Detention of Meng Wanzhou - CFO of Huawei

841 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

dp

montgomery

Timebandit wrote:

Treaties are negotiated, you doofus. You can just alter an existing treaty without the agreement of the other party.

Yes, you certainly can if you have the clout to do it. Either military or economic clout. Canada has neither.

Quote:
Montgomery - I get that you don’t accept the reality of how treaties and legal systems work. (Please note I’m attempting to give benefit of doubt that it’s something you can grasp.) That means you’re not much worth engaging.

I'm simply saying that Canada isn't holier than thou and I made the comparison to the Scotus, which everybody agrees with fwiw. And I'm also saying that the Conservatives wouldn't even entertain a good way for Canada to get out of this US blackmailing mess the US has created. She would be in a US prison in irons already if the Cons got to decide.  You see, that's how justice works. My model government would keep pursing the issue that's been raised as a solution until we win. Selling out to criminal regimes isn't in the cards!

As to you engaging me, suit yourself.

 

NDPP

Boyce's Paper

http://boycerichardson.blogspot.com/2019/01/my-log-687-jan-23-2019chroni...

"This is getting to be almost a habit under the Justin Trudeau administration: namely, doing what you are told by the US government...'Totally non-political?' In a pig's eye."

montgomery

From the boycerichardson link:

Quote:
There were two egregious examples suggesting this possibility in today’s news: first, that Canada has gone along with the United States in apparently automatically recognizing the action of the leader of the Venezuelan opposition --- renowned for years as one of the most intractable and irresponsible oppositions in any democratic country ---  in declaring himself president on the basis of the huge crowds that have been protesting against the government there;

Absolutely inexcusable of course but common practice that might lead the the US's 41st. war of aggression since WW2 alone.

Quote:
.....and secondly the frantic, slightly hysterical reaction of the CBC commentariat to the simple statements of fact made by Canada’s ambassador to China, John McCallum, who told a meeting in Markham, a well-heeled niche of upper middle-class  Canadians, with a large Chinese population, that Ms. Meng Wanzhou has a fairly strong case as she prepares to resist extradition to the United .States, as demanded by the Trump administration.

You should have read that part and understood it before posting.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

montgomery wrote:

I'm simply saying that Canada isn't holier than thou and I made the comparison to the Scotus, which everybody agrees with fwiw.

Please define "everybody."

Sean in Ottawa

I doubt the ambassador to China -- former Liberal cabinet minister -- made his statements without Trudeau's approval.

It does little harm -- arms length from the PM -- to remind the Chinese that we have a court system that is independent from the government and that the government by saying this reminds everyone that it would not mind Meng winning there. this is not the government saying it wants Meng to win but that it recognizes that she has a case, we have a process and she could.

I really think this is a reasonable move for Canada to make in this difficult situation. It shelters the government from saying it directly but allows a person friendly to the government to do it. It is something we would want the Chinese -- and the US to hear. We would also not want to aggravate the US by having Trudeau say it. I think this was management by the government of a difficult situation that might have been one of the best options they had.

What is more surprising is that it took this long for such a statment to be made.

Calls for McCallum's dismissal seem rather ridiculous since he helped rather than harmed the government's situation. He was as close to the government a person you could get who could get away with it: any further and the message would be too weak any closer and the interference would be too strong. I actually think it was well played.

Also McCallum was careful to say she has a strong case emphasizing the process while still not stating an opinion.

montgomery

kropotkin1951 wrote:

montgomery wrote:

 

I'm simply saying that Canada isn't holier than thou and I made the comparison to the Scotus, which everybody agrees with fwiw.

Please define "everybody."

You might have me on this one? I was of the impression that 'everybody' on this board  fully understands that the Scotus is totally corrupt. But I could be wrong because I'm new here and it's possible that somebody might have their head buried in the sand? You can tell me if I was right or not!

