[FULL TRANSCRIPT BELOW] Last fall, investigations by the nongovernmental human rights organization Safeguard Defenders revealed there were over 100 secret overseas Chinese police stations in at least 53 countries around the world. Last April, the DOJ announced two arrests in connection with one such station in New York City.
In this episode, Safeguard Defenders campaign director Laura Harth breaks down how these Chinese overseas outposts control the Chinese diaspora and illegally repatriate people by force.
“You have a regime that is openly writing down that it is legitimate to engage in kidnapping to bring people back,” Harth says.
Interview trailer:
Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/inside-chinas-secret-overseas-police-stations-safeguard-defenders-laura-harth-5499632
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Jan Jekielek: Laura Harth, such a pleasure to have you back on American Thought Leaders.
Laura Harth: Thanks for having me, Jan.
Mr. Jekielek: It's been a few years since you've been on the show and you have been doing some amazing work. Your organization broke the story about these Chinese police stations in many countries around the world. Most recently, in the fall of 2022, we learned of one such station in Manhattan’s Chinatown. I want to start there because that's what people will remember. Please give me the whole picture of what these things are, and why are they there?
Ms. Harth: Safeguard Defenders came across the existence of these so-called overseas police service stations, which is a setup between public security authorities in China in cooperation with United Front linked groups around the world. We uncovered well over 100 such stations in at least 53 countries around the world, so this is a global endeavor.
We came across them because we had been tracking the CCP's illegal repatriation methods—the illegal long-armed policing operations carried out by authorities in China and by CCP agents to bring people back to China against their will. Obviously, the stations played at least some role in this.
Mr. Jekielek: Absolutely. For the benefit of our audience, the United Front is the Chinese Communist Party's overseas influence operation. It has various groups like student organizations that are operating here and working hand in hand with authorities from China. Why do these things exist? You have by far the most comprehensive reporting, so please break it down for me.
Ms. Harth: Starting in 2016, basically since Xi Jinping came to power, we've really seen an explosion of these long-armed policing operations by the Chinese Communist Party around the world. We've been looking at the techniques, the regulations, and the policies they have back in China.
In 2016 we see local, provincial, or city authorities in China looking at and mimicking those national guidelines and regulations and saying, “We can do this as well. Let's demonstrate how good we are.” They start actively connecting with these United Front-linked groups around the world. They had been connected, but they then started formalizing the bonds with those groups to use the existing networks of individuals and associations around the world to be better able to execute some of these operations.
Part of what they were doing, and something that the Chinese authorities have not denied, is providing so-called consular services and administrative services like renewing your passport and renewing your driver's licenses. It's very important to point out, in and of itself, this is already illegal.
It may not necessarily be a criminal offense, but under international law, this is illegal. This is a violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. You can't just come in and set up your consular outposts wherever you want without the consent of the host government.
China had already been doing this, and they have not denied that they've been doing this. They've even been vindicating the fact that they've been doing this. On top of that, what obviously concerned us at Safeguard Defenders was seeing that the central authority coordinating all those different services were the public security authorities of these four specific locations in China.
On the basis of open source evidence, we were able to directly tie some of those stations to so-called persuasion to return operations. A persuasion to return operation is the preferred method of the PRC [People’s Republic of China] authorities. Again, this had been officially described in a written legal interpretation in 2018. It is their preferred method to go after targets abroad and coerce them to go back to China.
Mr. Jekielek: It's like heavy persuasion, correct?
Ms. Harth: Yes, it sounds very nice. It sounds like it is gentle talk and then an invitation. Obviously it is not. Usually, it starts with threats and harassment or even worse, punishment of family members back home. It is pushing those family members and convincing their relatives overseas to either be silent, stop their activism, or convince them to come back.
The Uyghur communities overseas diasporas have been talking about this a lot. Many of them weren't able to talk to their family members for years. Then because they've spoken publicly, they suddenly get a phone call from a family member or from a public security agent using their family member's phone telling them to come back. We know this as a fact. But there are also the threats and harassment or worse delivered directly to the target overseas.
We've seen these so-called police stations active in this on the basis of that open source evidence, which included a video of such an operation taking place in Spain. In Madrid, you had the target for repatriation in a direct video meeting with the public security authorities back home in China, and they also had a family member of that target with them. You saw it play out on video and such a station was involved.
