Harper's position on China

[normanchateau]

Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada co-CEO Paul Evans called Harper's approach to Chinese relations radically different from his predecessors and unlike anything attempted by other Western governments.

''This is a break, a decisive break, with the way the relationship has been managed for the last 36 years under six other prime ministers,'' Evans said. ''It's a decisive break in the framing of the relationship and in the tone and the vocabulary.''

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics...4978&k=6988

It will be interesting to see how Harper's position on China plays out in B.C. where the BC government is attempting to expand trade in China. Most of the current CPC seats in BC are there only because the Liberals and NDP split the anti-Harper vote. Harper's anti-business with China attitude will hurt him significantly in BC.

He's already in trouble in BC thanks to riding roughshod over the softwood lumber industry, income trusts, broken promises, lawn signs throughout Emerson's huge Vancouver riding demanding his recall (given that the CPC candidate in Emerson's riding received leess than 20% of the vote).

What's bizarre is that Harper seems not have a problem with other human rights violators like Islamic Afghanistan, our trading partner Vietnam, etc., etc. Whenever one thinks that Harper can't possibly outdo himself in bizarreness or inconsistency, he proves otherwise.

[White Doors]

Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada co-CEO Paul Evans called Harper's approach to Chinese relations radically different from his predecessors and unlike anything attempted by other Western governments.

''This is a break, a decisive break, with the way the relationship has been managed for the last 36 years under six other prime ministers,'' Evans said. ''It's a decisive break in the framing of the relationship and in the tone and the vocabulary.''

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/politics...4978&k=6988

It will be interesting to see how Harper's position on China plays out in B.C. where the BC government is attempting to expand trade in China. Most of the current CPC seats in BC are there only because the Liberals and NDP split the anti-Harper vote. Harper's anti-business with China attitude will hurt him significantly in BC.

He's already in trouble in BC thanks to riding roughshod over the softwood lumber industry, income trusts, broken promises, lawn signs throughout Emerson's huge Vancouver riding demanding his recall (given that the CPC candidate in Emerson's riding received leess than 20% of the vote).

What's bizarre is that Harper seems not have a problem with other human rights violators like Islamic Afghanistan, our trading partner Vietnam, etc., etc. Whenever one thinks that Harper can't possibly outdo himself in bizarreness or inconsistency, he proves otherwise.

Really? This will help him in BC and GTA as the chinese here are aware of the deficiencies in that government because, well they actually lived there. Unlike yourself. How do you feel about China outlawing homosexuality Norman?

Do trip all over all that hypocricy your standing on.

[kimmy]

...when it comes to the specific case of a Canadian citizen who is being mistreated, we have an absolute moral obligation to defend those citizens and express our views.

Does anybody disagree?

Can Harper press the issue without jeopardizing our economic relationship with the Chinese?

Yes.

Because they need us even more than we need them. If they wish to try to intimidate us by brandishing their big stick-- trade-- we have an even bigger stick to brandish: energy security. The Chinese are desperate to invest heavily in our oilsands to secure a stable source of energy for their future needs.

-k

[White Doors]

...when it comes to the specific case of a Canadian citizen who is being mistreated, we have an absolute moral obligation to defend those citizens and express our views.

Does anybody disagree?

Can Harper press the issue without jeopardizing our economic relationship with the Chinese?

Yes.

Because they need us even more than we need them. If they wish to try to intimidate us by brandishing their big stick-- trade-- we have an even bigger stick to brandish: energy security. The Chinese are desperate to invest heavily in our oilsands to secure a stable source of energy for their future needs.

-k

exactly. They need our Oil much more than we need their socks.

[watching&waiting]

While our country would have little affect on China under normal times on the position of human rights, we find ourselves in a position where China is now more suscepitble to our input then at other times. The Chinese people are switching away from their rice based diets to more grain based and that in itself will be a huge market for our wheats and other grains. Our energy is another thing that can be sold quickly to any of a number of countrys, so it also is a very big draw. At this point in time, if push comes to shove, we are in the bigger position. I find that Harpers stance on human rights and tying it to the trade eventually will pay off. The Chinese will in the end respect us more for it.

