China Warns Canada of ‘Heavy Price’ Over Huawei Arrest(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
China Warns Canada of ‘Heavy Price’ Over Huawei Arrest
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/09/technology/canada-china-huawei-meng-wanzhou.html
6 comments
This must be a rule of law issue. CEOs are just people here, even if they have more power through money in western countries. The us has arrested its own ceos when they break the law. On the other hand, china absolutely goes farther than that such as these refusal to allow people to exit china even when they haven't apparently done anything (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/25/us/politics/china-exit-ba...).
Not suggesting I have the answer, but here's a thought.
Canada has prospered from sharing a land border with the U.S. We are the largest trading partner because of this geography. For better or worse, we are tied to the U.S. by umbilical cord. I get a sense that no matter what the mood of the day is about our relations, we need to find a way to cooperate as much as possible.
Trump will come and go. China will probably keep growing in economic power and relevance. But Canada won't ever physically find itself not in North America.
Canada has prospered from sharing a land border with the U.S. We are the largest trading partner because of this geography. For better or worse, we are tied to the U.S. by umbilical cord. I get a sense that no matter what the mood of the day is about our relations, we need to find a way to cooperate as much as possible.
Trump will come and go. China will probably keep growing in economic power and relevance. But Canada won't ever physically find itself not in North America.
It's this thing called the law that -- in western democracies -- applies to everyone equally.
I cannot tell whether this is being said with a straight face.
Yes, it is. The law of Canada says this woman should be arrested. Thus, independent of what Mr Trudeau thinks, she will be arrested, and tried, in accordance with the law.
OK I see, thank you.
Your original comment made the blanket statement that the law applies equally to all citizens in western democracies. Make all the statements you want saying that western democracies have a better rule of law than China but making blanket statements like the above hurts your argument.
Your original comment made the blanket statement that the law applies equally to all citizens in western democracies. Make all the statements you want saying that western democracies have a better rule of law than China but making blanket statements like the above hurts your argument.
I don't know Canadian law, but Huawei did not break laws it is bound by. The US cannot require people and organizations in other countries to apply international sanctions it wishes to apply. China is committed to the JCPOA, Huawei is a Chinese company and it is ridiculous - and legally baseless, AFAICT - to demand otherwise.
... which means Canada should not have honored the request to arrest.
... which means Canada should not have honored the request to arrest.
You are bound by any laws of the jurisdictions you enter, including if those laws are unjust or apply to things you did outside that jurisdiction.
> Legally baseless
according to whom? I will never understand the appeals to legality on an international level. These questions could only be answered in the context of a particular jurisdiction, and -- according to the jurisdiction this lady was detained in -- the actions of the government were legal.
> Legally baseless
according to whom? I will never understand the appeals to legality on an international level. These questions could only be answered in the context of a particular jurisdiction, and -- according to the jurisdiction this lady was detained in -- the actions of the government were legal.
Huawai isn't charged (but given that it has facilities in the US it probably can't pretend to be totally free of US law, and at least some reports say executives have avoided traveling there after the US parts were subpoenaed for information).
Apparently the executive is charged with financial fraud: misrepresenting the nature of financial transactions to banks. That's probably a crime in Canada too (I'm sure some government lawyers spend a lot of thought on the right wording for this so it does translate to Canadian law, even if the specific sanctions that are the reason she did that don't exist in Canada), and so she can be arrested and extradited if the courts agree.
Apparently the executive is charged with financial fraud: misrepresenting the nature of financial transactions to banks. That's probably a crime in Canada too (I'm sure some government lawyers spend a lot of thought on the right wording for this so it does translate to Canadian law, even if the specific sanctions that are the reason she did that don't exist in Canada), and so she can be arrested and extradited if the courts agree.
What I'm curious to know is if she is "Chinese" in this situation - meaning was she traveling under a Chinese passport.
