WHY CANADA MUST RELEASE MENG WAN ZHOU
By K. J. Noh, Popular Resistance.
October 30, 2020 | EDUCATE!
Above photo: Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou poses for pictures
with friends on the steps of the B.C. Supreme Court in May. Ben Nelms/CBC.
Few things are as dangerous as a poorly thought-out kidnapping. Kidnappings
are serious business, often with unintended consequences. History is
replete with dim-witted criminals who engaged in them on a whim, only to
discover adverse outcomes far beyond their imagining. One dramatic example
happened 90 years ago this week:
On October 24th, a mother with young children is kidnapped. She is the
cherished wife of an important man whom the kidnapper's group is in
competition with. The plan of the kidnapper is that by kidnapping her, this
will create unbearable psychological pressure on her husband, force him to
capitulate, or at least damage his resolve.
The woman is first humiliated, then tortured, then killed. But the leader
does not capitulate, break, or weaken. Instead, over the next nineteen
years, he wages war without quarter on his enemies and eventually drives
them into the sea. Decades later, he will write this poem for her:
The lonely goddess in the moon spreads her ample sleeves
To dance for these faithful souls in the endless sky.
Of a sudden comes word of the tiger's defeat on earth,
And they break into tears of torrential rain
The poet, is of course, Mao Tse-Tung. The kidnapped woman was the beloved
wife of Chairman Mao, Yang Kai Hui, the mother of his three children. In the
winter of 1930, the Kuomintang Fascists kidnapped her and her son, in order
to demoralize Mao and put pressure on him to capitulate. She was executed
in Changsha, on November 14th, in front of her children, at the ripe age of
29.
Though utterly helpless at the moment she was hostage, Mao never forgave the
kidnappers for their depravity, cowardice, and misogyny-victimizing women
and children as weapons in a war-and he ground his enemies into the dust,
and then built a state where such atrocities could never occur or go
unpunished again.
The State-directed, extraterritorial kidnapping of Huawei CFO Meng Wan Zhou
is widely seen as a similar act of infamy, misogyny, and thuggery, by a
similar class of disreputable individuals. "Lawless, reasonless,
ruthless,.vicious" is the extraordinary official pronouncement of the
Chinese government. It is certainly a violation of international law. How
this will play out ultimately, and what retribution will be meted out
remains to be seen, but retribution there will surely be for this "extremely
vicious" act.
George Koo has pointed out the "rotten underpinnings of the case" in this
article. Most people understand that Meng is not guilty of anything other
than being the daughter of Ren Zeng Fei, the founder of Huawei. Huawei, as a
global technological powerhouse, represents Chinese power and Chinese
technical prowess, which the United States is hell-bent on destroying. Meng
has been kidnapped as a pawn, as a hostage to exert pressure on Huawei and
the Chinese government, and to curb China's development. In a maneuver
reminiscent of medieval or colonial warfare, the US has explicitly offered
to release her if China capitulates on a trade deal-making clear that she is
being held hostage. This constitutes a violation of the UN Convention on
Hostages
The outcome of this judicial kidnapping will determine US and Canada-Chinese
policy for decades to come: whether a rapprochement is possible in the
future, or whether relations will spiral into a cycle of acrimony,
vengeance, and ultimately catastrophe.
What is on trial, of course, is not Meng, or Huawei, but the judicial system
of Canada and the conscience, good sense, and ethics of its ruling class:
whether it will uphold or undermine international notions of justice.
If the Canadian judiciary and its ruling classes fail this test, Canada
risks being driven, metaphorically, into the sea by a determined Chinese
leadership. The global community that upholds international justice could
only concur.
Key Facts About The Meng Wan Zhou Case
The Canadian government arrested Meng Wan Zhou, the CFO of Huawei, on
December 1st of 2018, as she was transiting Vancouver on a flight to Mexico.
The arrest was made on the demand of the US government's US District Court's
Eastern District of NY. The initial charge was "fraud and conspiracy to
commit fraud to circumvent US sanctions on Iran".
Of course, the US government knew rapidly that these allegations could not
constitute an extraditable charge. The Canadians do not subscribe to US
sanctions against Iran-they actively encourage trade with Iran-and therefore
business dealings with Iran could hardly be a crime in Canada. In fact, the
unilateral US sanction are actually a violation of international law.
Furthermore, like most jurisdictions in the world, Canada also has a
requirement of "double criminality": unless the alleged crime is a crime in
both jurisdictions, you cannot extradite.
