Topic: Chinese Military,Political and Social Superthread

[daftandbarmy]

Trudeau's recent (and sadly comical) visit to India can't have made China too happy:

How India Will React to the Rise of China: The Soft-Balancing Strategy Reconsidered

China’s provocative behavior in the South China Sea and increasing economic and naval presence in the Indo-Pacific are among the reasons the United States has recently characterized China as a “strategic competitor.” Some analysts seem to assume New Delhi is a natural partner and will join the United States in this struggle as China becomes more powerful and threatening. However, while these analysts do acknowledge the constraints, they nonetheless tend to overestimate India’s willingness to serve as a counterweight to China, while underestimating internal and external constraints on such explicit balancing behavior. My contention is that India is likely to form both a soft-balancing coalition, relying on diplomacy and institutional cooperation, and a limited hard-balancing coalition, that is, strategic partnerships short of formal alliances. But an outright alliance with the United States is very improbable. The recently concluded U.S.-India “two-plus-two” meeting of foreign and defense ministers and secretaries suggests that the path toward a limited hard-balancing coalition may be opening despite many remaining hurdles. Whether a limited U.S.-India hard-balancing coalition progresses toward an outright hard-balancing alliance will depend heavily on China’s behavior, especially the threat level it poses to India in the years to come.

https://warontherocks.com/2018/09/india-and-the-rise-of-china-soft-balancing-strategy-reconsidered/

[E.R. Campbell]

This, from the South China Morning Post, is interesting:

Chinese scientists make progress on nuclear submarine communication

China’s nuclear submarines may be stealthier and better able to communicate in the deep ocean after progress was made on key technology, according to state media.

People’s Daily reported on Friday that a successful test transmission of real-time high-capacity data between deep ocean transponders and the Beidou navigation satellite system had been carried out.

Marine research ship Kexue, or “Science”, conducted the test in the western Pacific along with several other missions on a 74-day trip before returning to its home base of Qingdao, Shandong on Thursday.

Wang Fan, one of the marine scientists aboard the vessel, told the state newspaper important progress had been made.

“This technology … significantly increases the safety, independence and reliability of deep ocean data transmission,” Wang said, adding that using China’s Beidou system meant the submarines no longer had to rely on foreign satellites for such communication.

“The transponder with Beidou, at a depth of 6,000 metres, has been safely in operation for more than a month now and it is working well,” Wang said.

Real-time underwater transmission of temperature, salinity and currents data at the 6,000 metres depth – with transponders relaying signals every 100 or 500 metres – was “another big breakthrough” for the team, Wang added.

They did this using a combination of inductive coupling and underwater acoustic communication technologies, the scientist said.

Although the report did not give details on data size or quality of the transmission, the technology – when fully developed – could be useful to China’s submarines, especially its fledgling nuclear-powered ballistic missile-carrying (SSBN) fleet, according to analysts.

Transmitting information from the depths of the vast ocean is difficult, especially through the electromagnetic waves typically used in communication systems. Command and control of ballistic-missile submarines is done from land using very low or extremely low frequency communications, but the amount of data that can be transmitted is limited and can only go one way.

“[A submarine] usually can’t transmit on its own unless it raises a communications mast or buoy to the surface,” said Collin Koh, a research fellow with the Maritime Security Programme at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.

But doing so increases the risk of the submarine being detected, so a satellite link makes for stealthier and more efficient communication.
Adam Ni, a researcher with Macquarie University in Sydney, said the development was the latest in China’s drive to modernise its submarine fleet.

“Along with advances in submarine stealth technology, strong surface fleet [to complement] infrastructure, and space-based information support, the latest breakthrough is another element of China’s modernising submarine power, especially its SSBN force, which is increasingly important for nuclear deterrence,” Ni said.

During its 12,000 nautical mile voyage, the Kexue also upgraded China’s observation network in the western Pacific, including 20 sets of deep ocean equipment, four large floating devices and more than 1,000 observation facilities that have been collecting information for five years, the report said.

Underwater communications is not my strong suit but I do know that transmitting data at anything much above the very, very slowest Morse code speeds from any significant depth, and 6,000 metres is a long bloody way down, is an achievement.

Also, don't forget that China is tied into a Canadian (UVic) deep ocean network, which may not be any threat to the USA or Canada but which is part of China's ongoing efforts to establish leadership positions in a wide range of technological areas, almost all of which have at least some military applicatuions.   

[Thucydides]

Interesting article from "War on the Rocks" about the internal conversations between the PLA and civilian leadership expressing uncertainties over the actual abilities of the PLA PLAN and PLAAF. The thrust of these conversations might be considered similar to a giant After Action Review at very high levels. I would imagine similar conversations at the highest levels of the Canadian Armed forces would likely reveal many of the same issues:

https://warontherocks.com/2019/02/the-chinese-military-speaks-to-itself-revealing-doubts/

The Chinese Military Speaks to Itself, Revealing Doubts
Dennis J. Blasko
February 18, 2019

Editor’s Note: This article is based on longer testimony presented to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission on February 7, 2019.

A large body of evidence in China’s official military and party media indicates the nation’s senior civilian and uniformed leaders recognize significant shortcomings in the warfighting and command capabilities of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). However, most of this evidence is not translated into English for public consumption and is not considered in much of the foreign analysis of China’s growing military capabilities. This situation is not new, but goes back for decades.

Yet, the increasing scope and frequency of these self-critiques during the tenure of Xi Jinping as chairman of the Central Military Commission casts doubt over the senior party and military leadership’s confidence in the PLA’s ability to prevail in battle against a modern enemy. Furthermore, the limitations illustrated by these internal assessments will likely moderate China’s near- and mid-term national security objectives and the manner in which they are pursued. This lack of confidence in PLA capabilities contributes to Beijing’s preference to achieve China’s national objectives through deterrence and actions short of war.

***

Myriad specific critiques of discrete functions in individual units form the basis for larger, generalized assessments of overall military capabilities. Going back to Deng Xiaoping, general self-assessments have been attributed to and referred to by Central Military Commission chairmen. In their first few appearances they are spelled out in full sentences, but later are abbreviated in short slogans or formulas, such as the “Two Incompatibles” or “Five Incapables.” The Chinese have not translated the short-form abbreviations for these slogans into English, and different interpreters may arrive at different translations of the terms, but the message is the same: The PLA must overcome multiple shortcomings in its combat and leadership capabilities. None of these general assessments have been included in any of the official white papers on national defense, which target audiences external to China.

As this is a long article, I will direct you to the link to read the rest.

[MarkOttawa]

Chicoms really getting shameless:

Toronto police probe online abuse of Tibetan-Canadian student leader accused of offending China
Incidents at Ontario universities this month have raised the spectre of Chinese government interference on Canadian campuses

The torrent of abuse Chinese students and others directed at a Tibetan-Canadian student leader in Toronto has now become a police matter.

Detectives have begun investigating whether some of the thousands of angry online texts Chemi Lhamo received after being elected as a University of Toronto student-union president constitute criminal threats, Toronto police confirmed Wednesday.

The Internet barrage — and a petition signed by 11,000 people demanding Lhamo be removed from the position — was one of two incidents at Ontario universities this month that have raised the spectre of Chinese government interference on Canadian campuses.

Muslim and Tibetan student groups have called on the federal government to investigate whether such incursions did occur. China’s embassy in Ottawa has denied playing a part in either episode.

Meanwhile, Lhamo said university police have asked her to develop a safety plan in the wake of the online deluge, which would include letting them know where she is on campus hour by hour.

“It is a little threatening, to be roaming around hallways knowing that at any time I could be attacked,” she said in an interview. “We came to Canada hoping for a better quality of life. To be bullied even here … catches up on your mental health sometimes.”

Lhamo, 22, is a Canadian citizen of Tibetan descent who immigrated from India with her family 11 years ago. She was elected as president of the student union at the U of T’s Scarborough campus in early February. Though she is an advocate for Tibetan independence, she did not campaign on that issue and says she has no plans to make it part of her role as president.

But in the wake of her election, thousands of messages flooded her Instagram account, often crudely abusive and accusing her of being disloyal to China, a country where she has never lived.

The change.org petition — digitally signed almost entirely by people with Chinese names — suggested that her devotion to the Tibetan cause is “irrational” and an affront to international students at the university.

Beijing sees the movement for a free Tibet as a major threat; along with advocacy for the Uyghur minority, Taiwan, democracy in China and the Falun Gong sect, it is one of what the Chinese Communist party sometimes calls the “five poisons.”

Lhamo said the Instagram texts included ones saying “Wish you would die young”; “The bullet for your penalty is made in China”; and “I kill all your family. [emphasis added]”..
https://nationalpost.com/news/toronto-police-probe-online-abuse-of-tibetan-canadian-student-leader-accused-of-offending-china

Mark
Ottawa

[milnews.ca]

From Politico, but originally posted in the South China Morning Post. Looks like Canada could be targeted by China because of he Wanzhou arrest.

