China Travel Advisory(travel.state.gov)
travel.state.gov
China Travel Advisory
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/traveladvisories/traveladvisories/china-travel-advisory.html
38 comments
Genuine question: did anyone actually get locked up on a business trip to China?
Yes, there are many examples if you simply google "china imprisoned business trip".
When the Canadian government arrested a Huawei exec who was ignoring Iranian sanctions and lying to US investigators, the Chinese government arrested 2 Canadians as spies. Authoritarian governments fucking love to arrest people on "espionage" charges, since it is hard to prove and they can pretend to not be able to share because of national security.
When the Canadian government arrested a Huawei exec who was ignoring Iranian sanctions and lying to US investigators, the Chinese government arrested 2 Canadians as spies. Authoritarian governments fucking love to arrest people on "espionage" charges, since it is hard to prove and they can pretend to not be able to share because of national security.
You forgot to mention how valuable they are as bargaining chips for mutual releases of prisoners.
Case in point, the American basketball player Brittney Griner was arrested in Russia on accusations of having a cannabis vape pen - and was exchanged for the world's most notorious arms dealer, Victor Bout.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/08/brittney-grine...
Case in point, the American basketball player Brittney Griner was arrested in Russia on accusations of having a cannabis vape pen - and was exchanged for the world's most notorious arms dealer, Victor Bout.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/dec/08/brittney-grine...
Thats kind of what I was getting at with the Canadians, but Griner is a good example too.
No there aren't. There's like ~150 cases of exit bans of "foreigners" in PRC in the last 20 years. Vast majority of exit bans are ex Chinese (primarily financial) criminals who thought western passport would protect them only to be coerced back into PRC to face justice. Or established expats who gets dragged into legal issues, especially with local interests. Some of which might be sus. Just about the only westerners rounded up and severely punished in PRC during travel are drug smugglers. Statistically, a westerner (not ex Chinese national) has less chance of being thoroughly fucked with in PRC than an ethnically Chinese scientist in the US via China Initiative.
On the two Michaels', of course they were spies, with the customary NGO cover. Useful idiots who lap up western propaganda love to think PRC... a surveillance state with extremely competent state security organ that completely dismantled CIA spy network this decade somehow needs to capture innocent westerners when they could just snatch up legitimate spies. There's a reason CSIS, Canadian CIA, publically celebrated their release on twitter [0]. Not to mention this tidbit:
>Edith Terry: Michael Kovrig is a friend, and I am very conscious of the privations he has endured. And while his background is complex and possibly included intelligence gathering for the Canadian government during his diplomatic career, he was very open about his research interests and contacts. [1]
The other Michael ran NKorean pertaining NGO out of PRC. Connect the dots.
[0] https://twitter.com/csiscanada/status/1441571942721593345
[1] https://www.chinafile.com/conversation/will-i-return-china
Like it's not hard to stay out of severe trouble in PRC as a foreigner. Don't traffic drugs, don't spy i.e. don't take pictures of military. Almost all the other small shit you get to drink tea with cops and sign some paperwork which is basically kid glove treament. The only real exception is journalism, hence most foreign media has left the country.
On the two Michaels', of course they were spies, with the customary NGO cover. Useful idiots who lap up western propaganda love to think PRC... a surveillance state with extremely competent state security organ that completely dismantled CIA spy network this decade somehow needs to capture innocent westerners when they could just snatch up legitimate spies. There's a reason CSIS, Canadian CIA, publically celebrated their release on twitter [0]. Not to mention this tidbit:
>Edith Terry: Michael Kovrig is a friend, and I am very conscious of the privations he has endured. And while his background is complex and possibly included intelligence gathering for the Canadian government during his diplomatic career, he was very open about his research interests and contacts. [1]
The other Michael ran NKorean pertaining NGO out of PRC. Connect the dots.
[0] https://twitter.com/csiscanada/status/1441571942721593345
[1] https://www.chinafile.com/conversation/will-i-return-china
Like it's not hard to stay out of severe trouble in PRC as a foreigner. Don't traffic drugs, don't spy i.e. don't take pictures of military. Almost all the other small shit you get to drink tea with cops and sign some paperwork which is basically kid glove treament. The only real exception is journalism, hence most foreign media has left the country.
