Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
turningrite

Should Canada suspend relations with China?

Recommended Posts

What's wrong with McCallum stating the obvious?

Quote

“I think she has quite good arguments on her side,” he said. "One, political involvement by comments from Donald Trump in her case. Two, there's an extraterritorial aspect to her case, and three, there's the issue of Iran sanctions which are involved in her case, and Canada does not sign on to these Iran sanctions. So I think she has some strong arguments that she can make before a judge,"

The obsequious case that will be made when the other Canadian political shoe drops of course is that we should stand by our allies no matter how swampy their quagmires get.

The minute the court orders Meng's release Ottawa should announce a complete reassessment and overhaul of our nation's alliances.

 

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, eyeball said:

What's wrong with McCallum stating the obvious?

 

Um, if you don't understand the seriousness of the problem, should you really be commenting about it on here? According to legal commentators on news programs this evening, McCallum's intervention is unprecedented and clearly problematic, particularly in that it appears to contradict the Trudeau government's position that the Meng case is simply a "rule of law" matter. I too think that Trudeau is weak but McCallum's news conference today could undermine our multifaceted and complex relationship with the U.S., an alliance that remains much more important to Canada at this point in history than is our relationship with China. We civilians can make whatever comments and express whatever opinions we wish on these matters. Ambassador McCallum's interpretation of Ms. Meng's situation, however, as illustrated by his public comments on the matter, seems to pretty clearly side with the Chinese government's position over the highly publicized stance of the Canadian government. He's publicly undermining the credibility of his own boss. What usually happens in such circumstances?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, turningrite said:

Um, if you don't understand the seriousness of the problem, should you really be commenting about it on here?

If you don't care about the principles that we're sacrificing you lack the moral and ethical background to question my comments in here so please go piss up a rope.
 

Quote

I too think that Trudeau is weak but McCallum's news conference today could undermine our multifaceted and complex relationship with the U.S., an alliance that remains much more important to Canada at this point in history than is our relationship with China.

Good.  I think we should distance ourselves from both the US and China for the same reason.

There has never been a point in our history when the folly of sacrificing our principles so we can curry a little favour and make a few bucks has never been more obvious.  Our relationship with Americans and Chinese people are just fine, my brother in Seattle and I get along great and my Chinese grand-kids are the greatest joy in my life. Our relationship with the governments of the US and China are an entirely different matter.  

Quote

We civilians can make whatever comments and express whatever opinions we wish on these matters. Ambassador McCallum's interpretation of Ms. Meng's situation, however, as illustrated by his public comments on the matter, seems to pretty clearly side with the Chinese government's position over the highly publicized stance of the Canadian government. He's publicly undermining the credibility of his own boss. What usually happens in such circumstances? 

McCallum's interpretation also sums up exactly what happened too and I think it underscores other opinions that Canada is effectively abetting America's declaration of a new cold war with China by arresting Meng.  Did Trump seek any advice from his allies before dragging them into a war they started?  No, so why should we be held to agreements we made if they suddenly make us enemies?  A few bucks?  Excuse me while I puke. In this circumstance Trudeau should shut-up and listen to an elder statesman who's earned the right to speak his mind freely.  In an era when Trump blows every brain-fart he has thru the Internet McCallum is a breath of fresh air.

I think its hilarious you're suddenly overly concerned about hurting Trudeau's credibility, I'm quite certain China's premier has heard of Trudeau's admiration for him too.

And exactly why should I be any more fearful of Huawei providing China's government the means to spy on me than Telus giving Ottawa the means to spy on me?

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, eyeball said:

1.) If you don't care about the principles that we're sacrificing you lack the moral and ethical background to question my comments in here so please go piss up a rope.

2.) There has never been a point in our history when the folly of sacrificing our principles so we can curry a little favour and make a few bucks has never been more obvious.  Our relationship with Americans and Chinese people are just fine, my brother in Seattle and I get along great and my Chinese grand-kids are the greatest joy in my life. Our relationship with the governments of the US and China are an entirely different matter.  

