Thank god we have a Prime Minister who can stand up to China.
We should find new markets for the Gas,Oil,Coal and other natural resourses that is shipped to China and stop importing cheap goods from them.
They need us more than we need them

Posted by: Rene at November 16, 2006 09:27 AM

---

The Liberals are hypocrites!!

Posted by: at November 16, 2006 09:34 AM

---

Bill Graham's record on standing up against human rights abuses is not exactly exemplary. Just ask William Sampson.

Posted by: Surecure at November 16, 2006 09:50 AM

---

Four points:
1) I actually commend PM Harper--Me! Who'd a thunk it!--for putting human rights issues on the diplomatic agenda with China. The abuses occurring there are tragic, often carried out in the name of economic progress. Human dignities and health statuses should never be made subordinate to trade priorities.

2) Having said that, you may wish to consider more critically the role of neoliberalism--which holds that the market should dominate, and will solve all problems--in helping to underpin both the almost insatiable lust among Western nations (really, investors) for trade with emerging foreign markets and the oppressive social and work conditions in China. If this diplomatic squabble is just for show--Harper stands up to China! Hu Jintao won't let Westerners criticize China!--and then both sides agree to disagree on human rights and re-endorse the economic status quo, then all this moral posturing will be for naught. Capitalists will continue to stuff their coffers, and the poor and vulnerable will continue to die.

If PM Harper is serious about championing universal human rights, and not merely offering a superficial critique of China's violations to improve his PR image back home, then he needs to also address the often-brutal market ideologies that pervade global trade processes, and the many ways in which the prioritization of market forces over health and social considerations is allowed to occur even in Canada (e.g., the privatization of medicare debate, the dismantling of the social welfare net, the subordination of environmental problems to economic needs).

3) On that note, I'd also like to see Canada finally get serious about, say, Aboriginal issues, and domestic child poverty. No country is above criticism; all are guilty here. It would be hypocritical and patronizing of Canada to chastise China over matters of universal human rights, while continuing to ignore the particular demons in her own closet.

4) Oh, and it's a bit of a cheap-shot to say:

"For these people, money is what matters. Of course, they never actually say it in so many words. Well, not unless you are Opposition leader Bill Graham. From October 2000, with the Liberals were in power, his did say exactly that."

Especially since he didn't actually say that--not in so many words, anyway. And your headline ("Bill Graham: Trade with China is worth more than babies") is more suited to the National Enquirer than to a blog that aspires to investigative reporting and political punditry. Whatever happened to operating with "a touch of class"?

Posted by: A at November 16, 2006 10:00 AM

---

This story underscores the inherent differences between conservatism and liberalism.

Conservatives seek power for the purpose of applying their principles to govern.

Liberals on the other hand, are all-to-willing to put their principles on the back burner if they become an obstacle to government. And only when they are on the outside looking in are they forced to examine their principles. But by then they’d forgotten what their principles were and get it all wrong. And sometimes, like in the case of same-sex marriage, principles are negotiable if it nets them votes…

This example is so sadly typical. So sadly short-sighted.

No matter what happens there still remains something called “liberal credibility”. It should be an oxymoron, but it isn’t…

http://gargoylerants.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Gargoyle at November 16, 2006 10:20 AM

---

The love of money is the root of all evil, Graham would know.

Posted by: DrWright at November 16, 2006 11:04 AM

---

Wouldn't harming trade relations with China for the sake of human rights have to be premised on the fact that we actually could affect China's human rights record? I mean, lets not pretend that Hu Jintao gives a damn what Stephen Harper thinks. So how does it advance human rights to scold him?

And any dearth in Canadian trade with China will be made up by Chinese dealings with other human rights abusers in Africa and the Arab world, which isn't really good for anyone. The more Canada can attract Chinese trade the less money is going to dictators in Africa and the Arab world, which would have a greater impact on global human rights than any pontificating we can do on the matter.

Posted by: Olaf at November 16, 2006 11:14 AM

---

I love it. The Liberals want us to stick it to the Americans, the home and of many of the leading human rights organizations and engage China, the home of none and the source of many serious human rights violations. It gives you a good handle on Liberal values.

Posted by: Eric at November 16, 2006 11:45 AM

---

Olaf,

Does what you say truly make sense to you? Because I'm lost.

We should trade with China and keep our mouth shut so they don't go buy technology and other goods and resources from nations equally depraved as they are? (assuming they could get what they needed from such regimes) And we should expect that to help them appreciate human rights? How, exactly?

Do you really think that they will give a rats ass what our values are if we just play nice?

