D.卡尔顿 罗西
D. Carlton Rossi

China Affairs


                                    


 


                      Ministry of China Affairs


China Affairs would be a strange sounding name for a ministry of the federal government. It sounds more like a department at a university such as East Asian Studies in the U of T. The strangeness of the name though reflects our government's misjudgement, misunderstanding and mistakeness of the most populous country on the face of the Earth. We need a separate and independent ministry apart from Foreign Affairs to deal with the challenges and opportunities presented by one leader, one party and One Belt One Road.               

Our modern impression of China, one might say, began with Pierre Trudeau. As a young man he visited China in the tumultuous period of 1948--just prior to the establishment of the People's Republic of China. One would have difficulty separating revolution and war at that time.


                   


Then, in 1960, he toured the country. His experiences were chronicled in a book called Two Innocents in Red China. That title says everything because the Chinese organized the tour as a propaganda exercise extolling the revolution. The Canadians were dupes.


                  

           Peasants eat grass during Great Leap Forward


As China moved from an agriculture society to an industrial one it undertook mandatory agricultural collectivization in The Great Leap Forward from 1958 to 1962. In this process, the government gained a monopoly on food so it could buy low and sell high to finance industrialization. The result was a famine that killed tens of millions. Yet, Trudeau wrote "Who was it that vanquished this implacable enemy [famine]? Mao."

In the next decade, Trudeau was instrumental in the opening of China. It is well known that he initiated talks regarding normalization of Canada-China relations in 1968. Those talks bore fruition on October 13, 1970 when diplomatic relations were established. Let us not forget though that the period in China from 1966-1976 was the Cultural Revolution. Millions more were killed.


                      

               Military stands guard on Parliament Hill


What is not recognized so easily is the juxtaposition of the normalization of relations with the October crisis of 1970 in Canada. James Cross was kidnapped on October 5th. This began the crisis. Then, Pierre Laporte who was Quebec Minister of Labour was kidnapped on October 15th. A day later and only three days after the normalization with China, the War Measures Act suspended basic rights and liberties. The FLQ had switched its tactics from bombings to kidnapping to achieve their goal of separation.

Of course, it is a coincidence that normalization and the FLQ crisis occurred at the same time. It does though show that Trudeau naively misunderstood how the Cultural Revolution was conducted through mass terror and also underestimated how a Quiet Revolution in Quebec could degenerate quickly into chaos. Generally speaking, it might be said that in the abstract he was not opposed to revolutionary spirit, but he was shocked to see how quickly law and order could be thrown aside in a nasty, real way.




                       


Canada-China FIPA Agreement   (Sold down the Yangtze)


One might say that subsequent politicians have been similarly naive. They have concentrated on trade with China rather than human and civil rights. There has been a deficit in trade and a dearth of support for rights--in other words, a lose-lose scenario. More recently, a FIPA agreement with China under the Harper Government gave up some of our economic independence because decisions would be made by an arbitration panel. Free-trade with China means that our basic infrastructure would be controlled by Chinese SOE's. An extradition agreement with China would see an erosion of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


             



Sun Yat-sen overthrows Ming Dynasty in Xinhai Revolution


Generally speaking, there has been a revolution every ten years from the Xinhai Revolution (辛亥革命) in 1911 to the Cultural Revolution (无产阶级文化大革命). However, in 1978, Socialism with Chinese characteristics was introduced by Deng Xiaoping. This was reform rather than revolution. However, he called the reform a "second revolution". In a system described as "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" (中国特色社会主义) the middle-class grew through profits of private enterprise and poverty was reduced. The SOE's did not contribute to the growth through the generation of profits.




                            


             China's Fourth Industrial Revolution--AI


Canada is unprepared for the next revolution in China. It is called a "reform", but make no mistake, it is a revolution with a dark side. It is the AI revolution which is spearheaded by Huawei. Its technology will be used to monitor, control and subjugate the Chinese people. Already its technology is being tested in the Xinjiang region. When this technology is combined with the Social Credit system which mines data it will go beyond the Orwellian state envisioned in 1984.

It is nonsensical for Justin Trudeau to strive for a Free-Trade agreement with China by dealing with Chinese state-owned or controlled corporations. For example, in the takeover of Aecon or Canada's third largest construction firm, the SOE was taking over a profitable corporation. Yet, SOE's do not make profits. This has been said time and again by Mao Yushi who is a respected economist of the Unirule Institute. They are run for state reasons and for the benefit of party members.



