Detention of Meng Wanzhou - CFO of Huawei

831 posts / 0 new
Last post
Noops

voice of the damned wrote:

So, if Conrad Black had been apprhended at an airport in Canada, instead of at his mansion in Florida, when the feds charged him with embezzlement(or whatever it was), you'd have said Canada shouldn't send him to the USA for trial, because the Americans don't really care about us?

To be perfectly honest, I would recommend Canada decide on a case-by-case merit.
I think financially/politically there is a heck of a lot more at stake for Canada
to stir up a hornets nest with China over this than would be the case with Black.

The U.S. would get over our rebuke the next day, if not before.

I'm sure you could come up with a better analogy?

WWWTT

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Yeah, it's a bit sneaky, but it's still within the realm of the law, and if we don't want to be in a position of having to take sides in the case, I think it's one of the realpolitik options available to us(though we'd probably have to keep it on the hush-hush). I'm sure governments do stuff like that all the time to avoid embarrassing squeezes.

I wouldn't doubt that they do, but if we don't generally say "good, good" when we find out then it doesn't seem like a great idea, even though it certainly qualifies as another idea. 

Borrowing your Conrad Black example, if we all found out that Stephen Harper called Conrad on the QT to say "don't come back to Canada for a while, we've been asked to arrest you if you do" would we say that was a good idea?  If not, why would it be a good idea now?

As far as not taking sides, as I see it, we haven't.  We didn't arrest Meng out of our own animus or trade plans, we did it because years ago we agreed to, and we've been on both ends of many extraditions since.

The idea that Trudeau knew this was going to happen, chose not to do something illegal or dishonest, so therefore it "proves" that he wanted this and is probably "in on the plan" is absurd.

It's like saying "you knew your team was behind, and you could have cheated but you chose not to so clearly you wanted the other team to win".  A ten year-old would see through that "logic".

Ok fair enough Mr Magoo. That sounds logical. But here’s the thing, I suspect many Canadians are not going to be as forgiving as you. I speculate many Canadian voters come election time are going to say to themselves “you know what? Maybe Justin and team liberals are really a sack of hammers and don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground? Why should I give you idiots another chance?”

And honestly from my perspective, since this isn’t the first or second time that Justin has displayed very poor judgement, the liberals really need to be shown the door in 2019!

NDPP

Washington Spy Agencies Plotted to 'Contain' Huawei

https://youtu.be/5p2Mg0eqJJo

"The arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou in Canada has drawn attention to a meeting that took place in Canada last July, when spy chiefs from the 'Five Eyes' intelligence network agreed to contain China's telecom giant Huawei which members regard as a 'security threat' to the west."

Not to mention market share...

Noops

NDPP wrote:

Washington Spy Agencies Plotted to 'Contain' Huawei

">https://youtu.be/5p2Mg0eqJJo

From the above video...

"Since then, the U.S. and others have been raising the alarm
about Huawei, including accusing the company of spying on its customers."

I'm still cleaning off my computer screen, after spitting my coffee on it when I heard that.  :)
Hello NSA, hello....spying on its customers.....???????   LOL!!!

 

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Ms. Meng was arrested pursuant to a provisional arrest warrant issued by a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, a procedure which is contemplated in both the Extradition Act and the Treaty on Extradition between Canada and the United States in circumstances where urgency has been established. [emphasis added]

...You have jumped down the letter of the law rabbit hole....

Why do you write stuff like this? Are you trolling me?

After all you extract a quote from my post (you know quote as in I did not write it?) and then take issue with it and write stuff like this.

bekayne

WWWTT wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Yeah, it's a bit sneaky, but it's still within the realm of the law, and if we don't want to be in a position of having to take sides in the case, I think it's one of the realpolitik options available to us(though we'd probably have to keep it on the hush-hush). I'm sure governments do stuff like that all the time to avoid embarrassing squeezes.

I wouldn't doubt that they do, but if we don't generally say "good, good" when we find out then it doesn't seem like a great idea, even though it certainly qualifies as another idea. 

Borrowing your Conrad Black example, if we all found out that Stephen Harper called Conrad on the QT to say "don't come back to Canada for a while, we've been asked to arrest you if you do" would we say that was a good idea?  If not, why would it be a good idea now?

As far as not taking sides, as I see it, we haven't.  We didn't arrest Meng out of our own animus or trade plans, we did it because years ago we agreed to, and we've been on both ends of many extraditions since.

The idea that Trudeau knew this was going to happen, chose not to do something illegal or dishonest, so therefore it "proves" that he wanted this and is probably "in on the plan" is absurd.

It's like saying "you knew your team was behind, and you could have cheated but you chose not to so clearly you wanted the other team to win".  A ten year-old would see through that "logic".

Ok fair enough Mr Magoo. That sounds logical. But here’s the thing, I suspect many Canadians are not going to be as forgiving as you. I speculate many Canadian voters come election time are going to say to themselves “you know what? Maybe Justin and team liberals are really a sack of hammers and don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground? Why should I give you idiots another chance?”

And honestly from my perspective, since this isn’t the first or second time that Justin has displayed very poor judgement, the liberals really need to be shown the door in 2019!

And put Andy Pandy in:

https://globalnews.ca/news/4758772/andrew-scheer-justin-trudeau-china/

voice of the damned

Noops wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

So, if Conrad Black had been apprhended at an airport in Canada, instead of at his mansion in Florida, when the feds charged him with embezzlement(or whatever it was), you'd have said Canada shouldn't send him to the USA for trial, because the Americans don't really care about us?