[Canadian Blue]

What's bizarre is that Harper seems not have a problem with other human rights violators like Islamic Afghanistan

Yeah, its not like we have any current involvement in that country. Honestly any chance you get to bash Harper you take. Ease up.

[apollo19]

I think this issue is showing Harper's inexperience with matters larger than fighting against the Liberals. If you want to deal with China in any positive way relating to human rights or such, you can't make defiant statements in public. It seems that is Harper's way -- he is just too blunt about things, and blurts things out in public. It wouldn't be in Canada's interest to get into a "I don't need your cheap goods" versus "I don't need your oilsands" argument with the Chinese. My guess is Gordon Campbell isn't going to be too pleased about this.. look for Harper to either backpedal on this issue or lose even more support among people in BC.

[Higgly]

exactly. They need our Oil much more than we need their socks.

Well maybe, but they've already had their hands slapped once when they try to buy their way in. They also have been doing major deals with Nigeria and Venezuela, to name a few.

[watching&waiting]

Nigeria and Venezuala, are about as stable as a wild mustang (horse not car). I do not think that anyone looking at these places for oil would put much hope on steady long term supply. They will fill a need when they are not fighting civil wars or the people uprising and threatening the governments. For now the Chinese have made deals with Iran and are laying vast pipelins to get their oil from there, but their demand as their economy grows will far outstretch the resources there.

[normanchateau]

My guess is Gordon Campbell isn't going to be too pleased about this.. look for Harper to either backpedal on this issue or lose even more support among people in BC.

Your guess is correct. Gordon Campbell was quoted in this morning's Vancouver Sun as planning to carry on his trade mission to China as though Harper had said nothing. David Emerson, the BC MP and Con cabinet minister most in favour of expanding trade with China, stated that Harper's position was only a "slight" change from that of the former Liberal government. Poor Emerson...stepping on eggshells. Who'd have thought that Harper would have pulled the rug out from under Emerson, of all people?

[normanchateau]

Nigeria and Venezuala, are about as stable as a wild mustang (horse not car). I do not think that anyone looking at these places for oil would put much hope on steady long term supply. They will fill a need when they are not fighting civil wars or the people uprising and threatening the governments. For now the Chinese have made deals with Iran and are laying vast pipelins to get their oil from there, but their demand as their economy grows will far outstretch the resources there.

So suddenly China needs us more than we need them. Do you seriously believe that this is why Harper is attempting to play hardball with China?

In any event, Afghanistan needs us more than we need them but I've not heard Harper state that he cares about their severe human rights violations? Even China does not have laws declaring the death sentence for Muslims who convert to Christianity. Or jail sentences for blasphemy. Or jail sentences and potential death sentences for homosexual activities. China decriminalized homosexual behavior in 1993 but in 2004, Afghanistan imprisoned an American advisor in Afghanistan for homosexual behavior. Once again, what an extraordinary hypocrite Harper has turned out to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_rights_in_Afghanistan

[Argus]

Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada co-CEO Paul Evans called Harper's approach to Chinese relations radically different from his predecessors and unlike anything attempted by other Western governments.

''This is a break, a decisive break, with the way the relationship has been managed for the last 36 years under six other prime ministers,'' Evans said. ''It's a decisive break in the framing of the relationship and in the tone and the vocabulary.''

You mean unlike Chretien and Martin he's not on his knees begging the Chinese leadership for facials?

What's bizarre is that Harper seems not have a problem with other human rights violators like Islamic Afghanistan,

I wonder if it's possible for you to go a single day without snivelling about imaginary Islamic theocracies or your imaginary gay bashing bills

Don't bother to answer I will delete it. I'm not going to deal with your bizarre obsessions on yet another thread.

[Canadian Blue]

The new Afghanistan constitution does stipulate that Islam will be the basis of all government rules and regulations. None of the political parties have endorsed or even mentioned the subject of gay rights. In response to foreign inquiries, only the Afghan Social Democratic party responded by stating that it favored an international effort to fight the AIDS-HIV pandemic, but that homosexuality and same-sex marriages are opposed by all great religions.

Once again Norman your ignorance has been shown in full view again. You have no idea whats going on in Afghanistan, and you have very little knowledge to be making these claims which have constantly been shown to be false.

In any event, Afghanistan needs us more than we need them but I've not heard Harper state that he cares about their severe human rights violations?

