So what should we do, Mr. Ignatieff?

[Argus]

Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel peace prize not long ago. For those who don't know about him, he's a Chinese dissident imprisoned for expressing his belief that China ought to lighten up a little. China is mightily pissed, of course. They are demonstrating their displeasure in the way all dictatorships do, by throwing their weight around.

The Norwegian government has felt the wrath of the Chinese, canceling various agreements nad meetings. There was a Norwegian minister actually in China for meetings, and they were abruptly canceled. That the Norwegian government has no say in who gets awarded the Nobel prizes is as irrelevent to the Chinese as the fact the Danish government didn't have a say in what cartoons newspapers choose to publish was to the Muslim wack jobs.

The Chinese are also putting pressure on foreign governments not to attend the awarding of the Nobel Prize. So how many will bow down and how many will go anyway?

And what exactly would Michael Ignatieff advise? I mean, given he's basically been hounding the Tories for years about not being on their knees before the Chinese Communist dictators. So far, of course, Ignatieff has chosen to say absolutely nothing about the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. Which is rather curious since he likes to portray himself as a great internationalist and defender of human rights.

So if Ignatieff was PM would we bob our heads to the Chinese, perhaps in exchange for a promise of some more tourists or a manufacturing contract or two, or would we attend the ceremony regardless?

[charter.rights]

Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel peace prize not long ago. For those who don't know about him, he's a Chinese dissident imprisoned for expressing his belief that China ought to lighten up a little. China is mightily pissed, of course. They are demonstrating their displeasure in the way all dictatorships do, by throwing their weight around.

The Norwegian government has felt the wrath of the Chinese, canceling various agreements nad meetings. There was a Norwegian minister actually in China for meetings, and they were abruptly canceled. That the Norwegian government has no say in who gets awarded the Nobel prizes is as irrelevent to the Chinese as the fact the Danish government didn't have a say in what cartoons newspapers choose to publish was to the Muslim wack jobs.

The Chinese are also putting pressure on foreign governments not to attend the awarding of the Nobel Prize. So how many will bow down and how many will go anyway?

And what exactly would Michael Ignatieff advise? I mean, given he's basically been hounding the Tories for years about not being on their knees before the Chinese Communist dictators. So far, of course, Ignatieff has chosen to say absolutely nothing about the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize. Which is rather curious since he likes to portray himself as a great internationalist and defender of human rights.

So if Ignatieff was PM would we bob our heads to the Chinese, perhaps in exchange for a promise of some more tourists or a manufacturing contract or two, or would we attend the ceremony regardless?

Canada exports $25 billion a year to China, mostly in western grain and produce. maybe you should ask Saskatchewan and Alberta farmers what we should do. They would have the greatest stake.

[bloodyminded]

Liu Xiaobo won the Nobel peace prize not long ago. For those who don't know about him, he's a Chinese dissident imprisoned for expressing his belief that China ought to lighten up a little.

Yes, a very reasonable reaction on the part of the authorities. One shouldn't criticize perfection. Such dissidents are an internal rot bent on destroying society, and we shouldn't mistake their motives, which are inherently sinister.

The Chinese are also putting pressure on foreign governments not to attend the awarding of the Nobel Prize. So how many will bow down and how many will go anyway?

Hopefully, none will back out (or not for that reason). Time will tell...or maybe not. (For few would admit this was the reason, even if it were, I imagine. Some could honestly have totally separate reasons. I suspect we'll never know.)

[Argus]

Canada exports $25 billion a year to China, mostly in western grain and produce. maybe you should ask Saskatchewan and Alberta farmers what we should do. They would have the greatest stake.

In other words, we should bow to China and not attend the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony. Go ahead, at least have the balls to write it.

[charter.rights]

In other words, we should bow to China and not attend the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony. Go ahead, at least have the balls to write it.

While it would be nice to bow to humanity issues, the stark reality is that we are in a bit of a quagmire. Getting tough with China could easily mean the further bankruptcy of many more Canadian farms. $25 billion feeds a whole lot of western Canadians, truckers and ship workers.

Would you bite off your nose to spite your face?

[Argus]

While it would be nice to bow to humanity issues, the stark reality is that we are in a bit of a quagmire. Getting tough with China could easily mean the further bankruptcy of many more Canadian farms. $25 billion feeds a whole lot of western Canadians, truckers and ship workers.