Article Link

The latest on that from the Dep't of Justice ...

Canada is a country governed by the rule of law. Extradition in Canada is guided by the Extradition Act, international treaties and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which enshrines constitutional principles of fairness and due process.

Today, Department of Justice Canada officials issued an Authority to Proceed, formally commencing an extradition process in the case of Ms. Meng Wanzhou.

The decision follows a thorough and diligent review of the evidence in this case. The Department is satisfied that the requirements set out by the Extradition Act for the issuance of an Authority to Proceed have been met and there is sufficient evidence to be put before an extradition judge for decision.

The next step in the case is as follows:

    The British Columbia Supreme Court has scheduled an appearance date for March 6, 2019 at 10:00 a.m. (PST) to confirm that an Authority to Proceed has been issued and to schedule the date for the extradition hearing.

During the extradition hearing, the Crown will make its detailed arguments in its submissions to the Court, where evidence will be filed and become part of the public record.

An extradition hearing is not a trial nor does it render a verdict of guilt or innocence. If a person is ultimately extradited from Canada to face prosecution in another country, the individual will have a trial in that country.

While court proceedings are underway, Ms. Meng will remain on bail subject to her existing conditions, as set by the court.
Quick facts

    The Authority to Proceed is the first step in the extradition process. The decision on whether to issue an Authority to Proceed was made by Department of Justice Canada officials, who are part of a non-partisan public service.

    The next step is the judicial phase where a judge hears the case. If the judge decides a person should be committed for extradition, then the Minister of Justice must decide if the person should be surrendered (extradited) to the requesting country.

    The Minister of Justice will not comment on the facts of this case given he may need to make a decision later in this process.

    Under the Extradition Act and the Treaty, Canada must review the alleged conduct and determine whether it could have resulted in a jail sentence of 1 year of more if it had taken place in Canada. The conduct for which extradition is sought must also be considered criminal in both the United States of America and in Canada. This is known as “dual criminality”.

    Canada’s extradition process protects the rights of the person sought by ensuring that extradition will not be granted if, among other things, it is contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the principles of fundamental justice ...

More @ link and attached process flow chart.

[milnews.ca]

Another one, with a military twist ...

Adding another strange wrinkle to Canada-China relations, a Chinese official who oversaw research on his country’s burgeoning naval-submarine fleet has been placed under arrest in China and accused of illegally obtaining Canadian citizenship.

Bu Jianjie, who reportedly spent time as a visiting scholar at two Ontario universities in the mid-1990s, has also been charged with various corruption-related crimes and expelled from the Communist party.

The Canadian citizenship accusation stems from China’s ban on holding dual nationalities. Despite being a scientist with access to naval-defence technology and apparent citizenship from a Western country, however, authorities have not charged him with spying ...

More @ link, or via South China Morning Post here (25 Dec 2018)

[MarkOttawa]

Our prime polemicist, Terry Glavin, hammers many of our pols on China:

It's official – China is a threat to Canada's national security
Parliamentarians' report highlights Beijing’s complex campaigns of subversion, threats, influence-buying, bullying and espionage here

When it comes to defending Canada from the menace posed by the People’s Republic of China, it is now a matter of public record, and should be a matter of some embarrassment to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, if not shame, that the course his government embarked upon for years was dangerously naive, if not recklessly thoughtless.

It’s a tragedy that it took the Chinese Ministry of State Security’s kidnapping of former Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig and cultural entrepreneur Michael Spavor to prove that the Beijing regime was not the “win-win, golden decade” friend and trade partner Trudeau had incessantly harped about. Robert Schellenberg, dubiously convicted on drug-smuggling charges in the first place, had his 15-year jail sentence upgraded to a cell on death row. Canada’s canola exporters are stuck with $2.7 billion in export contracts that Beijing has ripped up. Threats of further punishment hang in the air.

It’s all because Canada detained Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou last December on a U.S. Justice Department extradition warrant. Meng is sought by the U.S. to face charges of fraud and dodging sanctions on Iran. Beijing needed to throw somebody up against a wall and slap him around, so President Xi Jinping chose Justin Trudeau.

Beijing’s complex campaigns of subversion, threats, influence-buying, bullying and espionage in Canada stretch back much farther than last December, of course. So does the sleazy tendency of Canadian politicians to look the other way, or rush to Beijing’s defence whenever anyone in the intelligence community publicly notices the obvious, or throw the director of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service under the bus for pointing it out.

When CSIS director Richard Fadden had the temerity to point out nearly a decade ago that there were provincial cabinet ministers and other elected officials in Canada who had fallen under Beijing’s general influence, several Liberal and NDP MPs demanded his resignation [emphasis added].

So it was refreshing to see that Tuesday’s first-ever annual report from the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians (NSICOP) made no bones about it. China is a threat to Canada’s national security, the committee found.

Terrorism, espionage and foreign influence, cyber threats, major organized crime and weapons of mass destruction were all listed in the NSICOP report among the top threats to Canada. China figures in the report’s findings under espionage and foreign influence, and under cyber threats as well.

Russia is right up there, too, and although the report is redacted in several places, other unnamed governments were reported to be busy with the same dirty work. But it was the novelty of China being singled out for once, in a high-level federal government intelligence report, that’s worth noticing. Usually, Ottawa lets China get away with anything.

“China is known globally for its efforts to influence Chinese communities and the politics of other countries. The Chinese government has a number of official organizations that try to influence Chinese communities and politicians to adopt pro-China positions, most prominently the United Front Work Department,” the report states, referring directly to Fadden’s whistleblowing in 2010.

The report also notes a 2017 warning from David Mulroney, a former ambassador to China, about Beijing’s influence-peddling efforts in Canada. To get what it wants, Beijing mobilizes student groups, diaspora groups, “and people who have an economic stake in China, to work behind the scenes.” The report also notes the unsavoury business of lavish political donations on offer from Chinese businessmen with close links to China’s Communist Party leadership [emphasis added].

Two years ago, the Financial Times obtained the United Front Work Department’s training manual, which boasts about the electoral successes of 10 pro-Beijing politicians in Ontario. “We should aim to work with those individuals and groups that are at a relatively high level, operate within the mainstream of society and have prospects for advancement,” the manual states.

The reason for the public’s relative inattention to influence-and-espionage threats posed by such foreign powers as China and Russia is that the federal government tends to avoid addressing the issue publicly. “As it stands now, an interested Canadian would have to search a number of government websites to understand the most significant threats to Canada,” the committee found.

“For some threats, such as terrorism, information is readily available and regularly updated . … For other threats, such as organized crime or interference in Canadian politics, information is often limited, scattered among different sources or incomplete. The committee believes that Canadians would be equally well served if more information about threats were readily available.”

That information is available, of course. It just hasn’t been coming from the federal government. In his just-published book, Claws of the Panda: Beijing’s Campaign of Influence and Intimidation in Canada, veteran foreign-affairs reporter Jonathan Manthorpe painstakingly enumerates the breadth and scope of the United Front Work Department’s organizations in Canada, and Beijing’s intimate links throughout Canada’s business class. Manthorpe relied solely on the public record, showing that Beijing’s strong-arming, its inducements and its subtle and not-so-subtle intimidation have been carried out in plain sight for years [emphasis added].

Last year, a coalition of diaspora groups led by Amnesty International provided CSIS with an exhaustive account of Beijing’s intensive campaign of bullying, threats and harassment targeting Canadian diaspora organizations devoted to Chinese democracy, the Falun Gong spiritual movement, Tibetan sovereignty, and the Uighurs. A Muslim ethnic minority in Xinjiang, the Uighur people are currently being subjected to an overwhelming tyranny of concentration camps, religious persecution, “re-education,” family separation and round-the-clock, pervasive surveillance. “Canada has become a battleground on which the Chinese Communist Party seeks to terrorize, humiliate and neuter its opponents,” says Manthorpe.

hat kind of subversion usually occurs behind the scenes. But for years, Confucius Institutes have operated openly in dozens of Canadian universities, colleges and high schools. “In most cases,” Manthorpe contends, “they are espionage outstations for Chinese embassies and consulates through which they control Chinese students, gather information on perceived enemies and intimidate dissidents.”

Because its mandate covers more than a dozen institutions and agencies, NSICOP — first proposed 15 years ago, but only now getting off the ground — had a lot of ground to cover. More than half of the report’s 121 pages are devoted to a review of the intelligence functions of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. But it’s subversion by foreign governments that seems to have caught the Parliamentary committee’s attention — CSIS told NSICOP the foreign-influence threat is becoming more acute, and countering it will call for “a more significant response” in the coming years.

