A van with a billboard of Julian Assange on the side arrives at the Old Bailey court in London on September 21, 2020. Photo: AP
Opinion
Opinion
by Mike Rowse
Opinion
by Mike Rowse
Mainland legal system needs to improve, but Western critics of China aren’t helping
The Julian Assange and Meng Wanzhou cases together involve the US, Canada, Britain and Australia, four countries which happen to be members of the ‘Five Eyes’ anti-China, Huawei-sceptical alliance
News last week that a British judge had rejected the proposed extradition of Australian journalist Julian Assange to the United States came as a welcome breakthrough in this long-running case. It is possible justice might at last be done.
It is too early to celebrate, of course: the Americans are unhappy with the verdict, and Assange has been denied bail. No doubt there will be appeals against both decisions and many more legal rounds to go.
The case began in 2010 with the publication by WikiLeaks, founded by Assange, of a series of leaks about the American war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan which showed them in a very unflattering – some would say criminal – light.
The US launched an investigation into the leaks and, around the same time, Sweden issued an international arrest warrant for Assange on suspicion of sexual assault. The Australian said this was a ruse and that the real objective, once he was in Sweden, was to extradite him to the US. He jumped bail in 2012 and hid in the Ecuadorean embassy in London for seven years.
02:43
British court rejects US request to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
British court rejects US request to extradite WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
Several interesting things happened in 2019. The Swedes dropped the assault charges, the Ecuadorians withdrew asylum, and the British arrested Assange and charged him with jumping bail. He has served his sentence for that offence but, in the interim, the Americans sought his extradition to face charges of espionage.
The US is involved in another high-profile extradition case with which Hong Kong readers may be more familiar. In December 2018, the Canadian authorities arrested Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer of Huawei and daughter of its founder Ren Zhengfei, at the request of the US.
Meng is under house arrest. From what has been disclosed in the case so far, any offence – if one took place at all – occurred outside the US, but that country claims jurisdiction under its self-given extraterritorial rights as the US dollar is involved.
Whatever the legal merits of America’s claims, to an independent eye, the moral argument was somewhat undermined by remarks by President Donald Trump to the effect that he was prepared to free Meng in exchange for an advantageous trade deal.
So we have two cases, which together involve the US, Canada, Britain and Australia. The connection? All are members of the “Five Eyes” anti-China alliance, and they, plus the fifth, New Zealand, have all banned or effectively sidelined Huawei in their 5G networks despite the absence of any proven threat to national security.
Indeed, at one point in Britain, security officials indicated confidence that they could adequately monitor Huawei – until Uncle Sam insisted otherwise.
The subject of extradition rings alarm bells here, following the attempt in 2019 by Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor to ram through controversial legislation. That generated wide-scale protest, which morphed from largely peaceful activities to social unrest, riots and vandalism.
Our community is now dealing with the aftermath. There have been many arrests and prosecutions, leading to a mixture of acquittals and convictions which have generated further controversy in both directions.
Some who fear prosecution have left Hong Kong, and some already subject to the legal process have attempted to flee – most notably the 12 detained for unlawfully entering mainland waters while allegedly on their way to Taiwan.
The case against them has thrown up a raft of issues. It has confirmed that many aspects of the mainland legal system fall far short of the standards Hong Kong people are accustomed to. There is no right to appoint one’s own lawyer; one is designated by the state. The hearing is effectively behind closed doors, without the presence of close relatives, and so on.
Many of these matters were commented on in a Posteditorial. Since both the Basic Law and national security law confirm continuation of the common law system, it is important that the key aspects of it are preserved in Hong Kong at least.
02:55
Ten Hong Kong fugitives captured at sea jailed for up to three years on Chinese mainland
Ten Hong Kong fugitives captured at sea jailed for up to three years on Chinese mainland
But before we get too involved in further discussion of the missing ingredients in the mainland legal system, it is easy to be sidetracked by criticism of the way the case of the Hong Kong 12 was handled there. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo insisted they should be released immediately, and Europe called for their return to Hong Kong.
They seemed oblivious to the irony that the 12 were trying to flee from the very Hong Kong system perceived to be superior. Consular officials from various countries tried in vain to attend the trial on the mainland.
By all means, let’s have a detailed discussion of how to improve the mainland’s legal system. But it would be a lot easier if the various bizarre activities in the margins of the subject were not present.