Would you bite off your nose to spite your face?

Your meaning is clear but you continue to shrink away from saying it. We should do as China wants and forget about the Nobel Prize and human rights. Correct?

[Sir Bandelot]

Many a national leader has gone to visit China to make business deals, all the while maintaining absolute silence and avoiding any criticism of a country whose human rights record is among the worst on the planet. This includes past and present Canadian leaders. In the current political mindset, the buck is what matters most. They are willing to prostitute all our values for the sake of trade with the new economic superpower.

"This is your first visit to China and this is the first meeting between the Chinese prime minister and a Canadian prime minister in almost five years," Wen said through an interpreter. "Five years is too long for China-Canada relations and that's why there are comments in the media that your visit is one that should have taken place earlier."

The rebuke certainly signals that whatever influence Canada aspired to have on China was a mirage. When it first took power, the Harper government criticized China, and rightly so, for its human rights abuses.

Harper had suggested concern for human rights was more important than trade and commerce in foreign relations.

However, Harper failed to follow up on those tough words and engage the Chinese.

Now, emboldened by its increasingly powerful economic influence, China has officially told Harper he isn't ready to preach to anyone.

Harper genuflecting before Chinese leaders.

Link

[Argus]

The rebuke certainly signals that whatever influence Canada aspired to have on China was a mirage. When it first took power, the Harper government criticized China, and rightly so, for its human rights abuses.

Harper had suggested concern for human rights was more important than trade and commerce in foreign relations.

However, Harper failed to follow up on those tough words and engage the Chinese.

Harper is a great pragmatist, it's true. But let's examine some of the realities of his backing down on his support for human rights in China. One is our economy, certainly, but just as important, I think, is the political issue, whereby the Liberal Party has seized every opportunity, since Ignatieff came to rule, to criticize Harper on China, and to promise the Liberals would be as eager in pursuit of Chinese favour as they can possibly manage. The Liberals continue to decry the Conservatives for not kowtowing to China, claiming all manner of damage to the economy as a result. So I think this backing down on Harper's part certainly owes something to a desire to minimize the ammunition Ignatieff can use against him in these unstable political times.

[Evening Star]

Would China seriously refuse our grain, which presumably benefits them as much as us, because our govt officials attended the Nobel Prize ceremony?

[Argus]

Would China seriously refuse our grain, which presumably benefits them as much as us, because our govt officials attended the Nobel Prize ceremony?

That isn't the threat. The threats are usually more subtle, such as the loss of contracts to Canadian firms who are bidding on them, or the suggestion Chinese firms (all of which are controlled by the Chinese government) would invest elsewhere than Canada, and reduce purchase of what few manufactured goods we export there, etc. etc. The Chinese rarely say these things openly. Your firm just loses its bid, that's all, even though it was the best one.

In reality, our economic relationship with China doesn't really benefit us that much except on paper. It benefits those large Canadian entities which do business with China, but they're required to reinvest profits there, so it's not like we see a flow of money coming home to Canada. Those firms look better on paper, but there's little real benefit to Canada. Politicians run scared of the bleating of these companies, though.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Argus

[nicky10013]

The fact that we're actually trading with the Chinese government which in the end employs Chinese is the reason why dissidents like Lu Xiabo exist, student protesters at Tiananmen and an uprising in Tibet happened. The development of wealth is followed by the development of democracy. As societies become more wealthy and a good portion of people are generically pulled out of poverty a middle class forms. The middle class no longer has to worry about doing anything to feed their family and to keep alive. As the gentrification happens people also begin to fight for things like economic rights and democratic rights. It's a long process but suddenly cutting off ties to China, which the OP seems to be suggesting, by the west would destroy China's economy and would all but ensure continued authoritarianism.

People don't understand that our involvement with them in terms of business is laying the foundation for a future attempt at democratic transition. It will happen. The world is far too complicated for us to not be talking to anyone. Might as well merge the North Korean sanctions thread with this one. Same argument.

Edited November 7, 2010 by nicky10013

[charter.rights]

That isn't the threat. The threats are usually more subtle, such as the loss of contracts to Canadian firms who are bidding on them, or the suggestion Chinese firms (all of which are controlled by the Chinese government) would invest elsewhere than Canada, and reduce purchase of what few manufactured goods we export there, etc. etc. The Chinese rarely say these things openly. Your firm just loses its bid, that's all, even though it was the best one.