She's traveling under either a normal Chinese passport or a Hong Kong passport
Thanks for clarifying. I had read that she probably wasn't traveling with a Chinese passport. I didn't know about the Hong Kong passport until now.
http://shanghaiist.com/2014/07/01/why_hong_kongs_passport_mi...
"After the handover to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, Hong Kong continued to maintain its own passport separate from that of the standard PRC issue. Replacing the erstwhile British National (Overseas) passport, the HKSAR passport inherited much of the privileges afforded to UK passport holders: free access to commonwealth nations such as Canada and New Zealand as well as the European Schengen area."
http://shanghaiist.com/2014/07/01/why_hong_kongs_passport_mi...
"After the handover to Chinese sovereignty in 1997, Hong Kong continued to maintain its own passport separate from that of the standard PRC issue. Replacing the erstwhile British National (Overseas) passport, the HKSAR passport inherited much of the privileges afforded to UK passport holders: free access to commonwealth nations such as Canada and New Zealand as well as the European Schengen area."
Bring it.
I hear very little of Western CEO’s being detained or arrested.
People aware of the concept of Orientalism?
This is a great 3 min summary - https://youtu.be/1aNwMpV6bVs
People aware of the concept of Orientalism?
This is a great 3 min summary - https://youtu.be/1aNwMpV6bVs
Never heard of Jeff Skilling? Bernie Madoff? Martha Stewart?
Plenty of western CEOs have been arrested, convicted and jailed. I guess the difference is that they don't benefit from their government threatening severe consequences unless the rule of law is suspended.
Plenty of western CEOs have been arrested, convicted and jailed. I guess the difference is that they don't benefit from their government threatening severe consequences unless the rule of law is suspended.
Or, as a very recent example of arrests, Carlos Ghosn.
Quite a few from my own little country alone.
Rio Tinto's Stern Hu jailed for a decade due to acquiring business intel on competing companies.
Crown Casino execs jailed for promoting gambling (who would have thought?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Hu
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-26/crown-casino-staff-ja...
Rio Tinto's Stern Hu jailed for a decade due to acquiring business intel on competing companies.
Crown Casino execs jailed for promoting gambling (who would have thought?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Hu
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-26/crown-casino-staff-ja...
dis-sys(1)
Norway was heavily punished for the Nobel Peace prize being awarded to an incarcerated Chinese human rights activist[1].
[1]
[1]
liberty is a use it or lose it proposition, good for norway. And good for Canada, theft from Canadian companies should not be ignored when executed by state actors.
"how Huawei's rise was at the expense of Nortel."
-- https://www.networkworld.com/article/2223272/cisco-subnet/60...
They capitulated in the end. It was extremely humiliating and not strongly covered in the west.
This is not what standing up for freedom of expression looks like:
“The Norwegian Government reiterates its commitment to the one China policy, fully respects China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, attaches high importance to China’s core interests and major concerns, will not support actions that undermine them, and will do its best to avoid any future damage to the bilateral relations.”
This is not what standing up for freedom of expression looks like:
“The Norwegian Government reiterates its commitment to the one China policy, fully respects China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, attaches high importance to China’s core interests and major concerns, will not support actions that undermine them, and will do its best to avoid any future damage to the bilateral relations.”
Honestly I've seen this repeated over and over again, but nortel's down fall is ultimate the result of its bet on circuit switching while rest of the telecom world was moving towards packet switching.
[deleted]
> [1]
You're missing something there. Might wanna edit that. Here's a suggestion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Norway_relations...
You're missing something there. Might wanna edit that. Here's a suggestion:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China%E2%80%93Norway_relations...
[deleted]
Was the lack of retribution an intentional omission?
The world leaders should refer to China as a dictatorship. It has abandoned all of the communist principles except for the rule by one. So it’s a dictatorship by all means and so should Ben called as such.