Hey, turnabout is fair play. They are free to scold our government for allowing us to vote, have more than one child, surf the Internet, speak our mind, expect justice, practice any faith and move freely.

http://gargoylerants.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Gargoyle at November 16, 2006 12:09 PM

---

Gargoyle,

Do you really think that they will give a rats ass what our values are if we just play nice?

No, that's the whole point. The don't care what we think or what we say, so why should we harm trade with China (which could conceivably improve human rights) if it won't make a difference to how they conduct themselves domestically. You assume that they will give a rats ass about what our values are if we don't play nice.

I think that anything that we can do to improve our market share of Chinese trade (and thereby decrease, however slightly, Chinese trade with other dictators) would go further to improve human rights globally than any pontificating.

Furthermore, if we really want to improve human rights globally, we can devote any increased revenue through Chinese trade to areas where we actually can have a tangible effect on human rights, like in Afghanistan, or through increasing targeted aid to Africa, for example.

Posted by: Olaf at November 16, 2006 01:16 PM

---

Its past time for Canada to step into the fray on important international issues instead of just flashing the maple leaf when situations get dicey. That of course places Canada's actions and intent into the realm of world discourse and scrutiny similar to your nanny to the south. Is your country lost to moral relativism or are there core, Canadian principles worth protecting and proclaiming?

Posted by: angryinthecornbelt at November 16, 2006 01:51 PM

---

Olaf,

First, the matter at issue is human rights in China, not Africa or Afghanistan. But I guess you think we should give China a free pass because we need cheap plastic toys that break on Christmas morning.

You assume that China can get from these other states what they can get (and need) from us, by ‘us’ I mean the decidedly more civilized West. You also assume that regimes in Africa and other places, with whom we may not even have significant trade will listen to us. Why? What's the carrot?

Silence about the Chinese human rights record could be read as endorsement of their practices. Personally, I don’t like what they do so I don’t buy Chinese goods when I can avoid it. And I don’t like what Cuba does either, so I will not vacation there. You see, I act on my principles. I'll pay a little more before compromising my values.

If we, or they decided to stop trading, where would they sell their dollar-store crap? Africa? Afghanistan?

I am not content just shrugging my shoulders. I say that we should continue to talk about human rights and if they don’t like it they can take their business elsewhere. Rene is right. They need us and our technology and know-how and resources and wealth more then we need their boatloads of eventual landfill.

http://gargoylerants.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Gargoyle at November 16, 2006 01:56 PM

---

Gargy,

First, the matter at issue is human rights in China, not Africa or Afghanistan.

The issue for me is tangible action in areas where we actually can improve human rights globally, which I would argue we can't in China.

But I guess you think we should give China a free pass because we need cheap plastic toys that break on Christmas morning.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the argument I'm making, nor is it the jist behind my position.

You assume that China can get from these other states what they can get (and need) from us, by ‘us’ I mean the decidedly more civilized West.

I don't assume this, but I believe that China can continue to get the energy resources from us that they already do (remember, it's not like Harper is calling a boycott or anything, China still gets tons of our resources regardless if we piss them off or not), and from other civilized countries who won't publicly chastise them, AS WELL as from dictators globally.

You also assume that regimes in Africa and other places, with whom we may not even have significant trade will listen to us.

When did I imply this? This again has nothing to do with my point.

Personally, I don’t like what they do so I don’t buy Chinese goods when I can avoid it.

When you can avoid it? When can't you avoid it if you're principles are so important to you?

I say that we should continue to talk about human rights and if they don’t like it they can take their business elsewhere.

That's fine - but don't pretend that this will somehow improve human rights... because you haven't suggested how it would, while I have suggested ways in which it could conceivably harm human rights globally.

Posted by: Olaf at November 16, 2006 02:31 PM

---

Just to interupt this thread between Olaf and Gargoyle:

my 2 cents is that China does seeply care about what other countries think about them and so reacts vociferously when they call them on the carpet.

Somebody has to take the lead,others will follow.

Posted by: Fergy at November 16, 2006 02:40 PM

---

Olaf,

Why can’t we help further human rights in China? Shame can be a great motivator.

Telling our leaders to sit down and shut up because we don’t want to upset the Chinese and lose their trade IS giving China a free pass.

If we piss them off and they still buy our stuff then what’s the harm?

Your last paragraph of your entry at 1.16PM implies that we should work for human rights in Afghanistan and Africa. You are a little short on details. Especially when you imply it will somehow improve things GLOBALLY.

It would seem that I can’t avoid buying Chinese if I want to continue to wear shoes Olaf. Cheap goods from China has cornered many markets.

