Editorial: Tricky China request needs one proviso

China's President Xi Jinping. Photo / AP

Opinion

No death penalty must be a condition of fugitive return.

In his first speech as the leader of China, President Xi Jinping identified corruption as a major priority. There would, he said, be no leniency over a problem that was not just a threat to the country's economic development but the very existence of Communist Party rule. Mr Xi was not talking lightly, and his ardour has now created a ticklish problem for the Key Government. This arises from his appeal for New Zealand's help to return a number of fugitives who have fled China with the proceeds of corruption.

During his recent visit here, Mr Xi told the Prime Minister that he thought there were "a few people" in New Zealand whom China wanted returned to face legal action. Most of these were people who had come here with the proceeds of corrupt activities, although a case involving allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour was also discussed. Returning such people to Beijing is no simple matter, however. The two countries do not have an extradition treaty. This is a result, in part, of China's traditional reluctance to send its nationals to other countries to be tried and, in part, its ongoing use of the death penalty.

A treaty is now being discussed between officials from the two countries. Importantly, it would, as John Key suggested, have to be framed in a way that gave this country "a high degree of confidence" that certain conditions could be met. Clearly, New Zealand would recoil from the prospect of men or women who had been granted residency here being sentenced to death in China, conceivably without having had a fair trial. These people would have been admitted to this country as investor migrants in the belief that their funds were legitimate. On that basis, they have a right to expect some form of protection.

There are a couple of ways for New Zealand to work its way through this. The first is to look more closely at the sources of the wealth of those who apply to be investor migrants. It could be that the desire to encourage the investment dollars associated with this type of immigration has reduced the intensity of the scrutiny. Certainly, the Government left no doubt of its hankering when it lowered the English language requirements for such immigrants and reduced the minimum investment to what it described as "more realistic levels". Mr Xi's appeal makes it apparent that immigration officials should pay more attention to the possibility of ill-gotten gains.

Secondly, New Zealand should insist that anyone deemed worthy of extradition to China does not face the death penalty. There is a precedent in this. Five years ago, Zhen Xiao, a Chinese citizen, left this country soon after killing Hiren Mohini, a tax driver, in Mt Eden. Chinese authorities arrested him six months later and insisted that he was tried in Shanghai. While criminal proceedings usually take place in the country where the crime is committed, New Zealand agreed because of the absence of an extradition treaty. Its one proviso was that Zhen would not suffer the death penalty. Eventually, he was imprisoned for 15 years.

Other countries have rejected Chinese demands for extradition on the same grounds. The United States, for example, refused to return the Falun Gong leader Li Hongzhi. New Zealand has no reason, therefore, to be backward in demanding that an extradition treaty rules out the death penalty. Human rights demand as much.

All this is not to say that Mr Xi's crusade against corruption is not welcome. New Zealand companies operating in China will be among the beneficiaries. But this country should not be condemning any of its residents to the prospect of a lethal injection.