                             



            Finance Minister Bill Morneau and the AIIB


One might argue that our Minister of Finance had contributed funds to the Beijing based Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) with the hopes of financing the overseas operations of companies like Aecon. However, the 1.5 billion Canadian takeover of Aecon by the world's largest engineering and construction firm (CCCC) was stopped on the grounds of national security. No one is suggesting that Canada was indirectly and unawaredly funding the takeover of its own company.

Is Canada able to get out of the AIIB? The answer is yes with six months notice. However, getting back the funds is a slow process. While only about 20% of the paid in capital will go to the bank it will be part of the total contribution of about 2.9 billion Canadian according to Trevor Tombe in a Maclean's article dated on September 8, 2016.

In a more up-to-date article of November 22, 2018, Marie Danielle Smith of The National Post comments that despite the government's rosy promises no Canadian investor or business has benefited by the involvement with AIIB. According to Conservative MP Ron Liepert there has been no Canadian investor engagement in the 32 projects to date. Why therefore is Canada contributing to a bank that has provided no benefits to date and where bids could be made on procurement contracts without membership in the bank?

If there were a Ministry of China Affairs then this inconsistency might be prevented or eliminated. Why are we driving up interest rates in Canada by making funds scarcer as we provide loans to the AIIB? Why don't we provide these funds for our own infrastructure rather than the infrastructure of One Belt One Road somewhere else? Get something straight. Our Canadian policy is not One Belt One Road whether it is here or on the Moon. That policy is Looney. We make our own destiny as a sovereign nation.

A Ministry of China Affairs would have a more realistic understanding of China with regard to a rule based system. China does not play by the rules. It bends and twists the rules. If you thought rules of the WTO would gradually bring China to an international standard then you misjudged. If you believed that China would follow the United Nations rules of the sea in the South China Sea then you misunderstand the island building program. If you turned a blind eye to the arrests of lawyers and civil rights activists in China as a precursor to the re-education camps in Xinjiang Province then you are mistaken. Do you need any more evidence than the statement of the head prosecutor in China who declared publically before a possible trial that the Kovrig and Spavor are endangering National Security?

The author was not able to speak out about civil rights in China as an employee of the state or as a resident. If he had done so he would have been sent on the first plane back to Canada. Instead, he endeavored to teach creative thinking rather than English out of outdated textbooks which talked of social injustices in the United States rather than China. He did take a stand in support of the peasant class beginning with his arrest in 2003. The two Sun cases or Sun Dawu and Sun Zhejiang were the beginning of the civil rights movement in China. Today, that movement has been crushed as was the demonstration for democracy (六四事件) at Tiananmen in 1989.

Since his return to Canada the author has been an observer of Chinese affairs on the mainland. He can't do much about the situation. What he can do something about is to ensure that Canada's rule of law, democracy and national security is protected at all costs from actions of Chinese party members through SOE's, state sponsored companies, Confucius Institutes, universities, takeovers, drugs, bitcoin mining, money laundering, property speculation, immigration, thefts of intellectual property, cyber theft, corruption, campaign contributions and gifts to foundations etc. National security must take precedence over rule of law and democracy. However, it has to be done within a coherent policy of the government which employs sensible strategies under a Ministry which understands the situation. The situation is serious enough to employ the Emergency Measures Act. These affairs are now our internal affairs in Canada. They are China Affairs in Canada.


               

                   CFO Meng Wanzhou of Huawei

Mdme Meng is Huawei. No decision can be made for or against Huawei's involvement in 5G technology in Canada until she is released. Canada's national security and economic stability may be threatened in the meantime. It is imperative to immediately resolve her issue even at the expense of an extradition obligation with the US tainted by political interference. The best way is not Huawei, the American way, but our way. Trade her for seven Canadian hostages.

The author has spoken out about how our Immigration Department has farmed out investigative procedures for a Canadian visa to a Chinese company. They seem rather proud of it because Canada is the first western country to do it. Is anyone asking the basic question of why Canada is doing so and why it is the only one?



                               


                                       Chinese Ten Year Tourist Visa


There has been an issue with 10 year visas. In 2012, the Chinese were given the right to apply for 10 year visas. Yet, it took three years for Canadians to get reciprocity. In that period, this Canadian was leaving China every two months so that he could re-enter on a visitor's visa. If our freedom of information law was not the weakest in the western world this author would ask just how many 10 year visas have been granted to Chinese since 2012 and how many to Canadians since 2015? The difference would probably astound you, but the figure is unknown. Perhaps the new People's Party of Canada will take up the issue.

