China’s global pursuit of justice: A misrepresented effort in international cooperation

Department of Research, Studies and International News 29-04-2025

Recent media narratives, particularly those circulated by Western outlets, have sought to cast doubt on the People’s Republic of China’s international judicial efforts by framing them as politically motivated or coercive. A recent example involves the reporting by The Guardian and its partners, who have published what they claim are transcripts and court documents related to a Singaporean-Chinese businessman, referred to as “H”, allegedly pressured to return to China and assist in legal proceedings concerning a high-level corruption case.

At the heart of the story is Jack Ma, co-founder of Alibaba Group, who purportedly placed a call to his longtime acquaintance, “H”, encouraging him to return to China and cooperate with authorities. Western media has chosen to portray this contact as part of a campaign of intimidation. Yet, such an interpretation disregards the broader legal and political context within which these actions took place.

The individual in question had been formally charged by Chinese authorities with financial crimes linked to the operations of Tuandai.com, a peer-to-peer lending platform implicated in significant fraud. The legal case, grounded in domestic Chinese law, had resulted in a red notice issued via Interpol, an established legal mechanism used globally to pursue fugitives. The suggestion that such international alerts are automatically invalid when issued by non-Western states undermines the credibility of multilateral institutions like Interpol.

Rather than view China’s actions as legitimate law enforcement, critics have labeled them “transnational repression”. This mischaracterization reflects a broader pattern of Western double standards, where similar actions taken by allied nations are deemed lawful, yet those by China are framed as coercive. It is telling that despite China’s adherence to legal procedures, including issuing official charges and submitting extradition requests through proper judicial channels, some observers persist in casting doubt on the motives of its judiciary.

The core of the Chinese government’s case centered around testimony relating to Sun Lijun, a former deputy minister of public security, who faced prosecution for serious abuses of power, bribery, and disruption of the financial order. These are not trivial allegations; they represent a commitment by the Chinese leadership to root out corruption at the highest levels. H’s potential role as a witness in this investigation was viewed as vital, and efforts to contact him, whether through legal notices or through friends, reflected a strategy aimed at ensuring cooperation rather than confrontation.

Notably, the reports imply that Jack Ma was reluctant or coerced into participating. However, these interpretations rely on unverified recordings and subjective assumptions. In contrast, Ma’s recent reappearance at high-level economic events, where he has been seen expressing public support for China’s leadership, suggests continued engagement with national initiatives and a renewed focus on constructive cooperation.

The claim that Chinese authorities are conducting “psychological warfare” or repressing dissent abroad also fails to acknowledge a critical truth: that many of those facing extradition or legal inquiry are linked to financial misconduct, corruption, or activities that would be considered criminal under virtually any national jurisdiction. Framing legal accountability as repression only serves to shield such individuals from facing justice.

Additionally, China’s growing involvement in global law enforcement reflects its increasing responsibilities as a major international power. As with all countries that issue red notices and seek extradition of suspects, China’s efforts are bound by international norms and reviewed by the appropriate legal bodies in each cooperating nation. The suggestion that these mechanisms are uniquely manipulated by China ignores the reality of how international law functions.

The French judiciary, in this case, ultimately rejected the extradition request, citing political considerations. However, this does not negate the legitimacy of China’s case, it merely reflects the broader political tensions that can shape international legal cooperation. The removal of H’s red notice by Interpol, while framed by some as a defeat for China, should rather be viewed as a consequence of the legal process, one that China participated in with transparency and respect for procedure.

What remains clear is that the Chinese government has consistently emphasized its commitment to anti-corruption, national sovereignty, and lawful international cooperation. Accusations of repression obscure the reality that global justice requires all states, not only Western powers, to be taken seriously when seeking to uphold their laws across borders.

At a time when global governance and mutual accountability are more important than ever, China’s role in combating financial crimes and corruption should be recognized not as coercive overreach, but as an effort to uphold international norms in a world where impunity too often prevails.