WANG JINGYU is a victim of harassment directed by the illegal Chinese police stations in the Netherlands[1]. The Chinese government and its illicit overseas police stations have apparently “punished” Wang for “misconduct” and threatened other victims and their families as well. Surreptitious Chinese police stations established internationally are suspected to screen and intimidate overseas Chinese nationals, raising serious human rights violation issues, as well as concerns of infringing on other countries’ territorial jurisdiction. Despite calls by the host countries to close the illegal police stations, China continues to claim that its ostensible police units are fighting transnational crime while carrying out supervisory functions. China's continued denial of the allegations is dangerous as it could bring up greater issues, ignite intra-country conflict, and raise international human rights concerns.

China’s illegal international police operations

   China is facing allegations of breaching international law by covertly dispatching its police to a a minimum of 25 cities in 21 countries and installing more than 50 unwarranted police stations on 5 continents[2]. A report published in September by the Spanish civil rights group Safeguard Defenders titled “Chinese Transitional Policing Gone Wild” states that China’s Fuzhou and Qingtian police agencies established 54 “overseas service centers” with most centers being located in Europe—2 in London and Glasgow in the United Kingdom, 2 in the Netherlands, 3 in France, 4 in Italy, and 9 in Spain. News sources from the Netherlands are claiming that these illegal police stations are being used to detect and stifle recusants who criticize the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) regime[2]. The Safeguard Defenders’ report also voiced concerns regarding human rights violations, but more importantly, the report was instrumental in alerting the host countries of the police stations in question.

   The situation has led to rising tensions between the Chinese government and other countries that are facing similar police station infringements, which could ignite serious inter-country conflict. For example, the Irish Foreign Ministry issued warrants for China’s police stations in Dublin and forced them to discontinue their operations after learning that the police stations had not received any approbation from the Irish government[3]. Similarly, the United Kingdom held a Parliament session on November 1 to address the findings of the Safeguard Defenders’ report and further probe into Chinese illegal police activity on British land[4].

The Netherlands in particular has explicitly announced its defiant stance regarding China's illicit police stations and police activity. As of now, the Netherlands has detected two operational police stations in its territory, one in Rotterdam and the other in Amsterdam. The Dutch government is taking a hands-on approach to this situation and has opened an investigation into the undercover police stations. Regarding the matter, the Dutch Foreign Ministry announced that “these agencies are illegal” and that the ministry is “investigating exactly what they are doing [in the Netherlands][2].” Further investigation has revealed that the police stations in Rotterdam and Amsterdam are highly operational due to frequent Chinese immigration to the area—with military and police officials from the Chinese Fuzhou and Qingtian forces running the stations. 

   Meanwhile, the Chinese government is denying all allegations, claiming that the reports are “‘completely untrue’ and that the alleged police stations are ‘Chinese service centers[6].’” The Chinese government insists that these “service centers” are places where Chinese nationals can document civil status changes and renew driving licenses, not police stations in disguise. For example, Wang Wenbin—a spokesperson for the Chinese government—stated that the police stations were places for citizens to “merely” get physical examinations and renew driver’s licenses[7]. Wang further emphasized that Chinese public security authorities are devoted to combating transnational felonies under the law while scrupulously upholding the host countries’ judicial sovereignty[7]. Evidently, the claims made by Chinese authorities negate Wang’s insistence that the stations are mere civic centers, as a commitment to combating overseas violence goes beyond a service center’s function.

   Countries with operating Chinese police stations are speeding up their investigation processes and directing the investigations according to the allegations brought up by the Safeguard Defenders’ report, which includes a map of more than 50 illegal police stations. The Spanish Interior Ministry, for example, is initiating an examination to investigate the “service centers” and dig deeper into the report’s findings. The Dutch government has also announced that it will take appropriate measures as soon as there is “more clarity on the matter[8].”

China’s violation of human rights and extraterritorial jurisdiction

   The Chinese government has replied to these allegations with official statements asserting that the government “is doing justice” and that the police stations are related to a broader Chinese campaign to fight transnational crimes. One incident it points to is Chinese nationals in Myanmar and Cambodia committing online fraud; they scammed 8,000 to 10,000 people and generated around $1 billion[9]. Government authorities then pressured the suspects of the case to return to China to “‘face justice through several coercing methods,” including the withdrawal of government subsidies for their families, preventing their children from attending school, and seizing their property[9]. 

   The Chinese government has further substantiated its claims of executing justice internationally by claiming that it has persuaded 230,000 nationals to return to China between April 2021 to July 2022 to face criminal prosecutions[9]. For instance, in a viral video released last year by provincial authorities in Jiangsu on Chinese social media, the suspects of the aforementioned online fraud case shouted in unison: “We have committed fraud in Myanmar. We have now returned to the embrace of our motherland to accept reeducation”—an example of the Chinese government’s propaganda promoting its success at suppressing crime and “doing justice[9].” Laura Harth, the Campaign Director for Safeguard Defenders, believed that the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs was sending a message “that you are not safe anywhere, which she claimed to be a “very effective” way to track and control people[10]. 

   Nonetheless, multiple news outlets are suspicious of the Chinese government's claims of “doing justice” and are instead raising concerns that the police centers are being used to search for and silence dissidents who are protesting against the CCP. Wang Jingyu, who was mentioned at the beginning of the article, is one such victim who took refuge in the Netherlands, claiming to have been silenced by the Chinese government. After Wang criticized the Chinese regime on Weibo, a Chinese social media app, he claimed that he was coerced to “go back to China to sort out [his] problems” and to “think of [his] parents[11].” 