To be perfectly honest, I would recommend Canada decide on a case-by-case merit.
I think financially/politically there is a heck of a lot more at stake for Canada
to stir up a hornets nest with China over this than would be the case with Black.

The U.S. would get over our rebuke the next day, if not before.

I'm sure you could come up with a better analogy?

So, basically, you're saying we should do what China wants in this case, because they're the ones threatening to stir up the biggest hornet's nest?

IOW, back to my example, if for some reason the US government really had it in for Conrad Black, and were waving trade-agreements in our face, we should make THAT our basis on whether or not to deport Black?

NDPP

Five Eyes Spy Chiefs Warned Twice About Huawei National Security Link

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-five-eyes-spy-chiefs-wa...

"...Mr Trudeau is facing a difficult decision on whether to join the majority of his Five Eyes allies and bar Huawei equipment from being used in next generation 5G mobile networks. China maintains that the arrest of Ms Meng is a premeditated attempt by Canada and the United States to undermine Huawei...."

Not difficult at all and already decided - to go with Uncle Sam's wishes or we wouldn't have done the Meng snatch and grab for them. Incidentally, there's never been any 'back door' found in Huawei technology nor any other 'national security' reason for concern. Unlike Five Eyes, of which the American one is the CIA. This is the pre-propaganda phase of a deepening geopolitical offensive - an anti-Chinese witch-hunt in which logic, rationality  or information accuracy will play a minimal role.

voice of the damned

Magoo wrote:

Borrowing your Conrad Black example, if we all found out that Stephen Harper called Conrad on the QT to say "don't come back to Canada for a while, we've been asked to arrest you if you do" would we say that was a good idea?  If not, why would it be a good idea now?

It would depend why he did it. If it was because he wanted to pay Black back for years of pro-Harper editorials in the Hollinger press, I'd say that might be a betrayal of Canada's interests. If it was because the UK(of which Black was a citizen) didn't want him tried, and had some power to make things real shitty for Canada if we sent him stateside, I'd say that was a legit consideration.

NDPP

Real Reason For Arrest of Huawei CFO

https://youtu.be/0fDUgBJ8yfY

"A US-led 'intelligence sharing alliance' known as 'five eyes' have been working behind the scenes to contain Huawei in the interest of stunting China's technological development and breaking their lead in wireless communication technology. Revelations concerning the 'Five Eyes' operations against the Chinese telecommunications industry puts the arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou in a new light."

 

P&P Huawei Arrest Halting Chinese Firms' Canadian Expansion Plans

http://youtu.be/z_KRifm9R4o

"Several Chinese automakers have put plans to expand into Canada on hold after the arrest of Chinese telecom giant Huawei's CFO, according to the president of the Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association."

Noops

voice of the damned wrote:

Noops wrote:

To be perfectly honest, I would recommend Canada decide on a case-by-case merit.
I think financially/politically there is a heck of a lot more at stake for Canada
to stir up a hornets nest with China over this than would be the case with Black.

The U.S. would get over our rebuke the next day, if not before.

I'm sure you could come up with a better analogy?

So, basically, you're saying we should do what China wants in this case, because they're the ones threatening to stir up the biggest hornet's nest?


No that's not what I am saying, we should do what is good for Canada (the exact same attitude and policy that the U.S. takes now under Trump).

WWWTT

bekayne wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Yeah, it's a bit sneaky, but it's still within the realm of the law, and if we don't want to be in a position of having to take sides in the case, I think it's one of the realpolitik options available to us(though we'd probably have to keep it on the hush-hush). I'm sure governments do stuff like that all the time to avoid embarrassing squeezes.

I wouldn't doubt that they do, but if we don't generally say "good, good" when we find out then it doesn't seem like a great idea, even though it certainly qualifies as another idea. 

Borrowing your Conrad Black example, if we all found out that Stephen Harper called Conrad on the QT to say "don't come back to Canada for a while, we've been asked to arrest you if you do" would we say that was a good idea?  If not, why would it be a good idea now?

As far as not taking sides, as I see it, we haven't.  We didn't arrest Meng out of our own animus or trade plans, we did it because years ago we agreed to, and we've been on both ends of many extraditions since.

The idea that Trudeau knew this was going to happen, chose not to do something illegal or dishonest, so therefore it "proves" that he wanted this and is probably "in on the plan" is absurd.

It's like saying "you knew your team was behind, and you could have cheated but you chose not to so clearly you wanted the other team to win".  A ten year-old would see through that "logic".

Ok fair enough Mr Magoo. That sounds logical. But here’s the thing, I suspect many Canadians are not going to be as forgiving as you. I speculate many Canadian voters come election time are going to say to themselves “you know what? Maybe Justin and team liberals are really a sack of hammers and don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground? Why should I give you idiots another chance?”

And honestly from my perspective, since this isn’t the first or second time that Justin has displayed very poor judgement, the liberals really need to be shown the door in 2019!

And put Andy Pandy in:

https://globalnews.ca/news/4758772/andrew-scheer-justin-trudeau-china/

Thanks for the link bekayne. This proves my hunch that this issue will not go away and is a huge failure for Justin and the liberals.