Telling the Chinese that we are aware of what goes on may indeed get them to smarten up. And no, you have not suggested at all how human rights can be harmed by talking about them. Instead, you are rationalizing the dubious Liberal position.

http://gargoylerants.blogspot.com/

Posted by: Gargoyle at November 16, 2006 03:01 PM

---

Gargy,

Why can’t we help further human rights in China? Shame can be a great motivator.

I think you're being naive here, in that shame isn't quite the motivator that maintaining power through oppression is. That's all I'm saying. I think that if the rest of the world was willing to get tough on China than Canada could join, but to suppose (as Rene and Fergy seem to) that Canada is going to lead this parade is wrongheaded in my opinion, considering Chinas massive economic clout.

Your last paragraph of your entry at 1.16PM implies that we should work for human rights in Afghanistan and Africa. You are a little short on details. Especially when you imply it will somehow improve things GLOBALLY.

Firstly, I used to term globally to mean "not just in China". Secondly, I've gone over how aid could improve human rights in Africa, and how an increased presence in Afghanistan could improve human rights there, on countless occasions on my blog but don't feel like anyone wants to hear me rant on it at any great length here.

It would seem that I can’t avoid buying Chinese if I want to continue to wear shoes Olaf.

You would compromise your principles for shoes. :)

Telling the Chinese that we are aware of what goes on may indeed get them to smarten up.

Really? I doubt it. I think they know exactly what their doing. I highly doubt that because Harper periodically proclaims dissatisfaction with Chinas human rights record that they'll perk up their ears and think "huh... I never considered the fact that torturing and killing dissidents could be seen as a violation of human rights, we better smarten up".

Instead, you are rationalizing the dubious Liberal position.

My position has nothing to do with the Liberal position.

Posted by: Olaf at November 16, 2006 03:25 PM

---

These are great developments! Now if only Stephen Harper can get back the $1,000 the Chinese government owes me...

Posted by: TheDiggler at November 16, 2006 03:36 PM

---

Olaf, although I don't think that we can really affect China, is it right for us to just sit on our hands and say 'we can't do anything'.

Given Chinese culture having Canadians openly criticizing China will not help the situation. However, it is important, especially from the Chinese viewpoint, to have some clarity in how Canada feels. As Mao Zedong said "I like righties because they mean what they say, unlike lefties who say one thing and mean another." (paraphrased - I can't remmeber it exactly)

The situation here however is very different because we have a Canadian citizen who is sitting in a jail in China and is being denied his rights guaranteed him by both the Geneva conventions and by bilateral agreements signed by China and Canada. This is a direct violation of those agreements and if we allow it to go unmentioned then they will interpret it as an act of weakness and exploit our weakness.

Posted by: southernontarioan at November 16, 2006 03:59 PM

---

I wish you fearless anti-commies would learn to recognize harmful and oppressive communist policies right in your own back yard, instead of fuming and fussing about a communist bogeyman in China about which you know next to nothing.

When you buy goods from China, you are helping its citizens and hurting its government. Trade with China is very, very good for Chinese babies.

While still very oppressive, the government of China has far less influence over people's investment and jobs in the factories which make goods for export. In the bad old days, everyone worked at a government job, and every workplace had communist-party goons who forced everyone to get IUDs, or pressured them to have abortions, and abused their rights in every conceivable way. And down on the farm, China's backward agricultural policies resulted in farmers being dirt-poor - so poor that many of them felt they had no choice but to sell or abandon any children they couldn't afford.

But when these same people get a job in a factory which sells things for export to the west, the ownership is usually private, or if not completely private then the government investment is mostly silent - especially with respect to dictating to the factories how many people they have to employ, where the employees have to live, etc. This is why Chinese literally flock to these jobs - because they mean comparative wealth and freedom. Maybe your union told you that Chinese factories are sweatshops, the people are slaves, etc. but this is bunk. It's no paradise, but it represents a huge leap forward for these people.

So before you rush to judgement, think things through a little bit. Do some reading. Go to China and see what's going on over there for yourself, if you really care about the Chinese people's freedom. To do anything else is to be guilty of moralistic posing. And any of you who think you are conservatives - if you think that government should make moral decisions for people, and should jump in to restrict trade every time a noisy lobby group gets their attention, and should in general treat people like stupid, amoral lumps, then there's another word for that kind of political philosophy.

Posted by: at November 16, 2006 04:26 PM

---

Yes Olaf, I wear shoes. Don't you?

You say I am naive and I say you are defeatist. Why can't Canada lead the charge?