So an alternate case had to be constructed. The case was that was concocted
alleged that because Meng had lied to a bank, she must be extradited for
fraud. Of course, the bank was British (HSBC), the "crime" happened in Hong
Kong, the accused was a Chinese national, and the arrest was in Canada.
Hence, she must be extradited to the US for "fraud". As a set up for a lame
joke this would not pass, and as legal argument it is beyond farce. The US
court claimed standing to charge her because transactions with HSBC had, or
would have transited US servers in New York for a few milliseconds.
Here are some key things to remember about this case:
1) Even if the allegations of so-called "fraud" were true, without the
political pressures, such an issue would largely be a private matter between
HSBC and Meng.
2) None of the transactions between HSBC and Meng occurred in the US. The
funds only transited through the US system because of the way of the global
banking system is set up for dollar clearance-this was the pretextual
technicality used for jurisdiction and charging. (The funds could equally
have been set up to transit through an alternate system, bypassing US
servers and risk).
3) No non-US person has ever been charged for "causing" a non-US bank to
violate US sanctions in the past. In similar cases, it's usually a small
fine to a corporation.
4) It's been shown that the US attempted the abduction of Meng in 6 European
and Latin American countries-all of which rejected US demands. The US
decided on Meng's momentary transit through Canada, because they considered
the Trudeau government to be the most pliable and sycophantic to their
cause.
5) Trump has made statements that Meng could be used as a bargaining chip in
the US-China trade deal, showing the clearly political nature of the arrest.
Confidential RCMP documents also note that the arrest was "highly
political". It's widely suspected that the law-breaking John Bolton was the
instigator behind the action.
6) HSBC was already under prosecution by the US government for prior
unrelated violations; rather than doing due diligence in their loan or
clearance processes or the law, it decided to collaborate with the US
government to entrap Huawei and Meng.
7) The arrest itself involved massive abuses of process: irregularities in
detention, notification, search, seizure, constituting themselves violations
of international law and bilateral agreements.
8) The court case has been also full of abuses, including the hiding of key
exculpatory documents (slides 6 & 16) by the prosecution; and denial of
access to key documents to the defense (on the basis of national security
and "damage to China-Canada relations"). Given the damage that has already
happened to China-Canada relations by the abduction of Meng, one can only
imagine what additional "damage" Canada's Intelligence service is trying to
prevent with a claim of National Secrets exemption.
9) The Trudeau government is going on with the charade that it is a hapless
damsel obliged to follow US strong-arm demands. But Section 23 of the
Canadian Extradition Act gives the government the authority to terminate
this case at any time. Extradition is made on the discretion of the
government, and by refusing to act, the Trudeau administration is abdicating
its responsibilities to the Canadian people and the cause of justice.
The Fraudulent Charge Of Fraud:
Meng Wan Zhou's lawyer has argued, "It is a fiction, that the US has any
interest in policing interactions between a private bank and a private
citizen halfway around the world.It's all about sanctions".
The jurisprudence upholds this: for a fraud charge against Meng to stick, it
would have to show 1) deliberate misrepresentation/deception to HSBC as well
as 2) harm or risk of harm to HSBC. In other words, Meng's lies would have
put HSBC at risk for fines and penalities for sanctions busting.
Note, however, that the bank could not have been held liable, if it could be
shown that they had been "deceived" into breaching US sanctions by Meng as
alleged. If Meng had "lied" to the bank, no harm could have occurred to the
bank. The bank would have needed to act deliberately to face any risk of
liability.
On the other hand, documents, slides, and emails released later actually
show that HSBC had been informed of the relationship between Skycom and
Huawei before Meng's testimony as well as during the meeting, so the
allegation of deception doesn't hold up. (Slides 6 & 16 used in Meng's
presentation to HSBC were omitted to make it seem as if Meng had deceived
them, but in full context, show there was no deception).
The conclusion is simple: there was either no lie, or no harm. Regardless,
there was no fraud.
In other words, the Canadian government had no case.
The Double Criminality Of Heather Holmes
Canadian Justice Heather Holmes, presided over the interrogation. Like the
fascist KMT warlord who had kidnapped and tortured Yang Kai Hui, she
interrogated Meng Wan Zhou and her lawyer in sibilant tones. Tell me, about
"double criminality", she entreated gently, as if their arguments would be
weighed in her judgment.