Once again you are ignorant about the issue.

The Canadian government has expressed concern, especially as the Canadian Forces have recently taken command of the coalition force in Kandahar province and the government is facing pressure to ensure the mission leads to an open, democratic Afghanistan. Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper phoned Hamid Karzai and said in a written statement, "President Karzai listened to my concerns and we had a productive and informative exchange of views, he assured me that respect for human and religious rights will be fully upheld in this case."

First you said Harper promoted hatred against homosexuals, which was proven false. Now you have repeatedly made claims that have been proven false by several sources. The most recent was when you said few NATO nation's are in Afghanistan, when their has been a commitment by 37 nations to that country.

As for the sodomy laws, they even had sodomy laws down in the states up until the 90's. China has imprisoned, tortured, and killed many more people than the Afghan government.

As well do you think that it is really possible to get a country Afghanistan to become a democracy like Canada within five years. These things take time, as it will for the rest of the middle east. However to pull out and allow a civil war and a possible Taliban takeover is not the answer. What would be the consequences, we would be hated by the North who supports us, terrorists would once again make a home in Afghanistan, and all the progress over the past five years would be lost. I'm concerned with human rights, but at the same time I'm a realist. As for corruption, it's something you face with any country, whether it be Afghanistan, Serbia, Haiti, East Timor, etc. However its better than the alternative.

[Argus]

I think this issue is showing Harper's inexperience with matters larger than fighting against the Liberals. If you want to deal with China in any positive way relating to human rights or such, you can't make defiant statements in public

Seems to me the only "defiant" statement he made was after the Chinese dictator asked to meet him so he could pointledly decline to do so. And all he said was that unlike Paul Martin and Jean Chretien (the biggest whore in Canadian foreign policy history) he wasn't going to sell out on human rights.

The truth is we don't need the Chinese for _anything_. We'd be better off cutting trade with them entirely and focussing on other countries, like Taiwan.

[jdobbin]

Does anybody disagree?

Can Harper press the issue without jeopardizing our economic relationship with the Chinese?

Yes.

Because they need us even more than we need them. If they wish to try to intimidate us by brandishing their big stick-- trade-- we have an even bigger stick to brandish: energy security. The Chinese are desperate to invest heavily in our oilsands to secure a stable source of energy for their future needs.

China is already intimidating Canada because one of our citizens is being held without being allowed a visit by Canadian embassy staff.

If we held one of China's residents without allowing their embassy staff to visit, our ambassador would be asked to leave the country.

However, the question of Canada not having meetings with China goes back before this incident. Canada has had a hostile relationship with China in comparison to almost all western countries.

[jdobbin]

Seems to me the only "defiant" statement he made was after the Chinese dictator asked to meet him so he could pointledly decline to do so. And all he said was that unlike Paul Martin and Jean Chretien (the biggest whore in Canadian foreign policy history) he wasn't going to sell out on human rights.

The truth is we don't need the Chinese for _anything_. We'd be better off cutting trade with them entirely and focussing on other countries, like Taiwan.

If trade was the only criteria for having a relationship with China that would probably be okay.

One of the other reasons countries have relations with China is because they can destabilize the world simply by opening their borders to emigration.

[normanchateau]

The truth is we don't need the Chinese for _anything_. We'd be better off cutting trade with them entirely and focussing on other countries, like Taiwan.

Good thinking and why restrict it to China? Harper should cut off all trade immediately with any country whose human rights record he disapproves of. Moreover, even if there is no trade, he should cut off all diplomatic relations with any country whose human rights record he disapproves of, e.g., any country where the Koran reigns supreme, any country where woman are second-class citizens, any country where lesbians have less rights than heterosexual women, any country which imprisons its reporters...

Finally, a so-con leader who will stand up to the evil Chinese commies. Even George Bush and Richard Nixon ultimately kowtowed to the Chinese commies to please their Republican business cronies. But not so-con Harper. It may not win him votes in the business community but he'll sure show 'em gradually-becoming-capitalist Chinese commies that he means business.

[normanchateau]

First you said Harper promoted hatred against homosexuals, which was proven false.

Sigh, you certainly have a vivid imagination. Harper voted against legislation which made advocating the killing of homosexuals to be a hate crime. That has been proven absolutely true. Section 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada now states that it is a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals. That occurred as a result of Bill C-250 which Harper voted against.

