Meng Wanzhou extradition

So the US now formally requested it

https://www.businessinsider.de/huawei-us-requests-extradition-of-cfo-meng-wanzhou-from-canada-2019-1?r=US&IR=T

And in a surprising turn of events the former Canadian Ambassador to China is working as her lawyer after having been repeatedly very critical about his own gouvernment

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/01/canadas-ambassador-to-china-john-mccallum-takes-second-job-as-lawyer-to-huawei-cfo-meng-wanzhou/

It is not really a new development but is is something other than the internal US biparisan outrage in nearly every other thread so i think it might be interesting to discuss.

I find the set-up odd - that the US can charge a non-US citizen for breach of US sanctions. I'm sure there's some sort of reason it's happening, but it is terribly confusing.

It's the same with the global ban on identifying the James Bulger killers - i.e. I'm not sure what gives the British courts the right to issue a global ban.

It is odd.

And very questionable as far as international law is concerned. But it basically is the US applying the power of the Dollar and the concentration of global finance on the US coast to apply its laws worldwide and direct economic policy.

I would guess the whole point is - we don't want your kind in America. We'll even lock up those in power.

In Australia, the main telco was looking at Huawei for networks until the government told them it was a security hazard. China could now be listening in on all our conversations. Which is funny becuase the government has been listening in our conversations already and other companies have been selling information about me. So having Huawei would be no different

trunkage:
I would guess the whole point is - we don't want your kind in America. We'll even lock up those in power.

It seems really out of order to extradite someone to a country they don't want to be in, then tell them you don't want their sort there!

I know there are a couple of nations that won't use Huawei anymore, but considering the US pressure

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/26/us/politics/huawei-china-us-5g-technology.html

i am not convinced that really is about any security risk. Especially as most who won't use it are part of the Five Eyes with an interest of retaining quasi momopoly control of most datastreams of the wordwide internet.

Baffle2:

trunkage:
I would guess the whole point is - we don't want your kind in America. We'll even lock up those in power.

It seems really out of order to extradite someone to a country they don't want to be in, then tell them you don't want their sort there!

I meant the message was to Huawei not the CFO.

The general gist of the situation is, from a Canadian POV is this: One country which has a lot of legal treaties with us says "hey this person is accused of real crimes!" we then arrest said person. Then the head of state of the country requesting extradition muses that this is just a political ploy on national television.

This leaves us in a bit of a situation where our closest ally is not acting in good faith and we are having our own citizens arrested on *ahem* "Trumped" up charges by a country that has never even pretended to give the faintest of shits about justice or the rule of law (that'd be China). So do we stick to our guns and extradite? even though it will hurt us and is being used dishonestly?

I mean, this woman is almost certainly guilty of the crimes she is accused of.

Satinavian:
It is odd.

And very questionable as far as international law is concerned. But it basically is the US applying the power of the Dollar and the concentration of global finance on the US coast to apply its laws worldwide and direct economic policy.

Essentially, because almost every transaction has to touch the US dollar this gives the american insane legal reach. Canada didn't really have a choice there ignoring an extradition request would have cause plenty of problem, and China is responding to this in incredibly petty ways. But it's hard not to consider the US as severely overreaching in this case.

But with the US becoming much weaker on the world wide stage, the size of it's economy relative to the rest of the world decreasing and the current administration insistence on pissing off long term ally the world is going to start seriously considering building an alternative money system insulated from the american one. This is a bit of a shame, in better saner time the US use there ability to go after corruption case happening outside there border.

Meiam:

Essentially, because almost every transaction has to touch the US dollar this gives the american insane legal reach. Canada didn't really have a choice there ignoring an extradition request would have cause plenty of problem, and China is responding to this in incredibly petty ways. But it's hard not to consider the US as severely overreaching in this case.

Using the Euro does not make EU law apply, then why should using the Dollar make US law apply ? That is stupid. Especially with arrangements like the Petro-Dollar in place which makes the Dollar the exclusive currency of trade for certain material of countries that are very much not the US.
That is nonsense. Which is why the US instead focusses on if any entity handling a part of the dollar transaction sits in the US and claims that that makes all other partners, wherever those sit, subject to US law.

Before Trump, the US had at least made most of its sanction regimes in cooperation with its allies or the UN and didn' really try to enforce its laws abroad when it coudln't convince its partners to join in. So the US interpretation of the reach of law was not really challenged, even if most nations didn'T agree with it even then.

Satinavian:

Meiam:

Essentially, because almost every transaction has to touch the US dollar this gives the american insane legal reach. Canada didn't really have a choice there ignoring an extradition request would have cause plenty of problem, and China is responding to this in incredibly petty ways. But it's hard not to consider the US as severely overreaching in this case.

Using the Euro does not make EU law apply, then why should using the Dollar make US law apply ? That is stupid. Especially with arrangements like the Petro-Dollar in place which makes the Dollar the exclusive currency of trade for certain material of countries that are very much not the US.
That is nonsense. Which is why the US instead focusses on if any entity handling a part of the dollar transaction sits in the US and claims that that makes all other partners, wherever those sit, subject to US law.

Before Trump, the US had at least made most of its sanction regimes in cooperation with its allies or the UN and didn' really try to enforce its laws abroad when it coudln't convince its partners to join in. So the US interpretation of the reach of law was not really challenged, even if most nations didn'T agree with it even then.

Canada, while having eased quite a bit of it's Iran sanctions in 2016, still has restrictions on the books. If she's accused of doing something that is against the law in both countries, extradition would still apply.

trunkage:
I would guess the whole point is - we don't want your kind in America. We'll even lock up those in power.

In Australia, the main telco was looking at Huawei for networks until the government told them it was a security hazard. China could now be listening in on all our conversations. Which is funny becuase the government has been listening in our conversations already and other companies have been selling information about me. So having Huawei would be no different

Yeah, but would you rather a corporation be able to sell and analyze your metadata, or a corporation be able to sell and analyze your metadata?

jademunky:

Canada, while having eased quite a bit of it's Iran sanctions in 2016, still has restrictions on the books. If she's accused of doing something that is against the law in both countries, extradition would still apply.

But it isn't about Canadian restrictions.

There was no violation of any Canadian sanctions. That is why the extradition is pro forma not about violating the US sanctions but about trying to hide it. Which then is treated as fraud which is also illegal in Canada.

If she would have violated Canadian sanctions, Canada would try her itself (or more likely apply a fine like with all other sanction violations so far) instead of extradition.

Baffle2:
I find the set-up odd - that the US can charge a non-US citizen for breach of US sanctions. I'm sure there's some sort of reason it's happening, but it is terribly confusing.

The USA arrested some citizens of EU countries when they set foot on American soil because they ran businesses which had dealings in Cuba. The EU very aggressively took action to defend the rights of European-Cuban trade, and drove their release. There is therefore potential controversy.

What I think a successful trial may need to demonstrate is that the breach of sanctions or other crimes occurred via any operations that were under US sovereignty and jurisdiction. If that has occurred, it seems to me that there's a valid case.

Satinavian:
i am not convinced that really is about any security risk. Especially as most who won't use it are part of the Five Eyes with an interest of retaining quasi momopoly control of most datastreams of the wordwide internet.

Chinese firms are considered a potential security risk across the whole of the West, not just the "Five Eyes". Many EU countries, for instance, were astonished that the UK permitted Huawei so much access to the UK telecommunications network and gave Chinese firms the nod to build key parts of the UK's energy infrastructure. Although there's been plenty of publicity about the US encouraging the EU to also turn the screws, it's hardly new: plenty of officials in the EU and EU member states have been issuing concerns about some Chinese firms for a significant time.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here