> Statistically, a westerner (not ex Chinese national) has less chance of being thoroughly fucked with in PRC than an ethnically Chinese scientist in the US via China Initiative.
That has not been what I have observed with people I am friends with, nor the experience of other people I have worked with who go to China regularly.
You call them useful idiots, but then call them spies. Which are they? Unknowingly assisting intelligence agencies or illegal spies?
Where is the evidence, the PRC refused to provide any... and I'm sorry, but CSIS celebrating the release of a Canadian citizen isn't evidence they are a spy. Look at their feed, it's full of Canada related stuff all the time.
That has not been what I have observed with people I am friends with, nor the experience of other people I have worked with who go to China regularly.
You call them useful idiots, but then call them spies. Which are they? Unknowingly assisting intelligence agencies or illegal spies?
Where is the evidence, the PRC refused to provide any... and I'm sorry, but CSIS celebrating the release of a Canadian citizen isn't evidence they are a spy. Look at their feed, it's full of Canada related stuff all the time.
How many of your associates who goto PRC reguarly have exit bans or in prolonged legal limbo with the PRC security apparatus. I hazard to guess zero. If more than one, that's more reflection of who you are associating with. Charitably we're talking about 0.01% of the mainland expat population, realistically lower because majority of exit bans are ex PRC nationals who aren't connected to actual expat community. The reason why the Michael's arrest was even news is because they were anomolous incidents in the first place.
I'm referring to people who believes western narrative that Michael's weren't spies as "useful idiots" for believing the innocent Michaels propaganda. Spavor was accused collecting info on PRC military on behalf of Korvig who used NGO as cover for intelligence work. That's about normal level of disclosure for national security, comparable to what US intelligence discloses on source and methods whenever they announce capture of PRC national taking photos of US defense installations. So yes, given all the context, CSIS celebrating their release + their NGO background + literal associate/friend admitting they had intelligence background + their subject matter interests all point to them being spies. It takes surpreme cognitive dissonance to assert otherwise in order to support the even less tenuous assertion that PRC security apparatus is so incompetent they have to hostage "innocent" westerners.
I'm referring to people who believes western narrative that Michael's weren't spies as "useful idiots" for believing the innocent Michaels propaganda. Spavor was accused collecting info on PRC military on behalf of Korvig who used NGO as cover for intelligence work. That's about normal level of disclosure for national security, comparable to what US intelligence discloses on source and methods whenever they announce capture of PRC national taking photos of US defense installations. So yes, given all the context, CSIS celebrating their release + their NGO background + literal associate/friend admitting they had intelligence background + their subject matter interests all point to them being spies. It takes surpreme cognitive dissonance to assert otherwise in order to support the even less tenuous assertion that PRC security apparatus is so incompetent they have to hostage "innocent" westerners.
One was followed by police while he was in country, then detained by customs officials (I assume it was MSS) on exit, and was told in no uncertain terms not to come back. This is a regular cybersecurity person who was there to speak at a conference. He was given no records and when his company tried to dig into why he was detained, they unsurprisingly had no records of him being detained or questioned.
I also done incident response for a number of companies targeted by Chinese state sponsored actors going after industrial and financial IP.
You keep calling them spies, but in both cases it's not as clear as you make it out to be and there is no evidence they were spying. The US provides quite a bit of information when they charge someone with espionage. Kicking someone out of your country for taking photos of sensitive sites (US) and keeping quiet about sources/methods is different than arresting someone while refusing to show evidence of their crime(PRC).
You act like someone with a regional interest will always be a spy if they have done intelligence work... there are tens of thousands of people who work for intelligence agencies in Canada and many more former employees.
I'm not even denying they might have been spying or providing trip reports afterwards, but without evidence I have a choice between believing the Canadian government or the Chinese government... I'll choose to believe the Canadian government.
I also done incident response for a number of companies targeted by Chinese state sponsored actors going after industrial and financial IP.
You keep calling them spies, but in both cases it's not as clear as you make it out to be and there is no evidence they were spying. The US provides quite a bit of information when they charge someone with espionage. Kicking someone out of your country for taking photos of sensitive sites (US) and keeping quiet about sources/methods is different than arresting someone while refusing to show evidence of their crime(PRC).
You act like someone with a regional interest will always be a spy if they have done intelligence work... there are tens of thousands of people who work for intelligence agencies in Canada and many more former employees.