Then we've seen the indictment coming out here this spring in New York against two people linked to the so-called Chinese Overseas Police Station in New York, which alleges that these people were engaged in surveillance, harassment, threats against an individual on American soil at the behest of Chinese authorities.
Those are the things that we've seen and that are obviously of grave concern, both for the human rights and freedoms of the people that are involved as targets, but also in terms of the brazen violation of territorial and judicial sovereignty in these cases.
Mr. Jekielek: Do you think when they first came in, they would just establish themselves by offering these consular services, so that the U.S. authorities would just turn a blind eye to it? Then they would ramp up their level of activity. How do these things even get established in the first place?
Ms. Harth: I wouldn't say that anyone turned a blind eye. In some countries like South Africa there was some kind of cooperation with local authorities, and some kind of consent to do this. In the vast majority of all these cases, mainly the democracies where these stations were set up, this was done without the consent of the host governments. Again, that's exactly where that violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations comes in.
It's a difficult question. What comes first? We've seen them doing a series of things, often under the guise of offering services. Objectively, if it were not in violation of international law, one could understand that these services would be helpful to community members. What is of concern is the fact that you're running these kinds of services, not through the traditional channels, but through groups that are linked to the CCP's influence agencies and the United Front. We all know that the United Front work is not just about trying to influence people, and it is not just about trying to set up a narrative preferred by the Chinese Communist Party. It's also about cracking down on and silencing critics of that same narrative. When you are running your so-called consular services or court proceedings through these networks, obviously you're giving them an enormous amount of control over the communities in which they're performing these services. You give them access to a whole lot of data on who is there, because you are the ones that they have to come through.
Mr. Jekielek: And legitimacy too.
Ms. Harth: Exactly. That's the thing, legitimacy. You're effectively establishing these people as the leaders in the community who you'll have to go through if you need your passport renewed, so maybe you better behave. That's why we called the follow-up report last year which uncovered more stations, “Patrol and Persuade.” To really give a sense of what this is ultimately about, it is about establishing control over the community.
Of course, you have those people that are actively cooperating with them, and even collaborating. There's also a very wide group of victims that are not necessarily only the people that are being actively threatened, harassed, and maybe returned to China, but also that middle group that just really doesn't have anywhere else to go.
We need to find a way to engage them and ask, “You are now in the free world and you should be able to enjoy that. What are your concerns? How can we make sure that we can stop the hold that the CCP tries to have on you, even overseas? How can we stop that, knowing very well that the CCP's preferred weapon is using family members back home? It's a very difficult situation for a lot of those people.
Mr. Jekielek: I want to go back to that video from Spain that you mentioned earlier. This is a situation where the Chinese national in Spain is acutely aware that the people from state security in China have one of their family members.
Ms. Harth: Basically, the target overseas is someone who was accused. Again, there's always a lot of accusations against people overseas that are being targeted. This is not to say that among those thousands of people that are being returned, there is not someone that may effectively be a criminal or may have committed criminal offenses.
But it's important to remember that these operations are clandestine under international laws, and these are all just people that are accused. They haven't been tried in a court of law. As a bit of background, this one person was accused of environmental pollution. The people tied to one of these stations in Madrid were tasked by public security authorities back in China to find that person.
They must have known he was in Spain, or maybe they had learned it from the family member back in China. They said, “Bring him in,” so, they're bringing him into a location. Just to be clear, these police stations are not classic police stations. They could be private residences or office buildings.
Anyway, they bring this person in. We have the individuals linked to the station in Madrid sitting next to the suspect. They are in a video meeting with public security authorities back in China with this family member who has a nameplate without the name, but the relative or family member is in front of them.
The setup was very clear to the target overseas. It couldn't have been clearer what was happening there, and it was actually a successful operation. That person voluntarily returned to China following this activity.
This is a classic example of what has been happening. It's a classic example of what is described in tons of official documents from the Chinese authorities, on the basis of open source evidence exclusively from Chinese authorities and state party media. We managed to tie these stations to at least 84 such operations taking place around the world. With only three of them do we know exactly where they took place. There was one in Serbia, one in Spain, and one in France.