With that in mind, the committee is already working on a followup review of the mandate, priority and resources Ottawa provides Canada’s intelligence community to monitor and counter the foreign-influence threat. The committee’s report is expected to be released before the October federal election [emphasis added], but it won’t be focused on the foreign cyber threats Ottawa is already preparing to monitor and expose during the election campaign.

“We’re going to outline the primary-threat actors, we’re going to be examining the threat those actors pose to our institutions and, to a certain extent, our ethno-cultural communities,” NSICOP chair David McGuinty told reporters in Ottawa on Tuesday. “We’re working feverishly to get it done.”

About time, too.


https://nationalpost.com/opinion/terry-glavin-its-official-china-is-a-threat-to-canadas-national-security

Mark
Ottawa

[MarkOttawa]

For what Dick Fadden, as then-CSIS director, said in 2010 about Chinese foreign-influence activities in Canada see 2) here:

National Security Advisor to Canadian PM Retires…Successor?
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2016/04/01/mark-collins-national-security-advisor-to-canadian-pm-retires-successor/

Mark
Ottawa

[Chris Pook]

Theresa May fired her Defence Secretary over Huawei

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2019/05/03/williamson-affair-exposes-serious-dysfunction-british-establishment/

the leak from the National Security Council did not concern state secrets but a policy question with clear public interest: should Britain allow a Chinese company to help build its 5G network? Several governments have banned telecoms companies from using Huawei technology, including three of the so-called “five eyes” intelligence sharing community. A fourth, Canada, is reviewing its relationship with the firm.

The proposition that Britain should ignore the reasonable warnings of the United States to invite Huawei, which is thought to be relatively cheap, to overhaul our infrastructure is controversial and requires open debate.

"Canada is reviewing its relationship with the firm".

Reviewing its relationship while China besieges Canada with embargoes on canola, soybeans, peas and pork and takes hostages.  And in the face of this situation we can't even find an ambassador to have a chat with Beijing.

[Retired AF Guy]

For what Dick Fadden, as then-CSIS director, said in 2010 about Chinese foreign-influence activities in Canada see 2) here:

Mark
Ottawa

Adding to above, here is a link to joint RCMP-CSIS report (Op Sidewinder) from 1997 on Chinese influences in Canada:

https://betterdwelling.com/operation-sidewinder-csis-rcmp/#_

[MarkOttawa]

This might get people in Canada antsy about "sovereignty":

Pentagon Warns Of China’s Rise in the Arctic, Missile Subs, Influence Operations

 Annual "China Military Power" report notes that Beijing’s deterrence fleet is up to six ballistic missile subs.

China is becoming a rising power not only in consumer technology and artificial intelligence but also in Arctic military operations and nuclear submarine construction, according to a new report from the Pentagon.

“Arctic border countries have raised concerns about China’s expanding capabilities and interest in the region,” notes the report, “Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2019,” published today [ https://media.defense.gov/2019/May/02/2002127082/-1/-1/1/2019_CHINA_MILITARY_POWER_REPORT.pdf ]. Often called the “China Military Power” report, it’s required annually by Congress. This year, it highlights the country’s prowess in the Arctic. In 2018, China completed its ninth Arctic expedition last year, published its first Arctic strategy document, and launched its second icebreaker, the Xuelong 2. The ship, capable of breaking 1.5 meters of ice, is the first polar research vessel that “can break ice while moving forwards or backwards,” according to the report.

The warming Arctic might also cool, or at least complicate, Beijing’s budding friendship with Moscow. The Pentagon has watched growing Sino-Russia cooperation with concern In September, China joined Russia’s held its annual strategic Vostok wargame for the first time —but there are limits to what can be shared. Russia sees possession of the Northern Sea Route that runs along its coast as critical to national security. “In September 2018, a Russian expert at the Russian International Affairs Council stated the Russian Federation was strongly opposed to foreign icebreakers operating on the Northern Sea Route, including U.S. and Chinese icebreakers [emphasis added],” says the report.

Still, the region offers considerable scope for commercial cooperation. The two nations are building a pipeline to bring liquified natural gas from Russia to China. They’ve also been working out details and divisions of shipping and joint commercial activity.

“We give major attention to the development of the Northern Sea Route [and] are considering the possibility of connecting it with the Chinese Maritime Silk Road,” Russian Russian President Vladimir Putin said at a meeting in Beijing on April 25.

Another possible Chinese use for the Arctic, the report said, is as a place to deploy its burgeoning fleet of ballistic missile submarines. China now has six Jin-class SSBNs, the report says, up from the five identified by open-source methods in November [emphasis added].

“China has constructed six JIN-class SSBNs, with four operational and two outfitting at Huludao Shipyard,” it said. “[They] are the country’s first viable sea-based nuclear deterrent.”

Finally, the report notes — for the first time — Chinese influence operations [emphasis added]: “China views the cyberspace domain as a platform providing opportunities for influence operations, and the [People’s Liberation Army] likely seeks to use online influence activities to support its overall Three Warfares strategy and to undermine an adversary’s resolve in a contingency or conflict.”

Such operations are meant to persuade the world to “accept China’s narrative” on issues like the South China Sea and the One Belt One Road Initiative. Experts say China has developed a growing and largely underestimated presence on U.S. social media platforms. But the government’s influence activities exist offline as well. The report notes that China is able to exert pressure on ethnic Chinese to conduct influence operations on behalf of the government through blackmail [emphasis added, report actually says a lot more--see pp. 8-9 PDF]."
https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2019/05/pentagon-report-warns-chinas-rise-arctic-missile-subs-influence-operations/156726/

Mark
Ottawa

[Chris Pook]

Theresa May fired her Defence Secretary over Huawei

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2019/05/03/williamson-affair-exposes-serious-dysfunction-british-establishment/

"Canada is reviewing its relationship with the firm".

Reviewing its relationship while China besieges Canada with embargoes on canola, soybeans, peas and pork and takes hostages.  And in the face of this situation we can't even find an ambassador to have a chat with Beijing.

Further to this

Martyn Vernon 3 May 2019 2:29PM
@Corvo Nero Steven Poyner 3 May 2019 9:43AM

Lord Browne was  Member of Cameron  Cabinet Office  now Chairman Of Huawei UK.
Sir Andrew Cahn was Cameron Head of UK Trade now Board Member of Huawei UK .
John Suffolk was Cameron Chief Information Officer now Huawei UK Vice President and Cyber Security.

Do you think there is anything fishy going on  here?

From the comments in today's Telegraph.

[tomahawk6]

According to PACAF commander the J20 stealth fighter may be declared operational this year. Also the US has transferred some F16's to Taiwan to upgrade their defenses. I would think adding more Patriot batteries and land based anti ship missiles or MRLS. Of course little Taiwan probably wont be able to survive long if the balloon goes up, not without US help.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/chinas-stealth-jet-may-be-ready-this-year-us-commander-says/ar-AAAMvfD?ocid=spartanntp 

[Thucydides]

Contending with China (or any other Power) is going to require an integrated DIME strategy. This long article talks about the economic aspects of the current "trade war" between the United States and China. A close read is probably needed to understand better how this affects Canada as well:

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/trade-war-china-inevitable-56712

A (Trade) War with China is Inevitable

Beijing's trade tussle and brazen technology theft stunts are part of an overlooked war that has been going on for decades.
by Christopher Whalen

Five decades ago my father Richard Whalen published a book entitled Trade Warriors: The Guide to the Politics of Trade and Foreign Investment. Trade was a big deal in Washington in the 1970s, mostly focused on Japan. The resurgent Japanese economy and enormous flows of investment fueled by trade deficits were seen as a threat to American sovereignty. Many members of Congress, who were profiled in the book, had very specific concerns about trade, but the White House was generally the defender of free trade and capital flows that rebuilt the world after World War II.

Wind the clock forward forty years and much has changed. China, rather than Japan, is the focus of U.S. angst when it comes to trade and investment flows. Members of Congress still have concerns about global commerce, but these concerns are mostly focused on a narrative that seeks to maintain and expand global trade flows that benefit their constituents. But the big change that has occurred over the years since Trade Warriors was published is that now the White House is occupied by President Donald Trump, who largely rejects the assumption of free trade in the global economy—and particularly with China.

Since coming into office, Trump has targeted China for being an unfair, predatory trading partner. Trump has picked up the protectionist rhetoric that was traditionally the province of the Democratic Party, outflanking the pro-labor elements of the left and thereby gaining the support of the Rust Belt states in 2016. The defeat of Hillary Clinton was not only a defeat for the leading Democratic contender for the White House, but also marked the end of the comfortable and very corrupt consensus around supporting “free trade” with totalitarian police states like China.