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

Not that the US Supreme Court has any bearing on this - as far as I can tell, they don't get to weigh in on this one - but I would not characterize the entire SCOTUS as corrupt. There are certainly justices on that court who take their positions seriously and are doing their best, others don't and aren't. It's too simplistic to make such a statement.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Actually Montg I was not saying that the SCOTUS is not corrupted I was referring to our Canadian judicial system. You may think they are the same but I do not. So that is why I wondered if you thought everybody thinks that Canadian courts are the same as the US courts and the SCC is as corrupt as the SCOTUS. Personally I think the underpinnings of our legal system are racist and imperial however at the level of a functioning judicial system to decide an extradition case based on its legal merits I think we still have that in BC.

montgomery

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Actually Montg I was not saying that the SCOTUS is not corrupted I was referring to our Canadian judicial system. You may think they are the same but I do not. So that is why I wondered if you thought everybody thinks that Canadian courts are the same as the US courts and the SCC is as corrupt as the SCOTUS. Personally I think the underpinnings of our legal system are racist and imperial however at the level of a functioning judicial system to decide an extradition case based on its legal merits I think we still have that in BC.

Read what I said more carefully. TimeBandit did and came out in defense of the Scotus. So I guess I was wrong about everybody. Doooohhhhhhhh!

Kropot says:

Quote:
Personally I think the underpinnings of our legal system are racist and imperial........

I agree!

But I think the degree of 'imperial' ishness varies according to the party in power. Like the scotus.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I think that it is Liberal Tory same old story so far in the history of our Canadian governments. Neither party tries to influence the courts in the same way that the US process lends itself to. We also don't elect judges for lower courts which I also think is a feature that makes our system superior. Our politicians appoint them and they don't appoint many "radical" legal thinkers from any ideology. However given the basis of our legal system the Judges inevitably make many decisions that are racist. 

NDPP

China Envoy McCallum Walks Back Comments on Meng Wanzhou Case

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mccallum-apology-withdraw-remarks-1.499...

"...allowing people to think the Candian judicial system is susceptible to political influence...'I misspoke. These comments do not accurately represent my position on this issue." LOL. He was right the first time.

 

Move Over Huawei

https://bit.ly/2WhXBTy

"Feds strike $40m 5G research deal with Nokia."

Nice white people will get the business instead. Warshington and Five Eyes approves.

NDPP

Canada's Ambassador to China Speaks Truth, Then Recants

https://buff.ly/2Ui5MO2

"...Despite his claim that he misspoke, the Chinese now understand the Canadian government will almost certainly find a way to get May off the hook. And it is hard to imagine the ambassador acted impulsively or without forethought. He is an experienced politician, who held senior cabinet posts in the governments of three prime ministers..."

The brand new Justice Minister was put there for just this task since the final decision to release Meng will be his to take.

montgomery

So McCallum ran the idea up the flagpole to see if anybody would salute it, but nobody did, so he had to haul it back down in a hurry.

I think that if the majority of Canadians had saluted it, the court would have done their part in helping to come to a solution on Meng Wanzhou.

montgomery

Well it's pretty obvious which way Canadian courts must decide on extradition. It's all just US bullshit political pressure being put on Canada because her company makes and sells a better and cheaper product. So the correct decision for our courts is to not send her across the border to the wolves.

It's a no-brainer for Canada's courts! 

I was hoping nearly all NDP'ers would see it that way, but apparently not. If I had as much confidence in our courts as Kropotkin and TimeBandit, I would happily write it off in my mind as sour grapes for the US and the Trump regime.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture
WWWTT

Right on schedule. This hack became the embassador because he’s a liberal, not because of any intellect he may of possessed.  

I’m going to say that the odds that Meng Wan Zhou walks before the general election are probably pretty good now! 