There may have been many more, and maybe not all of these were as clear cut as the Spanish one. We don't know. But I would say there's enough evidence to demonstrate this. We can also take into account the indictment that has happened here in New York. There's enough evidence to say that these are not just innocent, administrative, consular services that are being performed.
Mr. Jekielek: Right, they're multipurpose.
Ms. Harth: Exactly, that's actually a good way to say it. That is perfect, because what they describe is this multipurpose platform that can field queries depending on what is needed. If you need a driver's license, you can go down to the station. It will be sent to the public security, which will then send it down to the local equivalent of the DMV [Department of Motor Vehicles]. If it's a court issue, it will be sent to court.
You can describe it as a nexus one has to go through. But again, it's always the public security authorities that have a very clear overview. That tells you a lot as well, because in what country would it be the police acting as the central agency for fielding requests on driver's licenses and passport renewals? It makes sense if you know the Communist Chinese system where things such as passports and driver's licenses can indeed be weaponized against you to make sure that you comply.
Mr. Jekielek: You were testifying on Capitol Hill recently. China Daily decided to bring up this issue which is always very interesting. I actually enjoy reading the China Daily headlines from time to time, because I need to understand what their current obsession is or what the current view is supposed to be. But clearly, you've hit a nerve with this.
Ms. Harth: We have definitely hit a nerve with this. Since January 2022 when we released our report, “Involuntary Returns,” which describes the methods being used to coerce people back to China, we've seen disinformation campaigns against Safeguard Defenders across many platforms. We believe they are trying to drown out our reporting by putting out fake reports with the same titles. There are obviously a lot of insults and the usual things that are said against Chinese human rights offenders or the human rights defenders working in China.
There was a Global Times article during the weekend before the hearing on the Hill, and then China Daily came out on the day of the hearing on the Hill. Yes, it's fair to say they are still pretty upset about it. We clearly hit a nerve with that, which for us is a signal to keep pushing it. Clearly there's something here that annoys them.
Clearly there is something that has been happening. The response that governments have given to what we reported on clearly does not sit well with them. So, we're on the right track. We need to keep pushing it, not necessarily the police stations, but the whole transnational repression and the long-armed policing angle. It is definitely something they're not happy to see being covered.
Obviously, these attack pieces are not nice, and they're quite defamatory, frankly speaking. At this point they don’t even realize this, but within those pieces they actually keep admitting to a whole series of violations that they're continuously doing. They talk about our director, Peter Dahlin, being put through residential surveillance at a designated location in China back in 2015.
I say, “Thanks for admitting it guys. The human rights procedures at the UN have been calling on you to abolish this system, because it's a grave human rights violation. It's a forced disappearance. It constitutes torture, and you're writing about it as if it were some beautiful thing. You bring up his forced confession.”
I say, “Forced, televised confessions are not an okay thing to do. There's nothing to boast about here. Here you are attacking us and boasting about your grave human rights violations.” Then they go on and say, “All these people overseas, they're just volunteers. They're doing consular services. Once again, I reply, “Not okay guys, that's illegal.”
It's almost funny in a way, the way they keep implicating themselves. But it also tells you how far removed from reality they are. The CCP is always going on about how they respect the sovereignty of other countries, how they do not interfere in other countries, and how they respect the international rule of law. The fact that they write about this as if it’s okay, and that this is somehow evidence against Safeguard Defenders rather than against themselves, really shows you how their minds work and how far removed from reality they are.
Mr. Jekielek: The term brazen comes to my mind as you're describing this. Most of what we've talked about has been called voluntary return, which is basically through coercion. But there are some examples of forced return, and you've covered that as well.
Ms. Harth: We do consider these persuasion to return operations as forced returns, and it is through coercion. A lot of people can empathize when people are going after your family members. It's one thing when they come for you, which obviously is very hard, but when they go after your family members, everybody can understand how that would be a very effective way of leveraging people.
Therefore, we do consider it to be a forced return, not voluntary as they like to say. But there are other systems. Again, we base this on what the CCP itself has been saying, and what the PRC authorities themselves have been saying. In particular, there is a written legal interpretation from the Central Commission for Discipline Inspection from 2018, which really outlines the methods that are being used.