Each time that Trump has imposed tariffs on Chinese products or set a deadline for the ongoing negotiations, the financial markets have quavered in fear, reflecting the abhorrence investors have for disruptive change. But most investors looking at China also reflect an infantile naivete when it comes to the true nature of the communist state. “When the time comes to hang the capitalists, they will bid against each other for the sale of the rope,” Vladimir Lenin is reported to have said.

Thus, the negative reaction of the financial markets to perturbations in U.S.-China relations is perhaps understandable but almost certainly overstated. “At the end of the day, the People’s Republic needs our commerce a lot more than we need their commerce," noted CNBC’s Jim Cramer, one of the few U.S. journalists willing to criticize the Chinese. “The United States is a cash-fueled economy, the [People’s Republic of China] PRC is a debt-laden house of cards. They need our money, but do we really need their cheap stuff? We’re winning, regardless of what you think of Trump. The truth is that China's a paper tiger, something that's obvious if you just look at the darned numbers.”

More at link

[MarkOttawa]

CCP China has been hard at very serious influence ops for some time--start of major article, note role of Chinese students abroad,

China Has Been Running Global Influence Campaigns for Years
Pro-China protests ahead of the 2008 Beijing Olympics were orchestrated by Chinese officials. The world thought they were a spontaneous showing of Chinese nationalism.

In the run-up to the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics, with the torch relay soon set to pass through San Francisco, an envoy from China met with the city’s then-mayor, Gavin Newsom.

Riots had broken out the month before in Lhasa, Tibet, leading to a crackdown by Chinese security forces. The torch’s journey through London and Paris had been marred by anti-China protests and arrests. Pro-Tibet and pro-Uighur activists, among others, were planning demonstrations in San Francisco, the torch’s only U.S. stop.

Beijing was deeply concerned about damage to China’s image as its Olympic debut approached, and hoped to clamp down on dissent beyond the country’s borders. The envoy who met with Newsom demanded that he prohibit the demonstrations and, in effect, suspend the First Amendment, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official, who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive information. Newsom, now California’s governor, refused, according to the former official. (Newsom did not respond to a request for comment.)

So, in a series of covert and often coercive measures that have now become a hallmark of Beijing’s approach to image management, Chinese authorities took matters into their own hands. They orchestrated pro-Beijing demonstrations, deployed their own security, and made behind-the-scenes threats to activists, all while denying such measures—a strategy repeated across four continents along the torch relay.

Judged by its scope and scale, and the sheer number of active participants, China’s 2008 measures amounted to arguably the largest covert global influence campaign in history, and a preview of how China—now a behemoth seen in Washington more as a threat than a partner—would approach power and influence as its international status grew [emphasis added]. Yet at the time, Western observers, who were preoccupied with domestic Chinese human-rights violations and what appeared to be a surge in organic Chinese nationalism in cities such as London and Paris, missed it almost entirely.

Beijing was almost certainly emboldened by the anemic international response to its squashing of protests over the torch run in 2008, and Western democracies are only beginning to grapple with the implications. In the decade since, China has undertaken an expansive policy of surveilling, cultivating, and pressuring its diaspora; stolen trade secrets and intellectual property from Western businesses to catalyze China’s development; and carried out a coordinated international campaign of intimidation, even kidnapping dissidents and Chinese ethnic minorities abroad, forcing many to return to China to face imprisonment or worse [emphasis added].

Its actions during the torch run offered a hint of Beijing’s capabilities and the long arm of its security apparatus. Whereas Vietnam detained or expelled anti-China protesters prior to the torch arriving in Ho Chi Minh City, leaders in democratic countries could not simply ensure positive media coverage for China or clamp down on criticism. China responded by directly interfering with the rights and freedoms guaranteed in free societies to polish its own image.

In San Francisco, this meant organizing crowds to drown out protesters. After Newsom declined to ban rallies during the torch relay, Chinese consular officers in California mobilized somewhere between 6,000 and 8,000 Chinese students to attend the protests, according to the same former senior U.S. intelligence official, and confirmed by another former counterintelligence official who asked not to be named discussing Chinese efforts on U.S. soil. These students were asked to take part in counterdemonstrations, and given free transport, boxed lunches, and T-shirts. Those on Chinese government scholarships faced threats that their funding would be revoked if they did not participate [emphasis added].

According to the former senior U.S. intelligence official, Beijing also flew in intelligence officers to direct the pro-China demonstrators in real time. These officials, wearing earpieces connected to radios, directed groups of counter-protesters, who ripped down banners and occupied spaces so that anti-China demonstrators could not gather...
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/05/beijing-olympics-china-influence-campaigns/589186/

Mark
Ottawa

[MarkOttawa]

Griff nach der Weltmacht:

China, U.S., Canada: trade and political disputes and world domination (interview)

A trade dispute is growing between China and the U.S which could easily have repercussions worldwide.

The U.S and China will be together at the upcoming G-20 summit, at which point the situation may calm, or as many think, escalate.

At the same time the trade and diplomatic dispute between Canada and China continues over a Chinese executive detained in Canada and wanted by the U.S.

Charles Burton (PhD) is a political science professor at Brock University and former Canadian diplomat to China [ http://charlesburton.blogspot.com/ ]. He says this is playing out against a longer term Chinese policy to become the world’s superpower [emphasis added].

Professor Burton says the U.S has long been unhappy with the huge trade imbalance with China, When China recently reneged on a deal that had been worked out towards more equity and requiring adherence to World Trade Organisation rules, the U.S. upped tariffs on many Chinese imports from 10% to a hefty 25% affecting about $250 billion worth of Chinese imports.

Charles Burton (PhD) political science professor, and former diplomat to China. (via Brock University News)

If a settlement isn’t reached in June prior to or at the G20 meeting, there are plans being discussed to add duties to an additional $325 billion worth of Chinese products.

This comes amid the ongoing Canada-China dispute. It is widely believed that China continues to exert pressure on Canada over its arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou. Under relaxed house detention at one of her luxury properties in Vancouver, she awaits an extradition hearing to the U.S to face charges there connected to sales of equipment to Iran.

Michael Spavor (left) and former Canadian diplomat Michael Kovrig have been in Chinese custody under extremely harsh conditions on a charge of being a threat to Chinese security. This is widely believed to be retaliation for the detention of a Huawei executive in Canada wanted in the U.S for charges there (Associated Press/ International Crisis Group/Canadian Press)

Chinese pressure comes in the form of refusing imports of Canadian canola, and bureaucratic delays of other Canadian imports further harming Canada’s agricultural sector. There has the arrest and harsh imprisonment of two Canadians on charges of being threats to China’s security, and the sentencing to death of two Canadians accused of drug trafficking.

Professor Burton says Canada’s polite gestures of objection will not work in changing China’s position. It is felt that this only adds to China’s perception of the current government being weak [emphasis added]. Burton notes there are a number of things Canada can to exert pressure on China in return such as inspect all Chinese shipments into Canada to cut off the supply of deadly fentanyl drugs. These delays would hurt China’s economy. Certain diplomatic expulsions would also send a strong signal.

These trade and diplomatic bullying tactics by China can be seen as part of a long term geo-strategic plan by China aimed at domination and becoming a world power if not the top world power. He says international organisations like the U.N and W.T.O. which are based on rules and which run counter to China’s ambitions.

In an article he wrote to the Ottawa Citizen newspaper, he said, “Currently, there is no coherent multi-national strategy against Chinese influence operations. The less we respond to it in any substantive way, the more China is emboldened in its practice of global disruption.

China’s remaking of the global rules is making the world safe for autocracy, tacitly demanding that Canada passively surrender our values to an authoritarian state [emphasis added]. Canada should be uniting with our allies in a coordinated stand for political justice and fair economic engagement with China. But this requires more than allocating resources and government expenditure. The political will has to be there”.
http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2019/05/14/china-u-s-canada-trade-and-political-disputes-and-world-domination-interview/

Mark
Ottawa

[MarkOttawa]

Actually the Dragon rampant--note Japan section:

Panda sinks claws deep into Canada: author
New book details the extent to which Beijing is wielding influence in Canada, North America – and beyond

At a time when concern is rising in various parts of the globe that Chinese overseas investment and migration may not be benign, the latest book by Jonathan Manthorpe looks timely.

Published in January, Claws of the Panda: Beijing’s Campaign of Influence and Intimidation in Canada, alleges the malign influence of a muscle-flexing Beijing over the business, political, media and academic circles of the North American nation.

The book appeared in the midst of an ongoing spat between Beijing and Ottawa that followed the arrest of Huawei CFO Meng Wangzhou in Canada, and the subsequent arrests of Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor in China. It is widely believed that the Korvig and Spavor arrests were retaliations for Meng’s detention.