Getting Ms Meng back to China in the next few months is probably the #1 item on the liberals “things to do before the election” list. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Getting Ms Meng back to China in the next few months

Well, the U.S. has until the 30th of this month to make the formal request for extradition, and if they don't then she could walk the next day.  If they do, I would assume she's handed over promptly, unless she makes a legal challenge here in Canada, at which point the best that Canada could do would be to expedite whatever proceedings that would entail.  Hopefully she's not still on Canadian soil for the next few months.

montgomery

WWWTT wrote:

Right on schedule. This hack became the embassador because he’s a liberal, not because of any intellect he may of possessed.  

I’m going to say that the odds that Meng Wan Zhou walks before the general election are probably pretty good now!

Mhy? Because McCallum is gone? I sure hope the chances are pretty good.

Quote:
Getting Ms Meng back to China in the next few months is probably the #1 item on the liberals “things to do before the election” list.

It should be on the list of the highest priorities! 

WWWTT

Of course because he was fired! Or more revealing that the government  will be influencing the release of Ms Meng back to China. It probably pissed off the liberals that their game plan was revealed. When Ms Meng is released, many will think the courts were doing the liberals bidding. 

I personaly hope it’s a court battle that lasts 10 months. That should fuck the liberals up enough to send the right messages to Canadian federal politicians.  I hate it when Canadian politicians screw up and walk away. 

montgomery

WWWTT wrote:

Of course because he was fired! Or more revealing that the government  will be influencing the release of Ms Meng back to China. It probably pissed off the liberals that their game plan was revealed. When Ms Meng is released, many will think the courts were doing the liberals bidding.

Your imagination is working overtime. It's the US gameplan to piss on Canada/China relations and stopping that is much more important then the petty politics bullshit. If she's released then the courts will show they have the balls to make the correct decisioin nd ignore US blackmail.

 

NDPP

McCallum Firing Leaves Canada's China Strategy in Disarray (and vid)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mccallum-firing-leaves-canada-s-china-st...

"Canada's strategy for navigating growing tensions with China is in disarray after Justin Trudeau fired his ambassador to Beijing. Paul Evans, a China expert at UBC, said this is the 'most difficult and emotional moment in Canada-China relations in 30 years'...'We're going deeper into the rabbit hole of Canada-China interactions. We are at a moment when we really don't know how deep that hole will get,' Evans said..."

 

Alibaba Lashes Out at US Over 'Unfair' Treatment of Huawei as Tech Giant Faces Scrutiny

https://on.rt.com/9n43

"E-commerce giant Alibaba slammed the US for attempting to curb Huawei's access to Western markets. A senior official from the company says a political agenda lies behind Washington and its allies' treatment of the Chinese firm. 'I think what the American government together with the Five Eyes Alliance - what they're trying to do with Huawei - is a bit unfair, there's definitely a political agenda behind it,' said Joe Tsay, an executive vice chairman at Alibaba. Canada has played more than a minor role in the Huawei saga..."

 

Global Times on John McCallum's Resignation

https://twitter.com/globaltimesnews/status/1089369492092641280

"If you think the Chinese don't care about this, you are wrong. They do care, and they are following the issue closely. 'Canada will taste the bitter price from the Chinese public,' wrote a Weibo user after Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau asked for the resignation of Hon John McCallum."

 Canadian foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster of stupidity, missteps and mistakes on all fronts. 

montgomery

So let's put the situation in it's proper perspective, in case some haven't alreadya;

The US is simply telling Canada to choose between them and China. We can't be allied to both.

Trudeau and his party have made the decision to do what the US demands because it's the hugely popular position with the Canadian people.

And the courts won't come to the rescue because their position is always going to be dictated by government's direction. 

And we can't just brush it off and say that we'll live to fight another day, because it's a landmark decision being made for our country, in the eyes of Chinia too.

Maybe the NDP and Jagmeet Singh can campaign on the position of telling the US to mind their own business, so to speak, and that Canada will not just brush off China. I wonder how that would work out for him? Assuming he was of the mind to do so? 

So in a nutshell, our mission is to make it possible to have a political party take a ballsy position for Canada. Right now it would be political Hari-Kari.