Show me where I said that Harper promoted hatred against homosexuals.

[Canadian Blue]

Was it about hate speech, or killing a person based on sexual orientation. We had a lengthy discussion about it, and noted what the law could imply for religions, free speech, and freedom of expression.

Hate speech is much different then advocating killing gays. If you actually advocate to kill someone, then your going to be charged under the law no matter what. Once again Harper was more concerned about parts of religous texts being labelled hate speech.

[geoffrey]

First you said Harper promoted hatred against homosexuals, which was proven false.

Sigh, you certainly have a vivid imagination. Harper voted against legislation which made advocating the killing of homosexuals to be a hate crime. That has been proven absolutely true. Section 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada now states that it is a hate crime to advocate the killing of homosexuals. That occurred as a result of Bill C-250 which Harper voted against.

Show me where I said that Harper promoted hatred against homosexuals.

Murder is murder, why is murdering a gay person more murderous? I don't get it quite frankly.

It's about time someone told China to deal with their issues at home. The UN won't. The Olympic committee refused to deal with it.

China is a brutually oppressive regime with little individual freedom. Call it like it is. This is one area I'll applaud the CPC stance.

[Argus]

Seems to me the only "defiant" statement he made was after the Chinese dictator asked to meet him so he could pointledly decline to do so. And all he said was that unlike Paul Martin and Jean Chretien (the biggest whore in Canadian foreign policy history) he wasn't going to sell out on human rights.

The truth is we don't need the Chinese for _anything_. We'd be better off cutting trade with them entirely and focussing on other countries, like Taiwan.

If trade was the only criteria for having a relationship with China that would probably be okay.

One of the other reasons countries have relations with China is because they can destabilize the world simply by opening their borders to emigration.

No they can't. That can only cause trouble to their immediate neighbours, and countries which have no coherent immigration policy.

Oooo, that's us.

But with the Tories in power I'm sure that immigration reform, especially our ludicrous refugee policy, will be well under way before the Chinese would ever decide to start letting people go instead of shooting them when they try to leave.

[jdobbin]

No they can't. That can only cause trouble to their immediate neighbours, and countries which have no coherent immigration policy.

Oooo, that's us.

But with the Tories in power I'm sure that immigration reform, especially our ludicrous refugee policy, will be well under way before the Chinese would ever decide to start letting people go instead of shooting them when they try to leave.

They used to threaten the British in Hong Kong by opening the border there. It worked because every time the border was opened a crack thousands of immigrants flooded in. Hong Kong could have been overwhelmed and the Brits capitulated.

The ability to stop Chinese from streaming into every country in the world rests with Chinese authorities. Our immigration and refugee policy along with all other industrialized countries has no policy to stop that type of mass movement except a military option. Imagine ship after ship coming to our shores packed with thousands of people...

Now, there is no evidence to suggest that China would do any of this but it one reason why some American conservatives don't get as much as traction as they might when they say that the U.S. should crush China economically.

A strong economy in China is important to North American security. If China goes through a major economic disaster, they have two choices: Take what they want by force or let the doors open in their country to let excess population seek their fortune elsewhere.

[Higgly]

Nigeria and Venezuala, are about as stable as a wild mustang (horse not car). I do not think that anyone looking at these places for oil would put much hope on steady long term supply. They will fill a need when they are not fighting civil wars or the people uprising and threatening the governments. For now the Chinese have made deals with Iran and are laying vast pipelins to get their oil from there, but their demand as their economy grows will far outstretch the resources there.

I think you will find that the Chinese have a pretty strong sense of how to keep the oil flowing in those countries. China has been doing quite a bit in Africa lately, no doubt because they see its vast wealth and lack of development as an opportunity.

[Canadian Blue]

What's bizarre is that Harper seems not have a problem with other human rights violators like Islamic Afghanistan, our trading partner Vietnam, etc., etc. Whenever one thinks that Harper can't possibly outdo himself in bizarreness or inconsistency, he proves otherwise.

Sigh, once again WRONG!!!