The first one is extradition. This obviously requires some cooperation from the country in which there is a target. This has become increasingly difficult for the PRC to do, especially within democracies, because of how the domestic system is gravely violating basic human rights.
Repatriation is when they use immigration law. Rather than have someone go through a judicial proceeding fighting extradition, they'll try to have someone deported. This is something we see happening a lot in Southeast Asia in countries bordering China.
But we're also very concerned about what's been happening in the Middle East region. It's one of the reasons why we are so concerned about the judicial and police cooperation agreements that they keep signing with countries, particularly in the global south, because it opens the doors to making all these procedures easier.
But if those mechanisms are cut off, which luckily are being cut off in democracies more and more, they move to the clandestine means, which start with persuasion to return, which is their vastly preferred method. Again, it's easy to go after people when you're holding their family members hostage.
But we also see luring and entrapment, when they try to get people to another place from where it may be easier to repatriate them, because that host country is willing to cooperate with China. Entrapment is when someone is traveling through another country and gets stuck.
Idris Hasan, a Uyghur activist, is a good example. He's been stuck in Morocco now for two years. We were able to stop the extradition by appealing to the UN committee against torture, but now he's stuck in limbo. He was literally trapped in Morocco, and there have been other similar cases in the past.
Then we get to the final method, which again is openly described by the supreme body in charge of these overseas operations—kidnapping. You have a regime that is openly writing down that it is engaging in kidnapping and that it's legitimate to engage in kidnapping in order to bring people back.
They say this is a very irregular measure, so not to be used too often, and only when the other methods are not available. But again, there are examples of kidnappings taking place. We saw some taking place just last summer in Laos.
I've read that legal interpretation so many times, and I've talked about it so many times, but then every time I talk about it, I am still stunned.
Not only do I ask, “Why would you do this? How brazen are you to actually write it down, and publish it for all to see?” They say, “These are the methods we are using and that we think are legitimate. But at the same time, we do not interfere in the affairs of other countries. We do not violate international law.” I just don't know, and I'm still stunned.
Mr. Jekielek: Part of the reason for publishing this is so that people will know. It's another fear tactic, correct?
Ms. Harth: Yes, exactly. Like with the China Daily article, a lot of times when we've put out reports on these issues or other organizations have published reports on these issues, there's always a question that comes up during those regular press conferences that the foreign ministry does, where one of their friendly, controlled media will ask a question about these horrible human rights groups that are telling blatant lies.
After denouncing these blatant lies, the answer is usually about how all these human rights organizations don't know anything or they are just anti-China forces. But it usually always ends with a message for those overseas communities, “By the way, we can get to you wherever you are. We will get to you wherever you are. We will chase you until the end of the earth.”
I'm not just inventing these words. These are literally the words that you can find if you go back and scroll through some of these foreign affairs press conferences. These are the exact words that you will find. It's very clear that they want to put out that message to the overseas communities. It goes back to that, patrol and persuade, and that control element. They say, “Be aware that we can get to you. We will get to you until the end of the earth.”
Mr. Jekielek: You're a person interested in freedom. I'm also a person interested in freedom. But not everybody is like that and has it in their bones. Most people will assimilate to these repressive structures to some extent. They accept them as just how things work. Just knowing that these repressive structures exist exerts a certain level of psychological control over the community.
Ms. Harth: Yes, it's definitely a psychological pressure. I don't know if it's true that not all people care as much about freedom. Maybe it's about their priorities. Maybe they have to care about their kids or their family members.
There's a lot of reasons why people would not necessarily want to stand up to it. During the hearing on the Hill, Rushan Abbas from the Campaign for Uyghurs was there. She has been a striking example of having these transnational repression techniques used against her to shut her up. It started with the forced disappearance of her sister Gulshan Abbas five years ago. But it continues every day, not just with keeping her sister disappeared, but also with harassment, threats, and online discrediting campaigns.
She made a very good point during the hearing when she said, “A couple of years ago, the room behind us would have been filled with Uyghurs. They are not necessarily outspoken activists. They wanted to be there to show their support, and to stand up for what they believed in. They're not here now because they're scared.”