Now as far as whom you vote for and who Canadians vote for, that's none of my business. If Canadians feel the conservatives could have handled this better who knows?

NDPP

Canada Gets Played by US With Arrest of Meng Wanzhou

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2018/12/canada-gets-played-us-arrest-meng-wa...

"...Few doubt the Trudeau government is playing the loyal ally because it places the longstanding Canada-US relationship [vassalage] ahead of an expanded, improved relationship with China. In addition to making nice with the US president, without seemingly realizing it,*the Trudeau government has volunteered to play a walk-on role to the US in the economic cold war Washington is waging against China.

Indeed, Trump made the Canadian claim that the arrest and jailing of Meng Wanzhou was not political seem ridiculous when he offered to rescind the extradition order as part of trade concessions he expects to extract in trade talks with China. 

In contrast to having the US set the agenda for the Canadian government, an 'internationalist' approach to world affairs would have Canada help design a cooperative international economic order, argue for a de-escalation of military spending and work to make climate justice the world priority."

*They realize it very well.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It would depend why he did it. If it was because he wanted to pay Black back for years of pro-Harper editorials in the Hollinger press, I'd say that might be a betrayal of Canada's interests. If it was because the UK(of which Black was a citizen) didn't want him tried, and had some power to make things real shitty for Canada if we sent him stateside, I'd say that was a legit consideration.

The problem with that is that our hands would then be dirty, and the UK/Black would have a secret they could hold over us for as long as they wish.  People can understand a prisoner wanting to escape, but have little respect for the crooked jailer who helps.  Why would we want to give that little tidbit to China?

In this case, we seem to have our choice of:

a) a huge world power -- China -- visiting grief upon us

b) the definite possibility of a huge world power -- the U.S. -- visiting grief upon us AND the rest of the world knowing that we wipe our asses with treaties

Sean in Ottawa

WWWTT wrote:

bekayne wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Yeah, it's a bit sneaky, but it's still within the realm of the law, and if we don't want to be in a position of having to take sides in the case, I think it's one of the realpolitik options available to us(though we'd probably have to keep it on the hush-hush). I'm sure governments do stuff like that all the time to avoid embarrassing squeezes.

I wouldn't doubt that they do, but if we don't generally say "good, good" when we find out then it doesn't seem like a great idea, even though it certainly qualifies as another idea. 

Borrowing your Conrad Black example, if we all found out that Stephen Harper called Conrad on the QT to say "don't come back to Canada for a while, we've been asked to arrest you if you do" would we say that was a good idea?  If not, why would it be a good idea now?

As far as not taking sides, as I see it, we haven't.  We didn't arrest Meng out of our own animus or trade plans, we did it because years ago we agreed to, and we've been on both ends of many extraditions since.

The idea that Trudeau knew this was going to happen, chose not to do something illegal or dishonest, so therefore it "proves" that he wanted this and is probably "in on the plan" is absurd.

It's like saying "you knew your team was behind, and you could have cheated but you chose not to so clearly you wanted the other team to win".  A ten year-old would see through that "logic".

Ok fair enough Mr Magoo. That sounds logical. But here’s the thing, I suspect many Canadians are not going to be as forgiving as you. I speculate many Canadian voters come election time are going to say to themselves “you know what? Maybe Justin and team liberals are really a sack of hammers and don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground? Why should I give you idiots another chance?”

And honestly from my perspective, since this isn’t the first or second time that Justin has displayed very poor judgement, the liberals really need to be shown the door in 2019!

And put Andy Pandy in:

https://globalnews.ca/news/4758772/andrew-scheer-justin-trudeau-china/

Thanks for the link bekayne. This proves my hunch that this issue will not go away and is a huge failure for Justin and the liberals.

Now as far as whom you vote for and who Canadians vote for, that's none of my business. If Canadians feel the conservatives could have handled this better who knows?

What is interesting here is that the criticisms of the Liberals are mostly coming from Conservatives who are extremely harsh but empty -- they do not say what they would do differently.

What is lacking here is any realistic alternative information or suggestions about what the government is doing or could do.

For example, we know that there was a request from the US for this person's arrest. We know that this is the first step, then the arrest and then the formal extradition request. There is no public discusion about how this could be handled differently. I have spent time looking for infomration on this but so far I cannot find it. I suspect that there are some choices here but the information in the public discussions and the media does not include any of that. As a result the debate is between those who think the government position should be just accepted and those suggesting measures that appear to be completely unrealistic or claiming the the government had chocies that clearly they did not have. I do nto see anyone laying out clearly what the government's choices were. I would like to know what real chocies the government had.

I know that the extradition treaty between Canada and the US is probably a practical necessity. With the border we have, without such a legal instrument, each country would become a haven for every level of criminal. I do not believe that Canada's interest lie in ebing welcoming to all criminals from the US. So not having the treaty does not seem to be an option. a process where each case appears before a judge here, without political direction and the legal arguments are made about the validity seems right. But this is a longer process that is problematic in a high profile urgent case such as this. In my view there ought to be some kind of preliminary motion process (like a motion to dismiss in other coutr processes) so that a poisoned case such as this can be kicked without Canada having to abrogate the treaty for one case.

I recognize that the public interest and the interest of Canada has no place in the discussion becuase the judicial process must be based on the law applied consistently and the individual case. However, once Trump made it clear that this person was to be held effectively as ransom for his political demands, there ought to have been a process that the defence could have asked for an immediate termination of the case.

