Harper on Human Rights abuses by China


MikeyDB
#1
Anyone putting any value of any kind on the recent Harper statement regarding human rights vis a vis China is living a fantasy.

It’s really easy to identify human rights abuses in China, the world has been well aware of abuses under the Chinese Communist regime for decades. The video footage of “man vs. tank” in Tian'anmensquare provided a provocative illustration that anyone living in the 21st century who owns a television set has probably seen.

No one is fooling Ralph Klein when it comes to striking a balance between human rights and the almighty dollar though….

http://www.gov.ab.ca/premier/missions_asia.cfm


“At the same time, Canadian Oil Sands Trust is continuing to talk to another Chinese state firm, PetroChina, about a long-term agreement to buy synthetic crude from the Syncrude joint venture in which the trust is the largest shareholder. Spokeswoman Siren Fisekci said no agreement has been struck, but noted her firm plans to send trial shipments of its synthetic crude to PetroChina so it can gauge its refineries' abilities to process the oil.
Large-scale projects to mine bitumen from the oil sands and process it into synthetic crude are multibillion-dollar investments; smaller operations using subterranean steam to melt bitumen and pump it to the surface are less costly, but still run into the hundreds of millions.
International investor interest in the oil sands has been surging lately, driven by the U.S. Department of Energy's decision to boost its official number for the reserves of bitumen in northern Alberta, said Wilf Gobert, vice-chairman of Peters & Co. Ltd. in Calgary. Total SA of France, for instance, bought a 43.5-per-cent stake in an oil sands project in January, 2003.”

http://globeandmail.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/qprinter/20040928/ROILS28

While Stephe Hapless may re-affirm Canada’s “commitment” to human rights and make pleasing noises to media you can bet that the profit/money driven cadre behind the Hapless One will be quietly conducting business with these “terrible terrible” human rights abusers…

With millions at stake does anyone really believe that the greed of Albertan’s petroleum magnates will pause for a moment over something as ineffable as “human rights”???

Has that embrace of “human rights” prevented abuses by Calgary based oil companies in Indonesia?

Sure and pigs can fly.

Beyond the laughable hypocrisy that this notion of, ‘not doing business with human rights abusers like the Chinese government’ because “human rights” are more important to this Canadian government, is the record of the Conservative (and Liberal if we’re going the “party” route) when it comes to “rights” in Canada.

Think about it for just a second….

How many land claim settlements has the Canadian government avoided and lied about for decades?

Is it reasonable or even rational to believe that a government that has scrupulously avoided making good on its treaty agreements with First Nations people really cares more about “human rights” than it does about mollifying the investment crowd?

Is it reasonable to expect the same government that has squandered millions and failed to adequately ensure that transfer payments to provinces permits regional governments to monitor and address the quality of Canadian fresh water supplies to communities across this nation really puts “rights” ahead of profits?

Is it reasonable to expect that a government that is so ineptly managed so as to permit the RCMP and CSIS to completely abridge the rights of Canadian citizens who have been “detained” and sent to nations by Canada and the Untied States to be tortured because they’ve been identified as “potential terrorists” really cares about “human rights”?

Is it reasonable and does it make sense that the bean-counters in charge under the aegis of the PMO while paring budgets for Canadian Health Care that have resulted in Canada’s continuing slide into “third-world” status as a social health care provider really care abut “human rights”?

The list of failures of the Canadian government under social programs, environmental issues and even in supporting commitments under NATO by under-funding the department of national defence are there for anyone to see. This government like all modern governments places “human rights” well after the importance of “bottom line” mentality.

It’s another dog and pony show from our Canadian “government”….

That old saw regarding there being three kinds of lies really needs to be upgraded to four….

Lies, damned Lies, statistics and Canadian politicians.
 
tamarin
Conservative
#2
Mike, it's a start! Granted no country is perfect and Canada has a long way to go on issues that are important to Canadians. But all countries are the same. It's just nice to see someone here take something of a stand against the world's largest rogue nation.
 
MikeyDB
#3
Tamarin

Greetings!

I would agree with your idea if it weren't for the fact that I don't believe for a moment that the "principled" position of Hapless on rights abuses represents a deal-breaker in terms of economics and trade isn't simply an attempt to shore-up a falling off in the polls. We (Canada) have opted for the rule of the "buck", time and time again. From failure at environmental issues to a thriving trade with those nations identified as "evil". If our government were to stick to the position that says that trade with Canada will be a principled undertaking...then yes I'm all for it. I just don't believe that's the case.

Unfortunately our dependency on trade and the postmodern affection for reducing every facet of human existence to "dollars", evaluating the relative "worth" or "value" of principles and people as merely negotiation points around board rooms and in government has superceded any high-minded philosophy or moral integrity.

The Canadian government has rarely demonstrated concern for the "rights" of many Canadians never mind the "rights" of a billion Chinese.
 
CDNBear
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDB View Post

Tamarin

Greetings!

I would agree with your idea if it weren't for the fact that I don't believe for a moment that the "principled" position of Hapless on rights abuses represents a deal-breaker in terms of economics and trade isn't simply an attempt to shore-up a falling off in the polls. We (Canada) have opted for the rule of the "buck", time and time again. From failure at environmental issues to a thriving trade with those nations identified as "evil". If our government were to stick to the position that says that trade with Canada will be a principled undertaking...then yes I'm all for it. I just don't believe that's the case.