Quote:
NDPP wrote:  Canadian foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster of stupidity, missteps and mistakes on all fronts.

Can you expand on that statement with something of substance? Preferably on this topic?

NDPP

Self evident. Review this and the other 'China'' threads if you're in doubt. Or just go from Trudeau's fuck up of the Canada-China free-trade initiative in December 2017 - it's all downhill from there to the near total destruction of the relationship with the Meng Wanzhou caper now. The Trudeau/Freeland foreign policy fiascos have been very, very costly to Canada. And they're only just beginning...

NDPP

Canadian Peace Congress: The Arrest of Meng Wanzhou - A Public Discussion

What's at Stake and Where will it lead?

With International lawyer, author, Christopher Black and Miguel Figueroa, activist, CPC President.

Thursday, January 31 @ 7:30 PM, Steelworkers Hall, 25 Cecil Street, Toronto

montgomery

NDPP wrote:

Self evident. Review this and the other 'China'' threads if you're in doubt. Or just go from Trudeau's fuck up of the Canada-China free-trade initiative in December 2017 - it's all downhill from there to the near total destruction of the relationship with the Meng Wanzhou caper now. The Trudeau/Freeland foreign policy fiascos have been very, very costly to Canada. And they're only just beginning...

Yeah, I know that you're always good with the criticism, but I was thinking this might be a good time and place to explain what you think would have been a better method by government? 

Not something all encompassing your dislike of Trudeau and the Liberals but something specific on how this particular issue could have been handled better. 

Imagine you're the leader of the NDP so that you won't have to pay attention to Jagmeet's chickenshit position. None of you oldtimers on this board seem to have any appreciation for the power the US wields over our country and the Canadian people. Any politician or political party that messes with that very much, either on the economic front or the military front, will be strolling down the road tomorrow kicking rocks. 

This is a very difficult situation that the US has created for our country and it has no snap solution. The Canadian courts could decide in favour of Meng but at the same time, the US isn't unaware of the fact that the courts are given political direction. (you probably disagee with that)

And the Conservative position of just knuckling under to US demands is a non-starter for both of us i assume?

Some on this board have already suggested that the Liberals will sort it out to their satisfaction and Meng will be on her way back to China within the year. Be patient and hope for that at least, even though a year is probably too long.

And so, your solutions?

WWWTT

Very funny Montgomery. Who cares about the NDP position? Is that your apologizing excuse for Justin? Look at the NDP?

NDPP

Simple. Under no circumstances should Meng Wanzhou have been arrested or detained by Canada. Any and all means necessary should have been employed or pretended to avoid it.  Nor do I share the view, one shared and practiced by successive Canadian politicians since time immemorial that bending over for Uncle Sam is the only way.  As for imagining I am leader of the NDP, I'm afraid my stomach really isn't up to it thanks. 

montgomery

NDPP wrote:

Simple. Under no circumstances should Meng Wanzhou have been arrested or detained by Canada.

Where did the request to arrest her come from? Who passed on the request to the police? Would the request have gone to the Commisioner of the RCMP? Would he have asked for political advice? 

Quote:
Any and all means necessary should have been employed or pretended to avoid it.

By who? Politicians? The RCMP head cop? 

 

Quote:
Nor do I share the view, one shared and practiced by successive Canadian politicians since time immemorial that bending over for Uncle Sam is the only way.  As for imagining I am leader of the NDP, I'm afraid my stomach really isn't up to it thanks. 

I'm totally opposed to bending over for the US but I'm also aware of the feelings of the majority of Canadians. 

How did that arrest actually happen? Could the US have contacted the Conservative party (maybe Scheer) and asked him to assert some political pressure on the RCMP to get the job done?

What would Kropotkin think? He seems to be able to hold our justice system to a high standard that would rule out the influence of the political party in power! I told  him that Meng would be in irons in a US jail by now if the Conservatives were in power.

WWWTT

Montgomery wrote 

 I told  him that Meng would be in irons in a US jail by now if the Conservatives were in power.