3.) McCallum's interpretation also sums up exactly what happened too and I think it underscores other opinions that Canada is effectively abetting America's declaration of a new cold war with China by arresting Meng.  Did Trump seek any advice from his allies before dragging them into a war they started?  No, so why should we be held to agreements we made if they suddenly make us enemies?  A few bucks?  Excuse me while I puke. In this circumstance Trudeau should shut-up and listen to an elder statesman who's earned the right to speak his mind freely.  In an era when Trump blows every brain-fart he has thru the Internet McCallum is a breath of fresh air.

4.) I think its hilarious you're suddenly overly concerned about hurting Trudeau's credibility, I'm quite certain China's premier has heard of Trudeau's admiration for him too.

 

1.) I'm not sure what principles you're talking about here? We have an extradition treaty with the U.S. which compels us to comply with a process negotiated far in advance of the Meng affair. If the U.S. is abusing that process, in particular by attempting to exert extraterritorial authority over matters that don't properly fall within the ambit of the treaty, as appears to be suggested in McCallum's comments, then we'll have to iron the situation out with the Americans in due course. What good will throwing a hissy fit and ignoring a valid treaty do right now?

2.) Sorry to tell you this, but this conflict has nothing to do with your own personal and family relationships. But it's not at all clear what you mean by "our relationship with the governments of the US and China are an entirely different matter." Are you using the term "our" in the personal or collective sense of the term? Countries, of course, can have disputes while their respective citizens can get along quite well. My family is half-American and we survived the free trade spat between the Trump and Trudeau governments without fighting about it. But then, neither country arbitrarily detained and held in cruel captivity any of the other side's citizens to use as leverage to get their way.

3.) My comments relate to McCallum's role as ambassador. In this position, he's not an "elder statesman" as you believe and his role doesn't confer any authority to speak his own mind on matters of government policy without the government's consent. Trudeau is a weak leader and perhaps he's afforded his ambassador to China license to muddy the waters on Canada's view of the the growing China-U.S. conflict, which is at the heart of the Meng affair. But he should have resigned if he wanted to speak from a pulpit on principle because it now it appears that Canada, as represented by the conflicting positions of its PM and ambassador, is speaking out of both sides of its mouth on this matter, which could well serve to undermine our legitimate interests where both the U.S. and China are concerned. 

4.) My views on this do not in any way suggest that I'm a fan of Trudeau, which you'd know if you were aware of my other posts on this site. Trudeau's a naif where China is concerned. I don't have the foggiest notion what he thinks of President Xi, but Trudeau has made it clear that he admires China's "basic dictatorship," a fact that likely conflicts with majority opinion in Canada. This dispute has certainly taught us an awful lot about the true nature of that basic dictatorship and undermined China's reputation both in Canada and elsewhere in the West. If that's an outcome the Americans sought, they've played their hand very well here.

 

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turningrite said:

1.) I'm not sure what principles you're talking about here?

The ones you were taught in kindergarten.

Quote

We have an extradition treaty with the U.S. which compels us to comply with a process negotiated far in advance of the Meng affair.

 

And we have social contracts that compel us to comply with basic principles that have been well understood for thousands of years. 

Quote

Sorry to tell you this, but this conflict has nothing to do with your own personal and family relationships.

It certainly could given the way trade wars and enmity between politicians and governments up in the clouds can become real wars with hatred between people down here on the ground.  This is often the result when people start pretending the simple principles that kids pick up almost intuitively are meaningless.

Quote

My comments relate to McCallum's role as ambassador. In this position, he's not an "elder statesman" as you believe and his role doesn't confer any authority to speak his own mind on matters of government policy without the government's consent.

You notice how often people refer to the "adults in the room" when talking about politicians these days? That's what II'm getting at.

Quote

Trudeau is a weak leader and perhaps he's afforded his ambassador to China license to muddy the waters on Canada's view of the the growing China-U.S. conflict, which is at the heart of the Meng affair. But he should have resigned if he wanted to speak from a pulpit on principle because it now it appears that Canada, as represented by the conflicting positions of its PM and ambassador, is speaking out of both sides of its mouth on this matter, which could well serve to undermine our legitimate interests where both the U.S. and China are concerned. 