It is wrong that this is a fight that the Chinese are making political and the US is declaring to be political and Canada is the only one, a third party, that is held to the standard of non-political interference.

Why Can't Canada demand of the US that the treaty be amended to allow for motion to dismiss when the requesting country (in this case the US) makes the case political, thus letting Canada out of a political spat we have no place being in or power to resolve. This was not the intent of the treaty. The treaty only exists based on confidence that the parties would apply rule of law and not make them political. Perhaps Canada can simply apply that standard unilaterally, allow for a quick emergency hearing to determine this, even one prior to arrest generated by Canadian authorities where evidence that the case is being used improperly.

It may be that there is nothing wrong with the treaty or the law in Canada on this on most issues and that the only problem is the delay in the hearing to determine validity and extradition request from the US. If Ms Meng's arrest had been followed within a day of a requirement for a formal extradition request and then a day for a hearing to argue validity, Canada might not be in this position. With Trump's comments, this might have ended without any precident set regarding extradition of common criminals (say bank robbers etc.) and with China not feeling that Canada is holding this person. Why indeed woudl Canada hold at another country's request soemone for such a long term without them having to defend the arrest, answer to allegations of improper process and intent amd formerly ask for extradition? Why would Canada allow itself to be hung out to dry for 2-3 months for such a process, having to take formal responsibility for the arrest over such a long time. Does not seem like a reasonable treaty. If a Search warrant process can be expedited before a judge then this detention process is ridiculous.

I do not accept the garbage criticism from the Conservative leader as it is empty of suggestion. However, it seems that the government of Canada does have options about what it can say and do right now and we do not have to take them at their word. A real discussion about shortening the process and requirements for the US to put more on the table imediately could be part of the discussion. Instead we get empty cirticisms like those from the Conservatives, false allegations from others claiming a political involvement that has not happened, and no discussion about what kind of political involvement is possible (such as what I am raising as an option).

Do we have any substantive criticism from anyone else like the NDP or Greens? I have not even heard anything from the media -- not even a full description of the process and requirements of the treaty. Lots of talk, no information.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
It is wrong that this is a fight that the Chinese are making political and the US is declaring to be political and Canada is the only one, a third party, that is held to the standard of non-political interference.

Agreed.  Trump's comments made it abundantly clear to all of us here that the U.S. is acting out of politics rather than justice, but I'm curious why some here seem to think that China is not also acting out of politics.  Personally, I think they made this into Canada's problem for no better reason than that they could.  I haven't heard of them arresting any U.S. "spies" so far, but the U.S. is their real enemy in this -- we're just smaller and stuck in the middle.

Quote:
Why Can't Canada demand of the US that the treaty be amended to allow for motion to dismiss when the requesting country (in this case the US) makes the case political, thus letting Canada out of a political spat we have no place being in or power to resolve.

I, too, scratch my head over the "60 day" window, even moreso when we remember that it's 60 days to decide whether to even request extradition. 

Meaning that on day 59, the U.S. could say "you know what?  Never mind."  It's not really clear to me why, if they request that someone be detained, that person not simply be immediately transferred as well.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
It is wrong that this is a fight that the Chinese are making political and the US is declaring to be political and Canada is the only one, a third party, that is held to the standard of non-political interference.

Agreed.  Trump's comments made it abundantly clear to all of us here that the U.S. is acting out of politics rather than justice, but I'm curious why some here seem to think that China is not also acting out of politics.  Personally, I think they made this into Canada's problem for no better reason than that they could.  I haven't heard of them arresting any U.S. "spies" so far, but the U.S. is their real enemy in this -- we're just smaller and stuck in the middle.

Quote:
Why Can't Canada demand of the US that the treaty be amended to allow for motion to dismiss when the requesting country (in this case the US) makes the case political, thus letting Canada out of a political spat we have no place being in or power to resolve.

I, too, scratch my head over the "60 day" window, even moreso when we remember that it's 60 days to decide whether to even request extradition. 

Meaning that on day 59, the U.S. could say "you know what?  Never mind."  It's not really clear to me why, if they request that someone be detained, that person not simply be immediately transferred as well.

I think that the reason to punish Canada is politics as you say and partly to separate Canada from the US in this.

There is more to gain from doing so and that is not entirely illigitimate since as we are discussing the extradition process is wanting in many respects.

China also may actually be less understanding that the process is not political here where as the US knows it should be.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
There is more to gain from doing so and that is not entirely illigitimate since as we are discussing the extradition process is wanting in many respects.

I would be curious to know what other extradition treaties look like, either between Canada and another country, or two different countries.  As I said, I don't fully understand what the 60 day window was intended to address, but I also have a hard time imagining that years ago, before Trump or Trudeau, either Canada or the U.S. would try to sneak something like that into the treaty in order to someday be able to leverage it politically. 

Quote:
China also may actually be less understanding that the process is not political here where as the US knows it should be.

In one of the articles on this I saw it noted that because Trudeau knew about this, that proves it's political as far as China is concerned.  Not sure how that makes any sense at all. 

Perhaps China is more accustomed to having a leader who can make anything disappear with a wave of his hand or something.  Therefore, if Trudeau chose not to wave his hand, he must be in on it.

Sean in Ottawa

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
There is more to gain from doing so and that is not entirely illigitimate since as we are discussing the extradition process is wanting in many respects.