Though a Canadian by birth, the author sounding the alarm bells has been based in Europe, Africa, and Hong Kong, reporting for the Toronto Star and the Southam News. Now back in Canada, his focus continues to be on the wider world, with a specialization in things Sinic: his previous book was Forbidden Nation: A History of Taiwan.

Now a columnist for Asia Times, Manthorpe recently shared his thoughts and findings from his latest book, and his wider concerns about the rise of the People’s Republic of China and its leadership, the Chinese Communist Party.

Beijing vs Ottawa

“Canada is importing corruption along with money” from China, Manthrope maintains – though he adds that China-related corruption has a long history in Canada. The difference today is one of scale.

“There is a distinction between the political corruption in Canada that created and benefited from the investor immigrant program of the 1980s, which I describe in some detail, and the corruption that has accompanied the vast amounts of money brought into Canada by the ‘Red Aristocracy,’” he said.

“I had hoped the distinction in size and in kind would be evident between Canada’s homegrown corruption and the triffid-like monstrosity that has grown out of the CCP royalty’s use of Canada as a money-laundering center in the last two decades or so.”

Claws of the Panda documents a confluence of corruption among politicians, businesses, casinos, organized crime and ordinary Chinese citizens. “At the core of the CCP’s campaign here, and in other target countries like Australia and New Zealand, has been what is known in shorthand as ‘elite capture,’” he said.

“There has been, and is, a strong element of corruption of Canadian establishment figures in that campaign.”

So can the corruption of the elites, the wealthy, and the politically-connected be separated from the day-to-day mindset of average Chinese-Canadians?  They can.

“Hundreds of thousands of people have come to Canada from Hong Kong and mainland China without having to use corrupt channels, or to find it necessary to make corruption a tool of their daily lives,” Manthorpe said.

“For the most part, Canadians of Chinese heritage lead ordinary Canadian lives, working hard … trying to ensure that their children have better opportunities and lives than they have, and being thankful that they live in a country where – by-and-large – the government can be depended on to see their role as providing services for and protecting the citizenry.”

The bad actors, he stresses, are the elite, but it is the elite who – due to their wealth and status – are the most visible. This visibility is to some extent due to dubious activity that does not stop at political corruption.

It is “exhibited in property purchases, expensive cars, behavior at casinos, obscene displays of wealth at public occasions, attempts to use bribery at private schools and universities, and the keeping of several households with concubines.” Manthorpe said.

The author paints a portrait of a deeply dysfunctional symbiosis between Canada and China. His book includes occasional references to offshore financial havens such as the Virgin Islands and the Caymans; it seems that Canada is now seen as a similar vector for laundering money and hiding business deals.

Manthorpe also depicts Canada as “the stalking horse for Washington.” It would appear Canada, thanks to its location, is emerging as a way for the PRC to launder its political ambitions through what many in the world view as a “clean” government in Ottawa, and a friendly and open society in Canada overall. And in addition to leveraging Canada’s cultural and geographical proximity to the US, Beijing also leverages Canadian prejudices.

“I think on some occasions the CCP has used both Canada’s closeness to the US to Beijing’s advantage, and has also understood and used Canadian antipathy towards the US for its own ends,” he said.

Beijing vs Washington

Still, as a critic of populists, Manthorpe is unconvinced that US President Donald Trump’s verbal and tariff assault on Beijing will make much difference to either the long game or the big picture.

“I don’t think either Trump’s tough talk with Beijing or the actions of the ideologues will have any beneficial results in either Washington’s relationship with Beijing or the CCP’s view of the world in general,” he said.

In fact, Trumpian policy, with its focus on economics and “America First,” is weakening key mechanisms that have the potential to strategically contain China. Related risks may be particularly high in the flashpoint South and East China Seas.

“The big danger I see at the moment, and one that makes a conflict more likely in my view, is that we have a US administration that does not seem to be dependable in its alliances,” he said.

“With the PRC rampant and neighboring Asian nations unsure whether they can trust Washington to honor its security treaty obligations, we have a dangerous situation where mistakes can easily happen.”
Beijing vs Japan

While the book offers a wealth of information on various politicians and groups in Canada who provide sluices for PRC influence infiltration into North America, the author also researched how the CCP spreads anti-Japan and anti-US propaganda in Canada as a way to weaken the US-Japan alliance, and to keep South Korea and Japan at daggers drawn.

However, some passages related to the United Front Work Department of the CCP’s Central Committee – the body that manages relations with various individuals and organizations that are not party entities, but which hold social, commercial, or academic influence, or which represent interest groups – was excised by editorial guillotine.

“In the first draft of the manuscript there was quite a bit about the efforts of the various UFWD operations here to attack Japan, using both the Nanking Massacre and comfort women as agencies,” he said.

One such case covered a suburban Vancouver council. The local government body was persuaded to allow the erection of a statue to “The World’s Women” – which turned out to be comfort women propaganda. The Japanese consul-general in Vancouver managed to get that rejected.

“The ability to attack Japan and Japanese interests in Canada is one of the important aspects of the infiltration and influence-peddling of the CCP,” he noted.

Beijing: Dominant or doomed?

Manthorpe ends his book with the hope that the authoritarian regime in Beijing will “shatter.”

Yet that looks – from present vantage – to be a very vain hope. The One Belt, One Road initiative is advancing across the globe, suggesting that, far from weakening, Beijing is very successfully deploying capital and selling its system as a viable alternative to Western-led liberal democracy.

So how fragile, really, is the PRC?

“The point I was trying to make with my ‘shatter’ image was that we can never quite be sure how brittle the CCP regime really is,” he explained. “With the end of the Soviet Union and the Arab Spring we have seen several totalitarian states disappear overnight. I would suggest that the CCP’s fixation on the collapse of the Soviet Union indicates that it, too, is unsure of how firmly it is in power.”

This paranoia is reflected in the vigor with which state agencies are executing policies designed to forestall any such outcome. Beijing “has been brutal in its destruction of anybody that emerges, especially since 1989, that might become a national organization,” he said.

Meanwhile, the CCP is marshaling new formats of Chinese power. In an age when Beijing’s lack of soft power has been scoffed at, the CCP – the same body that executed the “Cultural Revolution” – is now promoting itself as the custodian of traditional Chinese culture. “I think the edifice of Chinese culture and history gives the PRC a stability, even in an authoritarian state, that other regimes have not had,” he said.

But a huge risk also lies at the very heart of Sinic legacies. “There has never been a peaceful transfer of power between Chinese dynasties that I am aware of,” the author warned.

Follow Jonathan Manthorpe’s columns in Asia Times here.
https://www.asiatimes.com/2019/05/article/panda-sinks-claws-deep-into-canada-author/

Mark
Ottawa

[MarkOttawa]

And see this 2016 post on the earlier Garratt detention, then arrest--Justin and the Liberals refuse to wake up and smell the Maotai:

Dragon Arrests Canadian: Retaliation for Our Help vs Chinese Spooking Against US?
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/mark-collins-dragon-arrests-canadian-relation-for-our-help-vs-chinese-spooking-against-us/

And now video of a CBC interview with Kevin Garratt:
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1523396163729

Mark
Ottawa

[MarkOttawa]

The Panda's claws in Canada reach broad and deep:

Who’s going to stand up to China? This Canadian senator, for one.
Terry Glavin: Arrested Canadians, human rights abuses, spying: ‘Send the Chinese ambassador home,’ says Senator Thanh Hai Ngo

Setting aside Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s preferred option of pretending that it isn’t even happening, there are what you could call two schools of thought in and around Ottawa about how to respond to what all sides agree is the deepest rupture in Canada-China relations since the Tiananmen Square massacre of 30 years ago.

The first is the old Liberal establishment standpoint. It’s the one that has run an almost uninterrupted course ever since Jean Chretien’s first big Team Canada mission to China in 1994, the one Prime Minister Trudeau put into hyperdrive as soon as he took office in 2015.

It’s all about a deepening of trade, political connections, cultural ties and other such entanglements, a policy enthusiastically described by John McCallum, Canada’s last ambassador in Beijing, as “more, more, more.” It would be more than fair to say that this way of looking at things has been quite thoroughly discredited in recent months, but it’s still dominant in the Liberal Party’s governing circles.

The idea is that Canada’s overarching priority at the moment should be to grant whatever concessions Beijing deems necessary in order to put things back together again. That’s how to secure the release of diplomat-on-leave Michael Kovrig and entrepreneur Michael Spavor, and it’s how to secure the lifting of Beijing’s embargo on billions of dollars’ worth of Canadian canola and pork exports. What Canada’s China-trade lobby and its variously supportive think-tanks and academic institutes want is to get everything back to the days of “more, more more,” as plausibly and discreetly as possible [emphasis added].

