I am not an expert on deferred prosecution agreements, but I think they generally involve some kind of promise to cooperate and some kind of fine. The fact that Meng essentially faces no consequences for her admitted misconduct is a pretty big defeat for @TheJusticeDept.
Sometimes the bad guys win. Without the pressure in Canada and the US created by the Kovrig/Spavor arrests, @TheJusticeDept could have waited for the extradition to play out. But Meng’s appeals could have gone on for years. And Kovrig/Spavor wd be stuck for all of that time.
Letting Meng walk on a light DPA doesn’t seem to make sense except as a diplomatic and humanitarian gesture to try to get Kovrig and Spavor out.
So China is rewarded for its hostage taking, and worse, it has a game plan to block or deter any future effort by @TheJusticeDept to prosecute or extradite high-level Chinese figures.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Great deal for Meng. "The agreement, which is expected to be entered in court later Friday, will require Ms. Meng to admit to some wrongdoing in exchange for prosecutors deferring and later dropping wire and bank fraud charges, the people said." wsj.com/articles/justi… via @WSJ
I don't know if it is also a great deal for @TheJusticeDept. It depends, but it may be Meng's ability to string this out for years battling extradition tipped their hand. Something is better than nothing, I suppose.
Getting Meng to admit to guilt of some kind is meaningful, but I am also assuming no cooperation from her in the rest of their case against Huawei. So a loss for @TheJusticeDept on that front, if that was part of the plan.
This law really does two things. 1) It formalizes the process for sanctioning foreign govt officials who implement sanctions as well as their families and perhaps think tanks, NGOS, or people who advised on those foreign sanctions). E.g. the recent sanctions on EU
The other thing the new law does is prohibit any companies operating in China from complying with EU or US sanctions and expose them to civil lawsuits for damages caused by such compliance. E.g. the XPCC could sue HM, etc.
This second part of the law essentially copies the EU Blocking Statute, which is also aimed at nullifying the effect of US sanctions (like on Iran). ec.europa.eu/info/business-…
Saudi Arabian leader Mohammed bin Salman "firmly supports China's legitimate position on affairs related to Xinjiang and Hong Kong." This kind of support from a leading majority-Muslim country is why pushing China on Xinjiang is so difficult. globaltimes.cn/page/202103/12…
Interestingly, GT reports China's FM Wang will also be meeting with Turkish diplomats. Curious whether the Turkish will endorse China's Xinjiang policies as well.
In any event, the Arab League support for China's Xinjiang policies is exactly the kind of international support that China needs when it pushes back against US/EU sanctions. China is winning this diplomatic contest so far. ecns.cn/news/society/2…
Nike's statement on Xinjiang is actually carefully written to avoid condemning or accusing the Chinese govt of doing anything bad. It just says there are no Uighurs in our supply chain so we are fine. Apparently, this is not good enough. purpose.nike.com/statement-on-x…
Moreover, in the Department of Ingratitude, these companies being targeted in China seem to have lobbied successfully against the Uighur Forced Labor Ban in Congress. Still not good enough apparently. msn.com/en-us/money/ma…
The PR folks who have to write the Nike/HM apologies on Weibo for not using forced labor products from Xinjiang are going to really earn their paycheck this week.
This could be a big deal, although it has some potential downsides. "U.S. Says China’s Repression of Uighurs Is ‘Genocide’" nytimes.com/2021/01/19/us/…
A US govt legal designation of something as a "genocide" has traditionally been a difficult bureaucratic and legal task. See, e.g., the fight over the 2004 US designation of Sudan's actions in Darfur as "genocide" theatlantic.com/international/…
The Clinton Administration in 1994 appeared to have barred the use of genocide w/r/t Sudan for legal and policy reasons. The Bush Admin did quite a lot of fact finding and legal analysis, and was still not sure the evidence was strong enough.