I would be curious to know what other extradition treaties look like, either between Canada and another country, or two different countries.  As I said, I don't fully understand what the 60 day window was intended to address, but I also have a hard time imagining that years ago, before Trump or Trudeau, either Canada or the U.S. would try to sneak something like that into the treaty in order to someday be able to leverage it politically. 

Quote:
China also may actually be less understanding that the process is not political here where as the US knows it should be.

In one of the articles on this I saw it noted that because Trudeau knew about this, that proves it's political as far as China is concerned.  Not sure how that makes any sense at all. 

Perhaps China is more accustomed to having a leader who can make anything disappear with a wave of his hand or something.  Therefore, if Trudeau chose not to wave his hand, he must be in on it.

On your first statement -- I agree. I think this is being covered terribly in the media. We are given no reference or understanding about the process and nobody reporting if this is unusual or what.

On your second, this is what I was getting at. I think that the Chinese do not see or believe the kind of separation between judiciary and politics or why it is fundamental. In that sense the Chinese have a lot in common with Trump. Neither seens the point in a leader without complete power.

Sean in Ottawa

Here read this:

https://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/traites/en_traites-ext-usa-can.pdf

Go to page 6 (7 of PDF) Article 4 iii --

This provides that Extradition will not be granted in cases of political character.

If this still applies then the issue here is one of process and time. This can be alleged in the present case.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
This provides that Extradition will not be granted in cases of political character.

Well, IANAL, but I read that clause as saying that extradition will not be granted for political offenses, nor if it's clear that the extradition is solely to enable the requesting country to prosecute a political offense (in other words, the request is for something like theft, but in addition to being tried for theft, the accused will also be tried for a political offense).

I don't read it as speaking to the motivation for the request, and in this case that's what seems political.  But the offense (fraud) is not of a political character, and there's no evidence that's just a decoy offense so they can charge her with an offense of a political character once she's on their side of the border.

It's interesting to note that if Meng really did commit fraud in the U.S. then their motivation for prosecuting her would be kind of immaterial.

A cop can't arrest you just because he doesn't like you.  But if he arrests you while you're carrying stolen goods AND he doesn't like you, the part where he doesn't like you isn't really a factor.  You can believe it was his "real motivation", but cops are, in fact, supposed to arrest people carrying stolen goods.

 

Noops

Canada gets played by U.S. with arrest of Meng Wanzhou
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2018/12/canada-gets-played-us-arrest-meng-wanzhou

"The Trudeau government is arguing that Canada is only applying the terms of the Canada-U.S. extradition treaty in arresting the Huawei executive, who was indicted in Brooklyn, N.Y. in August for bank fraud in connection with an alleged 2013 violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran. American experts agree that this is a normal application of the rule of law by Canada."

That should be:

American experts agree that this is a normal application of the rule of law by Canada in concert with a very abnormal application of the rule of law by the U.S..
The U.S. has cherry-picked a convenient time and place to arrest a Huawei executive, years after the alleged criminal offence took place, to coincide with a burgeoning trade war between the U.S. and China.

NDPP

Arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou May Kill Canada's Hopes For Free Trade Deal with China

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/2178611/arrest-huaweis-meng-wanzh...

"Amid an increasingly bitter diplomatic feud sparked by the detention of a senior Huawei executive in Vancouver, a highly coveted trade deal between Canada and China looks increasingly unlikely. The arrest of Sabrina Meng Wanzhou, chief financial officer of telecom giant Huawei - and China's subsequent detention of two Canadians - has halted negotiations between the two countries.

And as the US prepares to request Meng's extradition in the coming weeks, China has vowed to unleash punitive measures. 'The current problem with the extradition proceedings has caused a major disruption in the relationship, far beyond what might have been forseen,' said Lawrence Herman, an international trade lawyer based in Toronto. Canada now finds itself in uncharted territory: relations with its biggest trading partner have soured since US President Donald Trump took office. Herman described its perception of the US as 'horrible' and Meng's arrest has now angered its second largest partner. The result is potentially costly feuds with two of the world's largest markets. 

The minister for international trade and diversification, Jim Carr, called a free trade deal with China an 'essential component' in the search for new markets and trading partners. 'The Canadian government has been doing a lot of work in quantifying benefits of a Chinese trade deal and there's no doubt that it would be enormous,' said Herman..."

NDPP

Third Canadian Detained in China...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-detained-china-third-1.4951950

"...Global Affairs confirmed that a third Canadian had been arrested by Chinese officials. The Prime Minister's Office confirmed that the latest detainee is a woman. A source said the individual was teaching in China when she was detained..."

NDPP

Canada's Media Foments Anti-China Campaign After Meng Arrest

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/12/19/huaw-d19.html

"Since Canada, acting at Washington's behest, arrested senior Huawei executive May Wanzhou, Canada's major media outlets have gone into high gear to justify her seizure as 'lawful' and to depict China as a menace to Canada and the world. This is part of a much broader US-led strategy of confrontation towards China, arising in response to the loss of American imperialism's global economic dominance..."

Pogo Pogo's picture

China was pretty happy last year when they extradited a businessman from the US as part of their anti-corruption campaign.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-crime-idUSKBN18S4L6

Noops

Pogo wrote:

China was pretty happy last year when they extradited a businessman from the US as part of their anti-corruption campaign.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-crime-idUSKBN18S4L6

Sure, but this is an apples and oranges comparison.

