Iranian dissidents they just politely flew the assassins back to Iran with no other punishment. In my opinion the assassins should have been jailed for planned/attempted murder.

Western countries are hilariously underprepared to deal with adversaries that are both sophisticated and brutal. Adversaries like China, Russia and Iran.

You are right, although "sent them back" probably means adding their face and fingerprints to a permanent customs blacklist.
This is the "Demolition Man" problem. We asked them only know how to speak sternly, and when someone doesn't listen we have no other options.
> So we are politely asking the Chinese Communist Party to stop spying on us, rather than closing down these outposts ourselves.

I suspect that the countries involved have legal system which require a degree of evidence which may not be available (or which they may prefer not to reveal in the kind of process that would be required, given the possibility of resolving the problem without doing so) yet before forcibly taking action the way, e.g., the US just has, but there is no strict proof threshold for lodging a diplomatic complaint.

If the operations are this widespread in several countries that are within an intelligence alliance (Nine Eyes), surely there is some way to gather enough concrete evidence to prove this is actually happening? Physically can't imagine an intelligence operation that would endure the combined forces of some of the world's top intelligence agencies.
Good. What's the problem?
The problem is that the definition of the modern state is the body that has the monopoly on violence. If another state encroaches on that, it is by definition an attack on the sovereignty of the first state.
But... FBI arrested them rather than affirming their actions. What should the response have been? Retaliating against China?
More police. Lower crime. Fewer lawyers needed down the line.
The article makes no mention of international law, or of extraterritoriality. Could they not find an appropriate expert to quote ?
> The article makes no mention of international law, or of extraterritoriality.

Because neither is particularly relevant here; these are actions in places under simple US jurisdiction, by people under simple US jurisdiction, not by PRC diplomats and/or carried out in facilities that are PRC extraterritorial enclaves.

EDIT: For the arrestees. For the non-arrested charged parties, I suppose an expert on international law and extraterritoriality could explain that there is no international law protecting people from charges for working in their own country to violate the laws of another country, though enforcement of those charges may be difficult so long as the charged parties remain in and protected by the government of China. But, I mean, it doesn’t really take an expert in international law and extraterritoriality to explain that, either.

I don't disagree. But I detect a whiff of hypocrisy on the part of American law enforcement, which often seems to have a different idea about its ability to act outside its borders. Very strong assertions of extraterritoriality. But, well, do as I say, not as I do.
You do have somewhat of a point here. The US is one of only two countries (and the only country that can make it stick) that sees any American or any person born in the US, as falling under US tax law, and requires them to file taxes in the US, even if they don't live there or work there. Banks across the world are required to enforce this and have special rules for "US Persons" or they're not allowed to do business with the US, which is understandably crippling for any bank. Because of this, even some people who feel like they have no connection with the US at all, may be unable to open a bank account anywhere unless they agree to file taxes in the US.

So yes, the US also tries to exert power over people it considers American subjects well outside its jurisdiction.

That doesn't excuse China intimidating and threatening Chinese people living abroad, though.

Oh, I mean more than just tax filing requirements. Which (I can say as an ex-pat) are a massive PITA.