In reality, our economic relationship with China doesn't really benefit us that much except on paper. It benefits those large Canadian entities which do business with China, but they're required to reinvest profits there, so it's not like we see a flow of money coming home to Canada. Those firms look better on paper, but there's little real benefit to Canada. Politicians run scared of the bleating of these companies, though.

Well, wrong.

We export $25 billion and only import less than $1 billion, mostly is cheap goods. However, considered in the value of the $Cdn versus the CNY and the labour costs the disparity is probably something like 500:1. So while we would lose $25 billion a year, if trade was lost they would lose an equivalent of about $1 million per year. Plus the Chinese have been artificially inflating their currency so it wold be even less value for them.

So the problem is one of economy. The Harper government has been trying to divert economic dependence on the US and EU in favour of South America and China. So do we stomp our feet and kick and swing over their poor human rights record or do we soften the blow and how diplomacy works, while still keeping our western farmers, truckers and shippers employed? That is not a question for Ignatieff but sits squarely on Harper's shoulders and we all know where he is leaning.....

[bloodyminded]

Harper is a great pragmatist, it's true. But let's examine some of the realities of his backing down on his support for human rights in China. One is our economy, certainly, but just as important, I think, is the political issue, whereby the Liberal Party has seized every opportunity, since Ignatieff came to rule, to criticize Harper on China, and to promise the Liberals would be as eager in pursuit of Chinese favour as they can possibly manage. The Liberals continue to decry the Conservatives for not kowtowing to China, claiming all manner of damage to the economy as a result. So I think this backing down on Harper's part certainly owes something to a desire to minimize the ammunition Ignatieff can use against him in these unstable political times.

Are you saying that Igatieff is responsible because you believe he would perform this way; but when Harper does perform this way, it isn't his fault--not his responsibility--but is the fault of the Liberals?

Everything is always the Liberals' fault...up to and including what the Conservatives do?

[nicky10013]

Are you saying that Igatieff is responsible because you believe he would perform this way; but when Harper does perform this way, it isn't his fault--not his responsibility--but is the fault of the Liberals?

Everything is always the Liberals' fault...up to and including what the Conservatives do?

Of course. You didn't get that just by the title of the thread?

[Keepitsimple]

First of all, the reason we have such a large trade imbalance in our favour is because China needs our resources. When Harper came to power he made no bones about standing up for Human Rights and criticizing China. Some may think that was a drag on our ability to expand trade - but as I said, China NEEDS our resources - so trade carried on. Harper made a big statement that he was not going to turn a blind eye to Human Rights issues - and he was not going to be a pushover. Fast forward to the last year or so, and as has already been stated, Ignatieff and the Liberals decide to batter Harper on not having "engaged" China......but in fact, Harper had already moved on and started to engage them - having made his point that he was not going to roll over on Human Rights. We know where the Conservative government stands on these issues......who knows WHERE Iggy will stand on behalf of the Liberals. China needs Canada - and they'll have to take a bit of criticism in the process.

[Shwa]

Are you saying that Igatieff is responsible because you believe he would perform this way; but when Harper does perform this way, it isn't his fault--not his responsibility--but is the fault of the Liberals?

Everything is always the Liberals' fault...up to and including what the Conservatives do?

Not really the Liberals fault, but Mike Ignatieff. It is Ignatieff after all...

[Wild Bill]

First of all, the reason we have such a large trade imbalance in our favour is because China needs our resources. When Harper came to power he made no bones about standing up for Human Rights and criticizing China. Some may think that was a drag on our ability to expand trade - but as I said, China NEEDS our resources - so trade carried on. Harper made a big statement that he was not going to turn a blind eye to Human Rights issues - and he was not going to be a pushover. Fast forward to the last year or so, and as has already been stated, Ignatieff and the Liberals decide to batter Harper on not having "engaged" China......but in fact, Harper had already moved on and started to engage them - having made his point that he was not going to roll over on Human Rights. We know where the Conservative government stands on these issues......who knows WHERE Iggy will stand on behalf of the Liberals. China needs Canada - and they'll have to take a bit of criticism in the process.

