Outside observers have been unnerved by several recent incidents indicative of the deterioration of civil liberties and a return to Cultural Revolution-era practices. Among them are harassment and arrests of lawyers who have devoted their lives to advocating the rights of the downtrodden and the disadvantaged. On numerous occasions, those detained, including a Swedish citizen accused of “endangering state security” because of his assistance to Chinese workers, were forced to appear on Chinese television confessing their alleged misdeeds.
But the most disturbing development is undoubtedly the disappearance of the two book publishers of Hong Kong-based Mighty Current Media. Gui Minhai, one of the publishers and a Swedish citizen, was apparently abducted by Chinese security agents in Thailand in a “rendition” operation. In mid-January, Mr. Gui appeared on Chinese TV implausibly claiming that he had returned to China voluntarily to face the legal consequences of a 12-year old hit-and-run automobile incident. On December 30th, Lee Bo, a British citizen who is Mr. Gui’s colleague and co-owner of the Mighty Current Media, vanished under suspicious circumstances. While initially silent, the Guangdong police acknowledged in mid-January that they had Li in custody.
While the motives behind their “rendition” into the hands of the Chinese police remain unknown, the most widely circulated speculation is that they fell afoul of Beijing because of a sensational gossipy book about President Xi Jinping they are about to publish. Whatever justifications the Chinese government may offer in grabbing these two individuals outside its borders (in legal terms, Hong Kong lies outside the jurisdiction of China), its action has raised alarms around the world.
In Hong Kong, the “rendition” of the two book publishers (as well as three of their colleagues who were detained while visiting China last October) is the latest blow to the “one country, two systems” model, an elaborate but delicate system designed by the late leader Deng Xiaoping to ease the return of the former British colony to Chinese sovereignty. The apparent kidnappings have sent out a clear signal that the Chinese government has no respect for international law. For a city that has already become a hotbed of discontent and rising anti-Beijing sentiments, the rendition operation will not only provide fresh ammunition to the more radical forces, but also alienate Hong Kong’s moderates.
In the rest of the world, the worry is whether Beijing will conduct similar operations to nab exiled dissidents and other high-value targets. Such operations could more likely occur between Chinese neighbors with friendly ties to Beijing or small countries too weak to make a fuss. For example, Chinese dissidents wanted by Beijing should avoid Thailand, where the abduction of Gui took place. In early February, the Thai military government also returned to China, a Chinese journalist who had sought refuge.
The good news is that China is unlikely to extend such operations to Western countries where Chinese security agents themselves are at high risk of detection or arrest should they attempt to carry out their orders. It been reported that Beijing sent undercover agents to the United States to pressure fugitives accused of economic crimes to return. But their activities were detected by American law enforcement authorities, and Washington had warned Beijing against conducting such operations in the U.S.
Beijing may want to argue that its own rendition does not differ from the notorious CIA operations. But such defense rings hollow. First, the CIA renditions have been roundly condemned as blatant violations of international law. Citing a wrongful and illegal act to justify another is no justification. Second, the CIA’s rendition targets were suspected of violent terrorist acts, not harmless activities such as publishing gossipy books about America’s top leaders. The circumstances are incomparable.
Of course, China may have a legitimate need to take into custody fugitives who have committed crimes and fled abroad. However, such actions must comply with established international law and executed through official channels. Most importantly, Beijing must not go after those whose only crime is to exercise their freedom of speech outside Chinese borders.
It remains unknown who in the Chinese government authorized the “rendition” operations in Hong Kong and Thailand. Our best hope is that such a decision was made by overzealous mid-level bureaucrats without the explicit approval from the top leadership.
As of now, the political drama over the rendition of the book publishers and editors is far from over. If anything, the Chinese government may have only made things worse. Besides attracting negative press coverage that has severely dented its international image, Beijing now has a hot potato in its hand: what to do with the abductees. Sentencing them to long jail-terms will risk another round of international criticism. Sending them back to Hong Kong will let the world know what truly happened. Keeping them in limbo, as is the case now, will only focus the world’s attention on the case. It is simply too riveting a story for the media to let go.
In retrospect, it appears that someone in the Chinese hierarchy should have given some thought to the consequences of its first-ever political rendition operation. After suffering this self-inflicted wound, the Chinese government should not make the same mistake again in the future.