In your case we have a 'nobody' Chinese citizen extradicted back to his home country (China) from the U.S. for a petty offence.

In this case we have a 'somebody' Chinese citizen in the cross-hairs of an attempted extradiction from Canada to the U.S.

In the first case, it's the Chinese system trying the Chinese citizen.
In the second case, it's the American system attempting to try a Chinese citizen.
Big difference.

It would have been better for you to have mentioned Guo Wengui, the billionaire Chinese businessman who's been living in New York since 2014 after fleeing China on corruption allegations against senior Communist Party leaders and their families.

Why hasn't the U.S. extradicted this big fish?
Could it be because he is a member of Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida?

China had Interpol issue a “red notice” for Guo in April 2017. Why is the U.S. dragging its feet with this case?

WWWTT

Pogo wrote:

China was pretty happy last year when they extradited a businessman from the US as part of their anti-corruption campaign.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-crime-idUSKBN18S4L6

I still consider the possibility that Ms Meng May be on Beijing’s watch list. 

I believe it may be remotely possible that China is only putting on a show when they protest her arrest in Canada. 

Neocynic Neocynic's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
  Quite the opposite.  Rule of law is why Canada respected the treaty we signed years ago.  To pretend there was no such treaty, and decline to apprehend Meng (in order to tweak Trump's nose?) would have been to ignore the rule of law.      

Actually the treaty is not mandatory or automatic.   In 1984 when we had a male Trudeau in office, Canada refused a more legally legitimate US extradiction request for Sydney Jaffe, an alleged Florida fraudster.  So the activation of the extradiction process has always been political.  In fact the treaty allows for a refusal if the alleged crime is not illegal in both countries (US anti-Iran sanctions are not Canadian law) and also for politically motivated requests (and Trump the Twit's latest tweet exposed Meng as a bargaining chip in the US-China trade dispute).  So if in fact we complied with the strict reading of the treaty, the US request should have been rightfully refused.  It was precisely a failure of our "rule of law" that allowed Trudeau with his usual political cowardice to follow the orders of that maniac Bolton.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
In 1984 when we had a male Trudeau in office, Canada refused a more legally legitimate US extradiction request for Sydney Jaffe, an alleged Florida fraudster.

I just read the Coles' Notes at Wikipedia and it suggests that no such request was ever made (which goes a way toward explaining why Florida officials sent some bounty hunters up here to kidnap him).  Where's the part about the U.S. requesting extradition and us putting our foot down?

Quote:
In fact the treaty allows for a refusal if the alleged crime is not illegal in both countries (US anti-Iran sanctions are not Canadian law) and also for politically motivated requests (and Trump the Twit's latest tweet exposed Meng as a bargaining chip in the US-China trade dispute).  So if in fact we complied with the strict reading of the treaty, the US request should have been rightfully refused.

Both of these have been noted earlier in the thread, but:

a)  Meng is facing charges of fraud, not violating sanctions, and fraud is, of course, a crime in both countries.

b)  Under the treaty Canada certainly can decline to extradite Meng, but only after receipt of a formal request for extradition, which has not yet been sent. 

Quote:
It was precisely a failure of our "rule of law" that allowed Trudeau with his usual political cowardice to follow the orders of that maniac Bolton.

OK, one more and then I gotta get to bed:

c)  Under the terms of the treaty, it's not Trudeau's call, it's the Justice Minister's.

voice of the damned

Justin said:

"When I was in opposition ... I remember standing in the House and challenging (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper to pick up the phone and get this Canadian released. I now understand that it's always a lot more complicated than that," he said.

Also a lesson for Canadains who joined the Liberals back then in wailing about how "The Harper government does NOTHING for Canadians in trouble overseas!!"

(Gotta run; quote from CBC)

 

NDPP

P&P: Third Canadian Detained...

https://youtu.be/Q4hCSBdJRAw

"PM refuses to escalate China fight." [except as instructed by Washington]

 

Sarah McIver, the 3rd Canadian Detained in China Not Linked to Previous Arrests: Trudeau

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-detained-china-third-1.4951950

"The case of Albertan Sarah McIver - the third Canadian recently taken into custody in China - does not appear to be related to the detention of two others, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Wednesday. Trudeau said when it comes to deciding whether to allow Huawei to participate in 5G infrastructure for mobile technology in Canada, he's weighing the billions of dollars in investment against Canada's need to be kept safe and free from interference and cyberattacks..."

 

US Suppressing Huawei is Unfair Persecution

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1132488.shtml

"...The world is waging an unprecedented injustice in the technological field: The US has been mobilizing its allies in an attempt to strangle the Chinese high-tech company Huawei. The move to exclude Huawei, the accusations that Huawei has been illegally providing equipment to Iran and the arrest of the enterprise's executive occurred successively. This series of operations have apparently been coordinated and form a historically rare persecution in the scientific and technological sector.

Those who are following the US footsteps in boycotting Huawei should be reminded that cracking down on a company is cracking down on international competition. They have given Washington the power to redefine the international scientific research order, market order, and political order. This is definitely not a good thing for smaller countries..."

Pogo Pogo's picture

NDPP wrote:

P&P: Third Canadian Detained...

And China is the good guy?  Or just a bad guy we really need to fear?