The author suspects that Canada is being overwhelmed with tourists on 10 year visas from China. Why would they apply for a single visa when a 10 year visa is about the same cost? However, a proportionate number of Canadians do not get Chinese 10 year visas. Canada has lost control of the situation. Someone in a Ministry of China Affairs might ask why the numbers were not equal and would not be satisfied by the response that China has a much greater population. That someone would point out that the citizens of Hong Kong are complaining about the influx of Chinese tourists which drive up prices and create shortages while the promises made to them of self rule are vacuous.

If Canadians are not very careful then Canada will become a vassal state of China. You have already paid tribute in the form of Norsat and loans to the Asian Bank. You will have a semblance of rule of law and democracy as they do in Hong Kong, but you will be ruled by a Party on the mainland that uses the constitution as a prop of propaganda to rule by law enforced by intimidation, fear and terror. China is now touting the Hong Kong example as a model for Taiwan. They will take Taiwan as a sacred duty of an officially atheistic state.


D.卡尔顿 罗西
D. Carlton Rossi

2018年1月4日








                        


      David Mulroney (Former Canadian Ambassador to China)


The NBA’s China crisis is proof that economic diplomacy is no slam dunk


David Mulroney

Special to The Globe and Mail

Published 3 days ago


This is leading to increasing interest in what some in the U.S. are calling “decoupling” – that is, replacing our across-the-board engagement with an idealized vision of China, and instead approaching the communist state as a formidable rising power that’s as much a competitor as it is a customer. Proponents of decoupling argue that focusing exclusively on deepening economic ties with China is backfiring precisely because Beijing so effectively weaponizes trade, turning market access into a dangerous dependency.

But we’re not hearing much talk about decoupling here in Canada. Even after a year of brutal treatment by Beijing, the government seems wedded to the same comprehensive engagement strategy that corporations such as the NBA stubbornly embrace. We’ve even dispatched senior people to Beijing on what seem, bizarrely, like apology tours. In their visits to China, federal Small Business Minister Mary Ng and Canadian senator and Canada-China Legislative Association co-chair Joseph Day sounded an awful lot like Mr. Silver as they meekly offered Chinese audiences bromides about not letting small differences disrupt our fundamental friendship.

We do need to manage our messaging while Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor continue to languish in Chinese detention. But that doesn’t oblige us to say things that are foolish or untrue, or to put off serious thinking about a smart decoupling from a China that is, from abundant evidence, far from friendly. This isn’t about abandoning the relationship – it’s about ending a failed, anything-goes approach to engagement.

excerpts


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-the-nbas-china-crisis-is-proof-that-economic-diplomacy-is-no-slam/






                                           


            D. Carlton Rossi at Hong Kong Court of Last Appeal



Canada does not have a China policy. The only sensible thing to do therefore is to decouple from China. I prefer to use the term "disengage". The disengagement would be external. For example, trade with China should be reduced (as it has already been accomplished by China) and FIPA abolished (which may even now be used by China with reference to the extradition case).

My views on disengagement using that actual term were expressed privately to a "China expert" about six months ago. They have been reinforced to a great degree with Chinese responses to the peaceful demonstrations in the streets of Hong Kong. However, where the young people of Hong Kong are outwardly expressing their views it is equally apparent that politicians in this country are expressing next to no views about either Hong Kong or China in this election. Most are putting domestic politics (with little emphasis on substantive issues) ahead of national interests and security while trying to buy votes in the most debased way.

It is evident that China has used economic blackmail by cutting purchases of canola in order to influence a decision on Meng Wanzhou as David Mulroney has said and in a wider sense on the establishment of Huawei's 5G network. However, Canada got itself into this predicament by concentrating too much on the export of one crop as the US emphasized soybean exports to China. This made both Canada and the US vulnerable from a trade perspective from many angles.

The West is not in a New Cold War with China. Rather, China is currently conducting Guerrilla Warfare. Its principles were laid out in Mao Tsetung's On Guerrilla Warfare (游击战) written in 1937. These principles are being followed by today's leadership in China. When confronted by a stronger enemy then use irregular warfare. They are applying this principle internationally.

Our approach to China should be two pronged. Disengage externally, but engage internally. Chinese agents should be engaged or confronted domestically within Canada to defend our national interests and security. There are many security issues in multiple areas which must be addressed and eliminated with respect to money laundering, fentynal and espionage to name several.

The latest episode involving an independent contractor who had high level access to information within the RCMP, for example, does not inspire my confidence in that organization to defend Canada against the Chinese espionage threat along with its use of guerrilla tactics in other areas. A new organization is required to deal specifically with Chinese clandestine threats within Canada. If Canada really wants to get serious in confronting the domestic Chinese threat then I would suggest hiring the former Defense Secretary James Mattis to head the organization. He resigned from POTUS.








A Typical Day