When we don't see people standing up and demonstrating it is because they are scared, and because there is that psychological pressure. Rather than suggesting that those people are not freedom loving, it is potentially a sign of how increasingly effective the CCP’s operations are.
From a European perspective, it's been very interesting and something to think about. When we look at the Anglo-Saxon countries, we know there's a lot that needs to be done and there are a lot of issues. But we see outspoken activists like the Hong Kongers, the Chinese, and the Uyghurs. We see them in Australia, Canada, the U.S., and the UK. They're very outspoken, they're not huge numbers, but they are there. But on the European continent, and I lived in Italy recently, basically there were no known dissidents in Italy, yet we have one of the biggest Chinese overseas communities in the world.
Maybe these communities are really not producing any dissidents, and for some reasons, all the dissidents only go to the Anglo-Saxon countries, which would say something. Maybe the control they've been able to establish here, because of the fact that some of these community leaders have been cozying up to the local law enforcement and political establishment, maybe the control is even more effective in those places. It's a bit of a different way to look at this chicken and egg question, if you will.
Mr. Jekielek: Sure. You raised a really good point that maybe not freedom loving, but maybe freedom obsessed.
Ms. Harth: Yes.
Mr. Jekielek: But in all seriousness, most people just want to live their lives.
Ms. Harth: Which is okay.
Mr. Jekielek: And preferably free.
Ms. Harth: I'm fairly certain that most people would prefer leading lives free from the potential threats and harassment of an authoritarian power that is keeping their family members hostage. It's a fair assumption to make that probably 100 percent of people would prefer to live that way. Then within that space, if they want to talk about the other crimes that the CCP is committing, that's another question. But it’s not everyone's cup of tea.
Mr. Jekielek: It's more a reflection on how powerful these types of coercive tools are on people, without the actual direct enforcement. The subtle stuff is the most insidious in some ways .
Ms. Harth: Exactly, it's both. Again, it mimics a lot of what is happening inside China. When it comes to human rights defenders, they'll go after one to make an example out of that person. But you scare the wider community and you set a very clear example for all of them. Our sense is that you have the same thing happening overseas where you set up a system of control, and people know the system is in place if needed. The reason we learn about these cases is because Chinese propaganda is talking about them. They want to send that message out to the communities.
Mr. Jekielek: Laura, this is such an important conversation and it’s giving me food for thought. Any final thoughts as we finish up?
Ms. Harth: Thank you for having this conversation. The important thing is to keep having this conversation. If some people listening are going through this, and hearing things that sound familiar, I hope they know they're not alone, and that there are people that want to support them. In particular, we released a multilingual guide on how to recognize transnational repression and what to do in these cases. It's available in simplified Chinese, traditional Chinese, Uyghur, Tibetan, and English.
It describes what the acts might look like, but also lists some of the reporting channels where people can go to actually report such instances. Because if this is happening to you, it’s not okay, and you should not accept it. We understand that you may be scared, but there are, in particular in the U.S., channels available to report it anonymously.
If you feel scared for your family members, and if you feel scared that this may lead to trouble for you, you can report anonymously. It's really important that people do report it, because it's the best way for people to start coming forward, and it's the best way to help the authorities in this country and other countries gain a better understanding of what exactly is going on.
Who are the people doing it? Who are the actors? What are the methods? My final thought is an appeal to potential victims or people that may have seen or known of other victims. Please come forward anonymously, and help us to help everyone better address this issue in the future.
Mr. Jekielek: Laura Harth, it's such a pleasure to have you on the show.
Ms. Harth: Thank you, Jan. It was great to be here.
Mr. Jekielek: Thank you all for joining Laura Harth and me on this episode of American Thought Leaders. I'm your host, Jan Jekielek.
To get notifications about new Kash's Corner and American Thought Leaders episodes, please sign up for our newsletter! Here 👉 Get Alerts
-
PRE-ORDER "The Shadow State" DVD:
The Real Story of January 6 | Documentary BUY Jan 6 DVD:
https://www.epochtv.shop/product-page/dvd-the-real-story-of-january-6, Promo Code “Jan” for 20% off.
-
Follow American Thought Leaders on social media:
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AmThoughtLeader
Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@AmThoughtLeader
Comments