D.卡尔顿 罗西
D. Carlton Rossi

David Mulroney




                         


            Former Ambassador to China Mr. David Mulroney



I/ There are 2 obvious problems with this new approach to foreign policy

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-can-champagne-fix-what-freeland-broke/ … With the first being that it now has at least 3 centres: PMO, Deputy PM Freeland and FM Champagne

3:48 AM - 21 Nov 2019



David Mulroney

‏ @David_Mulroney

2/ And since almost all issues have a US dimension, "rest of world" becomes a backwater--unless Ottawa brings unprecedented coordination of vision, ambition and, rarest of all, execution to its navigation of global affairs

3:48 AM - 21 Nov 2019



David Mulroney

‏ @David_Mulroney

3/ Which is the 2nd problem. We're still stuck between the old "vision" of Canada as a do-gooding dabbler, and the new reality of increasing isolation in a rapidly changing and largely unfriendly world

3:48 AM - 21 Nov 2019


https://twitter.com/David_Mulroney



I've posted all three comments by David Mulroney who was Canada's former ambassador to China because they are examples of clear insight and perception. However, I will add to the 3 centre concept of the first comment. In other words, the new approach is more fractured in my opinion.

I would propose that Gerald Buttes must be included as a centre of foreign policy. He was Principle Secretary to the Prime Minister for over three years until his resignation. He was instrumental in getting Trudeau elected in 2015 and 2019. Finally, he plays such an important role in providing advice to the Prime Minister as a friend and shadow that one might call him an unelected, shadowed member of the Cabinet.

As Deputy Prime Minister, Chrystia Freeland will oversee Canada-US relations and the new trade agreement. However, as intergovernmental affairs minister her duties and responsibilities will centre primarily on national affairs as opposed to international affairs. The reason is that the government is a minority one and it must satisfy the concerns of other parties in order to stay in power. Her time will also be consumed with the unity crisis.

Foreign Minister Champagne will try to fill the shoes of Chrystia Freeland. She was highly effective in her former role. If he were to fritter away his time though trying to achieve Trudeau's dream of getting Canada a seat on the Security Council in order to achieve prestige then there is much less time left for real issues of human rights, rule of law and democracy.

Since Champagne had been Minister of International Trade he would seem to pair well with Dominic Barton who is our new ambassador to China and former Managing Director of McKinsey & Company from 2009 to 2018. If the pair both stress trade with regard to China-Canada relations as it seems inevitable then what of core issues concerning people? How do both trade persons regard trade in regard to the rights of people?

One cannot find an answer in Champagne's statement as former Minister of International Trade to the CCP broadcaster China Global Television when he said that China stands out for its adherence to rule-based order. Is he referring to rule-based order of the one or the people? And how does the CCP force the people to obey the rule-based order?

With regard to Barton he has been described as capitalism's "go guy". He will be rather busy preparing for his appearance at a trial during February in New York. Notwithstanding that trial he likes to ask top CEO's "What have you been doing for society?" followed by the statement "There must be a broader purpose than making money". Well, we'd like to know what you did for society when a retreat was held not far from a Xinjiang prison and what was the purpose of the retreat? Did it serve society? If Ambassador Barton truly believes that capitalism should be reformed then let's see some concrete steps toward that goal or is it all hypocritical talk?










                        


      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 accomplised 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 lastest 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.