Unfortunately our dependency on trade and the postmodern affection for reducing every facet of human existence to "dollars", evaluating the relative "worth" or "value" of principles and people as merely negotiation points around board rooms and in government has superceded any high-minded philosophy or moral integrity.

The Canadian government has rarely demonstrated concern for the "rights" of many Canadians never mind the "rights" of a billion Chinese.

Ya, that would be the liberal government. Seeing as they've been ruling the roost for the past umpteen years, as people like Mayhar and what ever his name is in China, were incarnerated. So perhaps as we have a new Dick-tator in Ottawa, perhaps he is actually taking a sincere stand. I highly doubt it, but I would like to hold out a little hope.
 
Logic 7
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by MikeyDB View Post

Anyone putting any value of any kind on the recent Harper statement regarding human rights vis a vis China is living a fantasy.

It’s really easy to identify human rights abuses in China, the world has been well aware of abuses under the Chinese Communist regime for decades. The video footage of “man vs. tank” in Tian'anmensquare provided a provocative illustration that anyone living in the 21st century who owns a television set has probably seen.

No one is fooling Ralph Klein when it comes to striking a balance between human rights and the almighty dollar though….

http://www.gov.ab.ca/premier/missions_asia.cfm


“At the same time, Canadian Oil Sands Trust is continuing to talk to another Chinese state firm, PetroChina, about a long-term agreement to buy synthetic crude from the Syncrude joint venture in which the trust is the largest shareholder. Spokeswoman Siren Fisekci said no agreement has been struck, but noted her firm plans to send trial shipments of its synthetic crude to PetroChina so it can gauge its refineries' abilities to process the oil.
Large-scale projects to mine bitumen from the oil sands and process it into synthetic crude are multibillion-dollar investments; smaller operations using subterranean steam to melt bitumen and pump it to the surface are less costly, but still run into the hundreds of millions.
International investor interest in the oil sands has been surging lately, driven by the U.S. Department of Energy's decision to boost its official number for the reserves of bitumen in northern Alberta, said Wilf Gobert, vice-chairman of Peters & Co. Ltd. in Calgary. Total SA of France, for instance, bought a 43.5-per-cent stake in an oil sands project in January, 2003.”

http://globeandmail.workopolis.com/servlet/Content/qprinter/20040928/ROILS28

While Stephe Hapless may re-affirm Canada’s “commitment” to human rights and make pleasing noises to media you can bet that the profit/money driven cadre behind the Hapless One will be quietly conducting business with these “terrible terrible” human rights abusers…

With millions at stake does anyone really believe that the greed of Albertan’s petroleum magnates will pause for a moment over something as ineffable as “human rights”???

Has that embrace of “human rights” prevented abuses by Calgary based oil companies in Indonesia?

Sure and pigs can fly.

Beyond the laughable hypocrisy that this notion of, ‘not doing business with human rights abusers like the Chinese government’ because “human rights” are more important to this Canadian government, is the record of the Conservative (and Liberal if we’re going the “party” route) when it comes to “rights” in Canada.

Think about it for just a second….

How many land claim settlements has the Canadian government avoided and lied about for decades?

Is it reasonable or even rational to believe that a government that has scrupulously avoided making good on its treaty agreements with First Nations people really cares more about “human rights” than it does about mollifying the investment crowd?

Is it reasonable to expect the same government that has squandered millions and failed to adequately ensure that transfer payments to provinces permits regional governments to monitor and address the quality of Canadian fresh water supplies to communities across this nation really puts “rights” ahead of profits?

Is it reasonable to expect that a government that is so ineptly managed so as to permit the RCMP and CSIS to completely abridge the rights of Canadian citizens who have been “detained” and sent to nations by Canada and the Untied States to be tortured because they’ve been identified as “potential terrorists” really cares about “human rights”?

Is it reasonable and does it make sense that the bean-counters in charge under the aegis of the PMO while paring budgets for Canadian Health Care that have resulted in Canada’s continuing slide into “third-world” status as a social health care provider really care abut “human rights”?

The list of failures of the Canadian government under social programs, environmental issues and even in supporting commitments under NATO by under-funding the department of national defence are there for anyone to see. This government like all modern governments places “human rights” well after the importance of “bottom line” mentality.

It’s another dog and pony show from our Canadian “government”….

That old saw regarding there being three kinds of lies really needs to be upgraded to four….

Lies, damned Lies, statistics and Canadian politicians.




Even though everything you say is true, i still agree and congrats harper's position on china, and came as a big surprise, since it it is the first time i agree with stephen harper, something the liberals will never do, sad fact.The liberals has no problem criticizing what usa and the whole coalition criticized, but this time, if i am not mistaken, it is the first time that a G8 country does criticized China.Harper and his governement deserved to be applaud. whatever the party you support.
Last edited by Logic 7; Nov 19th, 2006 at 01:53 PM..
 
elevennevele
#6
Both the Conservatives in the past as well as the Liberals have raised human rights issues with China. However both parties were more better at being able to know how and when to raise the issues than with this amateur idiot.

You get nowhere by turning China off from working with us. Nowhere. You don't get results by hurting relations, and China is not the biggest concern right now with human rights issues.

It's basically, from what I've so far seen of Harper, it's basically Harper playing local politics on the international stage. Just like Ambrose using an international forum to state that parties are trying to divide Canada on the issue of Kyoto. As though all these other countries want to hear about our dirty laundry with regards to local politics.

