Limitations of Current Australian Autonomous Sanction Act (AASA)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
2nd January 2020 Committee Secretary Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade PO Box 6021 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Dear Secretary, Australian Magnitsky Act Parliament Inquiry Submission Please see below my submission for the areas that I would like to address according to the terms of reference of this inquiry. My submission covers three areas: limitations of the Australian Autonomous Sanction Act that I have concerns; why I think there are advantages to have an Australian version of the Global Magnitsky Act and what I think will make having the Australian Magnitsky Act works effective in addressing human rights issues. Limitations of current Australian Autonomous Sanction Act (AASA) My main concern is that AASA is based on compliance with existing UN sanctions and there are limitations that the Act can’t cover and address effectively: Limitations: When a UN Security Council standing member is not embracing democracy and human rights, UN resolution cannot be passed when it is justified because of their veto powers. It is very hard to get all the standing members of the UN Security Council to achieve consensus in practice. As a result, only a few regimes are on the sanction list. In the case of China and Russia, although Russia is under Australia’s sanction list, China is not. AASA is imposed on countries, not applicable to lower level of governments that act under influence and instructions of a more authoritarian regime, such as the case in Hong Kong relating to police abuse of power, sexual violence against protesters and disproportional use of coercive powers against civilians and protesters who participated in the Anti-ELAB movement. Undesirable consequences of the rigidity, restrictive sanction impositions and limitations of AASA Villain powers and regimes can abuse Australian resources, including funding and non-monetary resources to advance knowledge to reinforce autocracy for abuse of human rights and perverting justice. This is particularly the case in the Australian education and research sectors as revealed by numerous Australian documentaries including Four Corners, 60 minutes plus, Foreign Affairs, etc. exposing China’s malicious influences to dwarf Australia’s own freedom of academy, freedom of speech and freedom of press within the campuses through their so-called PRC students education market while exploiting and abusing Australian funding to gain skills, knowledge and resources to acquire know-how in high techs and other strategic areas of the so-called China made 2025 as part of global domination race. In the case of intrusion of human rights and other crimes committed by lower level of governmental abuse of powers against own citizens below national level of governments, they are outside the jurisdiction of the current AASA. Examples include police disproportionate use of coercive power to suppress voices of demand for democracy, human rights and autonomy; sexual abuse against arrested young people and police abuse of power against people in custody by non- state actors and governments and their officers, their direct supervisors and even more senior level of police commanders all the way up to the highest level of Police Commissioner. Where justice cannot be fully and fairly exerted within the societies of eroded governance, the international community can do very little in absence of a more powerful act like the USA Global Magnitsky Act. AASA cannot address shadow government over a government through excessive interferences from a higher level of government to a lower level of government, such as the case between China and Hong Kong. According to latest de-classified documents from the UK National Achieve FCO 40/4174, UK government had concerned about China’s “patriotic” gangsters notion even before 1997. The then Chief Secretary of Hong Kong, Mr. David Hord wrote to the Foreign Ministry about his concern of what the then Minister of Public Security of China, TAO Sijiu recognition of the triad societies in HK as ‘patriotic’ if they could be of political usage by the China Communist Party (CCP) to achieve their agenda. The triad societies would see that they have CCP in their pockets. This in turn would greatly affect the public order in Hong Kong after 1997. TAO met representatives of one of the well known triad societies in HK, Sun Yee On, at Beijing. Triad societies are seen as united front targets and at times when needed, to do the dirty works for Beijing. During the election campaign of the former Chief Executive of Hong Kong Leung Chun-Ying, he and his election core members were seen secretly meeting triad societies members at the well reported “little peach garden alliance meeting”. During Leung’s tenure, triad society members were reported to attack HK citizens who participated in the Umbrella Movement in 2014. The situation of CCP backed up violence attacks against innocent people was first reported at 21st July 2019 mass assaults against civilians at Yuen Long rail station by people wearing white tee- shirts. Police refused to answer emergency calls. They did not turn up until 39 minutes after the attacks broke out. Local area commander made up unconvincing excuse for the police absence as ‘they did not have time to read the time on their watches.’ At the same time, police officers were photographed by media having cosy talks with the white tee men before the attacks broke out. Former legislator Junius Ho was photographed by media having friendly hand-shaking with the white shirt men before the mass attacks occurred at Yuen Long MTR station. So far, neither Mr. Ho nor any police officer was investigated, disciplined or prosecuted. Not even any of the involved police officer at Yuen Long police station or the broader police commanding unit in the New Territory is suspended from duties. Same incident repeated on 31st August 2019 Prince Edward station. A group of middle age men used hammers to attack passengers on the train but when the anti-riot force arrived at the site, they did nothing about these people while taking the opportunities to join the party to beat anybody inside the train cabins and at the platforms with police batons. Pepper water spray was applied without any discernment. Lot of people were arrested while injured civilians were significantly delayed to receive medical rescue because the police prevented fire fighters and other paramedics to perform any treatment. Even up to day, the public believed that some people might have perished on that night. Similar events of gang attacks against people who tried to put posters at numerous districts in HK became regular recurring news headlines but in none of the case, HK government, police and anybody has accepted any responsibility. On the other hand, outrageous pro-establishment celebrities including former legislator Junius Ho and people like him, who are well known to be closely related to the PRC Liaison Office in Hong Kong regularly inflame the notion that ‘rebellious children’ should be beaten up. They picked up the Chief Executive Carrie Lam’s notion that as a mother, she beats her children if they do not listen to her. Appraisal voices from Beijing were heard to back up these kinds of violence through ‘patriotic’ people, including gang members. Amnesty International published a report detailing 14 instances of excessive use of force by the Hong Kong Police and found that “the use of force by police in the largely peaceful protest that took place on 12 June violated international human rights law and standards. A report of the 2019 Hong Kong protests written by Patrick Purbrick (note 1), a former senior HK Royal Police force member who served in the Special Branch engaged in counter-terrorism intelligence pointed out the predicament of Hong Kong is that the current Public Security Order Ordinance was left behind by the British colonial period that was largely outdated with more recent legislations in democratic countries in defining riots and illegal assembly. The paramilitary structure of HK police was designed to protect Hong Kong from social unrests stirred up by the leftist extremism spread from China back in the 1960s Cultural Revolution era. The high handed approach taken by the then British Hong Kong government to curb the spread of chaos and well planned street violence and bomb attacks that could be tracked back to influences of masterminds from China had gained full support of the majority of Hong Kong citizens. While Hong Kong citizens do not change about their ultimate fear, resentful and worries of China’s malicious interferences and spill over of their radical leftist ideology to Hong Kong over the decades, ironically the same Public Order Ordinance, the paramilitary structural mode within Hong Kong police that once used to protect Hong Kong are being turned around to be abused by China to suppress citizens’ demands of legitimate promises of democracy, universal suffrage, human rights and autonomy as laid down in the Basic Law. Ironically, the same high-handed approach that had been used to curb against radical communism being spread to Hong Kong has been taken by Beijing to suppress and deprive Hong Kong citizens’ legitimate rights for protest, assembly, having freedom of speech, freedom of press, freedom of education and even basic rights to wear mouth masks on the streets. Voices to support and even pushing on more harsh approach have been heard on and off from the most senior level of PRC government, echoed by their agents within the pro-Beijing and pro- establishment in Hong Kong. Not only the stipulated promised autonomy in HK is vanishing rapidly, basic human rights as listed above, just a few examples only, are under threats. The paramilitary set up of HK police by UK to enable them as the former sovereignty of Hong Kong to secure freedom and prosperity against the encroachment of autocracy in Asia and even serving as a well buffer up for East Asia geo-politically has now become the Achilles’ knees.