Yes, it comes as a shock. I know it. Although, it does not affect me (I think). But there is also a weird balancing act that derives from there. It was given to me by the Dutch NOS. You see the stupidity of one opponent (Russia) should not decide the inactions towards another (China). So there I was reading (at https://nos.nl/l/2450783) giving us : ‘China denies existence of police bureaus in the Netherlands, calls them ‘service points’’ there we learn that China has at least two of them in the Netherlands. One in Amsterdam and one in Rotterdam. Stations that China erected without informing the Dutch authorities. Next to the usage for administrative duties like the Chinese authorities self indicates, there are strong suspicions that China uses these offices to keep track of the Chinese with critical views of China.
China responded “They are meant to assist local Chinese citizens who apply for an expired driving license. The people are ‘enthusiastic oversea Chinese people’ not police officers.
The Dutch ministry of foreign affairs have stated that these offices are unacceptable and must be shut immediately. In other news, Germany is now investigating whether such an office exists in Frankfurt.
No matter how this plays, China seemingly has a much larger intelligence operation in Europe, or did you think that ‘offices’ would be erected for expired driving licenses? The problem that this creates is twofold. What is merely for China, and what is used to give Russia additional material? The fact that Pro Russian collaboration is going on in the Netherlands has been clear for well over a year and it goes way beyond the borders of one seemingly mentioned name like Thierry Baudet. It goes a lot further and the question is how far? The fact that Russia’s efforts are monitored is one, the fact that China has an intelligence structure beneath the waterline is quite another and that is a setting that neither the Dutch or European forces will find acceptable, and the very same could be said for their alleged German activities.
Is one true? It is hard to say but the Dutch tend to have a sober view on matters, and the fact that the NOS gives us this hours ago whilst Reuters made mention 5 days ago implies that certain evidence has been checked and categorised implies a foundation that some will see as evidence. Of course we wonder how Reuters had it 5 days before the Dutch NOS, but one might have been a rumour, whilst the other one is verified information. The one question the UK (and commonwealth) needs to question is how far does this go, especially with a larger Chinese contingent in Australia, especially Sydney and Melbourne where we find a huge chunk of the 1.3 million Chinese immigrants.
Yet, that is not my concern, but it should be someones concern, don’t you think so?
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 