I'm not even denying they might have been spying or providing trip reports afterwards, but without evidence I have a choice between believing the Canadian government or the Chinese government... I'll choose to believe the Canadian government.
Which comports with my statements of kid glove treatment. PRC did not want your associate in the country, invited them to drink tea and then booted them out of the country aka the opposite of hostage risk. Are some fields subject to increased national security scrutiny? Sure but arbiturary detention risk is rarely on the cards vs getting kicked out. No different from US booting out PRC academics/students for association with defense connected/adjacent institutes. Even IP espionage does not detain people to give up goods since that’s counter productive, i.e. thousand talent program works only if targets come to PRC willingly. And they do, because the risk of detainment is virtually non-existent hence the US gov has to deter via shenanigan like China Initiative to disincentivize people to people exchanges. It's not the prospect of PRC punishment but the reward that fuels their indy espionage efforts and why the west is playing up arbitrary detention risk.
The US also doesn't show evidence for PRC nationals prosecuted for photographing sensitive infra. They're not releasing said photos, only allegations/prosecutions because of course not. And per script PRC MFA will deny and claim they're just tourists with bad english who can't read signage. That's how the game is played. Choosing to not believe PRC is assuming the default position that western spies aren't operating or if they are, are never caught which we already know not to be true per CIA debacle. At the end of the day damning quack like a duck associations are as good as these scenarios will permit. And in Michaels case, involve literal people with acknowledged intelligence backgrounds. which is close to smoking gun threshold. Obviously we'll disagree but I choose to believe a surveillance state with a proven record of counterintelligence is good at surveilling.
The US also doesn't show evidence for PRC nationals prosecuted for photographing sensitive infra. They're not releasing said photos, only allegations/prosecutions because of course not. And per script PRC MFA will deny and claim they're just tourists with bad english who can't read signage. That's how the game is played. Choosing to not believe PRC is assuming the default position that western spies aren't operating or if they are, are never caught which we already know not to be true per CIA debacle. At the end of the day damning quack like a duck associations are as good as these scenarios will permit. And in Michaels case, involve literal people with acknowledged intelligence backgrounds. which is close to smoking gun threshold. Obviously we'll disagree but I choose to believe a surveillance state with a proven record of counterintelligence is good at surveilling.
> The US also doesn't show evidence for PRC nationals prosecuted for photographing sensitive infra. They're not releasing said photos, only allegations/prosecutions because of course not.
That's provably false.
> And in Michaels case, involve literal people with acknowledged intelligence backgrounds. which is close to smoking gun threshold.
Smoking gun in what way? When you look at the geopolitical issues at the time, it's obvious they were arrested with the intent to put leverage on Canada, whether they are spies or not is irrelevant. In fact them not being spies, but related to connected people is actually even better.
That's provably false.
> And in Michaels case, involve literal people with acknowledged intelligence backgrounds. which is close to smoking gun threshold.
Smoking gun in what way? When you look at the geopolitical issues at the time, it's obvious they were arrested with the intent to put leverage on Canada, whether they are spies or not is irrelevant. In fact them not being spies, but related to connected people is actually even better.
>That's provably false.
Please prove it. You'll find is some redacted district court documents which is as credible as PRC MFA statement with respect to counter intelligence shenanigans.
> In fact them not being spies, but related to connected people is actually even better.
Except it's manifestly not, especially if you look at geopolitcal messaging at the time. PRC's retaliation over Meng was specifically calibrated to message business community was NOT targetted. Apart from Michaels ther was the Canadian drug trafficker with proven traffic activy in Canada. And when media was frenzing over some passengers (I think teacher) having issues transitting via PRC airport, there was rapid messaging from PRC end to assure it was procedural and not part of the Meng drama. PRC messaging could not have been clearer. The Michaels being spies mattered precisely because the point of PRC retaliation was to segregate from commercial activities. This was during time when PRC was fighting hard against decouple efforts from US.
Smoking gun in sense that if an ex MSS member got arrested in US, was returned to PRC during exchange, followed by MSS publically celebrating their return and their associate saying they used to conduct intelligence activities, the parsimonious answer is US security apparatus caught a PRC spy. If that's not enough damning context then there's nothing else to say.
Please prove it. You'll find is some redacted district court documents which is as credible as PRC MFA statement with respect to counter intelligence shenanigans.
