[Beijing Diary] The Backlash Called the Ban-Gancheop Law

The revised Chinese Anti-Espionage Law, updated for the first time in nine years, is causing controversy. What worries corporate expatriates, employees of research institutions and consulting firms living in China, as well as correspondents conducting reporting activities, the most is the ambiguity in the scope and subjects of the law's application.

Looking at the main revisions, the definition of espionage activities has effectively been broadened to a level where one can be caught easily. Not only classified information but also documents and data related to national security and interests involving reconnaissance, acquisition, bribery, and illegal provision have been newly included, but there is no specification of exactly which documents and data are meant. Additionally, photographing not only confidential-related departments and key information infrastructure but also government agencies can be considered espionage activities.

The revised law allows administrative detention and other measures for espionage activities even if espionage charges are not legally established. The authority and severity of measures such as refusal of entry for foreigners who are 'likely' to engage in activities threatening national security, deportation of foreigners violating the law, and entry bans for up to 10 years have also been strengthened.

The Korean Embassy in China, after reviewing the related law, urged the Korean community to be cautious and advised them to be careful when searching for Chinese maps, photos, and statistical data on the internet or storing them on electronic devices. It also discouraged taking photos not only of government agencies themselves but also of their adjacent areas.

A source said, "This law is intended to respond more actively to sanctions from the United States and some Western countries," adding, "It has two main purposes: to block access to sensitive domestic issues such as the Xinjiang Uyghur human rights controversy, and to prevent some Chinese companies from reporting on their own companies and industries to the U.S." However, the source added, "Contrary to the original purpose, since it is unclear when and how the law will be applied, the current plan is to avoid contact with Chinese parties for the time being."

The purpose of the Foreign Relations Law, which came into effect on the same day as the Anti-Espionage Law, appears to be in a similar context. China publicly states that this law was established as a basis to respond to foreign measures that infringe on its national interests. In particular, Article 33 states, "China has the right to take corresponding measures against acts that violate international law and basic norms of international relations and threaten the sovereignty, security, and development interests of the People's Republic of China."

Both inside and outside China commonly cite 'reform' and 'opening up' as ways to improve the sluggish economic recovery. The former is the advancement from manufacturing, which has supported the Chinese economy so far, to innovative industries, and the latter is regaining trust in the Chinese market to attract investment from foreign companies. Professor Jin Kewei of the London School of Economics (LSE) in the UK advised at the recent Summer World Economic Forum Annual Meeting (Summer Davos Forum) held in Tianjin, China, that "China should maintain high transparency and communicate more with international capital markets," adding, "More reform and opening up is the only way to overcome some of China's economic bottlenecks."

In that sense, the Anti-Espionage Law rapidly reverses the trajectory of China's economic normalization. Ambiguous regulations will raise suspicions about China's intentions and dampen the morale of foreigners residing in China. Regarding these concerns, the Chinese state-run media Global Times wrote in an editorial related to the Foreign Relations Law, "China's diplomacy is open. We hope to be friends with everyone, but we will not tolerate actions that harm China's interests." However, neither the United States nor any party throughout history and across the world calls an opponent who prioritizes only their own interests a friend, nor do they consider such an uncompromising attitude to be open.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.