I honestly disliked Harper on the basis that he is an ideologue. However now I take him for an idiot. Yes, this is the first time I’ve called him an idiot. I didn’t realize that before. One who lacks a great sense of cultural sensitivity. The guy hasn’t really been anywhere in the world. There are such better ways of getting things done and we have been a much stronger voice internationally via the respect we use to garnish for our country. This guy and his people suck sooo bad in foreign affairs. I’ve totally had enough.

Harper on human rights? That is about as ‘measured’ as his response to Israel's bombing of Lebanon. Sure, with what has happened in the world with human rights whether it is Russia, Africa, the Middle East, Israel an it’ giant human prison, the USA using torture, Harper really sure knows how to pick his human rights concerns. China is getting more and more progressive, and aside from the poor farmers, the quality of life and social progress has only been on a steady improvement with China. We influence change better through our trading relationship more than anything else.

Meanwhile Musharraf takes a piss on us and because Pakistan is a US ally, nothing out of Harper’s mouth. Nothing. And their human rights issues are a horror show. Meanwhile those killing our troops are regrouping on that side of the border.

It is my opinion that Harper in his play for local image thought to play it right up as far as the human rights card on China, and it totally backfired. So at the expense of our trading relations, all our business, he figures he will save face and pretend he was hardball on China all along.

If all you people really do care as much as Harper pretends to, I dare you to scoop up everything you have that has come out of China and throw it in the trash (could be half of what you own). Otherwise wipe those crocodile tears because then it’s then all talk to me. Even little component in all your electronics might have some manufacturing done in China. What a freaking joke. Better stop shopping at Walmart.

And can anyone show me the transcript of what was said during their meeting? No. No one can! because Harper probably said diddly squat! Even to the media he says nothing of what he really raised. Why? Why? No, just a private meeting where basically he probably sat there like a stooge while the Chinese leader made it brief with him. That part we know.

It's a damn joke on this country. This is the most amateur leader we've ever had. I honestly wish for Mulroney (Conservative) over this guy and I am so serious when I say that. I would make the trade off tomorrow given the choice.
 
elevennevele
#7
Every other country has been knocking on China's door. Do you people know that China is working to build a super railroad that extends all the way out towards Europe eventually?

Every country with a business in trains wants ‘in’ on that contract, and it’s worth billions upon billions. It is really maybe “the last great railroad project”. Just like putting the railroad across North America when it happened, and Bombardier has been licking their chops at it for some time now.

France has been courting this deal for a long time, Germany wants in, and bullet train Japan who’s relations has not always been good with China have been trying to make desparate inroads. But Harper? Oh no. Harper thinks Cold War politics is in vogue in 2006 because now we have to become convinced he was always a strongly voiced humanitarian.

He is probably as aware of the reprocussions of his actions with China as he was later suprised to find we had 30,000 Lebanese Canadians in Lebanon getting bombed after he gave Israel the green light.

He is freaking clueless. I wonder how many “made in China” products he has lying around his home.
Last edited by elevennevele; Nov 19th, 2006 at 09:21 PM..
 
tamarin
Conservative
#8
Yeah, that's the same "super railroad" that has recently been described as the last nail in Tibet's coffin. The Chinese are using the link as a means to mass emigrate their citizens and complete the occupation. No one should be working closely with China without assessing the risks. And if you do care about human rights - let alone environmental ones - there are few targets as conspicuous as China.
Big business would sell out its daughters - and already has - to put another buck in the pot. I'm not completely sure of Harper's motives here but just to see China hauled up by its britches a bit has got to be immensely satisfying to any human being that gives a damn.
 
elevennevele
#9
Quote:

http://www.thestar.com/

PM has 'frank' chat with Chinese president
Discussion includes `consular cases'
Nov. 19, 2006. 10:18 AM
TONDA MACCHARLES
OTTAWA BUREAU


HANOI—After days of awkward diplomatic to-and-fro, Prime Minister Stephen Harper met here yesterday evening with Chinese President Hu Jintao.

It was the Chinese leader who "engaged the Prime Minister in a conversation that was frank and constructive," said Harper's deputy press secretary, Dimitri Soudas.

The two had merely "exchanged pleasantries" during the daytime Asia-Pacific meeting of 21 leaders here, where trade dominated the afternoon agenda. And prior to the gala dinner, Canadian officials had left the prospects of any meeting between the two up in the air. They said Harper was "open" to a meeting but suggested there had been little communication to set up a formal one-on-one meeting.

At the gala dinner last night in Hanoi, it appears Hu took the initiative.

The two leaders "discussed a range of issues from economic to political, including consular cases" — the condition Harper had set down in order for the conversation to take place.

"They agreed that continuing to build the Canada-China relationship is important and the Prime Minister stressed that it needs to be based on an open, frank and wide-ranging dialogue," Soudas said.

En route to Vietnam, Harper had suggested China was reluctant to talk with him because his government intended to "frankly" discuss human rights, particularly the case of a jailed Burlington man, Huseyin Celil, viewed by China as a separatist and terrorist.

Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao told Canadian reporters last night's meeting was merely a "brief" encounter where the two leaders reiterated the importance of their countries' economic relationship. He said human rights were not discussed and the case of Celil was touched on only briefly. Hu reiterated China's view that Celil "is a Chinese national."