> In fact them not being spies, but related to connected people is actually even better.
Except it's manifestly not, especially if you look at geopolitcal messaging at the time. PRC's retaliation over Meng was specifically calibrated to message business community was NOT targetted. Apart from Michaels ther was the Canadian drug trafficker with proven traffic activy in Canada. And when media was frenzing over some passengers (I think teacher) having issues transitting via PRC airport, there was rapid messaging from PRC end to assure it was procedural and not part of the Meng drama. PRC messaging could not have been clearer. The Michaels being spies mattered precisely because the point of PRC retaliation was to segregate from commercial activities. This was during time when PRC was fighting hard against decouple efforts from US.
Smoking gun in sense that if an ex MSS member got arrested in US, was returned to PRC during exchange, followed by MSS publically celebrating their return and their associate saying they used to conduct intelligence activities, the parsimonious answer is US security apparatus caught a PRC spy. If that's not enough damning context then there's nothing else to say.
I’d love to visit China - esp the tech markets but idk hard to judge how risky it really is
The tech markets aren’t really that great anymore. Almost everything, as in the west, has moved online. You are about 10-15 years short of their heyday.
Your chance of being used as a pawn is slim. Even less if you aren’t of Chinese ancestry, just don’t take any pictures of navy boats while you are there. Even if they are really just out in the open for everyone to see, the PLAN is really paranoid about that.
Also, none of the services you used to plan your trip online will work in China. Had a friend come to Beijing and absolutely had a BSD when they found their plans they made in google docs were inaccessible.
Your chance of being used as a pawn is slim. Even less if you aren’t of Chinese ancestry, just don’t take any pictures of navy boats while you are there. Even if they are really just out in the open for everyone to see, the PLAN is really paranoid about that.
Also, none of the services you used to plan your trip online will work in China. Had a friend come to Beijing and absolutely had a BSD when they found their plans they made in google docs were inaccessible.
It's not as bad as the internet may lead you to believe. I'm a white man visiting in laws in Nanjing right now. People have been pleasant, the food is a delight, the subway trains arrive every 4 mins and cover the city. The two biggest risks are pickpockets (hence the trend of men with zippered messenger bags on their chest) and less tourist friendly shopowners getting frustrated if they can't communicate prices to you.
I’m really surprised pickpocketing is a thing again. It was a problem > 20 years ago, then it just stopped being a thing people worried about, so I guess it’s a thing again now? Traffic safety is probably your biggest problem in China. They are at 104 deaths / 100k, whereas the USA is at like 16. So…you really need to watch crossing the street and riding in a taxi without safety belts.
State’s Travel advisories are a bit of a joke. Often they’ll be issued for places that are safer and have stronger rule of law than the USA.
Travel advisories are meant to inform travelers of risks... not provide commentary or political discussions on domestic policies.
When I worked at a huge company, I found that most advisories from state department quite accurately portrayed the risks in country. I would often look at state.gov and then talk to my local security people and they were close enough to be valuable to most travelers.
When I worked at a huge company, I found that most advisories from state department quite accurately portrayed the risks in country. I would often look at state.gov and then talk to my local security people and they were close enough to be valuable to most travelers.
The politics behind this is likely to reduce people to people exchanges, primarily commercial ties. The other subtext is many PRC financial criminals (legitimate ones, not just dissidents) fled to US/west in the 90s and thought golden parachute western passport would protect them, only to find out US state department doesn't have the political leverage to challenge PRC exit VISAs if they ever get coerced to return to mainland for prosecution. This includes their western born kids who are guilty by association. This is basically state department telling these people we warned you / wiping their hands of responsibility if shit hits fan.
People who go to China deserve everything they get
Not really. I'm not a lover of china, but I don't wish ill on people who go there or think people should have to deal with arbitrary enforcement of laws because you are from a foreign country.
I feel like "wish ill" might be too strong of a way to put it. Consider that most people aren't rooting for drunk drivers to crash their cars, but also don't feel that bad when one does without hurting anyone else.
I don't feel like china is a bustling international tourist destination. I assume most people visiting have family ties or a specific purpose for their visit like business, not going there "just because I can".
Do you have any friends in the tech industry? I have at least one friend who wound up at a job whose chief responsibilities were factory-based, and therefore that involved his frequent and extended travels to China.