In Canada’s Senate, this remains the dominant view. And it’s strictly enforced.

An important dissenter from that view is Senator Thanh Hai Ngo, a 72-year-old human rights activist appointed by Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2012. Senator Ngo is among a minority in the Upper Chamber whose view of the current state of play reflects the second school of thought.

In this way of looking at things, Xi Jinping’s brute-force retaliation for Canada’s detention of Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou on a U.S. Justice department extradition request is of a piece with Beijing’s long game of global domination by alternatively subverting by “elite capture” and bullying weak and ordinarily China-compliant governments of the sort typified by Team Trudeau’s government.

President’s Xi’s most recent thuggish behaviour is all in the cause of undermining and supplanting the international rules and conventions that Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland has attempted to rally UN member states to get behind—the global order that has allowed the world’s liberal democracies to flourish over the past 70 years or so.

To the great annoyance of Liberal senators and the Senate’s mostly Liberal-appointed “independent” majority, Ngo sees things this way, and he has refused to comply with the long-standing policy dictum around Ottawa that it’s best to keep our heads down and behave the way Beijing wants in hopes of winning favourable trade concessions for Canadian corporations with business interests in China [emphasis added].

Ngo has fought for tough responses to the Chinese Communist Party’s persecution of minority groups, Beijing’s regional belligerence, and the Chinese state’s intrusions in Canada. Over the past three years, Ngo has put 29 questions to the government about China’s human rights abuses, its infiltration of Canadian society and its harassment and intimidation of Chinese-Canadians and Tibetan-Canadians.

Over the past year, Ngo has put six pointed questions to the government side about the Trudeau cabinet’s wishy-washy response to the danger of Canada’s fifth-generation (5G) internet auction being thrown open to Huawei. The Shenzhen telecom behemoth, an arm of the Chinese state in everything but name, is owned by a “trade union” committee that does not represent Huawei workers but rather answers directly to the Communist Party brass in Beijing. Huawei’s CEO, Ren Zhengfei, Meng Wanzhou’s father, is a ranking Communist Party member.

Recent events have proved Ngo to have been consistently right about the threats Beijing poses to the international order, and about the sinister role Beijing’s agents of influence are playing in Canada. It’s a wonder he doesn’t just burst out with “I told you so,” lean back in his comfortable seat in the Upper Chamber and just sit there from now on, watching his adversaries squirm. But Ngo is not for sitting back.

Xi Jinping is engaged in a spiteful campaign against Canada at the moment and he’s winning, hands down, says Ngo. “I think so, yes.” In response to the arbitrary arrest of Spavor and Kovrig just days after Meng Wanzhou was detained in Vancouver on a U.S. warrant involving charges of bank fraud and violating U.S. sanctions in Iran, “Canada, so far, we didn’t do anything. . . we did nothing,” Ngo told me the other day.

“I think Canada should go a different way. I don’t think we should negotiate at the moment because they’re not going to budge at all. “They don’t even pick up the phone.” Another pair of Canadians convicted on drug offences in China have recently had their sentences conspicuously elevated to the death penalty. “What did we do? Nothing.”

In the bigger picture, Canada has remained mostly quiet about Beijing’s confinement of at least a million Uighur Muslims in concentration camps in the remote and almost entirely off-limits province of Xinjiang. Ngo describes Being’s draconian measures “nothing short of a cultural genocide.” Canada has further allowed itself to become hostage to a Beijing-patrolled “One China” policy that has grossly stunted Canada’s relations with a sister liberal democracy, Taiwan.

Ngo says the reach of Beijing’s influence in Canada extends deeper than most people understand, and Canadians should pay attention to the way the Senate’s behaviour is enforced in China’s favour [emphasis added].

Senator Peter Harder, who headed up Trudeau’s 2015 transition to office, is a former president of the Canada-China Business Council. He’s also a former president of the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation, which was controversially enriched in 2016 by a $200,000 donation from a Chinese banker and Communist Party insider. Harder is now the government leader in the 105-member Senate.

The Senate’s small “official” Liberal caucus is headed by Senator Joseph Day, the chairman of the Canada-China Legislative Association, which regularly brings together Canadian parliamentarians with China’s rubber-stamp People’s Political Consultative Conference. Even though Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi won’t even return Chrystia Freeland’s telephone calls, Day and a small group of legislative association parliamentarians were on a guided tour of Chinese cities just this past week. During the group’s previous tour in January, only a month after Kovrig and Spavor were whisked off to detention centres and denied access to lawyers, their case wasn’t even on the agenda, Senator Day admitted at the time.

The Conservatives claim the loyalties of 30 senators, but by far the largest caucus in the Senate is the 58-member “Independent Senators Group,” now led by one of the most controversial senate appointments in recent years, Yuen Pao Woo. The group is made up mostly of Liberal senate appointees.

While Trudeau has been choosing prospective Senate candidates from recommendations put forward by a newly-established “independent” advisory panel, the Independent bloc almost always votes with the government side. And although Woo doesn’t like being described as “Beijing-friendly,” he is rarely described any other way.

Woo’s maiden speech in the Senate was in opposition to a motion Ngo put forward protesting Beijing’s annexation of the South China Sea and its persistent defiance of international law.

Ngo’s motion was finally passed last year, but only after a great deal of procedural brinksmanship, and Ngo expects the same stiff opposition to greet the bill he’s put forward to amend the Investment Canada Act to ensure that all Canadian acquisitions by Chinese state-owned enterprises are subject to national-security reviews.

Canada can’t do much to restrain China except in alliance with like-minded democracies, Ngo says, but in the meantime there are tools at Canada’s disposal. Canada’s “Magnitsky law” has allowed Freeland to impose sanctions on notorious human rights abusers with the regimes in Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela and Myanmar, but strangely, not against human rights abusers in China – not for what has been done to Kovrig and Spavor, and not even over what is being done to the Muslims of Xinjiang.

“All these things we know, and we don’t do anything. We should sanction them. But we sanction no Chinese official under the Magnitsky law,” Ngo said. “Not even one Chinese official.”

Among several defensive and diplomatic actions Canada could take, Ngo says Ottawa should close the many Beijing-sponsored Confucius Institutes that have set up shop in Canada’s schools and universities. “Close all these Confucius Institutes in Canada. These are spy hubs.”

At the top of Ngo’s list: revoke Chinese ambassador Lu Shaye’s credentials and order him out of the country. “Send the ambassador home. That’s it. Let China see that we’re serious about this.”

“We have to change our course. It doesn’t work.”
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/whos-going-to-stand-up-to-china-this-canadian-senator-for-one/

Mark
Ottawa

[Hamish Seggie]

Just an observation: The government of China is Communist right? With a President for life as well?

[MarkOttawa]

China's lovable, laugh-a-minute ambassador:

Kelly McParland: China's ambassador has a simple message — give us what we want
While Lu may not be much of a diplomat, he fits in fine when it comes to his country’s growing ugliness and ballooning view of its own importance

Lu Shaye is China’s ambassador to Canada. Ambassadors are typically referred to as diplomats, though that’s not a term that appears to apply in this instance, as Ambassador Lu’s idea of diplomacy is to deliver extended lectures on the failings and inadequacies of Canada as a country and a culture, occasionally tossing in insults or a warning or two for good measure. As the local face of an increasingly swaggering one-party state, he seems well-suited to his role. As a diplomat he’s a bust.

Lu set the tone for his ambassadorship soon after arriving in 2017. In an interview with The Canadian Press, he reprimanded Ottawa for paying too much attention to journalists, a profession for which China’s communist rulers have very little regard. Journalists in China understand that upsetting the powerful forces that run the country and its stifling censorship operations could be unhealthy for their career development, not to mention personal freedom.

Canada, of course, lets journalists run wild, blathering on about human rights and other unimportant issues, without even the cudgel of some potential jail time to keep them in line. As reported by The Canadian Press at the time, the new ambassador advised that politicians “should spend less time bowing down to Canadian journalists preoccupied with human rights and get on with negotiating an important free trade agreement with China.”

Lu has expanded on his numerous criticisms and complaints since then. Earlier this year he equated Canadians to white supremacists. He accused Ottawa of “backstabbing” China by detaining Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou in her Vancouver mansion at the request of the U.S, and warned of “repercussions” if she wasn’t freed. In an address Friday he gathered many of these themes into one prolonged diatribe on the inadequacies of Canadian values and our fixation on democracy.

The core of the problem, as Lu explained it, is that Western societies don’t understand Chinese history and are misinformed about its present. The West views China as an “abnormal” country, to which we “condescend” in our mistaken belief that other societies value democracy as much as we do. As an example, he noted recent reports on the vast network of detention camps set up in China’s Xinjiang region, where a million or more Uyghur Muslims are being held in a massive state effort to eradicate their ethnic identity.