Meng's lawyer, Richard Peck, answered with common sense: Because Canada
doesn't have sanctions against Iran, there would be no liability to the
bank, hence, no risk to the bank, hence, no criminal "fraud".
It also couldn't constitute fraud in the US, since if what the government
argued was true-that Meng had misrepresented facts to the bank-HSBC would
not be liable because the bank would be an "innocent victim", hence not
liable for any sanctions.
"All risk is driven by sanctions risk in the US", Peck stated.
Astonishingly, Justice Holmes ruled against Meng, claiming that one should
not look for correspondence or equivalence between the statutes to determine
"double criminality" in fraud. Instead, she claimed that one had to
transpose the context and the coherence of the statues of the demanding
country to render a decision. Even though Canada didn't have sanctions
against Iran (thus no illegality or risk of harm, and hence no fraud), she
stated that she still had to interpret the demand for extradition by
"transposing the environment" that led the US to make the demand. In other
words, Canada had no sanctions on Iran, but she had to imagine "the
environment"-i.e., "as if Canada had sanctions on Iran"-to render the
decision. In so doing, she was able to smuggle in illegal US sanctions by
installing a legal backdoor-into a country that had lifted sanctions.
In other words, the dubious, illegal "environment" of US sanctions overruled
the clear, plain letter of Canadian law. At the same time, no consideration
was given to the odious political "environment" driving the abduction.
Why did the good justice see fit to make a mockery of Canada's own laws and
sovereignty, and subjugate Canada to US extraterritoriality? Why did she
contort herself to support the blatant illegality of US sanctions? Does she
realize she has set the country barreling down the wrong lane of history?
It's not known if Justice Holms asked for the clerk to bring her a basin of
Maple syrup to wash her hands after she passed judgment. But it would have
been understandable for such a corrupt, consequential, and deeply
catastrophic judgment.
Rogue State Canada
Canadian politicians and press like to intone robotically, that Meng's
kidnapping is strictly a by-the-books, "rule-of-law" procedure with Meng's
detention. They like to repeat the catechism, in that tiresome,
hypocritical, Maple-washing fashion, that they are "a nation of laws"
(insinuating the others are not). But the fact is, Canadians have an
atrocious history of kidnapping innocents in general, and assisting the US
with kidnappings in particular. There are many examples, but the best known
is the story of Maher Arar, the Canadian engineer who was kidnapped and
rendered as terrorist, and tortured unspeakably in Syria, where "the pain
was so great, it makes you forget the taste of your mother's milk" Of
course, he was innocent of all charges.
It's also well established that Canadian Police have an ugly habit of
kidnapping Indigenous people who are drunk or homeless, and driving them far
away from city and abandoning them where they are sure to die of hypothermia
and exposure in the winter. These are called Saskatoon "Starlight tours".
It's equally well known that the Canadian government also kidnapped tens of
thousands of Indigenous children, sometimes at gun point, and forced them
into concentration camps ("residential schools") where they were abused,
tortured, raped, enslaved, and killed. Children kidnapped in these schools
had a greater chance of dying than soldiers doing battle in WWII-some
studies show a mortality rate of 40-60%. In other words, it committed
genocide, through rule of law, of course.
In 2018, the UN Committee on Human Rights published a long series of
incriminating findings on Canada, related to the torture, mistreatment,
imprisonment, death and refoulement of immigrants, refugees, indigenous
peoples, and other political prisoners.
On the other hand, the Canadian government has been known to fight tooth and
nail to harbor war criminals and torturers-people who legitimately should be
extradited. For example, it harbored several El Salvadoran death squad
leaders in the 1980's. These people were so toxic that the Salvadoran
government could no longer have them in their country-so they gave them
diplomatic postings to Canada. The Canadians, instead of doing the
reasonable thing and extraditing them-as was demanded by human rights
community around the world, bent over backwards to give them safe harbor and
immunity.
Any hope that the settler-colonial Canadian justice system can play an even
hand or follow basic human ethics in this case is belied by this atrocious
history.
But Why Is The US Going After Huawei?
China has been designated the official enemy ("revisionist power") of the
US, because it poses a threat to US dominance. As such, the US is engaged in
"multi-domain" hybrid warfare against China to attack and bring China down.
The domains of warfare that involve the US assaults against Huawei are the
domains of: tech war, trade war, economic war, lawfare, and cyber war.
Huawei is one of the key pillars of China's technological and economic
strength. It is the world's largest and most advanced telecom corporation,
and in 5G it owns 1/5 of the base patents in the field.