"
He said human rights were not discussed and the case of Celil was touched on only briefly. "

Yes, hence ‘private meeting’ because Harper is doing nothing but showboating for his local political image.

It came across quite frankly that the Harper pretty much was a stooge in the meeting and the Chinese were being frank with him. This much seems transparent to me and I would almost love the other parties to have the guts to call Harper on this showboating, and see if he has the nerve to press the Chinese further if he is more than just talk.

Either way, he's set himself to be a lame duck. You know why? Because if the other parties do press him to ‘walk the walk’ not ‘just talk the talk’ and he he doesn't press it further then he looks like nothing more than a showboater. However, if he tries to save face and show that he is serious about pushing these human rights issues on China then the Canadian business community is going to drive a big nail into the coffin of this little minority right wing party pronto.

Yeah, because the business community will be pissed and Harper despite now thinking of him as an idiot, is probably not the bigger idiot to risk miscalculating losing wide support among big business.
 
tamarin
Conservative
#10
I take you don't like Harper. In a recent Decima poll he was still chosen by a strong margin as the Canadian party leader best fit to lead Canada.
You're putting way too much into these international tea parties. They're like recess at school. There'll always be another one and who remembers the last?
 
elevennevele
#11
I don’t care about any poll. I couldn’t care less if I was only one of three people who are making this position. I have problems with people who are tricky in being deceptive and when they are politician who have a hand at effecting so many lives/a nations standing — that’s a big deal. And the worst is when such tricky people are also ideologues. Unless I am genuinely proven wrong, I will stand by my convictions.


It is known now that the PM had our media barred from the meeting while we now have to hear of what happened from the Chinese media or the PM and his people.

You know what that tells me? He doesn’t want us to see how he sucks. He doesn’t want our democratic values of the press doing coverage of our political side when he presses a communist on democratic values. That is a freaking joke!!! A freaking joke!!!

Doesn’t anybody see the irony in that?!!

Harper did/accomplish absolutely nothing!!! He has not progressed human rights in China more than any of the other political parties. In fact, he may have instead set us back in our positive influence instead.

IDIOT.
 
elevennevele
#12
It's all very telling really. One doesn't need our 'free press' to be allowed to do their job as one would have expected in a democratic country like ours. Even with our 'free press' barred, what happened seems obvious. The results seem pretty obvious too.




http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...78c916&k=79116

Analysis: Harper outfoxed in China gambit

Allan Woods, CanWest News Service; Vancouver Sun
Published: Monday, November 20, 2006

xHANOI - Prior to arriving in Vietnam for this weekend's summit of Pacific Rim leaders Prime Minister Stephen Harper's only link to the country was a brother whom he told the Vietnamese prime minister had ''been involved in business'' here. That, he said, makes him ''aware'' of the growing trade links between the two countries.

But he admitted that his day-long airplane ride from Ottawa to Hanoi was his first trip to Asia, the world's fastest growing and most dynamic continent.

In the context of a meeting of countries responsible for 40 per cent of the world's trade, it was a tacit admission of his status as a novice
among the likes of U.S. President George W. Bush, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Australian Prime Minister John Howard and other regional and global powerhouses.

(more...)

In Vietnam, Harper's clearly stated goal was to establish his face-to-face, diplomatic bona fides with world leaders, particularly China. He told reporters at the start of the trip that ''in dealing with all countries, big or small ... we're going to be very frank'' about Canada's priorities, values and interests.

But the prime minister appears to have run into trouble with his no-niceties approach to politcs. It has served him well domestically with his ascension to Canada's top job in an era of corruption and scandal. Sitting down country-to-country or, in the case of China, middle power to superpower such an approach to politics risks becoming a game of diminishing returns.

(more...)

On the APEC outing, for example, the Harper government had built up expectations that he would hold an official bilateral meeting with President Jintao Hu of China. They had built it up to such a level that when it did not appear on the official list of meetings for the prime minister to have on the four-day trip, it became an issue.

(more...)

'We think that country-to-country relations should be based on equality, mutual benefit and mutual respect, said Liu Jianchao, a top Chinese foreign ministry spokesman. ''If the two countries are commmited to further development of the Chinese-Canada relationship both parties should make efforts toward this end.''

The not-so-subtle warning, which comes at a meeting of 21 Pacific Rim countries that is designed to grow economic ties, not shrink them
, also applies to the prime minister's other foreign policy intitiative: sending a Canadian ambassador to North Korea to admonish Pyongyang for creating a ''dangerous and unacceptable situation'' in the region with its nuclear program.

Marius Grinius, Canada's ambassador based in South Korea, was sent into the Stalinist country late last week to ''deliver a frank message ... to ask them to cease and to give up their nuclear weapons program and to return to the six-party talks,'' said a foreign policy advisor to the prime minister.

The gesture struck at least one nuclear non-proliferation expert as a Quixotic, especially with the apparent chill in relations between Ottawa and Beijing.

''Everyone knows the only real diplomatic effect on North Korea would come from China,'' said Daniel Joyner, an associate professor of law at England's University of Warwick.