Like I said, that's a good thing from where I'm sitting. Perhaps he mixed views coming out of Canada reflect the conflict between the fundamental principles that guide peoples behaviour towards one another on the ground and the absence or suspension of those principles at the level our governments operate at.  The absence of these principles is what undermines the legitimacy of our interests.   

 

Quote

 

4.) My views on this do not in any way suggest that I'm a fan of Trudeau, which you'd know if you were aware of my other posts on this site. Trudeau's a naif where China is concerned. I don't have the foggiest notion what he thinks of President Xi, but Trudeau has made it clear that he admires China's "basic dictatorship," a fact that likely conflicts with majority opinion in Canada.

 

I'm pretty sure most politicians would love to have the unrestrained power of a dictator and your posts suggest to me you'd be willing to give it to them.  What that conflicts with should be obvious,

Quote

This dispute has certainly taught us an awful lot about the true nature of that basic dictatorship and undermined China's reputation both in Canada and elsewhere in the West. If that's an outcome the Americans sought, they've played their hand very well here.

I'm afraid the bigger lesson about how the nature of power erodes our fundamental principles is being lost. Too people are willing to abandon them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget McCallum has no actual background to be a diplomat. He's an economist, and was hurriedly bounced from cabinet for no stated reason, then given an ambassador's job as both a consolation prize and an effort at getting him as far away as possible. The suspicion was that it might be due to him falling off the wagon. He's been treated before for alcoholism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Argus said:

Let's not forget McCallum has no actual background to be a diplomat. He's an economist, and was hurriedly bounced from cabinet for no stated reason, then given an ambassador's job as both a consolation prize and an effort at getting him as far away as possible.

 

I recall that he was flailing as Trudeau's immigration minister. The "consultation" on immigration went badly and McCallum kept on touting broad-based support for the Lib plan to dramatically increase immigration levels when no such support actually existed. I'm not aware of his personal problems or whether these might have played a role in his banishment to Beijing. Trudeau probably saw it as an easy gig for McCallum because the government's general approach to relations with China was characterized by obsequiousness. But there's an expression about the best laid plans going awry, isn't there? Sometimes basic dictatorships tend to inconveniently act like, well, plain old dictatorships. Trudeau and McCallum should have understood this. It's no credit to either that they apparently did not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Liberal planting aristocracy understands, they are simply under siege by the Liberty Nation to the south pulling ever more Canadians towards it, so they are becoming increasingly desperate to find ways to prop up their plantation by means other than the Americans, who have propped it up as a Cold War Legacy project with Canada within the perimeter of UKUSSA.

As they are stepping beyond the protection of UKUSSA in order to court Beijing in no mans land, UKUSSA is essentially shoving them from behind into a room with China and then barring the door behind them, so now the Liberals are scratching and clawing at the door and becoming increasingly panicked about it not opening to let them back in right away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eyeball said:

The ones you were taught in kindergarten.

And we have social contracts that compel us to comply with basic principles that have been well understood for thousands of years. 

It certainly could given the way trade wars and enmity between politicians and governments up in the clouds can become real wars with hatred between people down here on the ground.  This is often the result when people start pretending the simple principles that kids pick up almost intuitively are meaningless.

You notice how often people refer to the "adults in the room" when talking about politicians these days? That's what II'm getting at.

Like I said, that's a good thing from where I'm sitting. Perhaps he mixed views coming out of Canada reflect the conflict between the fundamental principles that guide peoples behaviour towards one another on the ground and the absence or suspension of those principles at the level our governments operate at.  The absence of these principles is what undermines the legitimacy of our interests.   

I'm pretty sure most politicians would love to have the unrestrained power of a dictator and your posts suggest to me you'd be willing to give it to them.  What that conflicts with should be obvious,

I'm afraid the bigger lesson about how the nature of power erodes our fundamental principles is being lost. Too people are willing to abandon them.

