Getting narrative right on counter-espionage security work regulations

Counter-espionage Law of the People's Republic of China. /Xinhua

**Editor's note: **Hamzah Rifaat Hussain is a former visiting fellow of the Stimson Center in Washington, D.C., and serves as assistant research associate at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute (IPRI) in Pakistan. He specializes in conflict resolution dynamics and bilateral relations between states. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

On April 26, China's Ministry of State Security promulgated regulations on counter-espionage security work. The regulations are aimed at improving the anti-espionage safety and prevention work systems as well as respecting and protecting human rights which can be violated through theft of intellectual property, subversion of economic rights and divulging of sensitive information which jeopardizes national security in a sovereign state. The regulations are an inherent sovereign right towards ensuring that hostile forces do not hijack, subvert or threaten China. Yet since the announcement, it is billed by some Western media as an attempt by Beijing to exert its influence by stifling dissent by implementing draconian measures. A closer look at the regulations shows that this is not about Chinese-sponsored intelligence warfare as purported, but concerted efforts to protect national security.

According to Malcolm Davis, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute on Chinese foreign policy, the Communist Party of China is roping in companies, universities and think tanks with uncertainty over whether such rules will be enforced extra territorially. This overarching generalization fails to account for the actual significance of counter-espionage security work in the words of Li Wei, an expert on national security and anti-terrorism at the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations. These are attempts to thwart probable cases of citizens being financially wooed or intimidated to engage in espionage activities against the Chinese state. It acts as a preventive measure exercised by any sovereign state towards safeguarding national interests which do not equate to "disruption," as erroneously stated by people such as Davis. Nations have a right to deter or dissuade as a necessity, particularly in the face of Western intelligence agencies being actively involved in promoting flawed assessments on northwest China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, Taiwan and Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

China is not alone in expressing concerns over espionage activities. A country which backed the Strategic Competition Act of 2021 had previously adopted a policy of clamping down on soft power initiatives on the premise that such entities were a cover-up for intelligence gathering.

Getty

Such speculations often result in the implementation of stringent domestic measures which have an impact on the Chinese diaspora and Chinese citizens working abroad who have to contend with coercion, deportations or sanctions. A number of Chinese citizens have been prosecuted in the United States over charges of alleged espionage, with various Trump officials warning that students and businesspersons could be involved in intellectual property theft which American academics themselves have considered being nothing short of racial profiling.

The Trump era may have gone, but the threat of Western subversion through intelligence remains. The cases of Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig stealing sensitive information through intelligence gathering and American businessman Kai Li providing Chinese state secrets to the FBI requires regulations which provide guidance for agencies, groups, enterprises and institutions to carry out risk assessments internally.

Thwarting threats from insiders as preemptive measures provides the necessary tools to nab defectors and criminals with a history of siphoning funds with the objective of overthrowing or threatening the Chinese state. Few can deny that becoming pawns of foreign spy agencies will compromise domestic peace and stability for which such measures should be adopted.

It is thus critical to view the regulations on counter-espionage security work as an effective means to preserve national security in China. Beijing has often been unfairly demonized or considered notorious for aggressively employing surveillance to justify ends. Stigmatization attempts or employing espionage to steal state secrets is unacceptable for any sovereign state and China should not be singled out.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at [email protected].)