More bullshit. Conservatives did the most to open trade with China. Just admit it, you’re a liberal hack!

montgomery

WWWTT wrote:

Montgomery wrote 

 I told  him that Meng would be in irons in a US jail by now if the Conservatives were in power.

More bullshit. Conservatives did the most to open trade with China. Just admit it, you’re a liberal hack!

Ah ha! Now I get it, you're a Conservative hack. 

A Conservative would understand that a lot of money is going to be made on trade with China but they would also understand that a lot of money could go up in smoke if Canada doesn't bend over and take it up the a-- for the US. A Con would obviously choose the option that paid best, and screw the social implications. For Cons, a US dollar in the pocket is worth 2 in China .

No, I'm not about to take that kind of shit from you or anybody on this site. I'm as left as it can get and that puts me furthest from the US criminal regime. Get the kcuf off the 'Ban the Liberal' scam. 

WWWTT

Lol! Why haven’t u answered that question I asked u in the Venezuela thread? How long did it take to get banned from mlw?

montgomery

WWWTT wrote:

Lol! Why haven’t u answered that question I asked u in the Venezuela thread? How long did it take to get banned from mlw?

I must have missed the question and it took me a while to figure out what the mlw is or was. 

Are you one of the 'ban the Liberal' cops I have to answer to, or can I just ignore your crap?

Anyway, I think not very long because they were full of the same paranoia and exclusionist bullshit as this one used to be. If that's your goal then drop a note to the forum cops and maybe they will bow to your wishes. 

WWWTT

My advice would be to just ignore me, if you can? You’re not doing a good of it so far. 

bekayne

WWWTT wrote:

Montgomery wrote 

More bullshit. Conservatives did the most to open trade with China. Just admit it, you’re a liberal hack!

Scheer has criticized the government for not being tough enough with China

Unionist

The MSM keeps saying that the U.S. has until January 31 (60 days from the date of the Dec. 1 arrest) to file a formal request for extradition. I thought I'd fact-check that assertion in my ample spare time.

The general law (Extradition Act (S.C. 1999, c. 18)) does provide for a 60-day deadline - but only where there's no treaty with the requesting country, or where there is a treaty but it doesn't specify a deadline.

In this case, there is a treaty (U.S.-Canada Extradition Treaty) - and it specifies a 45-day deadline - see Article 11(3).

Conclusion: Meng should have been "set at liberty" no later than January 15.

I'm probably wrong, but would love to hear how and why from our resident lawyers - kropotkin? Barlüer (still around)? Or other lay babblers like me?

NDPP

Canadian Ambassador Sacked For Speaking His Mind

http://global.chinadaily.com.cn/a/201901/28/WS5c4e0314a31d6c65c34e6b5b.html

"The resignation of Canadian Ambassador to China John McCallum has further demonstrated the political motives behind Ottawa's detention of Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou, said those familiar with the matter.

Ruan Zongze, Executive VP of the China Institute of International Studies, said McCallum's resignation was due to McCallum's  'relatively objective' comments over the extradition of Meng to the US - and his remarks seem to be not 'politically correct' in Canada regarding the case. Ruan said McCallum's removal is evidence of political manipulation over Meng's case which runs counter to the rule of law that Canada claism to abide by regarding the case."

 

'Inconsistent Messages' May Have Deepened Dispute

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/inconsistent-messages-may-have-deepened-...

"...McCallum's comments were apparently received with 'cautious optimism' in China, according to one expert on the country. Lynette Ong, a political science professor at the University of Toronto, said reports in China appeared to be encouraged that a senior Canadian official was suggesting an element of politicization to Meng's arrest, backing up the Chinese government's claims. 

While McCallum's remarks might have played well in China, Ong said, they presented a problem for Freeland and other Canadian officials portraying Meng's arrest as strictly a legal affair. 'From the outside, this whole situation - looks like a mess, like Canada somehow cannot get its act together,' she said. 'We keep on sending inconsistent messages to the Chinese authorities and to the world about what our position is..."

