In the case of former chief of staff to the New York Governor, Sun Wen, being labeled as a “foreign agent,” the U.S. Department of Justice has, for the first time, used the term “Chinese government and CCP representatives” to accuse her of being manipulated. This change may reflect a new understanding in the U.S. of the activities of the Chinese Communist Party. Different members of the community have varying interpretations, with some believing that this highlights the pattern of the CCP exerting influence through Chinese expatriate leaders.
The indictment in Sun Wen’s case repeatedly alleges that she acted at the “request of PRC government officials and CCP representatives” and was involved in a significant amount of political activities. This is a notable departure from previous similar cases that only used the term “Chinese government.”
Yukin Hua, chairman of the East Asian Association, believes that this reflects the different roles and functions of CCP officials and representatives, stating that “they are two sides of the same coin with different functions.”
Specifically, “CCP officials have official titles, are open foreign agents, have diplomatic immunity, and are restricted in their activities in the U.S., acting on behalf of the CCP. If they interfere in U.S. internal affairs, they will not be arrested but will be expelled from the country.”
On the other hand, CCP representatives “appear as American citizens or permanent residents, individuals or U.S. officials, acting on behalf of the CCP. They will not be expelled if anything happens, but will be arrested as undisclosed foreign agents.”
In summary, CCP representatives refer to those who do not have diplomatic immunity but still engage in representative work, bearing the risk of being arrested themselves. In practice, as direct involvement by the Chinese consulate would be too conspicuous, they often operate through pro-CCP expatriate leaders in the community, who must bear the related risks themselves and will not be rescued if trouble arises.
Huihua Chen, founding president of the New York Sinophile Association, believes that in a one-party state, the government is the party, and making such a distinction is only to avoid diplomatic or policy issues.
In specific instances, CC-1 (chairman of the Henan Association) is considered a CCP representative, with the indictment citing that in April 2018, CC-1 informed Sun Wen that he was participating in a “Belt and Road” roundtable conference held by the Henan Provincial Government in China, where he was the sole representative of overseas Chinese from Henan and would be speaking at the conference. Similarly, CC-2 (president of the China Overseas Chinese Business Association) is viewed as a frontline pro-CCP expatriate leader who goes to Beijing to participate in activities of the United Front Work Department and the Overseas Chinese Federation, serving as a CCP representative.
Sun Wen is accused of participating in political activities at the request of CCP representatives, highlighting potential adjustments in the legal definitions and scope of risk against the backdrop of changes in U.S.-China relations. Collaborating with and responding to pro-CCP expatriate leaders in the U.S. may also expose individuals to being entangled in foreign agent affairs. This action may prompt more people to be cautious and discern between normal contacts and spying or CCP influence activities.
Guangjun Gao, a New York lawyer who once taught at the Beijing Police University, believes that the shift in terminology by the Department of Justice “clearly carries a Cold War atmosphere” and is related to current political realities.
“The understanding of U.S. legal definitions is certainly related to current political affairs, especially such legal terms as ‘foreign agent,'” he said. The case shows that “those being indicted are not only ignorant of the law but also lack common sense about international politics. I see some lawmakers complaining about the unfairness of the U.S. justice system, accusing Sun Wen, while democracy activists testify as innocent witnesses for Wang Shujun. How ignorant.”
“Having frequent contact with officials from the Chinese consulate will naturally lead to doing things for them, which already raises suspicions of being an agent. If one has business benefits in China, then they are like Sun Wen. There are some individuals like this in New York,” he believed, stating that surrendering and cooperating with the FBI is the best option.
Wang Juntao, chairman of the National Committee of the China Democracy Party, pointed out that the Sun Wen case has far-reaching implications. He believes that the state of New York and the city government have long been infiltrated, and this case acts as a deterrent for those who continue to work for the Chinese government. Additionally, asset forfeiture measures in the case pose significant financial risks to those serving the Chinese government, potentially leading to bankruptcy.
“The government has charged Sun Wen with several offenses and has tied up all her assets. If the charges are proven, then all assets will be confiscated. For those who serve the Chinese government, serve the CCP, their consequences are not just imprisonment but possible bankruptcy,” Wang Juntao said. This trend may lead more officials in U.S. state governments to actively distance themselves from individuals with connections to the CCP to avoid any association with the Chinese government.
Furthermore, each espionage incident involving a political office or institution should prompt enhanced supervision or review. Governor Huo Chu has already stated the need to strengthen background checks and security reviews. Wang Juntao believes that future regulations and requirements may become stricter, emphasizing that public officials should maintain political neutrality in carrying out their duties and avoid intertwining personal political goals with official activities.
In conclusion, Wang Juntao summarized that the two major implications of this case are: first, public officials’ associations with the Chinese government will face strict monitoring; second, if such relationships occur, individuals not only face criminal responsibility but also stand to lose all their assets.