All of it raises questions about Harper's true goals over the last week. Is he seeking favourable headlines at home in preparation for an election that is likely six months away? Is he playing bad cop with North Korea for the good cop U.S.A? Or was Canada's prime minister so unfamiliar with the lay-of-the-land on this continent not to realize that if you wrestle with the world's economic tiger, you run the risk of getting mauled?
 
elevennevele
#13
Oh yeah, let me make sure it’s quite clear — our press barred by our PM, not barred by the Chinese when giving us coverage.
 
missile
Conservative
#14
Photo Ops or political action? Myself,I prefer the action. I do not remember any other leader making this sort of position in China, the libs did make a lot of comments while safely in Canada tho.
 
elevennevele
#15
What action? Really, did you see action? Harper prevented our media from the meeting. The Chinese say Harper didn’t raise any human rights issues and only touched briefly on Celil and that they were frank with him.

Again, we wouldn’t know who is telling the truth because our PM bars the media from coverage. Why? He wants to get the human rights message out doesn’t he? It’s all contradiction.

What action? Harper showboating on this issue from the safety of his plane on the issue? That was after the Chinese snubbed him, by the way. Harper just didn’t want to look like a complete loser afterwards. The media didn't really know about all this until that happened.

You tell me what Harper has accomplished. Place your bets on what he will get out of this. I say nothing. Or maybe -2 value. And so if that part of the world leaves us behind while Europe and Asia enjoy the big party, you’ll be cheering right?

How many people believed in Christian evangelist Ted Haggard in his public criticisms of homosexuals? You know, the guy who bought methamphetamine from a male prostitute and who had millions upon millions of followers/suckers. A heck of a lot of fools believed in that preacher. Just like Rush Limbaugh popping pills while saying drug users should be given the stiffest treatment of the law. Even Bush gives long winded speeches on humanitarian rights. From the beginning till this present day torture USA.

What a joke!

How much of this car salesman culture shift can people continue to swallow before they finally feel had or are leery enough that if a politician makes some claim about themselves, then it is only to be believed when it becomes transparent enough and consistent with a person's actions/conduct.

Barring the media is walking in the complete opposite direction from proving oneself. In fact, in this instance, it ridiculed the whole concept of a democratic society supposedly lecturing a leader of a state controlled society. This obviously wasn't to be done out of example. And I bet it wasn't even really done at all.

Oh yeah, but we have to be conditioned to be a society of believers right?
 
gearheaded1
#16
Elevennevele, you certainly are rather excited and go on at some length about how you don't care for Stephen Harper, yet you fail to make a concise point for what you would do on a one first-time meeting that would change the direction of the Chinese government. You've filled up a good deal of this thread, but I don't see any suggestions for change...

What would you do differently? What would you do to impact positive change? How would you make your points respectful of Chinese culture, so that you would be listened to?

I'm listening.
 
elevennevele
#17
Oh, you are making the supposition that Canada has been failing in the area of China’s progress on human rights. You are making the supposition that China isn’t moving fast enough with it’s progress domestically. Fact is, change has been happening in China and probably faster than any other country out there. And that is with managing a many many billion people over.

Meanwhile we can’t even improve the situation in Afghanistan and human rights there — under our control. It’s obviously not so easy to bring about domestic change from one polar end to another.

Our strategy with China in my opinion has been pretty good up until now and would have continued pretty well with how it’s been done by BOTH the Conservatives and the Liberals pre-Harper.

Anyone can be like a John Bolton on the world stage. Go off half cocked and self righteous and piss everyone around then come back home and think themselves a hero. Politicians are suppose to be diplomats and we expect them to lean other countries our way by diplomatic finesse. So far that has helped us accomplish more with the Chinese. And I know for a fact, that also is how they are culturally receptive.

How do you influence anybody when you completely turn them off or tune them out to you? Instead Harper goes out and starts dancing on the international stage with two left feet.

Sorry, I was not of the opinion that our approach with China was needing huge renovations in political policy. And in the very least, I wouldn’t have made the situation retrogressive.
 
gearheaded1
#18
I should point out, that I am not as knowledgeable on Chinese affairs as I could be. Certainly any kind of advancement with the sheer societal inertia of billions of people is inconceivable for us in little Canada.

I am biased (as a Conservative), though willing to listen to a thoughtfully turned phrase and point.

Yes, Harper beat the drum too loud for my liking too... I'm just happy to see someone beating the Canadian drum at all, I think.

Thanks for the balanced arguement - how refresing.
 
elevennevele
#19
All our political parties have beat the drum on human rights regarding China. All of them, but diplomacy is a very thoughtful process going forward.

The Liberals do not take sole credit for where we are in our relationship with China. Both the Conservatives and Liberals have been advancing our working relationship with the Chinese for some time now. The process has been a refinement over the years. A careful building of engagement between nations. ‘Years and years’ of building on it and careful political maneuvering.

The result of these many years of engagement to date is about a $30 billion trade relationship between us. They are now our second largest trading partner — second to the United States!

Harper hasn’t even been there before, met with the people, and personally viewed the social landscape, and yet he goes over to Asia (not even China) for the first time with very strong vocal negative opinions. (actually, vocal on the plane after being rebuked and then from what I keep hearing, muted to the Chinese leadership.)

At most we need only to keep tweaking at it for more improvement with China. My issues would maybe lean more towards having tactful discussions over concerns of technological secrets being stolen and other issues of piracy. Again via some finesse.

That aside, their country is moving forward not backwards so as long as that is happening, we should show our acknowledgment to the changes we respect and help to promote those such changes that hopefully the Chinese will take it much further in the future.

