Liu Juti: What is Huawei's strategy of litigation against Canada and the US government. What is the thinking behind the scenes?Is it possible to have a reverse fire effect?
After the Canadian Ministry of Justice announced the official launch of the legal procedure that extradited Meng Wanzhou to the United States, Meng Wanzhou recently filed a lawsuit against the Canadian government in the Vancouver Court.A few days later, according to US media reports, Huawei prepared a lawsuit against the US government in the United States.I have published an analysis. I think that even though it is painful and difficult, the Meng Wanzhou and Huawei incidents should be resolved through legal channels rather than politics.
However, in addition to self -defense through legal channels, Meng Wanzhou and Huawei also chose to cooperate with a high -profile and non -admitting attitude at the same time.EssenceWhat is the thinking behind the scenes of the Ka and the US government's litigation. What is the thinking behind the scenes?In addition, how can the current public relations offensive of Huawei have a public relations offensive?Is it possible to have a reverse fire effect?
Meng Wanzhou claimed that the Canadian Border Service Office, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canadian government violated the law in the process of implementing the US extradition request in the civil lawsuit filed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia.Meng pointed out that when the Vancouver Airport passed the Vancouver Airport on December 1 last year, the Canadian police did not immediately arrest her. Instead, he detained her with the name of the regular customs inspection of evidence and information illegal forced to provide evidence and information.
In addition, according to several US media reports, Huawei intends to filed a lawsuit against the US government, claiming that the National Defense Authorization Law passed by the United States last August, and government agencies were prohibited from using Huawei and ZTE technology to violate the principles of the United States Constitution, that is, the bill was prohibited.Choose a person or a group without a trial for punishment.In other words, Huawei believes that the National Defense Authorization Law is a constitutional bill tailored for it.
Huawei, which has always been low -key, has launched offensives this year. Since the beginning of the year, the founder Ren Zhengfei has been interviewed by several foreign media. He has denied that Huawei has engaged in espionage for the Chinese government and said that under any circumstances, he will never do any behavior of hurting other countries.During the Barcelona World Mobile Communications Conference, Huawei's rotating chairman Guo Ping published an article in the Financial Times that the United States' main motivation for suppressing Huawei was two: First, after Huawei's occupation of the market, the United States could not conduct monitoring and intelligence collection through the Huawei system.I am afraid that the United States will be behind in the 5G field.
But suing the Canadian government and the US government marked a more aggressive gesture. Is the offensive strategy of Meng Wanzhou and Huawei be good for their cases?This is a bit suspended, and different legal experts have different views.
Meng Wanzhou's legal strategy
After the Canadian Ministry of Justice announced the official launch of Meng Wanzhou extradition legal procedures, Meng's lawyer David Bull; Martin issued a statement: even if facing the United States with political allegations, and US presidents repeatedly stated that if he thinks this will have anyHelp the United States and China on negotiations on the trade agreement. He will interfere with Ms. Meng's case. We are disappointed (Canada) Attorney General still decided to authorize the extradition procedure.
What is concerned about us is that the accusations of crimes in the United States do not constitute a crime in Canada. If in this case, the Ministry of Justice still decides to authorize the extradition legal procedure.The client believes that she has never had any illegal acts, and the US prosecution and extradition are abuse of legal procedures.
Based on the statement of Lawyer Meng Wanzhou, we can imagine that when the defense extradition procedure, her legal representative's two arguments in the court will be: the political motivation for extradition and the lack of acts that constitute a crime in the United States and Canada.
One of the exceptions of the Canadian extradition law is to exclude the extradition applied for political considerations.Although Trump's trade negotiation team and judicial department have repeatedly emphasized that judicial procedures have nothing to do with trade negotiations, it is generally expected that Meng Wanzhou's lawyers will make articles on Trump's missed articles.
Another important point of the attack is that one of the necessary prerequisites stipulated in the extradition of extradition treaties is that if the accused behavior occurs in Canada, it must also constitute illegal law.The U.S. government has proposed 13 criminal allegations against Huawei, affiliated company Huawei United States and Tiantong, and Meng Wanzhou in New York, including violating Iranian sanctions, financial fraud and crimes.
The lack of dual crimes mentioned by Lawyer Meng Wanzhou's statement should refer to that the Canadian ban on Iran does not completely overlap with the Iranian ban in the United States.crime.However, I think that according to the prosecution documents cited at the Bureta hearing of Meng Wanzhou Vancouver, the US prosecutor should advocate the foundation for the extradition of bank fraud.
Article 1344 of the Federal Federal Law stipulates that any fraudulent financial institution at an attempt, or to obtain funds from financial institutions through false or fraudulent excuses, states, or commitments, will be punished by criminal sanctions.Chapter 380 of the Canadian Criminal Law also has a similar clause on bank fraud.