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Officials: Harper may discuss human rights at APEC

Updated Thu. Nov. 16 2006 11:44 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Prime Minister Stephen Harper had his first meeting in Vietnam Friday, sitting down with the country's prime minister. Officials said Harper would likely discuss the topic of human rights.

Harper is one of 21 leaders visiting Vietnam for the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) conference.

China had earlier called off a meeting with Harper, in a move interpreted as a diplomatic snub over Harper's criticism of China's human rights record. And officials had earlier said Harper wanted to discuss human rights with Vietnam as well.

Critics have charged the Vietnamese government persecutes journalists and harasses some Christians and Buddhists.

But Harper also wanted to discuss business with Vietnamese Prime Minster Nguyen Tan Dung -- Canadian exports to the country soared 84 per cent from 2004 to 2005.

After the two greeted one another, Harper said: "This has been my first trip to this part of the world. I do have a brother that has been involved in business in Vietnam, so I am aware of the growing business co-operation between the two countries."

Chinese President Hu Jintao will also meet Harper during the APEC forum, a Beijing official announced Thursday, despite the earlier cancelled meeting.

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Jiang Yu said Thursday at a news conference that Hu would meet Harper. But she added that China rejects any criticism of its human rights.

"We oppose any country making irresponsible remarks on the internal affairs of China," Jiang said.

The announcement came just hours before Harper's plane touched down in Hanoi on Thursday, shortly before 7:30 a.m. ET.

"They left the confirmation of this meeting until the last minute. It's the way the Chinese government operates," said CTV's Roger Smith, who is travelling with the Canadian delegation.

"The Chinese have sent a very strong message to Canada -- that they're not very happy with the way the Tory government has shown its support for the Dalai Lama and taken a stand on human rights in China."

Harper had harsh words for China while talking to reporters en route to the Vietnamese capital.

"I think Canadians want us to promote our trade relations worldwide, and we do that, but I don't think Canadians want us to sell out important Canadian values -- our belief in democracy, freedom, human rights,'' he said Wednesday. "They don't want us to sell that out to the almighty dollar.''

"There's always a balance to these things."

John Manley, a former foreign affairs and finance minister and former deputy prime minister, told CTV's Mike Duffy Live on Thursday that "it's incumbent on the prime minister to measure his words very carefully."

Harper "has not made headway with the Chinese by backing them into a corner in which they become embarrassed and feel like they have to hold a meeting because otherwise he'll go out and say 'they can't dictate to me,'" he said.

Manley agreed that Canada needs to be proactive on human rights "but engage them constructively -- don't try to beat them over the head."

Manley urged the prime minister to "read something about oriental culture and diplomacy."

Harper said Beijing took the "unusual" step of "demanding or asking" to meet with him during the APEC summit, and Canada agreed.

But a source in Ottawa familiar with the details told the Canadian Press that China had simply asked whether the Harper government would be interested in meeting with Hu -- a subtle overture that's customary practice with some Asian countries.

Harper and his officials said they weren't told exactly why China abruptly cancelled the meeting. But he hinted broadly that Beijing had tried to dictate what sorts of subjects would be raised.

Harper said he wanted to raise human rights and the case of Huseyin Celil, an Uzbeki-Canadian dual citizen being imprisoned by China for alleged terrorism links. China does not recognize his Canadian citizenship and Ottawa has been aggressively lobbying for his release.

"He's a Muslim preacher whose done political activities on behalf of a minority group in northwestern China," said CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife on Thursday. "He had gone back to Uzbekistan and he was arrested on the wishes of the Chinese authorities, and then they shipped him off to China."

"It's a very serious case," added Fife. "He's not had any consular access. Nobody knows if he's alive or dead. The Canadian government is justifiably concerned."

The Celil issue is just one of a number of irritants in Canada-China relations since the Tories took power in January. Others include the granting of honorary Canadian citizenship to Tibetan exiled leader the Dalai Lama; and accusations by Ottawa that Chinese spies are stealing Canadian trade secrets.

In a lighter moment, Smith said Harper told reporters on the plane that APEC meetings usually don't generate that much interest.

"But I think he's going to have quite a meeting with the Chinese."

Man, once again proof we are selling out on Canadian values. How can we ever grant honorary citizenship to the Dalai Lama, how un-Canadian of us.

[geoffrey]

What's wrong with the Lama?