Huawei is also building the digital infrastructure to accompany the Belt and
Road Initiative (the "digital silk road"). This not only allows China's
economy to grow, but also prevents the effects of military blockade at the
South China Sea. Its hardware makes it harder for US surveillance to tap.
These are the key reasons why it is being attacked and taken down. Aside
from kidnappings, the US has been waging this warfare by trying to prevent
other countries from signing deals for Huawei 5G infrastructure. It is
alleging that Huawei would render these networks insecure: Huawei would spy
on them for the Chinese government, or even open them for Chinese
cyberwarfare.
Actually, the truth is exactly the inverse. A world-wide Huawei system
could create problems for the US global panopticon upon which US "unipolar"
dominance relies on: its ability to eavesdrop on individuals, corporations,
the leaders of countries, as well as military communications. With
non-Huawei routers, due to the subservience and mandated cooperation of US
companies, cyberspace as a domain of warfare is always guaranteed to be
permeable and amenable to US surveillance and attack.
In other words, the US taps routers globally to spy on individuals,
companies, governments, and nations: "Routers, switches, and servers made by
Cisco are booby-trapped with surveillance equipment that intercepts traffic
handled by those devices and copies it to the NSA's network"
Regarding specific allegations of Huawei's "spying", Huawei has been
completely transparent and has handed over its source code to relevant
Intelligence agencies for detailed analysis, year upon year. No spying or
intentional backdoors have been found: For example, German Intelligence
found no spying, and no potential for spying, and British Intelligence also
found none.
On the other hand, the US NSA, in a program called Shotgiant, spied
extensively on Huawei to look for links between Huawei and the PLA, evidence
of backdoors and spying, and vulnerabilities that they could exploit. This
extraordinary spying (revealed by Wikileaks) showed no evidence of
backdoors, spying or connections with the PLA. The Shotgiant disclosures
showed that US allegations were projection: NSA actions "actually mirror
what the US has been accusing Huawei of potentially doing". The NSA did,
however, steal Huawei's proprietary source code at the time, and had plans
to spy on other countries by using this information and had sought to
compromise security in general. Of course, these kinds of unethical
exploits create dangers for everyone.
Theft and exploits notwithstanding, using Huawei hardware could still make
it harder for the US to surveil networks-Huawei has declared it refuses to
plant backdoors.
Guo Ping, the chairman of Huawei, was quoted in The Verge: "If the NSA wants
to modify routers or switches in order to eavesdrop, a Chinese company will
be unlikely to cooperate,".Guo argues that his company "hampers US efforts
to spy on whomever it wants," reiterating its position that "Huawei has not
and will never plant backdoors."
Wired Magazine has also confirmed that Huawei is an obstacle to NSA
surveillance: Telecom-equipment makers who sell products to carriers in the
US "are required by law to build into their hardware ways for authorities to
access the networks for lawful purposes".
The only allegation of "Huawei vulnerabilities" with any backing evidence
shown to date have been Bloomberg's "gotcha" article that alleged that in
2009, 2011 some telnet connections in Huawei equipment for Vodaphone in
Italy were insecure. Vodaphone, however, refuted these allegations. Further
technical analysis showed these allegations were completely implausible. The
hardware (Baseboard Management Controller) that Bloomberg alleges is
"insecure" cannot access any data in any normal configuration Furthermore,
built-in Telnet access CLI connections are unexceptional, and did not pose
meaningful risk.
Since then further allegations have been made by the US government (leaked
to the WSJ), but always without proof. These allegations may be recycled and
refuted old allegations, or they may just be pure invention, which why they
cannot issue the proof.
Of course, Huawei refutes these allegations and always demands proof. The
proof is never forthcoming, because there is none.
Here is a solution that allows everyone to step back from the brink. Back
off on the unsubstantiated, unverifiable "backdoor spying" canards. Stop the
spying and harassment of Huawei, and stop the projection. Stop the
interference with its global contracts: let each country evaluate them on
their own merits. Stop the fraudulent prosecutions that recycle settled
matters.
Above all, stop taking hostages: this is a violation of international law.
Canada must release Meng Wan Zhou, immediately. And it must find ways to
repair relations and find ways cooperate anew with China. The benefits of
success will be tangible and immense. The consequences of failure,
immeasurable.
A version of this article has appeared in the Asia Times.
from Popular Resistance