 

WWWTT

This third person detained from my understanding is due to visa violations. Canada refuses entry, detains and deports people for similar violations.

Just because the corporate media sqwauks about this English teacher detained means diddly shit.

China has every right to protect itself.

WWWTT

Mr Magoo wrote

Both of these have been noted earlier in the thread, but:

a)  Meng is facing charges of fraud, not violating sanctions, and fraud is, of course, a crime in both countries.

But, the context of the alleged fraud was not illegal in Canada. 

Pogo Pogo's picture

That is some pretzel logic.  May even work in court (I would lead with Trump's statements myself).  However I don't see it as overruling the prima facia case that lead to the detention.

NDPP

China Says 3rd Canadian Sentenced to Administrative Punishment

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/china-sarah-mciver-detained-1.4953711

"A spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry says Sarah McIver was working illegally..."

NDPP

Canada Among Targets of Alleged Hacking Campaign

https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/canada-among-targets-of-alleged-chinese-...

"Companies in Canada were among the targets of two Chinese citizens charged with waging an extensive hacking campaign to steal valuable data over many  years, US authorities say..."

Strategic release to advance US trade war agenda. Any Chinese cyber or intelligence gathering pales by comparison to the extensive global operations of 'Five Eyes,' as documented by Edward Snowden, WikiLeaks and others. But watch this official anti-China propaganda offensive ripen and expand. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But, the context of the alleged fraud was not illegal in Canada.

Immaterial.  Fraud is just a deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right.  No special contexts required.

If a man in Canada were wanted in Norway for impersonating the King, Canada would not refuse to extradite him because in Canada we don't have a King, or because we have no law against impersonating the King of Norway in our Criminal Code.

WWWTT

Pogo wrote:

That is some pretzel logic.  May even work in court (I would lead with Trump's statements myself).  However I don't see it as overruling the prima facia case that lead to the detention.

Doesn't matter if it works or not? It will at least work in delaying, well into the next election. This is when Justin and the liberal sack of hammers will be more than willing to see Ms Meng gone ASAP.

Also further delaying could have a good chance of tripping Trump up.

This move on the part of the US and Canada is super highly risky!!! No guarantee that Ms Meng will be sent to the US and convicted. No guarantee that it will deter corporations dealing with Iran or US can send any kind of message? If this fails, the US and Canada will look very feeble and weak. 

WWWTT

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
But, the context of the alleged fraud was not illegal in Canada.

Immaterial.  Fraud is just a deliberate deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right.  No special contexts required.

If a man in Canada were wanted in Norway for impersonating the King, Canada would not refuse to extradite him because in Canada we don't have a King, or because we have no law against impersonating the King of Norway in our Criminal Code.

Unless you have an actual case to support your claim, then you can not discredit my theory with another theory. This is where lawyers make their money.

quizzical

"feeble and weak"

hate to point out the obvious....already a reality. 

 

WWWTT

NDPP wrote:

China Says 3rd Canadian Sentened to Administrative Punishment

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/china-sarah-mciver-detained-1.4953711

"A spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry says Sarah McIver was working illegally..."

Ya that's what I thought. You need a BA to get the proper working visa in China to teach English. I know because if/when I move to China, and if I want to teach English I need one (but maybe not?) This woman was also playing with fire. And she's not the only one!

https://www.internationalteflacademy.com/faq/teaching-in-china-without-a...

 

WWWTT

quizzical wrote:

"feeble and weak"

hate to point out the obvious....already a reality. 

 

I wouldn't be so quick to belittle the influence the US has!

Now obviously the US has no where near the sway it did like in the 1990's, but this move of arresting and extraditing a Chinese national on iffy charges may actually work in their favour.

Either way, we'll be here on rabble/babble ranting and fuming about it!

contrarianna

Noops wrote:

Canada gets played by U.S. with arrest of Meng Wanzhou
http://rabble.ca/columnists/2018/12/canada-gets-played-us-arrest-meng-wanzhou

"The Trudeau government is arguing that Canada is only applying the terms of the Canada-U.S. extradition treaty in arresting the Huawei executive, who was indicted in Brooklyn, N.Y. in August for bank fraud in connection with an alleged 2013 violation of U.S. sanctions against Iran. American experts agree that this is a normal application of the rule of law by Canada."

That should be:

American experts agree that this is a normal application of the rule of law by Canada in concert with a very abnormal application of the rule of law by the U.S..
The U.S. has cherry-picked a convenient time and place to arrest a Huawei executive, years after the alleged criminal offence took place, to coincide with a burgeoning trade war between the U.S. and China.

Despite Trudeau's claim, it is not the "normal application of Canadian law" because, normally, law is NOT impartially applied when it entails major state international political and economic implications. The cynicism is not mine; that is the way states operate "normally" despite the supposed "rule of law". As noted Former Liberal foreign minister Manley stated as much when he says the arrest could have been avoisded by "creative incompetence" and tip offs which happen "from time to time".

See also, from the Toronto Star:

Canada’s Huawei arrest lending support to rogue U.S. behaviour
By LINDA MCQUAIG Wed., Dec. 19, 2018

The phrase “rule of law” has a nice, lofty ring to it, so it’s not surprising that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is invoking it to defend Canada’s detention of a Chinese business executive.

