Comments on: Secrets, spies and steel: the Rio Tinto Case http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/09/secrets-spies-and-steel-the-rio-tinto-case/ Economics, Politics and Public Policy in East Asia and the Pacific Sun, 12 Feb 2012 22:50:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: John Monfrieshttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/09/secrets-spies-and-steel-the-rio-tinto-case/comment-page-1/#comment-101910 John Monfries Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:21:02 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=10466#comment-101910 A fascinating outline of a contentious issue. A fascinating outline of a contentious issue.

]]> By: Lincoln Funghttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/09/secrets-spies-and-steel-the-rio-tinto-case/comment-page-1/#comment-101557 Lincoln Fung Tue, 09 Mar 2010 01:13:47 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=10466#comment-101557 I tried very hard to seek anything new information or knowledge from this piece regarding this issue, but in the end I was little disappointed. However, I did notice the following from the author of some interest (although this has been stated before probably): "Many foreign enterprises operating in China question the legal basis for the espionage charges initially brought against the Rio employees. The ambiguities in law can be traced to the vagaries of China’s 1989 State Secrecy Law, which loosely defines secrets as matters concerning ‘national security and interests.’ These include ‘secret matters relating to national economic and social developments.’" If the law defines secrets as matters concerning ‘national security and interests’, then one may wonder what the bases are for enterprises both foreign and domestic to question the legal basis for the espionage charges. Was that the case that the law itself was not available publicly to enterprises and any persons who operate in China? Doesn't any country talk about national interests as important to them? I tried very hard to seek anything new information or knowledge from this piece regarding this issue, but in the end I was little disappointed.

However, I did notice the following from the author of some interest (although this has been stated before probably):

“Many foreign enterprises operating in China question the legal basis for the espionage charges initially brought against the Rio employees. The ambiguities in law can be traced to the vagaries of China’s 1989 State Secrecy Law, which loosely defines secrets as matters concerning ‘national security and interests.’ These include ‘secret matters relating to national economic and social developments.’”

If the law defines secrets as matters concerning ‘national security and interests’, then one may wonder what the bases are for enterprises both foreign and domestic to question the legal basis for the espionage charges. Was that the case that the law itself was not available publicly to enterprises and any persons who operate in China?

Doesn’t any country talk about national interests as important to them?

]]>