D.卡尔顿 罗西
D. Carlton Rossi

The Family


                                    



                                                 The Family ( 家庭)

Recently, there was a letter to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen who called for exchange of two recently detained Canadian citizens plus Celil Huseyincan 侯赛因江·贾里力 (who has been incarcerated since 2006 in a Chinese prison) for Meng Wanzhou (孟晚舟) on a quid per quo basis. While the author understands the sentiments of this position he believes it is flawed in a couple of aspects.

It discriminates against the other four Canadian-Chinese who have been held in prison for years. They, too, should be included in any trade. It may be that they are not connected in any way to the Huawei situation; nevertheless, they have been held as “bargaining chips”. Indeed, the Party officials have not formally linked the detention of Meng Wanzhou with the latest arrests.

The Party holds Meng Wanzhou in the highest esteem. They already had five bargaining chips and they deemed it was insufficient. Therefore, they upped the ante with the “lawful” kidnapping of three more Canadians. If the Canadian government were to bargain for or negotiate for less than the full number of hostages then it would be regarded as both foolish and weak if not a loss of face for the Party.

Our government though has stated that they have no intention of a trade. Basically, they use the “rule of law” argument. From a western perspective that makes some sense; although, the extradition request was almost assuredly made by the hardliners in the Trump administration for political considerations. Politically speaking, the Americans want to gain advantages in both trade and technology from the upcoming US-Chinese trade negotiations. They also want to politically put pressure on Canada to reject Huawei’s involvement in a Canadian 5G network.

It is not a matter though of our system as governed by rule of law and the Chinese system of rule by law. The Communist Party says that recent arrests were under law. That is technically correct. Canadians should take a similar approach. They may claim with considerable justification that there was no Canadian political consideration in the arrest while simultaneously asserting there was American political interference in the Canadian system of law with regard to an extradition request. In fact, the interference was so egregious that Canada is not bound by the US Canada extradition treaty on this particular matter.

The argument for the absoluteness of the rule of law is weakened considerably when one considers how it has been under assault in the Trump administration. The President thinks he can rule like a monarch by tweet alone. Furthermore, consider that the Canadian government is sending Mme Meng to face trial in the US under an administration that justifies the butchering of Khashoggi for reasons of expediency—perhaps based on personal business interests.

The author has proposed a trade of all prisoners. If the reader interprets it as a kind of Kum Ba Yah enlightenment then he/she is mistaken. If the reader believes it is an argument for a quid pro quo then the reader is off the mark. If the reader considers it is an appeal to sentimental emotion then it is misunderstood. The proposal simply signifies the importance of the family—however it is defined—in the culture and civilization of West and East. This is the common denominator.

Oh, but our government says it is about none of these things—it is about rule of law. If this is the case then why were you seduced to wear rose colored glasses while you negotiated Free-Trade with a rule by law country in a non-market economy. Why did you listen to sweet nothings about an extradition treaty between China and Canada—a treaty which would undermine our Charter? Why did you so easily sacrifice the freedom of the Canadian prisoners on the altar of Free-Trade? Finally, why did you weaken national security by allowing the sale of a company like Norsat, promote the sale of a basic infrastructure company like Aecon and allow a foreign company like Huawei to attempt to dominate the 5G network in Canada and compromise the research of Canadian universities while Huawei participates in the social credit system of China? You are undermining our basic democratic system which includes rule of law. NO ON!

Our government does not understand the fundamental importance of the family in China. Whatever her political persuasion, the first thing Meng Wanzhou did after being granted bail was to unite with her family. However, that is the one thing the Party has not allowed the Canadian prisoners to do. In the case of Dr. Wang Bingzhang (王炳章), one must take note that he has been held in solitary for the last sixteen years. He was arrested in 2003 or the same year in which Mme Meng joined Huawei. Ancestor worship and the family have been at the heart of Chinese civilization for more than 2000 years. Therefore, when the author calls for an exchange of prisoners it is solely on the principles of Confucian philosophy—which by the way includes a Legalist tradition. Today, it explains why the most extensive migration on the planet takes place every year at the time of the Spring Festival. The Chinese return to their families and ancestors.

Yet, one must also understand there is a dichotomy between the two millennia tradition and the shorter 99th anniversary of the Communist Party which has a centralized government under a Core Leader. Its Marxist ideology rejects consideration of the concept of a group whatever the size of the group outside of the Party. Dr. Xu Zhiyong ( 许志永)was arrested for holding a dinner party for a small group of friends. This exclusion of the group particularly applies to the family. The best known example of this process was the one-child policy. It skewed the ratio of males to females in favour of the latter. This did irreparable harm to the family because males could not find wives to create their own families.

However, Marxist ideology does not stop at breaking down the family into its constituent individual parts. It atomizes the individual as a material thing. In other words, it treats the person as a machine. For example, if a machine fails under a social credit system then it is either melted down to form another or it is expeditiously replaced. There is no life after death nor for that matter any life or death. There are no people in the People’s Republic of China. They are considered machines with artificial intelligence who are governed by AI.

Because the family is important in the West (even if it is eroded by the Me Generation and the decline of the church) and since the family is of critical, paramount importance in China then the best way to develop a Chinese strategy for Canada is to focus on the unit of the family. Implementation can begin under the Dawu Group’s Private Entrepreneurial Constitutional System which was established in 2004 and in co-operation with the think tanks known as the Macdonald-Laurier Institute in Canada and Unirule in China.

It is too early to know if an atomistic, materialistic political system will survive 2300 years. However, it hard to see how it can replace the cohesive family. In addition, it is the private family enterprise system that has been the engine of economic growth and the release of wealth since the opening of China by Deng Xiaoping (邓小平).


D.卡尔顿 罗西
D. Carlton Rossi

2018年12月21日