Recognizing and upholding the rule of law is a principle that's ingrained in most intelligent students throughout our education system. Clearly, you don't believe in our legal system and don't respect our complex relationships with other states, and particularly the U.S., which is our closest neighbour and largest trading partner, after all. If you think I like dictatorships, you clearly don't read my posts. Trudeau, on the other hand, and presumably the apologists for China's position on the Meng matter, quite admire that country's "basic dictatorship." I respect China's right to its sovereignty and to assert its legitimate interests. I'm not a fan of its mercantilism nor of its disrespect for international norms relating to intellectual property. Nor am I a fan of its dictatorship.

The American agenda in all of this might well be problematic but Ms. Meng is being detained under circumstances highly preferable to those faced by the apparently innocent Canadian hostages being detained in retaliation by China. And she will be afforded the benefit of due process of law, something not guaranteed to anyone by China's regime. So maybe you need to get some perspective on principles here. We'll see if the Americans can demonstrate that they have a legitimate case against Ms. Meng but it's China's reputation that has suffered globally as a result of its heavy-handed response in this matter, whatever the admittedly arguable legitimacy of the American extradition request.

Edited by turningrite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canadians are afforded the due process of Chinese law while in China.

China has charged two of the Canadians with being foreign agents engaged in espionage for all intents and purposes, the other is convicted of attempting to smuggle a quarter ton of methamphetamine into Australia.

Those are very grave charges in China.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moreover, due to the nature of espionage, I cannot dismiss out of hand the Chinese assertion that Kovrig and Spavor are foreign agents, they do  have a spooky air about them, they don't seem to have any purpose to be in China, other than what seems like a cover.

They could be CIA, they could be MI6, as espionage is entirely covert and deniable, no way to know, but it would make sense by the terms of espionage, in that when one side seizes a foreign agent, the other side will round up their equivalents in China which the Chinese MSS has been watching for some time.

Edited by Dougie93

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Canadians are afforded the due process of Chinese law while in China.

China has charged two of the Canadians with being foreign agents engaged in espionage for all intents and purposes, the other is convicted of attempting to smuggle a quarter ton of methamphetamine into Australia.

Those are very grave charges in China.

The guy convicted on drug charges is likely legitimately a criminal both in Canada, where I believe he has a prior record, and China. I believe he was convicted and imprisoned in China prior to the Meng skirmish. But appealing his sentence and summarily condemning him to death on the basis of no apparent new evidence clearly appears to be a retaliatory action. And it's widely believed both in Canada and internationally that the two Canadians being detained for being "foreign agents" are in all likelihood being held as political pawns as a result of Ms. Meng's arrest in Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The best pawns to hold are the foreign agents, as most countries wouldn't care if you grabbed random civilians, you grab the foreign agents when you're in a spy war like this one here.

That's how you get their attention, grabbing some tourist is no leverage, the tourist is not asset, so the other side is not worried about them.

The amount of freaking out about Spavor and Kovrig is disproportionate to a random snatch, it just generates an even more spooky air around their already spookish profiles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

McCullum broke the number 1 rule about being a diplomat. And that is STFU about cases before the court. And since he is not getting fired so that tells me he was doing what the PMO wanted.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, although what he said is true, in that the Canadian bench is quite independent, judges have a lot of power and they know it, and they're not going to be pushed around by anyone, to include the Americans, altho they will have to rule as to why they are not extraditing her, and then the Crown will likely appeal on the spot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turningrite said:

And it's widely believed both in Canada and internationally that the two Canadians being detained for being "foreign agents" are in all likelihood being held as political pawns as a result of Ms. Meng's arrest in Canada.

The other spooky thing about it; "you grab one of ours, we grab two of yours" that's very Chicom spy war esque.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Canadians are afforded the due process of Chinese law while in China.

HAHAHAH  ,  that's a good laugh. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, turningrite said:

Recognizing and upholding the rule of law is a principle that's ingrained in most intelligent students throughout our education system.