The firing of an ambassador is almost unknown in international diplomacy. China may well refuse to accept the credentials of McCallum's replacement.The Trudeau/Freeland gong show is racking up some pretty serious costs that Canucklheads might want to consider. Just wait until the full effects of the USMCA TPP 'free trade' surrender agreements begin to bite. Now the trashing of a major trading relationship in exchange for turning tricks for Trump and 'Five Eyes'...We are almost guaranteed a return to Tory government IMHO.

NDPP

The Gob in Pail:

Trudeau's Response to McCallum is Another Example of Amateur Hour Bumbling

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeaus-response-to-mc...

"...There's been speculation about whether Mr McCallum misspoke or whether he was sending an unofficial message aimed at easing tensions with Beijing. Either way it was amateur hour. No one - not Beijing, nor allies, nor the public - can really know what the message is. Canada's firm position is now weak, waffling confusion. It's a screw-up and Mr Trudeau gets to own it..."

NorthReport

90% of US extradiction requests from the US to Canada succeed

montgomery

bekayne wrote:

Scheer has criticized the government for not being tough enough with China

Yes I know. There is absolutely no doubt that the Conservatives would have immediately bowed to US demands. And further to that, I would suspect that the Conservatives would have been involved in having the arrest carried out to begin with. 

But for some reason, condemnation of the Conservatives on this board equates to support of the Liberals. 

I guess we will never really know if McCallum was following Trudeau's direction but should have not made it public, or he was only speaking for himself. 

Sean in Ottawa

Now I think there is some evidence that Trudeau mishandled this file.

I think that Canada had little choice but to arrest Meng given the treaty. The government of Canada should have spoken to the ambassador there and moved to explain to China the difficulty it was in and that Meng had a Canadian process to go through. It was weathering the storm, albeit badly.

Then the ambassador spoke. Either he did so with the PM's permission as I suggested or without communication with the PM which suggests some incompetence on the part of the PM. Hard to imagine this guy disobeying a direct instruction but pathetic to think Trudeau did not give one.

Still, many said that the ambassador's words were harmful to Trudeau. I don't think that is true. I think the situation was harmful but the ambassador to China saying what he said could have helped in China. It offered no role or suggestion for the government -- although it underlined the fact that this is a process and the government was not trying to keep her other than due to treaty obligation.

Washington was mostly ignoring the comments and the opposition in Canada would ahve had no more fuel if the PM said nothing. Looked like success. then the PM bowed to pressure from the opposition here to fire the ambassador and make things much worse with China. Seems pretty stupid when he could ahve just weathered the complaints here and taken the benefit with the Chinese for the words.

Now it looks like the PM had no control over the ambassador and may have provided him no instructions or had an ambassador ignore them. Either way Trudeau looks much worse than if he had done nothing.

I am sure the media and the opposition are grateful for the story but there is little reason Trudeau had to do anything about it. Now he has a bigger problem.

NDPP

NorthReport wrote:

90% of US extradiction requests from the US to Canada succeed

NDPP wrote:

Here's one that didn't...

Meet the Man Who Fled Canada And Was Granted Asylum in the US

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/kwxd4z/meet-the-man-who-fled-the-cana...

No wonder Svend Robinson won't support a public inquiry eh? Far too much to hide. Like the Meng Wanzhou case. Get my drift?

Unionist

Has anyone had a chance to check my theory that Canada had until January 16 to either receive the U.S. extradition request (which they haven't yet) or else release Meng? It's driving me nuts.

montgomery

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Now I think there is some evidence that Trudeau mishandled this file.

I think that Canada had little choice but to arrest Meng given the treaty. The government of Canada should have spoken to the ambassador there and moved to explain to China the difficulty it was in and that Meng had a Canadian process to go through. It was weathering the storm, albeit badly.