If they don't care what we say, why do we seem to have their attention on the matter?

Posted by: Gargoyle at November 16, 2006 04:34 PM

---

Garg,

I do wear shoes on occasion, except I cobble them myself from Albertan rawhide.

You say I am naive and I say you are defeatist. Why can't Canada lead the charge?

Fair enough, that is certainly where we differ.

f they don't care what we say, why do we seem to have their attention on the matter?

I hardly think that we have their attention on the matter and truth be told, Jintao probably canceled the meeting in the first place to attend a raquetball game.

Posted by: Olaf at November 16, 2006 05:20 PM

---

SO,

This is a direct violation of those agreements and if we allow it to go unmentioned then they will interpret it as an act of weakness and exploit our weakness.

First of all, China can exploit our weakness all they want; Harper standing up and saying "hey, you can't do that" won't change their mind (remember Kazemi? And that was just Iran). And I'm not saying that we should just ignore the fact that there is a Canadian citizen imprisoned. Harper should mention this particular case and our strong dissatisfaction, but he should do so privately.

I don't, however, think that we should simply ignore China, publicly chastise it, or neglect efforts to increase trade because in my estimation this would have a more detrimental effect on human rights than the negligible effect produced by our preaching. I'm not saying do nothing, I'm just saying do nothing that is useless if it precludes doing something constructive.

Posted by: Olaf at November 16, 2006 07:59 PM

---

A,

IF you have visited China, I would suggest it was only one time and only in the last five years.

I could take your arguments seriously if I thought you had actually read some history but obviously you haven't.

Your statement that we should look at the numbers of ignorant farm people who flock to the cities for jobs is a new phenomenon is at best naive. This has been happening for at least the last 30 years (historical context).

To claim that the present state of affairs is ok is reprehensible. The Chinese government owns EVERYTHING! To think that any corporation in that country has any independent thought is ridiculous. As I said "Read some History". Things haven't changed that much since Mao.

Cheers

Posted by: vieux loup at November 16, 2006 10:10 PM

---

Who will rid us of these Lilliputian Liberals (aka moral pygmies)? It's all about money, money, money--for them not the ordinary Canadian.

There's the example of Bill Graham, a moral pygmy if there ever was one, then there's Chretien and Martin and their unabashed sucking up to the Chinese while ignoring China's abysmal record on human rights, and Maurice Strong, a good friend of the Liberals (and Bob Rae's Uncle Mo), who's now living in China and developing a Chinese-made car to be on the market in the next year or two. To add insult to injury, we've got Iggy's latest statement about "quiet diplomacy" as opposed to the megaphone kind, supposedly Prime Minister Stephen Harper's preferred method.

Do you think that Prime Minister Stephen Harper might be stepping on their toes? Would that have anything to do with their criticism of him? They wouldn't want anything to get in the way of trade with China, would they, especially when, I suspect, their own personal financial portfolios are relying on this trade?

The plot is thickening.

Posted by: 'been around the block at November 17, 2006 08:15 AM

---

Forget this asshole that is imprisoned in China. He was the author of his own misfortune. Another Convenient Canadian that thought he could use his citizenship to do all kinds of mischief.
That being said, PMSH is doing a bang-up job letting the Chinamen know that we are no longer pushovers.
Good on him, I say!

Posted by: Gerry Atric at November 17, 2006 06:01 PM

---

Sad commentary on the moral state of this Country when we have people criticizing PM Harper for publicly letting the Chinese Government know we do not approve of their abuses of human rights.

Telling them in private is useless. Telling them publicly is reminding the world and has more impact.
Their sensibilities may be offended, too bloody bad. The World needs to be reminded what a ruthless regime they're running.
They will continue to trade, they need it to become the super power they aspire to be.

Problem with the Liberals and their hacks like Mo Strong, they have lost the power to wheel and deal and the old Green-Eyed Monster is at work.
Harper does business differently, it may cause them some grief.

Posted by: Biddy at November 17, 2006 08:22 PM

---

vieux loup - wrong on all counts.

Posted by: at November 18, 2006 07:54 PM

---

HMMM,,Todays paper and news stories all say PM Harper had his meeting with the Chinese leader.How did the press miss that.??Oh i guess they were off somewhere having a drink,thinking up the next pile of lies to print.What a pile of gullible fools read this garbage,especially the toronto newspapers.When are they ever going to wake up and cancel their subscriptions until the newspapers get some honest reporters.PM Harper is playing these idiots like the fools they are,and they are no more than jokes now,replacing the comics.

Posted by: treb at November 19, 2006 04:39 PM

---