Meng Wanzhou filed a lawsuit against the Canadian government's behavior during the arrest, and the keywords were legal procedures.The judicial system in the United States and Canada may cause obstacles to implementing justice due to the unfairness of law enforcement procedures. There are clear regulations for the rights of defendants and arrested parties, as well as evidence collection.Strategic speaking, Craig Bull, a legal professor at the University of Ottawa; in an interview with Bloomberg News that Meng's approach may be to improve the Canadian government's interests, it can be called LSQUO; legal war RSQUO;A form.
The Canadian Federal Privacy Commissioner's Office pointed out in a public document called airport and border privacy that at the Border Control Office, officials at the Canadian Border Service (CBSA) have extensive power to prevent and search for people, check their luggage and other property, and other property.Including laptops and smartphones and other devices.These activities were carried out under the authorization of the Canadian Customs Law, and no search order was required.
This document also pointed out that the Canadian courts generally believe that people have reduced their expectations for the privacy of the border point, but even in this case, privacy and other franchise continued to apply, which are subject to national sovereignty, immigration control, taxation and public safety countries such as countries such as immigration, taxation, and public safety.The restrictions of the priority.However, when Meng Wanzhou had no plans to enter Vancouver Airport, did the Canadian government searches for her legitimate national sovereignty, immigration control, taxation and public safety considerations?This should be one of the factor in the court's debate.
Professor Foss believes that there is a unique factors for each action, and no factors are easy to determine.He also pointed out that although the Canadian Constitution has given everyone rights, regardless of nationality or immigration status, the court tends to agree to the government's point of view, that is, this right is weakened by the border;People cannot expect to cross the international boundary without review.
However, Lawyer Vancouver, who had participated in hundreds of extradition cases, Bull; Bosin told many US -Canadian media that if the judge found that violations of the Canadian constitutional rights had a negative impact on the extradition process, including the fairness of the hearing, the judge could deny it.The demand for the extradition of the United States.
In any case, on the one hand, the Meng Wanzhou team may adopt delay tactics during the extradition hearing, and on the other hand, it will also lay out a long -term anti -Japanese war.Vancouver's criminal lawyer Kella Bull; Li said in an interview with the Vancouver Star that although Meng Wanzhou sued the Canadian government's lawsuit itself, it has previous support, but even if Meng Wanzhou wins the lawEssence
Therefore, the possible motivation for this lawsuit is not financial compensation, but to protect the extradition procedure of Canada through constitutional compensation, including whether the Canadian Minister of Justice is finally approved for extradition.Even if Meng was eventually repatriated to the United States, in the face of the jury of the US court, if she could show her right to violate Canada, she could play a good role in her case.
Huawei's legal and public relations strategy
Huawei's prosecution on the US government canWill it reverse the direction of two criminal cases, or curb the US government's suppression of Huawei?
The U.S. Department of Justice sued Huawei for two pieces: on the one hand, in Brooklyn, New York accused Huawei and Meng Wanzhou in violation of Iranian sanctions, financial fraud was accused of financial fraud;confidential.
In theory, Huawei sued the US government's defense authorization law against constitutional and politically persecution, and could not directly charges 23 complaints.For these allegations, political factors are not good defense reasons, because political persecution is not directly related to the core of the defendant.In fact, if each defendant uses political persecution as a shield, there will be a lot of murderers and fugitives on our streets.
In response to criminal complaints, the motivation of Huawei's counterattack should be part of the overall image layout, and a positive attack on the US government's one -sided Huawei threat theory.In the trial stage, the prejudice of the jury may be prevented, and the defense of the case may indirectly affect the case.
But in response to the US government's siege, can Huawei strategy change the behavior of the US government?I think this may be very difficult.
First of all, Huawei's case seems to be on the trajectory of the Russian network security company Kaspersky Labs: the United States believes that Kaspersky's software may be a tool for Russia to collect intelligence. Kaspersky has denied these allegations.In September, the federal agencies excluded Kaspersky's products in the government system, and then the US Congress also legislated.
Cascasky filed two lawsuits against the US government, claiming that the ban violated in violation of context, but the primary court rejected these lawsuits and ruled that the Parliament Act was because of the proper consideration of protecting the government's computer network from Russia's invasion.The ruling is a preventive measure to recognize that Kasperski is prohibited from being prohibited.
Regardless of the probability of Huawei's victory in the U.S. government in Texas, if we observe the high frequency of various problems in the United States on various problems in China in the United States, I don't think that the U.S. government's swords on the court will change the U.S. government.Idea or actions.
While a strong attack, Huawei also adopted a large area of public relations charm, including recent mainstream media such as the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Politician, today's US and Los Angeles Times.If you defend yourself, urge readers not to believe everything you hear, and invite American media to Shenzhen to inspect on the spot: our door is always open.We hope that the US public will better understand us, and at the same time point out that the US government has misunderstood us.
