After the occurrence of embassy (or consulate) intrusion incident, the country concerned, instead of handing the intruders over to the Chinese side for verification, blamed the Chinese armed police for adopting measures of obstruction, and even charged the Chinese side with infringing their sovereign right (meaning entry into embassy or consulate without permission), and demanded that the Chinese side unconditionally allow the intruders to leave the country. The politicians and media of some countries published extremely irresponsible remarks, seizing the opportunity to attack China.
The recent incident of intrusion into the Japanese consulate general in Shenyang has triggered a moderate diplomatic disturbance between China and Japan and has startled the top leaders of the two governments. A small number of Japanese people threaten to reconsider Japan-China relationship.
House of Representatives of the US Congress passed a resolution on June 11, requesting the Chinese side to provide convenience for the consulate intruders to leave the country, and criticizing China for disrespect of human rights. On June 13, the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed another resolution, requesting China to allow the "refugees" to leave the country.
That's queer indeed. What's wrong with China in the process of handling the consulate intrusion incident? Is it that China can withdraw its armed police who protect the security of embassy and consulate and let various countries bear this responsibility themselves? This, of course, won't do, none of these countries wishes to do so, on the contrary, they have repeatedly requested the Chinese side to strengthen protection of the security of their consulates and embassies, and to prevent the recurrence of consulate intrusion incident. Even the resolution adopted by the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee "encourages" the Chinese government to strengthen protection of the security of their embassies or consulates in China. Because everybody knows that terrorists and criminals would seize every chance to do evil, so the matter allows of no carelessness.
The repeated occurrence of consulate intrusion incidents has brought tremendous security pressures on the Chinese police, created a lot of work burden on the Chinese Foreign Ministry and added complicated factors to China's relations with other countries concerned. The motion adopted by the US Congress also admits that the consulate intrusion incident has brought heavy burden on China.
Even if the consulate intruders had thousands of reasons for what they did, none of which has anything to do with China. China is innocent. In handling the incident of consulate intrusion, China has not violated the international law, what it has done is merely safeguarding the security of foreign embassies and consulates in China. China is the victim, potential consulate intruders and stowaways, who live in China, have posed serious threat to China's social stability and State security.
In accordance with the logic of the countries concerned, China should guarantee the security of embassies and consulates, but should not stop unidentified consulate intruders; they deny the right of asylum, and yet they want China to unilaterally recognize the right of asylum. How can there be such logic in the world?
An important reason behind the repeated occurrence of consulate intrusion incidents is that after the consulate intruders succeeded and finally arrived in the Republic of Korea (ROK), the ROK government would give them allowance and financial aid. This practice of connivance and encouragement has induced more people to risk following suit. Even though many countries repeatedly censure China on the question of consulate intrusion, in private, however, they have expressed the hope that the Chinese government would adopt measures to strengthen protection of their embassies or consulates, they do not hope recurrence of consulate intrusion incidents. Solution of this question needs the common efforts of various parties, particularly the coordination of the countries concerned.
As the host country of these consulate intruders, the country concerned should strengthen border management to effectively prevent their own nationals from entering China illegally; as the destination country, the ROK should change its current practice of winking at and even encouraging illegal consulate intruders, the most important thing at present is to hand over the consulate intruders to the Chinese side for verification and handling according to law.
With regard to South Korea's non-governmental organizations and individuals who are engaged in engineering, organizing and instigating consulate intrusion within the Chinese territory as well as busybodies from European, American and other countries, the countries concerned should take upon themselves the responsibility to properly manage their own citizens, teach them to abide by China's laws and statutes, and should not allow or even connive at them to do everything evil in the territory of other countries.
Some foreign politicians like to use high-sounding words about human rights and humanity, if they sincerely respect human rights and treasure humanity, they should urge the United States and some other Western countries to lift sanctions against the countries concerned as soon as possible, provide necessary economic and food assistance, help potential consulate intruders or stowaways get out their difficulties in livelihood, to do so is better than chanting bombastic words.
If those busybodies want to "take pleasure in helping others", we won't and shouldn't interfere if they do this elsewhere, but they must not come to China to stir up trouble! If some South Korean people are "happy in doing good and giving alms", they should directly talk with the persons concerned, as regards how large a number of them you want to take in, do as you like, but you mustn't cause China trouble! Otherwise, once anyone engages in law-breaking activities in China is discovered, the Chinese government will and should give him or her severe punishment according to law.
( June 21, 2002)
