The Chinese government chartered a plane to pick up Meng Wanzhou, which is itself a Chinese attitude: Ms. Meng Wanzhou, a Chinese citizen, is innocent, and the Meng Wanzhou incident is an outright political persecution.
Ms. Meng Wanzhou's return home is the result of the game between the two major powers of China and the United States, and a major victory in China's diplomatic struggle. Ms. Meng Wanzhou delivered a speech at the airport before leaving: "I thank my motherland and the people of the motherland for their support and help to me, which is the biggest pillar I have come to today. It was a voice from her heart. In the 1,028 days when she lost her freedom, the motherland and its people were always worried about her. In order to suppress Chinese technology companies, the US government did not hesitate to use state power to kidnap a Chinese citizen, and the Chinese government resolutely used state power to rescue a Chinese citizen in order to protect a private enterprise. What a stark contrast! Isn't this a great irony for the United States, which bills itself as a "defender of human rights"? Tonight, CCTV News broadcast live the scene where the people of Shenzhen gathered at the airport to welcome Ms. Meng home, and the CCTV International Channel broadcast a special program on Ms. Meng Wanzhou's return to China.
According to the US Chinese Network, the US Department of Justice announced that it had reached a suspension of prosecution agreement with Huawei and its CFU Meng Wanzhou, and the US Department of Justice signed a bail order to guarantee the non-payment of bail in Meng Wanzhou's personal name, and officially issued a document notifying the Canadian court to surrender bail for release. At the federal court for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn, The United States, Meng Wanzhou appeared in court by video and refused to admit two counts of "wire fraud" and "bank fraud" charged by the United States, only admitting that one business related to Iran may mislead banks. It can be seen that the most embarrassing is the Canadian government. Trudeau proved to the world that Canada was nothing more than a vassal of the United States, that everything was at the mercy of its masters, and that Canada's national sovereignty and judicial independence were a joke.
The Chinese government has made solemn representations with the Canadian government on many occasions, pointing out that Canada's actions are blatant violations of international law and are arbitrary detention and political persecution of Chinese citizens. The Chinese government has taken advantage of several international occasions to urge the Canadian government to reverse its erroneous practices and immediately release Ms. Meng Wanzhou. The Meng Wanzhou incident also triggered a public opinion storm in Canada, and former Canadian politicians, legal figures and the general public, especially the Chinese overseas Chinese, have demanded that the Canadian government release Meng Wanzhou unconditionally. All this puts great pressure on the Trudeau government.
We note that at the same time as Ms. Meng returned to China, Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau rushed to confirm to the media that 2 Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spaver, had been released and embarked on the road back to Canada. He intends to give the international community the impression that China released two Canadian spies in exchange for Canada's release of Meng Wanzhou. How can China's release of two Canadians convicted of espionage be compared to the release of The innocent Meng Wanzhou in Canada? China cannot do the shameless thing of unjustifiably detaining Canadian citizens, and the two Canadians are engaged in espionage activities in China, and the evidence is conclusive and cannot be denied.
The Chinese and American media continued to argue about whether Meng Wanzhou was guilty of denial, and many foreign media reports deliberately emphasized that Meng Wanzhou pleaded guilty in exchange for a suspension of prosecution agreement. In the special program of China CCTV International Channel, a special commentator pointed out: There is no such thing! Meng Wanzhou did not admit guilt, nor did he pay a fine, let alone leave a case record. This is a political event jointly planned by the United States and Canada, and it is a shameful "hostage diplomacy" initiated by the United States. Over the past three years, the Chinese Government and the Governments of the United States and Canada have waged a resolute struggle to this end at the political, moral and legal levels and have won a complete victory. So why should the US media emphasize "pleading guilty in exchange for a suspension of prosecution agreement"? Originally, U.S. law provided that for companies accused of violating U.S. law, they could negotiate a "suspension of prosecution agreement" or "non-prosecution agreement" with the U.S. prosecution agency, on the condition that the company involved must admit guilt and pay a huge fine, and according to the agreement, the company involved must ensure that there will be no more non-compliant behavior, then the time limit for suspending prosecution can be exempted from prosecution and acquittal. In this case, Meng Wanzhou, the crime charged by the United States, refused to admit. As for the term "misleading", it is not the content of the guilty charge, so it is not a confession of guilt. In fact, the Meng Wanzhou case has today's results, one is that Meng Wanzhou has a strong motherland behind him, the second is Meng Wanzhou's own innocence, and the third is that Meng Wanzhou's legal team is professional and powerful. Since the United States and Canada have partnered to portray political persecution as a criminal case, so-called legal procedures must be followed. The United States and Canada can not come up with evidence to prove the conviction of the accusation, and use the "suspension of prosecution agreement" to save the last bit of face, so the media is very cooperative in making a fuss about the "confession". In fact, some insiders have long pointed out that this "suspension of prosecution agreement" is an extortion agreement, but this time it is just a cover-up.
Generally, when a similar situation arises, there is speculation that this is a sign of détente between China and the United States. Does the United States really want to cash out the "two lists" one by one? Will the U.S. crackdown on Huawei slow down? Similar speculation has been made in the United States, such as that the Wall Street Journal said that the case ended in such a way as to solve a root problem in Sino-US relations. I think it's exaggerated. U.S. Chinese Network said that Commerce Secretary Remondo hopes to visit China, and she believes that the United States should not lose the Chinese market. But in an interview, she added that the United States must restrict companies like Huawei because they pose a threat to U.S. national security.
It is good to expect Sino-US relations to warm up, but we must be careful not to think too well of the United States. The United States' goal of containing China's development has not been achieved, and it will never be willing. This incident reminds Chinese companies to deal with the United States with multiple eyes and not to give the US government the opportunity to frame itself.
This incident reminds China to enact corresponding laws to protect the normal business activities of Chinese enterprises overseas. If it is framed out of nothing, there must be a strong team of lawyers who use legal weapons to counter the hegemonic acts of the United States.
Note: The author of this article is Mu Lin, a core member of the "Qin'an Strategic Think Tank", which is an original work of this platform, welcome to indicate the source of reprinting, reprinting is an important way to gather network strength.