Then the ambassador spoke. Either he did so with the PM's permission as I suggested or without communication with the PM which suggests some incompetence on the part of the PM. Hard to imagine this guy disobeying a direct instruction but pathetic to think Trudeau did not give one.

Still, many said that the ambassador's words were harmful to Trudeau. I don't think that is true. I think the situation was harmful but the ambassador to China saying what he said could have helped in China. It offered no role or suggestion for the government -- although it underlined the fact that this is a process and the government was not trying to keep her other than due to treaty obligation.

Washington was mostly ignoring the comments and the opposition in Canada would ahve had no more fuel if the PM said nothing. Looked like success. then the PM bowed to pressure from the opposition here to fire the ambassador and make things much worse with China. Seems pretty stupid when he could ahve just weathered the complaints here and taken the benefit with the Chinese for the words.

Now it looks like the PM had no control over the ambassador and may have provided him no instructions or had an ambassador ignore them. Either way Trudeau looks much worse than if he had done nothing.

I am sure the media and the opposition are grateful for the story but there is little reason Trudeau had to do anything about it. Now he has a bigger problem.

Way too much speculation to make any sense out of that Sean. In a nutshell, the Canadian people aren't ready to oppose the wishes of the US and accept appropriate treatment of China. So Trudeau buckled to the pressure.

If we could put all the Conservatives in a sack with some rocks and throw the whole thing in the river, we might be able to see some progress. 

Does Canada have some sort of peace prize that could be awarded to McCallum, for his act of bravery and his 'going down in flames' for taking the correct position? 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

That's certainly how I'd read that Article, though I'm not the lawyer you're hoping for.  Good catch, BTW -- the media has only referred to a 60 day deadline.

NDPP

US Propagates Fear of China, Again

http://rabble.ca/columnists/2019/01/us-proposals-fear-china-again

"In 1948 the US diplomat George Kennan had set out an over-arching vision of American foreign policy that remains eerily pertinent. In his PPS 23 memo to the US Secretary of State, Kennan considered Canada firmly in the American orbit.

Donald Trump withdrew the US from the TPP. Under Japanese leadership, the TPP has gone ahead without US membership. Trump has initiated a trade war with China by imposing tariffs and demanding the Chinese abandon its industrial strategy before he will remove them.

The foreign domination of China exemplified the by the British, French and American 100-year occupation of Shanghai is still fresh in the minds of the Chinese. The leadership of the Communist Party state have no intention of allowing US or other foreign domination of Chinese industry."

Sean in Ottawa

montgomery wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Now I think there is some evidence that Trudeau mishandled this file.

I think that Canada had little choice but to arrest Meng given the treaty. The government of Canada should have spoken to the ambassador there and moved to explain to China the difficulty it was in and that Meng had a Canadian process to go through. It was weathering the storm, albeit badly.

Then the ambassador spoke. Either he did so with the PM's permission as I suggested or without communication with the PM which suggests some incompetence on the part of the PM. Hard to imagine this guy disobeying a direct instruction but pathetic to think Trudeau did not give one.

Still, many said that the ambassador's words were harmful to Trudeau. I don't think that is true. I think the situation was harmful but the ambassador to China saying what he said could have helped in China. It offered no role or suggestion for the government -- although it underlined the fact that this is a process and the government was not trying to keep her other than due to treaty obligation.

Washington was mostly ignoring the comments and the opposition in Canada would have had no more fuel if the PM said nothing. Looked like success. Then the PM bowed to pressure from the opposition here to fire the ambassador and make things much worse with China. Seems pretty stupid when he could have just weathered the complaints here and taken the benefit with the Chinese for the words.

Now it looks like the PM had no control over the ambassador and may have provided him no instructions or had an ambassador (a loyal former cabinet member) ignore them. Either way Trudeau looks much worse than if he had done nothing.

I am sure the media and the opposition are grateful for the story but there is little reason Trudeau had to do anything about it. Now he has a bigger problem.