Here is a list [1] of current authoritarian regimes. There is a pattern or rather multiple patterns. They're poor, hostile and struggling in all aspects (pick your favorite ranking metric) with only one exception - Singapore. The world doesn't need authoritarianism. Human psyche, at the top and at the bottom of the societal hierarchy is fragile and barbaric without education, science and free thought.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
> They're poor, hostile and struggling in all aspects (pick your favorite ranking metric) with only one exception - Singapore.
What about Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and more notably Russia and China? I don't think any of them qualify as poor and struggling?
Also, causation and correlation. Poverty might be related to authoritarian, but not necessarily caused by it. For example, many counties are poor because of colonialism and the political vacuum left over when they gained independence.
In addition, looking at stats in this way is prone to sampling bias. If you take a look at the list of non authoritarian counties, many of them might not be necessarily doing better.
What about Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and more notably Russia and China? I don't think any of them qualify as poor and struggling?
Also, causation and correlation. Poverty might be related to authoritarian, but not necessarily caused by it. For example, many counties are poor because of colonialism and the political vacuum left over when they gained independence.
In addition, looking at stats in this way is prone to sampling bias. If you take a look at the list of non authoritarian counties, many of them might not be necessarily doing better.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar have a notable underclass that's pretty much for all intents and purpose slave labor. Russia's living conditions improved but you're still in for a big surprise once you step outside of Moscow or St-Petersburg. The average (or more accurately, median) Russian or Chinese is not an affluent middle-class urban dweller posting loftily about the downfall of the West, they're a rural worker living under what would be considered miserable conditions in any Western country.
It's almost as if authoritarian rule was inefficient and wasteful in resources due to having to spend most of its energy staying in power and favoring corruption and political favoritism at the expense of good policies. Sure you may offset that with incredible amounts of natural resources (oil and large territory) but inequality does not go away. Also, sooner or later natural resources run out.
It's almost as if authoritarian rule was inefficient and wasteful in resources due to having to spend most of its energy staying in power and favoring corruption and political favoritism at the expense of good policies. Sure you may offset that with incredible amounts of natural resources (oil and large territory) but inequality does not go away. Also, sooner or later natural resources run out.
[deleted]
> Poverty might be related to authoritarian, but not necessarily caused by it.
There are some good arguments for why it might be the cause of it. A book I really enjoyed on this subject is called "The Dictator's Handbook".
One of the arguments in the book is that in dictatorships, the rulers have much less need to please ordinary people, and they are better off utilizing their available resources to enrich themselves and buy loyalty from other powerful players. If they are not able to gain loyalty from other powerful players they risk a coup. Where as in democratic societies, the leaders need to please the people, otherwise they risk losing power by being voted out.
A reasonable explanation for the few authoritarian counties that do not have poor and struggling populations is that they have an outside player that is threatening them. In these cases, they have demands for something more than what they can bully out of their populations. So you are going to see widespread education, and ideally, prosperity. This gives them advanced military technology and economic power.
I am likely doing the book injustice in my representation of it, but it is able to provide a very solid argument for the above being true. Both from an analytical perspective, as well as a historical one.
There are some good arguments for why it might be the cause of it. A book I really enjoyed on this subject is called "The Dictator's Handbook".
One of the arguments in the book is that in dictatorships, the rulers have much less need to please ordinary people, and they are better off utilizing their available resources to enrich themselves and buy loyalty from other powerful players. If they are not able to gain loyalty from other powerful players they risk a coup. Where as in democratic societies, the leaders need to please the people, otherwise they risk losing power by being voted out.
A reasonable explanation for the few authoritarian counties that do not have poor and struggling populations is that they have an outside player that is threatening them. In these cases, they have demands for something more than what they can bully out of their populations. So you are going to see widespread education, and ideally, prosperity. This gives them advanced military technology and economic power.
I am likely doing the book injustice in my representation of it, but it is able to provide a very solid argument for the above being true. Both from an analytical perspective, as well as a historical one.
What is the USA doing for Canada apart from tearing up existing trade deals?