Hold on a minute, Keeps! Who says that we sell 25 billion $ to China and buy only a billion from them? CR is hardly a credible source! I had always thought that the trade imbalance was the other way around. Certainly, when Harper was new as PM and first went to China his answer to pushing human rights issues with the Chinese from critics who claimed it could injure our trade with them had the opposite slant. He replied that China bought so little from us compared to what we bought from them that why should we care?

Imagine that! Harper sticking up for human rights with China! Not surprisingly, the left gave him zip all credit for his stance.

So I went googling. The StatsCan site is down at the moment but here's just one site that I found:

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/11-624-M/11-624-MIE2004007.pdf

This site is a .pdf doc and I can't cut and paste but if you scroll down to page 5 and also page 7 you will see that the imbalance is over 4 times in China's favour. The doc is a couple of years old but I doubt if things have changed dramatically in only the past few years.

The Chinese-USA imbalance is even more dramatic! If it wasn't for the fact that Chinese banks hold so much of Uncle Sam's debt he would have told China to take a hike years ago!

[charter.rights]

Hold on a minute, Keeps! Who says that we sell 25 billion $ to China and buy only a billion from them? CR is hardly a credible source! I had always thought that the trade imbalance was the other way around. Certainly, when Harper was new as PM and first went to China his answer to pushing human rights issues with the Chinese from critics who claimed it could injure our trade with them had the opposite slant. He replied that China bought so little from us compared to what we bought from them that why should we care?

Imagine that! Harper sticking up for human rights with China! Not surprisingly, the left gave him zip all credit for his stance.

So I went googling. The StatsCan site is down at the moment but here's just one site that I found:

http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/Statcan/11-624-M/11-624-MIE2004007.pdf

This site is a .pdf doc and I can't cut and paste but if you scroll down to page 5 and also page 7 you will see that the imbalance is over 4 times in China's favour. The doc is a couple of years old but I doubt if things have changed dramatically in only the past few years.

The Chinese-USA imbalance is even more dramatic! If it wasn't for the fact that Chinese banks hold so much of Uncle Sam's debt he would have told China to take a hike years ago!

My source came from MP Daryl Kramp this past summer. You would notice that the report you cited was in 2004 - 6 years ago (and some of the stats are from 2 years earlier). Things have change drastically since the Conservative got in. They are more friendly towards China than the previous governments.

[Saipan]

Things have change drastically since the Conservative got in. They are more friendly towards China than the previous governments.

Is that why are Chinese dictators so pissed off with Harper? And not just because of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and Harper ignoring Olympics in China.

Beijing still fondly remembers Chretien, and also Martin and his shipping business given to Shanghai shipyard.

[Machjo]

Seeing that the Nobel Prize is non-governmental, no government should have any obligation to make any commen on it.

[Topaz]

After listening to a American who lived in China for a few years, I don't buy anything from China if I can buy it from some other country. This guy said that China maufacturing is mosty under the Red army and they are putting all their left over toxics into their products and then ship them to N. America. Now, I heard this about 2.5 years ago and we have been getting all the toys with that have toxics in them. I'm sure they are putting them in anything they export. So trading with China isn't realy a good thing when we on this end are getting their garbage!

[Jack Weber]

Is that why are Chinese dictators so pissed off with Harper? And not just because of His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and Harper ignoring Olympics in China.

Beijing still fondly remembers Chretien, and also Martin and his shipping business given to Shanghai shipyard.

Yeah...

At the expense of Canadian shipbuilders!!!

Edited November 7, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Argus]

Well, wrong.

We export $25 billion and only import less than $1 billion, mostly is cheap goods.

Pulling numbers out of your ass is not particularly convincing.

We export about $11 billion to China, mostly raw materials. We IMPORT something like $40 billion worth of manufactured goods.

Canada China Trade Relationship

[Argus]

Are you saying that Igatieff is responsible because you believe he would perform this way; but when Harper does perform this way, it isn't his fault--not his responsibility--but is the fault of the Liberals?

I'm saying that, as in Afghanistan, it is pressure from the opposition which is helping to guide Harper in taking positions he considers to be more defensible and less open to simplistic but possibly effective attacks - despite the fact his personal inclination would be otherwise. Are you going to pretend political considerations of this nature don't take place all the time?

[Argus]

First of all, the reason we have such a large trade imbalance in our favour is because China needs our resources.

We don't have a trade surplus. We have a large trade deficit. Never listen to anything CR says without checking the facts.