Despite plenty of evidence attesting to the ugly realities, Lu insisted the camps are just “vocational education and training centres” aimed at exterminating the threat of terrorism, just as the brutalities of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution were justified as necessary in eradicating “counter-revolutionaries” and “bourgeois elements.” Lu doesn’t question China’s latest cleansing program any more than Mao’s thugs questioned the need to imprison, torture and humiliate “revisionists.” Reports on the camps, he complained, are both “distorted” and “defaming.” As proof, he boasted, “In the recent two years or so, there has not been a single violent and terrorist attack and no more innocent people have been harmed.” Jailing people by the hundreds of thousands will do that for you.

Lu was similarly indignant about Western concern over Beijing’s burgeoning geo-political ambitions. “I want to tell you that the Chinese nation does not have the gene of aggression,” he retorted. “We have never launched a war of aggression against any other country and we have never occupied one inch of overseas colony in history.”

This would be news to Tibet, which China invaded in 1950 and has occupied since, during which tens of thousands of Tibetans are reported to have been killed as Beijing seeks to eliminate Tibetan cultural practices and religious traditions. China’s argument would be that Tibet is rightfully part of China, so the invasion was not an invasion, but a re-establishment of historical reality. It’s an old ploy used by dictatorial powers, and would be rolled out again if Beijing ever followed though on its numerous threats to seize Taiwan, or sought to turn Hong Kong into just another obedient Chinese province. It’s the same excuse cited for China’s construction of a series of islands in the South China Sea, dredging up sand and piling it on coral reefs so it can claim ownership and expand its territorial demands. Despite what Vietnam, the Philippines or other countries in the region may think, insisted Lu, “the South China Sea islands have all along been the inherent territory of China.” So there.

As Lu sees it, “Western countries’ psychological imbalance towards China’s economic and technological development comes down to the West-egotism.” We’re all a bunch of self-important ego-maniacs, too ignorant to understand the greatness of China’s past. On Friday he professed that Westerners “always believe that they are superior to any other nations.” Sure, the West has had a few good centuries, but lately it’s in over its head. The end of the Cold War, he charged, ushered in a period in which democracy-lovers “arrogantly believed that the Western system reached the peak of perfection and it was the best system in the world.”

What Lu would like would be for Canada and some of its fellow travellers to wise up and see things from China’s enlightened viewpoint.

“Chinese people are in the best position to judge China’s development,” he lectured. “We are confident about our own path, theory, system and culture. We will never change our own development path because of the different viewpoints of Western countries and several discredited articles in the West. We will stick to the path that we choose. For Western countries, the problem is how to get along with China.”


https://nationalpost.com/opinion/kelly-mcparland-chinas-ambassador-has-a-simple-message-give-us-what-we-want

Mark
Ottawa

[GK .Dundas]

Just an observation: The government of China is Communist right? With a President for life as well?

A more accurate description might be an industrial feudal state.

[Colin P]

Likely this visit was arranged 6 months to a year in advance. Berths, tugs, pilots would be needed, along with diplomatic clearances.

 https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/chinese-warships-cause-surprise-in-sydney-harbour/ar-AACiEwO?ocid=sf

[MarkOttawa]

Terry Glavin has a almost everybody, but China top of mind:

Glavin: So much for having a rules-based international order. The G20 shows it no longer exists

Here’s an idea. Let’s pick 20 people at random from the millions of Hongkongers who have braved nightsticks and tear gas and pepper spray in the cause of democracy over the past few weeks, and replace the leaders of the G20 with them. This is totally out of left field, I fully realize. But for the fun of it, do you think you could make a case that the world would be, even in the slightest, worse off?

This wouldn’t be democratic, of course, but then again, look who’s in charge of the G20, and look at the disingenuous mumbo jumbo of the 12-page G20 Osaka Leaders Declaration. It’s exactly what you would expect of a document that must somehow purport to bear the imprimaturs of China’s Xi Jinping, Germany’s Angela Merkel, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Canada’s Justin Trudeau, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan and 15 more such characters, including of course the infamously louche American president, Donald Trump.

There’s all sorts of JibJab about harnessing powers, seizing opportunities, tackling challenges and redoubling efforts, as well as affirming this, enhancing that, achieving things, fostering other things, reiterating even more things, and so on. The lies are amazing. “We share the notion of a human-centred future society…” No you don’t. “We remain committed to play a leading role in the global efforts to prevent and fight against corruption…” No you don’t. “We commit to continue support for girls’ and women’s education and training…” Like hell you do.

Behold, the rules-based international order. Twenty world leaders, ostensibly representing 90 per cent of the global economy and two-thirds of the world’s peoples – and really half of the world’s unfree peoples – and of course anything of substance occurs on the sidelines, even the gossip. Are we really going to allow Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman to host next year’s meeting, in Riyadh? Wouldn’t that be just a bit indelicate, now that Agnes Callamard, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, has just more or less accused bin Salman of ordering the execution of that annoying Washington Post correspondent Jamal Ahmad Khashoggi in Istanbul last October?

And what in heaven’s name is Ivanka Trump doing here? Oh yes. Well, among other things, Justin Trudeau and Ivanka are supposed to showcase this thing Trudeau cooked up with the president’s daughter in Washington a couple of years back at Fortune magazine’s Most Powerful Women Summit. It’s morphed into something called EMPOWER, in capital letters, and they’ve since rooked Her Majesty Queen Maxima of the Netherlands into it, and that’s why she’s here, too.

Poor dear Justin. Canada is enduring a sustained economic, technological and diplomatic attack waged by China, which has embargoed Canadian canola products and meat products and soybeans, made hostages of diplomat-on-leave Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, sentenced two other Canadians to death on drug-smuggling convictions, and he just can’t get a break. All because Canada was a good global citizen and agreed to act on a U.S. Justice Department extradition warrant for Meng Wanzhou, wanted stateside on 13 counts of wire fraud, bank fraud and conspiracy arising from the Shenzhen telecom behemoth Huawei’s alleged double-dealing and sanctions-busting in Iran. Trump said he’d put in a good word for Canada at the G20, but there’s no evidence he did. And poor Chrystia Freeland! All she’s managed to do is get a handful of countries to sign a petition to the effect that kidnapping is a bad thing.

It’s not like any country is going to go out of its way to risk enraging Xi Jinping, though, if Canada won’t even make the effort. After all, who was that at the COWS ice cream parlour in Beijing this week, chatting up all the wonderful business opportunities that lie just waiting to be seized, or harnessed, or tackled, in China? Why it was Mary Ng, Trudeau’s minister of small business and export development. And who was that with her? Senator Peter Harder of course, the head of the Canada-China Business Council who Trudeau recruited to head up his transition team after the 2015 federal election, then appointed to lead the government side in the Senate [emphasis added].

“We hope that Canada is not naïve,” the Chinese foreign ministry stated after the G20 summiteers and their various sherpas and attachés and deputies and hangers-on had left Osaka. This was in reference to the gallant “coalition” Ottawa says it has assembled around the Korig and Spavor case. “Canada should not naïvely believe that mustering so-called allies to put pressure on China will have any effect.” You can’t say Beijing is wrong about that. It’s not like Trudeau’s government has done anything to cause Beijing to take Canada seriously. To Trudeau’s advantage, mind you, the sharpest media scrutiny he was subjected to in Osaka devolved into a controversy surrounding whether or not a video clip making the rounds had unfairly portrayed him as having been snubbed by Brazilian strongman Jair Bolsonaro.

At least Freeland is still plugging away at shoring up Ukraine’s sovereignty, what with that Toronto conference and everything, where Canada convinced Ukraine to steady the course on democracy and expand trade with Canada, in exchange for Ukraine taking $25 million to spend on “inclusive and gender-responsive” policy as part of a $45-million support package. At least somebody, somewhere, cares about Ukraine. Only last month, the Council of Europe readmitted Russia to its parliamentary assembly, charging Russia only 33 million Euros in blood money. Russia was kicked out five years ago after invading and annexing a huge chunk of Eastern Ukraine and the Crimean peninsula, resulting in 13,000 deaths and causing more than one million people to pack their bags and trudge the backroads in search of food and shelter. Hey, bygones.

More bygones: As much as half of China’s pig population has had to be slaughtered and incinerated or buried because of a swine flue outbreak that Qu Dongyu, China’s vice minister of agriculture and rural affairs, did not seem to notice until it was a full-bore crisis. But Qu was elected to head up the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization on June 25. Wouldn’t want to upset Beijing and vote against their guy, would we?