Way too much speculation to make any sense out of that Sean. In a nutshell, the Canadian people aren't ready to oppose the wishes of the US and accept appropriate treatment of China. So Trudeau buckled to the pressure.

If we could put all the Conservatives in a sack with some rocks and throw the whole thing in the river, we might be able to see some progress. 

Does Canada have some sort of peace prize that could be awarded to McCallum, for his act of bravery and his 'going down in flames' for taking the correct position? 

Where exactly do you think I over speculated? I think it was all fair and less than most speculation here.

It was predictable that the Chinese would be upset at the firing and the US had not publicy provided any justification.

The only flac Trudeau got was from the media and Conservatives which he could have weathered since it mostly said he was in a difficult position but did not claim he was at fault.

Do you really think it is unreasonable to expect that the PM speak to his ambassador? Do you really think an ambassador who has been so close to the present government and was a Liberal cabinet minister would disobey if he got a clear order?

Do real think if he disobeyed it would not be a big deal and reflect on the PM?

To me the most likely is that McCallum was doing the best he could without instructions and coordination. Most other possibilities are even worse for the PM and none are good. McCalllum was always to much of a loyal Liberal to assume that he would not know not to speak against a direction from the PM. If there was no direction then why the hell not?

AND If Trudeau did direct him and threw him under the bus this is also incompetence becuase McCallum just improved his position in China with apparently doing nothing to damage the situation with the US - so why fire him?

Firing McCallum created a problem that is much worse than the problem of his words which actually was only a political problem here, not a deal in Washington and a benefit in China. Why did Trudeau blink?

NorthReport

Good point

Maybe that was the reason McCallum said what he did.

Saving Robert Schellenberg will be a daunting task for Trudeau government

It appears, at this stage, that the most effective way for the Trudeau government to save this Canadian’s life would be to, somehow, find a way to end the extradition proceedings against Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou.

http://rabble.ca/news/2019/01/saving-robert-schellenberg-will-be-dauntin...

montgomery

Quote:
Sean says: 

It was predictable that the Chinese would be upset at the firing and the US had not publicy provided any justification.

probably correct

The only flac Trudeau got was from the media and Conservatives which he oculd ahve weathered since it mostly said he was in a difficult position but did not claim he was at fault.speculation

Do you really think it is unreasonable to expect that the PM speak to his ambassador? Do you really think an ambassador who has been so close to the present government and was a Liberal cabinet minister would disobey if he got a clear order? speculation

Do real think if he disobeyed it would not be a big deal and reflect on the PM?speculation

To me the most likely is that McCallum was doing the best he could without instructions and coordination. speculationMost other possibilities are even worse for the PM and none are good.speculation McCalllum was always to loyal a Liberal to assume that he would not know not to speak against a direction from the PM.speculaton If there was no direction then why the hell not?speculation  AND If Trudeau did direct him and threw him under the bus this is also incompetence becuase McCallum just improved his position in China with apparently doing nothing to damage the situation with the US - so why fire him?speculation

The only thing we know for sure is that Trudeau buckled under pressure and McCallum should get a peace prize of some sort. I don't really think we have anything to debate with each other. I think you must understand that government is only going to lead with conviction when it's politically acceptable to do so. Opposing the wishes of the US is not politically acceptable in the minds of the Canadian people. with a few exceptions. Jagmeet knows that as well as any politician but we would expect that maybe when speaking from an opposition position, he could show some bravery. 

Chretien did but I'm not suggesting that Chretien went out on a limb completely. He weighed the thoughts in the minds of the Canadian people and guessed that he could get away with it. And still today, he was wrong in the Conservative mind. But of course, he got it right.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Firing McCallum created a problem that is much worse than the problem of his words which actually was only a political problem here, not a deal in Washington and a benefit in China. Why did Trudeau blink?

Excellent question.

Why did Trudeau apply sanctions against Venezuela long ago? Why is he supporting Trump's coup? Why did Trudeau apply sanctions against Russia?

The only common thread I can find is the Nazi's granddaughter.

 

Pages