With Harper it’s more a case where someone thinks he is going to make fine pottery and instead of going in with the delicate tools required, walks into the workshop armed with nothing but a hammer. He simply had no sense of cultural understanding to how the Chinese can best be engaged.

Given they are our second largest trading partner, you would think this situation was important enough to have really done the research prior.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
+1
#20  Top Rated Post
There is no question that the Stalinist tyrants in Beijing violate every human right imaginable. Too bad George Bush, Sr so strenuously supported those political criminals during the Tiananmen Square crisis. In fact he was the only world leader to do so.

But as always, we must say BLAME CLINTON! for that tyrannical government's continuation.
 
elevennevele
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by gopher View Post

There is no question that the Stalinist tyrants in Beijing violate every human right imaginable. Too bad George Bush, Sr so strenuously supported those political criminals during the Tiananmen Square crisis. In fact he was the only world leader to do so.

But as always, we must say BLAME CLINTON! for that tyrannical government's continuation.




The Chinese hard-liners were terrible. They were responsible for real human rights issues but they are being pushed aside by a younger more robust progressive leadership. It is the very reason we need to show our support towards the progress that is happening now and as long as that continues going forward, we should work with it so the stains of the past will be the past.

A lot has happened since the time of Tiananmen. A lot has happened since the reclaiming of Hong Kong.

Russia... now there is a country that is showing more warning signs of going backwards instead of forwards. That would be an area where I can see human rights addressed but even then can you imagine Harper going outright and thinking he can lecture very vocally down to Putin in his home tuft — human rights issues?

Right now Canada is a regressive player with regards to international cooperation on environmental concerns and that is really a huge human issue in this day and age. How well received would European leaders be if when arriving in Canada they announce they are going to lecture down to Harper when they see him. There is a difference between forwarding concerns as opposed to talking with a superior attitude at another country’s leadership at the steps of one's parliment building.

I doubt even our government would well receive such an engagement, and even though I might agree with the outside opinions of the issue, I would find the approach shows a lack of respect to us as a nation and would have the effect of unnecessarily embarrassing us.

Lastly the USA has committed some abominable human rights abuses recently but now with a shift in the political landscape, again I would think the best thing would be to show support for the changes in political focus that we can respect. If Harper in a visit to the USA decided to lecture Bush on the spot, it would be a disaster to the needs and positive engagement of our two countries.

Criticism by the society, by the media is fine. The USA does it on Canada, Canada does it on the USA, Canada does it on the rest of the world, and now these days, the world does it on Canada.

And then the politicians can try to dance diplomatically with one another in an attempt to stand up for their values and interests. ‘Diplomatically’. They are suppose to be well versed in that.
 
elevennevele
#22
Politicians throw concerns about other countries at home all the time. Right now the USA knows what the world thinks about them. The world has made it clear how it feels about recent US policies. Relationships have been strained enough. A way for another country however to get nowhere fast with the USA is to give indication to the US leadership what Harper thought he could get away with the Chinese leadership. And I flaw this approach though having been very critical of the USA myself.

No leader in the world is going to let themselves be some prop so that another leader can showboat for domestic voter ratings at their expense.

A country has to be pretty powerful in comparison to the other to do any of that. We are not in that position with China and again, China really doesn’t need to be a target of such things with how things are going these days.

Really, take a hardline approach with China now?

That makes as much sense to me as suddenly going ballistic on Cuba as Castro begins making his way to a rest home (unless Cuba suddenly does something defining). Neither do all our consumer products indicate to me a deep dislike of all things Chinese. China is soaking up western values by trade. Japan discovered a love of America that way.
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#23
Lastly the USA has committed some abominable human rights abuses recently but now with a shift in the political landscape, again I would think the best thing would be to show support for the changes in political focus that we can respect.


No dispute from me on that one. Tact and diplomacy should always be used as the means of effectuating such changes. Any unilateral invasion as Bush did in Iraq is in violation of international law as you know from my previous links on the subject. But changes cannot be brought about unless attention is drawn to violations. In a recent TV broadcast (sorry, forgot which channel), a critic of the Beijing government said that thousands {precise number unspecified} are being held under tortuous detention and forced into slave labor. Yet, Bush and other critics who are so quick to march into a helpless Iraq under the pretence that internal violence needs to be ended, remain strangely silent in the face of such contemptuous tyranny. This shows the hypocrisy of Bush politics and the double standards of those who defend him.
 
CDNBear
#24
He may be hypocritical, but he's not a complete moron(debatable). China would squash him and you, in the process. Hey that wouldn't be such a bad idea. Go get China Bush!!!
 
gopher
No Party Affiliation
#25
Well, since you're such a great "warrior" maybe you'll be in the front lines and will be the first martyr in the cause of Bush created 'freedom'.
 
elevennevele
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

IMHO, Harper understands quite well how to talk to the Chinese.

I'm only concerned that he is far too gentle with them.

(from topic forum: Opinions on Canada's Role in Afghanistan)
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/ca...anistan-2.html



Colpy, I have at one time spent a lot of time interacting with the Chinese community, but I'm sure you'll tell me you are speaking from an extensive knowledge of interaction yourself, non?

If one were to look at China's own personal history with the west, you will find it to be a history of western exploitation, humiliation, etc. China in the 1800's during the Opium Wars by the west had never wanted to bother with the west to begin with. However the west would have it no other way when it came to it’s appetite to exploit. Just look up the history of Shanghai.