And that’s the rules-based international order for you. Everywhere you look, it’s humming along just brilliantly, the G20 even moreso than the despot-packed UN Human Rights Council, or, say, Interpol, which held its cybersecurity meetings in Russia just a couple weeks back at a conference sponsored by the Kremlin-owned Sberbank. But at least Interpol isn’t run by China’s nominee, Meng Hongwei, anymore, since China disappeared the guy. Something about corruption, apparently. Who the hell knows?

Picking 20 random marchers in Hong Kong to run the G20 doesn’t sound so bad now, does it?
https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/glavin-so-much-for-having-a-rules-based-international-order-the-g20-shows-it-no-longer-exists

Mark
Ottawa

[MarkOttawa]

Influence/interference ops in full public view via high profile Canadian compradors:

The real election threat is China
Terry Glavin: Ottawa has been focused on cyber-meddling. But consider the case of John McCallum for a glimpse at a more present danger.

By happily admitting last week that he has been advising senior Chinese foreign ministry officials about how to influence the outcome of the October federal election, John McCallum, Canada’s disgraced former ambassador to China, has once again invited a whole lot of spirited public speculation about what the hell gives with this guy.

The most charitable view is that he’s just clueless, which is an easier hypothesis to defend than you might think. McCallum’s fumbles during his two years as Canada’s ambassador in Beijing reached such an embarrassing crescendo in January that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had to fire him. It was in the early innings of the total collapse in diplomatic relations between Canada and China, and McCallum’s contribution was to give every impression that he’d broken with Ottawa and gone over to the other side.

The view of Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives is that there is something far more disquieting about McCallum’s candid admissions to the South China Morning Post last Monday. McCalllum said he’s been telling top Chinese officials that if Beijing played its cards right, it might be able to head off a Conservative election victory in October.

The Conservatives have issued a formal request to the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to look into it. “I forcefully and unequivocally condemn recent comments by high-profile Liberals encouraging the Chinese government to help re-elect the government this October,” Scheer says. Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland says she’s similarly appalled. “I think that it is highly inappropriate for any Canadian to be offering advice or opinions to any foreign government on how that government ought or ought not to behave to secure any particular election outcome in Canada.”

McCallum said he’d advised top Chinese officials that any further “punishments” Beijing inflicts upon Canada would heighten the likelihood of Canadian voters turning to the Conservatives, who are “much less friendly to China than the Liberals.” He’s right about that. A case can be made that McCallum would have to be clueless to have said that out loud, but it’s not idiotic advice. And John McCallum is not just “any Canadian,” or just any random clueless person. And if CSIS were to properly scrutinize what’s up with McCallum, it’s a thick file.

    READ MORE: Whose side is Jean Chrétien on?

Ottawa’s recent initiatives against foreign interference in elections have been focused on Russian-style disinformation and cyber-meddling of the type that preceded the 2016 election of Donald Trump. But Canada’s predicament is more like Australia’s, and Australia’s recent Foreign Influence Transparency Scheme would be a better model.

Launched last December in response to Beijing’s accelerated subversion of Australian politics and a series of scandals involving several Beijing-compliant politicians, the Australian law requires individuals or companies politicking on behalf of a foreign power to register and set out their activities on a public website.

It’s been eight years since Richard Fadden, who was then the CSIS director, warned that numerous Canadian politicians had come under Beijing’s spell. For his trouble, Fadden was admonished by the House of Commons Security Committee, which recommended that he be fired.

He should have been thanked for what has lately become obvious as prescience, but in any case, there is no evidence that McCallum, who has been a Liberal Party fixture since the days of Jean Chretien, has done anything illegal.

During his time in the House of Commons, long before his appointment as ambassador, McCallum took $73,000 in free trips to China, courtesy of the Chinese state and Chinese business interests—all perfectly legal. Following in Chretien’s well-worn footprints, McCallum is now working as a strategic adviser on China trade with the firm McMillan LLP. Again, perfectly legal.

As soon as he resigned in 2004 in the wake of the AdScam corruption scandal, Chretien carved out a lucrative practice greasing China’s investment wheels in Canada and Canadian corporate interests in China. And like McCallum, the former prime minister has been busy lately with indiscretions of his own on Beijing’s behalf.

Freeland has been forced to publicly rebuke Chretien for badgering the government to placate Beijing by simply instructing Justice Minister David Lametti to drop the extradition proceedings against Huawei chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou—the impudence that prompted Beijing to punish Canada in the first place. It was Meng’s defence case that McCallum was fired for pleading in January. McCallum also said it would be “great” if Trump intervened with the U.S. Justice Department’s prosecution of Meng by somehow forcing the department’s lawyers to drop the whole thing.

Ever since Meng was picked up in Vancouver on the Justice Department’s extradition warrant—she faces 13 counts of fraud and conspiracy charges related to Huawei’s alleged sanctions evasions in Iran—the “punishments” Beijing has inflicted on Canada have been ominous and cruel. Among them: the Ministry of State Security’s detention of diplomat-on-leave Michael Kovrig and entrepreneur Michael Spavor and a trade embargo on Canadian canola, soybeans, peas and meat products. With threats of further retaliation to come.

While McCallum and Chretien are just two among several former Liberal cabinet ministers, Liberal insiders and senior diplomats who have gone on to more lucrative engagements as corporate advisers, fixers and influence-wielders in the China trade circuit, there’s nothing illegal about any of this. Over the years, the practice has become normalized.

Appointing McCallum instead of a seasoned diplomat to the embassy post in Beijing back in 2017 was the Trudeau government’s way of boasting about just how much Canada wanted to deepen its ties with China. The credentials McCallum was fond of citing on his own behalf included his enthusiasm for China, his ethnically Chinese wife and the fact his three sons had each married Chinese women.

But McCallum’s enthusiasm has proved rather less than an asset. It turned out to be Canada’s greatest liability the moment Beijing began to bare its fangs over Meng’s arrest last December.

What got McCallum fired in January was not just that he expressed the opinion that owing to offhand remarks by U.S. President Donald Trump, Meng had a good case that the charges against her were political—thus contradicting Trudeau and Freeland, but pleasing Beijing. It was that he was warned to knock it off, and after explaining that he “misspoke,” he stated publicly that it would be “great” if the U.S. could secure Kovring and Spavor as part of a U.S.-China exchange to free Meng—when Freeland and Trudeau were insisting that Meng’s case be left to the courts. Freeland described McCallum’s conduct as “untenable,” and Trudeau fired him.

Ironically, only a few months before McCallum’s appointment, Trudeau’s officials had signed a multi-faceted agreement with Beijing that committed Canada to enter into talks for an extradition treaty. It is precisely the spectre of an extradition agreement with Beijing that has spurred hundreds of thousands of Hongkongers to take to the streets in recent weeks in a series of unprecedented and dramatic protests. No such protests erupted in Canada.

Beijing’s influence operations in Canada are at least as deeply entrenched as they have been in Australia, but there isn’t much in Canadian law to stand in Beijing’s way. The all-powerful United Front Work Department, which Chinese president Xi Jinping calls China’s “magic weapon,” is increasingly hyperactive in Canada. And Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives have painted a big target on their backs by promising a dramatic break with what McCallum calls Canada’s “friendly” China policy going back a quarter of a century.

The election of a Conservative government would mean China can forget about a free trade deal with Canada. Scheer has further promised that China’s state-owned enterprises would lose their untrammelled access to Canadian markets. Along with the Kremlin and various state sponsors of terrorism, especially Iran, a Conservative government would count China as one of the “three of the greatest foreign threats to Canadian security and prosperity in the 21st century.”

Scheer says he’d deny any role for Huawei Technologies, Beijing’s “national champion,” in Canada’s fifth-generation (5G) internet connectivity rollout—it now seems certain that Ottawa will postpone its decision on Huawei and 5G until after the October election. Scheer says he’d also pull back the $250 million Trudeau’s Liberals have deposited in Beijing’s Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. A Conservative government would also launch complaints with the World Trade Organization to address the economic “punishments” that Beijing has already inflicted upon Canada.

In their letter to CSIS director David Vigneault, deputy Conservative leader Lisa Raitt and the Conservatives’ public safety critic Pierre Paul-Hus said: “Canadians expect that the upcoming election will be conducted in a free and fair manner, and that any and all incidents of foreign interference will be fully investigated.”

Canadians may well expect this, but it is specifically covert foreign election interference that is against the law in Canada, as is foreign funding of political parties and foreign funding of third-party activists during the legal campaign period. And Ottawa’s new multi-agency Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections (SITE) Task Force was set up to block “covert, clandestine, or criminal” interference in elections, and not the sort of mischief McCallum has been making.

When foreign influence operations are conducted out in the open, and foreign governments are invited publicly to influence voter preferences in order to achieve a particular election result, what is CSIS supposed to do [emphasis added]?
https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-real-election-threat-is-china/

Mark
Ottawa