At present, the actual effect of this charm offensive is unclear, but some people express their hair.For example, it is reported that Huawei provided a ticket and accommodation cost of the Chinese headquarters to the Washington Post columnist Josh Bull through the public relations company;In the American press, sponsorship of the poor travel expenses of reporting objects is usually a taboo, because it may cause conflicts of interest and violate news ethics.Luo Jin published Huawei's invitation letter on Twitter and wrote:
Is Huawei invited me to China to travel for a full cost?That makes it difficult to refuse.An American journalist who has been in Huawei money should be ashamed and spurred.
Luo Jin's meaning was that Huawei tried to buy American journalists.Subsequently, Huawei's invitation to other media was changed to self -funded.
Narrative of expanding political persecution
On the whole, Meng Wanzhou and Huawei sued the biggest prosecution of the Canadian and the US governments to expand their narratives that they were persecuted by political persecution.In the extradition hearing, political motivation is one of the factors that judges must consider in accordance with the Canadian extradition law.However, strictly speaking, the core issues of Huawei's two criminal cases in the United States are Iranian embargo and financial fraud, as well as the weapon that stole commercial secrets. Political persecution is not a guilty weapon.
From this point of view, the comprehensive political persecution narrative, especially the protest of the Chinese government, is in the Chinese government.P>
First of all, the image of these high -profile actions is the great cause of Huawei and Meng Wanzhou, and they have the ability to smash money.In the article of the Vancouver Star analysis of Meng Wanzhou's prosecution, billions of richest people, the words of money, and other words are constantly flashing: Meng Wanzhou is a billionaire.She does not need these economic compensation.The interviewed Kara Bull; Lawyer Li even believed that Meng's wealth can be said to be the only reason she filed a civil lawsuit: she does not have to make a decision that other people who face extradition, because she can afford such expensive expensive onesStrategic decision.
People like Meng have the right to hire the best lawyers to provide all possible legal arguments for their defense, and maximize the angle that is beneficial to her from the Canadian judicial system and even the US judicial system.
Meng Wanzhou's prosecution to the Canadian government is a self -defense right supported by the Canadian and US judicial systems, so it is understandable.However, if Meng Wanzhou really was extradited to the United States, it would be difficult to say whether the jury would have empathy and even sympathy for such a rich man.
Secondly, Huawei's current all -round offensive seems to have a variety of different goals.On the one hand, by complaining directly with the US government, they try to prevent the US government from continuing to surround Huawei in the United States.But the lawsuit itself is different from its second target MDASH; MDASH; the legal basis for sin from two criminal cases is not the same.Political persecution is not directly related to the 23 allegations faced by Huawei.Huawei has shaped himself as a political persecution, and has to complete the third goal, to exert the charm of public relations and wash the public image of Huawei.
From the perspective of public relations, such a highly dense amount of information and exposure in such a short time may not be a good thing, and these three goals may not help.
Third, in addition to the pockets of the public relations company, the litigation itself, the litigation itself, and the possibility of the loud politics, there is another possibility of reverse fire effects, which is to trigger more comparisons. Compared with the judicial procedures faced by Meng Wanzhou,And the treatment, and the two Canadians who are currently suspected of stealing the Chinese national secrets in China, and Canadians who have been renamed for death for drug trafficking, facing judicial procedures and treatment.
Former Canadian ambassador to China, Ma Dawei, issued a post on March 3: Let's ask the Chinese Ambassador to Canada: Can Kang Mingkai and Spavavo freely file a similar lawsuit against the Chinese who arrested them?
Both China and Huawei must avoid the risk of cross -infection.From the perspective of public relations, observing the comments from traditional United States and Canadian media and social media. At present, Huawei's offensive has not disintegrated, but it has been strengthened. Huawei and China's national interests are closely tied and inseparable.
As for the majority of the United States and Canadian judges, it is still too early to form a decision that is beneficial to Meng Wanzhou and Huawei in such a confrontation.The extradition hearing is not a typical court trial, that is, the judge does not need to decide whether Meng criminals, but only to determine whether the proof and discussion proposed by the United States meet the conditions for the extradition.
According to the readers of major American media websites, and some reactions of Twitter to make informal observations, I think most people have the established prejudice to support Meng Wanzhou and Huawei.The offensive of Huawei and Meng Wanzhou has no way to reverse their established impressions, and even for those who hold negative impressions, they are more sharply expressed their prejudices in their hearts.Therefore, the defense of Huawei and Meng Wanzhou and the public relations team must adjust the future bright sword strategy and achieve better deployment and balance between different goals.
Bloomberg news column critic Tim Bull; Kurpan Fa Wen concluded that Huawei needs to ask himself: Even if Meng Wanzhou has won a lawsuit against the Canadian government, what can it get?Seeking justice is the right of everyone, but Huawei risks the risk of becoming good elements, not what it depictsCalm and trustworthy partners.In the absence of such (judicial) options in China, it is a great irony to appeal to Canada's rule of law. This is a major ironic person who is cautious to Huawei's new charm.