History shows a 'west' thinking it always knows what's good for the Chinese despite a history of having done the opposite to their people. Though I do not support the ideology of Communism, I do recognize that it did come about in China as a desperate means to stop the Chinese from becoming continued victims of enslavement at the time.

I am one to advocate human rights. I also look towards the ways which do actually bring about postive change.

Today the Chinese are moving forward in their society and of course people here will think in terms of what they’ll just believe or at worst, what a western politician will make them believe. The economic changes and improvements in standards of livings has also paved the way for more progressive attitudes, social reforms and global cooperation. If you drew it on a chart, the line would be going upwards.

If the west allows these changes to continue by the Chinese, ‘change’ will occur through China’s own evolution of it’s society and the part the west now has in helping to bring such change about is through trade.


Quote:


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/01/wo...rssnyt&emc=rss

Where’s Mao? Chinese Revise History Books


Article Tools Sponsored By
By JOSEPH KAHN
Published: September 1, 2006

BEIJING, Aug. 31 — When high school students in Shanghai crack their history textbooks this fall they may be in for a surprise. The new standard world history text drops wars, dynasties and Communist revolutions in favor of colorful tutorials on economics, technology, social customs and globalization.

Socialism has been reduced to a single, short chapter in the senior high school history course. Chinese Communism before the economic reform that began in 1979 is covered in a sentence. The text mentions Mao only once — in a chapter on etiquette.

Nearly overnight the country’s most prosperous schools have shelved the Marxist template that had dominated standard history texts since the 1950’s. The changes passed high-level scrutiny, the authors say, and are part of a broader effort to promote a more stable, less violent view of Chinese history that serves today’s economic and political goals.

Supporters say the overhaul enlivens mandatory history courses for junior and senior high school students and better prepares them for life in the real world. The old textbooks, not unlike the ruling Communist Party, changed relatively little in the last quarter-century of market-oriented economic reforms. They were glaringly out of sync with realities students face outside the classroom. But critics say the textbooks trade one political agenda for another.

They do not so much rewrite history as diminish it. The one-party state, having largely abandoned its official ideology, prefers people to think more about the future than the past.

The new text focuses on ideas and buzzwords that dominate the state-run media and official discourse: economic growth, innovation, foreign trade, political stability, respect for diverse cultures and social harmony.


Honestly, right now I'm more concerned with our society and social issues and government transparancy and media restrictions, and our MPs being muzzled, etc. etc. Unacceptable.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#27
Read and understood, Elevenele.

I can't say how strongly I disagree, although the context of my opinions are not from close contact, they are simply the opinion of an observer and (if I may call myself this) an amateur historian.

I need to call your attention to the following facts:

There has been no regime change in China since 1949. The same party, with many of the same people, still rule China. These folks have murdered tens of millions......this regime is the worst bunch of mass murderers to ever form a government on earth. That's saying something.

If you think they have changed so much, I would point out that Tianamen Square was not that long ago. In addition, China executes officially 1,500 people a year. Unofficially, that number is over 10,000. From whom, BTW, they harvest organs, sometimes before the execution.

China is becoming a military power, and an aggressive, expansionist military power. They have grown as a threat to Taiwan and others in the area by leaps and bounds, and they are not shy at sabre-rattling.

Pick a third-world monster-nation. Say, for instance, the Sudan. Or Zimbabwe. One thing I can guarantee you, China is best buddy of the rulers, helping them out with arms etc.

I could go on and on and on, but I will spare you.

Now, the one thing I have heard of that makes sense in China is recent moves to prevent the ever-increasing wealth gap in that nation..........but I believe that is simply self-preservation.

In my opinion, China needs to be contained militarily, isolated ecomically, and ostracized diplomatically.

This is another issue on which we will never agree.
 
elevennevele
#28
You see, I have to shake my head. The way things are going, given time, the next generation will hopefully have changed China for good. What you are proposing will at best punish all the billions undeservedly and turn all those young moderate Chinese into hard-liners then given to believe the need to be against us in the world. You would set the country in the direction of North Korea more than anything else when they are not a North Korea.

That will then be billions of Chinese all bent to viewing the west as an enemy, and I’m sure adopting a ‘real’ military policy aimed at us because of it. So sure, great, if your a fan of very dangerous world instability.

To put it in a different context, somehow the generation that faced the Japanese were able to move on and let Japan become what it is even though that country really committed war atrocities. If you really want to talk about having a history of atrocity, Japan had been responsible for millions of Chinese having been subjugated, slaughtered, and enslaved.

When I was in Philippines the people there remember the horrors of Japanese occupation. There is an old fortress, I believe in Manila, where they use to torture the Filipinos and is still there as a reminder. As I remember they had prison cells that were below sea level to allow a drowning of the inmates. Moreover, from all these different countries, towards Korea, the Japanese in history took woman from their neighbours, placing them into sexual slavery.

Quote:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP3.HTM

From the invasion of China in 1937 to the end of World War II, the Japanese military regime murdered near 3,000,000 to over 10,000,000 people, most probably almost 6,000,000 Chinese, Indonesians, Koreans, Filipinos, and Indochinese, among others, including Western prisoners of war. This democide was due to a morally bankrupt political and military strategy, military expediency and custom, and national culture (such as the view that those enemy soldiers who surrender while still able to resist were criminals).