I believe that probably the most common travel from US->China would be business-related, and I also believe that most of those travelers really don't feel like they have a choice where they travel to, since that's where the factories are and that's where the electronics come from. For now.
I believe that probably the most common travel from US->China would be business-related, and I also believe that most of those travelers really don't feel like they have a choice where they travel to, since that's where the factories are and that's where the electronics come from. For now.
> Do you have any friends in the tech industry? I have at least one friend who wound up at a job whose chief responsibilities were factory-based, and therefore that involved his frequent and extended travels to China.
I'd quit my job rather than go on a business trip to China. No amount of money is enough to put my life at such high risk.
I'd quit my job rather than go on a business trip to China. No amount of money is enough to put my life at such high risk.
How would you feel about a trip to India? Speaking as someone who has been to both India and China, China has a stronger rule of law and feels safer than India. (For context: I am saying this as a white American male)
My biggest worry isn't the crime. It's the risk that the CCP will kill me or lock me up for the rest of my life. I wouldn't be willing to go to India either, but if I were forced to choose between the two, I would pick it over China.
You realize the vast, vast majority of the electronics industry and many other industries have very little choice in the matter (for the time being at least). That's great you can make that decision, but there are many who don't have that luxury.
If you want or require mass production of electronics or motors, it's fairly difficult to have done in the US for competitive pricing (or in some cases, at all).
If you want or require mass production of electronics or motors, it's fairly difficult to have done in the US for competitive pricing (or in some cases, at all).
How did all of the factories end up in China but a series of choices by Americans? They have choices and always have, but insatiable greed keeps them going to China.
Increased globalization and US public policies of the 90s and 2000's encouraged this activity. To say it was any specific reason, like corporate greed, is hand waving away the complexity of the problem.
There were many, many reasons factories moved away from the US, one of which was the profit margins on goods, which actually is complex and directly influenced by the way taxes/accounting/finances are done in corporate America.
Don't get me wrong, greed has been a major, if not the major motivator, but there were so many people either asleep at the wheel, or actively driving us towards the outcome we have today.
There were many, many reasons factories moved away from the US, one of which was the profit margins on goods, which actually is complex and directly influenced by the way taxes/accounting/finances are done in corporate America.
Don't get me wrong, greed has been a major, if not the major motivator, but there were so many people either asleep at the wheel, or actively driving us towards the outcome we have today.
I wouldn't mind to read about those other many reasons besides greed. Care to share a link?
Just speaking from experience, often times offshoring isn't actually that much cheaper. The total cost of ownership often times is not calculated correctly, or because of the way financials are done, give incentives to move costs around to make stock numbers look better. For example, if a company said they reduced the cost per unit to offshore production by 50%, but don't mention shipping has tripled and quality has gone down, in addition to costing a ton of money to transition, only netting 10-20% savings, the market often only cares about the unit costs.
I would say the number one thing people do is they don't allocate overhead or things like shipping/logistics/lead times into the total costs.
Like for example, if it takes 3 months to have a product, you should store more inventory than if you were doing it in the US. You also shouldn't just look at just the raw unit price, you factor in shipping, quality assurance checks, inefficiency of engineering changes, etc. which many people don't actually do.
I would say the number one thing people do is they don't allocate overhead or things like shipping/logistics/lead times into the total costs.
Like for example, if it takes 3 months to have a product, you should store more inventory than if you were doing it in the US. You also shouldn't just look at just the raw unit price, you factor in shipping, quality assurance checks, inefficiency of engineering changes, etc. which many people don't actually do.
Thanks for the insight. From my layman point of view, 10%-20% savings in the long run still looks like something to go for, taking as a reference the multinational I work for, where a 7% saving on whatever is seen as a triumph. I'd say the greed point still stands, the additional logistics involved are just how it works.
Hilariously enough netizens in China are saying that Chinese tourists that were attacked during the Paris riots deserved it for leaving China and should be forced to live in Paris. Nationalism is a disease.
Personally I still want to travel to China - some of the highlands look incredible and I'd love to see the Great Wall, as well as some of the big cities. Politics completely aside, a great deal of Chinese people I meet are lovely and tell me the country can be quite spectacular.
Ironically this might be the straw that breaks the camels back, when you lock up people on business trips, the companies tend to not look on that very favorably.