   In response to this incident, Dutch Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maxime Hovenkamp expressed her condolences to the victims and stated that the Dutch government should decide on an “appropriate response,” noting how they were not “made aware of these operations through the diplomatic channels with the Chinese government[12].” In fact, the Dutch government—alongside multiple other governments that have to deal with such illegal police stations—had “never” been told about the existence of the stations[5]. The fact that the Chinese Foreign Ministry did not communicate the existence of such police stations through proper channels is alarming and shows the host countries’ lack of consent, let alone knowledge, regarding the situation despite China championing its efforts under the ideal of justice. This is problematic as it is a clear violation of the Vienna Convention. The Vienna Convention is a treaty that is essential to the proper regulation and management of foreign relations and assures that diplomats can perform obligations without the oversight of the host government[13]. China and the Netherlands are signatories to the document, meaning that—theoretically—the Netherlands should give prior consent to China before the Chinese government can conduct managerial and supervisory activities and intelligence-gathering processes in its territory. China’s actions, however, are problematic as it is blatantly violating the treaty by failing to inform host countries of the existence and purpose of the police stations.

   Nevertheless Chinese embassy in the Netherlands is consistently claiming that it is incognizant of the stations’ presence and that the assertions regarding the illicit police stations are “completely false[8].” Willemijn Aerdts, an intelligence expert at Leiden University, states that China’s denial “fits in with what we have seen from China in recent years,” and that “it is up to the government to see how they can protect the Dutch against this and take countermeasures[14].” These facts and comments suggest that China is sticking to the tactic of strict denial and indifference when it comes to accusations—especially when faced with imputations of human rights violations. The Safeguard Defenders have further highlighted the “problematic” nature of China’s policing tactics: scapegoating suspects before making solid connections to the crime they have committed or conforming to due process within host countries[15].

   The outlook of the situation is made grimmer following China’s passage of the national Anti-Telecom and Online Fraud Law in September this year, which gives the government extraterritorial jurisdiction over Chinese nationals all over the world who are presumed to have committed fraud. The legislation, “in tandem with Chinese police units on foreign soil, leaves dissidents with nowhere to hide”—a disheartening notion for Chinese nationals who are, often falsely, accused of and detained for “committing crimes[15].” The legislation is especially problematic  since this so-called process of “justice” process entails the Chinese government targeting protestors and pro-democrats, such as protestors in Hong Kong and students in Tibet[15]. It would thus appear that these police stations serve as an international extension of the CCP’s domestic suppressive institutions. 

What actions will Europe take?

   More countries are joining the “global probe” on the illicit Chinese police and working together to conduct investigations[16]. As additional reports of these police stations come out, voices calling for an authorized diplomatic rebuke are growing louder, as well as demands for China to explain its infringement of international law[2].

   Spokesmen from numerous countries are using strong language to promptly halt the Chinese government and police stations’ illegal activities. Such an attempt can be assumed to be a response to China’s continued tactic of complete denial, circumvention, and adroit shunning of thorny issues. However, there are questions as to whether the countries’ determined response would prove to be effective, as Beijing has an equally tenacious and resolute attitude when it comes to denying all allegations. Nevertheless, European nations are starting to toughen up. Dutch Foreign Minister Wopke Hoekstra asserts that the political theory of realism is increasingly taking hold in this situation as the Dutch have “[left] naivety behind,” and are no longer willing to play only by China’s rules  only[17]. 

   A recent European Union (EU) document by the bloc’s foreign service shows the EU adopting political realism in its stance on China. The EU document entails a shift from the outmoded attitude of perceiving China as “partner-competitor-systemic rival” to an “all-out competitor with limited areas of political engagement[17].” The EU believes that it is time to “maintain an enduring competitive edge” as “Beijing [has the] capacity to reshape international order” and China’s “worrying” actions can no longer be “ignored[17].” Though the EU is aware that there are potential areas of cooperation with China, with China being a necessary “strategic partner” to tackle challenges both in the global and international realm, the EU is defiant that those areas of cooperation is “limited[17].” The EU is being more assertive and harsher when dealing with China, as it is aware that human rights should not be subsidiary to national sovereignty, but also because it is in Europe’s national and economic interest to maintain its dominance on the world stage.

*                 *                 *

  China’s stance on the issue of illicit police stations in Europe is especially noteworthy as its status as an economic giant, a global superpower, and a main member of the United Nations means that it should criticize human rights violation issues in other countries. However, China’s evidently uncooperative attitude and their infringement on human rights could bring serious consequences. While the international community has reprimanded China numerous times for its human rights violations and has continued to utilize the tactic of complete denial and indifference, the matter is different this time around. This is because China has also violated host countries’ jurisdictional and territorial sovereignty, and more countries are partaking in investigations and are employing a more defiant stance to China’s violations. Fortunately, there are possibilities that China’s insouciant response to the issue of illicit police stations will change as more European countries partake in definitively pushing China to admit its infringement of human rights. 

[1] CNN News

[2] Impakter

[3] BBC News

[4] UK Parliament

[5] Bloomberg

[6] Euronews

[7] The Guardian

[8] CNN News

[9] Vice

[10] Financial Times

[11] Dutch News

[12] BBC News

[13] Global Affairs Canada

[14] The Guardian

[15] The Guardian

[16] Global Times

[17] Financial Times

[18] Inside Croydon