But while one can imagine many reasons why Canada decided to co-operate with the U.S. request to extradite Meng Wanzhou, it’s doubtful that the desire to uphold the “rule of law” was one of them.
....
Robert J. Currie, a professor at Dalhousie University’s Schulich School of Law, writes that under Canada’s Extradition Act, the decision whether to extradite in a case like this “is made not by the courts, but by the federal Minister of Justice.” In other words, it’s not strictly a legal matter but ultimately a political decision to be made by the Trudeau government.

Currie also points out that Canada has a long history of co-operating with U.S. extradition requests “because such neighbourliness makes for smooth relations.”...

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/12/19/canadas-huawe...

In short, it makes no sense to claim Canada's hands were tied by "rule of law".

 

 

NDPP

More agit-prop, whingeing and demonstration of impotence from Canadian military head:

Canadian Surveillance Plane Buzzed by Chinese off North Korea, DND Reveals

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/chinese-korea-embargo-aircraft-buzzed-h...

"A Canadian military surveillance aircraft monitoring UN sanctions was harassed in international airspace off North Korea by the Chinese military - part of a pattern of behaviour that's inappropriate Canada's top military commander said Wednesday. The incident, involving a CP-140 Aurora has since returned home, took place in October...'did not face overt interference...at no time were our crews or aircraft put at risk."

(The CP-140 Aurora was a valuable surveillance and targeting tool employed in US warcrimes in Iraq/Syria, most notably the carpet-bombing of Mosul.)

WWWTT

Here’s another case of spying 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/feds-endangering-rights-of-hamilton-man-accused-of-spying-for-china-lawyer-1.4950345

This  case has been going on for 5 years! From another link I read dating 5 years ago, the CBS so called experts commenting on this case were trying to make it sound like this Chinese Canadian guy was guilty and the case would be over in no time because he’s you know , guilty. Five years later and these same Jack ass shit for brain so called experts are no where to be found to explain how they fucked up so bad. To the rest of us it’s obvious, you guys and the cbc are idiots working for the liberals!

NDPP

The New York Times Targets McKinsey For Doing Business With China & Russia

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/12/20/chin-d20.html

"In an extraordinary article last week running to more than 6,000 words, the NYT effectively issued notice to  major American banks, investment houses and corporations to fall in line with US foreign policy as determined  and prosecuted by the CIA, Pentagon and State Department.

Behind the scenes, preparations are being made for all-out war, in which every arm of the state apparatus and economy will be marshalled. The Pentagon revealed a report in October surveying American reliance on foreign sources, particularly rivals such as China, for key strategic materials and items. It declared that China's economic strategies posed 'significant threats to the US industrial base and thereby pose a growing risk to US national security' and called for 'a solid defensive industrial base and resilient supply chains' to be 'a national priority.

In other words, the US had to ensure industrial capacity for protracted war with China. The unstated corollary is that American corporations cannot aid US 'enemies' by assisting economic  activities that will bolster their military and strategic capacities to resist US aggression.

The NYT article underscores that advanced preparations are being made at all levels in the US for war with China. The American 'paper of record' is already deeply integrated with the US military-intelligence apparatus, and is now urging that, in one way or another, American corporations [and subservient vassal state 'allies'] have to do the same."

WWWTT

voice of the damned wrote:

Justin said:

"When I was in opposition ... I remember standing in the House and challenging (Prime Minister Stephen) Harper to pick up the phone and get this Canadian released. I now understand that it's always a lot more complicated than that," he said.

Also a lesson for Canadains who joined the Liberals back then in wailing about how "The Harper government does NOTHING for Canadians in trouble overseas!!"

(Gotta run; quote from CBC)

 

Thanks for pointing this out. I read this comment earlier and took it that Justin has realized that there’s no possible way that the liberals can deflect out of this position of being stuck between a rock and a hard place. So now he’s trying a dramatic moment of enlightenment approach to play to the Canadian public in an attempt to win sympathy.  

Actually could work. Lots of gullible Canadians out there. Fortunately the only thing that may save Canada is that these same voters are not known for having much of an attention span. 

NDPP

US Steps Up Offensive Against China With More 'Hacking Charges'

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/12/21/chin-d21.html

"Further escalating its economic and strategic offensive to block China from ever challening its post-WWII hegemony, the US government yesterday unveiled its fifth set of economic espionage charges against Chinese individuals since September. As part of an internationally coordinated operation, the US Justice Department on Thursday published indictments of two Chinese men who had allegedly accessed confidential commercial data from US government agencies and corporate computers in 12 countries for more than a decade.

Via salacious allegations of 'hacking' on a 'vast scale', every effort is being made by the ruling elite and its media manipulation to whip up anti-China hysteria. The indictment's release was clearly politically timed.  Within hours, US allies around the world put out matching statements, joined by declarations of confected alarm by their own cyber-warfare and hacking agencies.

The Washington Post called it 'an unprecedented mass effort to call out China for its alleged malign acts.' The coordination 'represents a growing consensus that Beijing is flouting international norms in its bid to become the world's predominant economic and technological power.' FBI Director Christopher Wray called a news conference to issue another inflammatory statement against China. Pointing to the real motivations behind the indictments, he declared: 'China's goal, simply put, is to replace the US as the world's leading superpower, and they're using illegal methods to get there.'

Yesterday's announcement seemed timed to fuel tensions between Washington and Beijing, after the unprecedented Dec 1 arrest of Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei in Canada at the request of the US."

Pages