That's right, its based on a set of far more fundamental principles these students learned in kindergarten.

Quote

Clearly, you don't believe in our legal system and don't respect our complex relationships.

Clearly you don't care about our fundamental principles or whether our legal system or relationships respect them.

Quote

The American agenda in all of this might well be problematic but Ms. Meng is being detained under circumstances highly preferable to those faced by the apparently innocent Canadian hostages being detained in retaliation by China. And she will be afforded the benefit of due process of law, something not guaranteed to anyone by China's regime.

Bully for Ms. Meng. in the meantime I have no problem whatsoever with Canadian diplomats and politicians using diplomatically incorrect language to communicate our distaste for the shitty places our stupid alliances land us. 

It'll be interesting to see how the US reacts if our courts reject the extradition request. Will Trump tear up the extradition agreement and demand we hand her over or will there be a kindergarten graduate in the room to intervene?

Edited by eyeball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It'll be interesting to see how the US reacts if our courts reject the extradition request. Will Trump tear up the extradition agreement and demand we hand her over or will there be a kindergarten graduate in the room to intervene?

 

Neither...Canada will continue to expend far more energy to assure continued economic integration with Trump's America...or at least minimize the loss of more auto plants.

Edited by bush_cheney2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Neither...Canada will continue to expend far more energy to assure continued economic integration with Trump's America...or at least minimize the loss of more auto plants.

Auto plants don’t factor into it.  Trump was unable, with all his protectionism, to prevent the closing down of four US auto plants by a publicly traded company, GM.  In fact, Trump’s steel tariffs were one of the excuses GM used to justify the closures, as they added a billion dollars in costs to the company’s ledgers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Auto plants don’t factor into it.  Trump was unable, with all his protectionism, to prevent the closing down of four US auto plants by a publicly traded company, GM.  In fact, Trump’s steel tariffs were one of the excuses GM used to justify the closures, as they added a billion dollars in costs to the company’s ledgers. 

 

There are more than just GM auto plants in Canada....plants that Trudeau and Ontario want to keep open.    Trump or no Trump....the U.S. export market will always matter more to Canada than China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eyeball said:

Bully for Ms. Meng. in the meantime I have no problem whatsoever with Canadian diplomats and politicians using diplomatically incorrect language to communicate our distaste for the shitty places our stupid alliances land us. 

 

Well, you've lost this battle as McCallum reportedly backed down today, essentially admitting that it was not appropriate to his role to contradict government policy. This should have been clear to any objective observer from the outset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George Soros warns of the unprecedented danger of China's new systems of electronic surveillance and social control.

And this is the country Justin Trudeau admires and wants us to befriend...

“The instruments of control developed by artificial intelligence give an inherent advantage of totalitarian regimes over open societies,” the 88-year-old said on Thursday at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “China is not the only authoritarian regime in the world but it’s undoubtedly the wealthiest, strongest and most developed in machine learning and artificial intelligence.”

The former hedge fund manager said China is developing a centralized database that will use algorithms to determine whether a person poses a threat to the one-party system. While the so-called social credit system is not yet fully operational, “it will subordinate the fate of the individual to the interests of the one-party state in ways unprecedented in history,” Soros said.

https://nationalpost.com/news/world/george-soros-issues-dire-warning-over-chinas-use-of-artificial-intelligence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, turningrite said:

Well, you've lost this battle as McCallum reportedly backed down today, essentially admitting that it was not appropriate to his role to contradict government policy. This should have been clear to any objective observer from the outset.

There are no winners in any of this.  In any case the fact he spoke his mind was still a refreshing change from the usually overly couched and correct language we're used to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

There are no winners in any of this.  In any case the fact he spoke his mind was still a refreshing change from the usually overly couched and correct language we're used to.

The fact that he shouldn't have spoken his mind in such a fashion as to undermine the government's position is now patently obvious. Trudeau says he won't replace McCallum at this point, but the ambassador's credibility has certainly suffered. It seems likely he won't serve in the position for much longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...