Hey, in World War II, the Japanese trained pilots to act as suicide bombers. Ironic.

After they were defeated by the Americans at the end of World War II, somehow an American (or North American) can reconcile differences quite quickly when you think about it after having obliterated many of the Japanese with an atom bomb. And though having broken the Japanese will for war, it doesn’t mean that you’ve simply erased what had been done by the Japanese, or erased those involved in what had been done. The A-Bomb is never so precise as that.

Now what I am trying to say in this is not to slam the Japanese and I hope Japanese people can forgive me for offering them as a lamb in making my point. I hold utmost respect for concepts of Budo and the qualities of the refined cultural practices of Japanese culture and Zen Philosophy. However, I just wish to illustrate that now Japan is considered a very respected member of the world community, and it never got to this point by further isolating this country. Again, Japan changed by trade and a goal of economics.

Your approach, more about punishment, while may feel right for your attitudes to not forgetting ‘a wrong’, do not amount to ‘a right’ for what I believe you would like to see in the world.

And there are so many good faceless Chinese that you are simply punishing unnecessarily. I’ve read of some of the reforms to the their political system. They are not a democracy, but the younger generation has entered the political system. A moderate side has taken control of the country.

And no, the Chinese are not the ‘worst’ mass murderers on the planet.

Without sounding cliché as it’s so easy to throw this one in now, but I’m sure you wouldn’t apply you same punitive stance against the United States who have committed atrocity too in recent history. All over the world and quite impressively if you combine actions. The Americans however are western friends when doing it.

Even the Vietnamese managed to forgive them. Hey, Bush just went to Vietnam recently and those people lost what? millions in that war from the American invading forces?

There seems to be no equality in judgment in this world.
 
elevennevele
#29
A hardline approach at this time would only weaken those we want in positions of power within China. Chinese Leader Deng has since died with the current leadership being even more moderate in policy and each successive generation will bring progressive change (hopefully). Deng was China's Leader during the Tiananmen protests and to note another irony, he was the one to first really introduce a direction of progressive reforms.


Quote:

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9702/19/deng.obit/

Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping dies

Led economic reform; cracked down on political dissent
February 19, 1997
Web posted at: 5:24 p.m. EDT (1724 GMT) Deng

BEIJING (CNN) -- Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, who opened China's economy to the world while maintaining strict ideological control, died Wednesday at age 92.

China's state-run Xinhua News Agency said Deng died from complications from Parkinson's disease and a lung infection.

Deng was the great reformer, the man who first initiated the process of change that swept the communist world. But, even when challenged in the streets, Deng never abandoned his commitment to Communist Party rule in China.

Some notes on the Tiananmen issue.


Quote:

http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/china/...kgrnd.htm#1989

1989 Student Movement and Tiananmen Square

After Zhao became the party General Secretary, the economic and political reforms he had championed came under increasing attack. His proposal in May 1988 to accelerate price reform led to widespread popular complaints about rampant inflation and gave opponents of rapid reform the opening to call for greater centralization of economic controls and stricter prohibitions against Western influence. This precipitated a political debate which grew more heated through the winter of 1988-89.

The death of Hu Yaobang on April 15, 1989, coupled with growing economic hardship caused by high inflation, provided the backdrop for a large scale protest movement by students, intellectuals, and other parts of a disaffected urban population. University students and other citizens in Beijing camped out at Tiananmen Square to mourn Hu's death and to protest against those who would slow reform. Their protests, which grew despite government efforts to contain them, called for an end to official corruption and for defense of freedoms guaranteed by the Chinese Constitution. Protests also spread through many other cities, including Shanghai and Guangzhou.

Martial law was declared on May 20, 1989. Late on July 3 and early on the morning of June 4, military units were brought into Beijing. They used armed force to clear demonstrators from the streets. There are no official estimates of deaths in Beijing, but most observers believe that casualties numbered in the hundreds.

After June 4, while foreign governments expressed horror at the brutal suppression of the demonstrators, the central government eliminated remaining sources of organized opposition, detained large numbers of protesters, and required political reeducation not only for students but also for large numbers of party cadre and government officials.

Following the resurgence of conservatives in the aftermath of June 4, economic reform slowed until given new impetus by Deng Xiaoping's dramatic visit to southern China in early 1992. Deng's renewed push for a market-oriented economy received official sanction at the 14th Party Congress later in the year as a number of younger, reform-minded leaders began their rise to top positions. Deng and his supporters argued that managing the economy in a way that increased living standards should be China's primary policy objective, even if "capitalist" measures were adopted. Subsequent to the visit, the Communist Party Politburo publicly issued an endorsement of Deng's policies of economic openness. Though not completely eschewing political reform, China has consistently placed overwhelming priority on the opening of its economy.

Last edited by elevennevele; Nov 27th, 2006 at 08:19 PM..
 
Colpy
Conservative
#30
Eleven, you compared China to Japan.........

Tell you what, I will accept China immediately after an American General writes a new constitution for that nation. One that entrenches democratic institutions, limits military power, and forbids expansionist military manouvers.

The Constitution that has helped the Japanese become the great nation they are was penned by Douglas MacArthur.

Now THAT is change, you must admit.

Other than that point, we'll have to simply disagree.
 

Similar Threads

6
China respect human rights.
by aeon | Apr 28th, 2006