Detention of Meng Wanzhou - CFO of Huawei

798 posts / 0 new
Last post
NDPP

Robber Barons Kidnap Chinese Princess For Ransom

https://indianpunchline.com/robber-barons-kidnap-chinese-princess-for-ra...

"...The intention seems to be to humiliate Chinese national pride and wreak trade concessions. Today, indeed, a substantial section of not only Trump's administration, but of the 'deep state' of the US intelligence bureaucracy and leading lawmakers seem to be pushing for an aggressive anti-China policy..."

To accompany their similarly concocted 'aggressive' anti-Russia policy and for much the same reason - multipolar competition.

NDPP

Economics Prof Richard Wolff on China's Economy

https://www.rt.com/shows/boom-bust/446337-china-economy-grows-trade/

@o7:15 Breaking down the Chinese economy.

Sean in Ottawa

WWWTT wrote:

Yep Freeland and Justin are scared shitless! Probably every liberal MP and their staff as well.

I predict a solid 50% chance that 孟晚舟will be back in China at her job as CFO of Huawei well before the 2019 general federal election. 

Freeland is lying straight face that she wants the rule of law to be followed and this is not about politics. Fucking right its about politics! The politics of the liberals keeping their jobs running this country(into the ground)!

And now another Canadian spy detained. China clearly had their eyes on these shady characters for some time. 

In a few weeks, in the new year, I'll be very interested to see new poll numbers!

I understood that Freeland's point was that Trump underminded the entire rationale for the arrest for extradition.

The government cannotprevent the arrest without damaging the situationwith the US. However, Freeland's comments woudl have been heard by the judge and I think she has signalled that the government would not mind if the judge ruled that Trump's comments made extradition impossible and let her go.

The best outcome possible is for the federal government not to interfere or upset the US which it has not but for the judge to rule that Trump's comments mean that the process in the US is so politicized that extradition is impossible and let her go. With this the US would be upset but it would be a court making the decision which while Trump may be upset the US would understand. The ruling would satisfy the Chinese as well. This is the only way out that I see wihtout Canada being damaged.

I do not see the government of Canada with many options but Freeland's comments are not unhelpful at all in this case in my opinion.

quizzical

i don't think the US is even going to forward a formal request for extradition.

NDPP

Short-Term Thinking Dooms US Anti-China Policy

https://t.co/DlmDlrpPpF

"...We called this US operation a hostage taking to blackmail China. President Trump confirmed that this is indeed the case: 'US President Donald Trump told Reuters on Tuesday he would intervene in the US Justice Department's case against Meng if it would serve national security interests or help close a trade deal with China.'

The new anti-China campaign follows a similar push of Anti-Russian propaganda three months ago. China has taken the first counter-measures against Canada's hostage taking on behalf of the United States. After three centuries of anglo-american imperialism the economic center of the world is moving back to the east. The US is way too late to prevent the move..."

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I am amazed that most posters here think that our court system is corrupt. Sean do you think that our Judges are looking to the papers to see which way the political wind is blowing so they can decide on the merits of a legal application?

Trump's comments highlights that tha whole affair is political. The concept of trying to effect regime change through enforcing sanctions against non-nationals is in itself political. Claiming someone failed to act in accordance with a political process may by itself be enough to get this case bounced. I am sure that we will see some very good legal talent in court at the next hearing with far more sophisticated arguments than relying on the hope a Judge will pick up on a signal from the central government.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I am amazed that most posters here think that our court system is corrupt. Sean do you think that our Judges are looking to the papers to see which way the political wind is blowing so they can decide on the merits of a legal application?

Trump's comments highlights that tha whole affair is political. The concept of trying to effect regime change through enforcing sanctions against non-nationals is in itself political. Claiming someone failed to act in accordance with a political process may by itself be enough to get this case bounced. I am sure that we will see some very good legal talent in court at the next hearing with far more sophisticated arguments than relying on the hope a Judge will pick up on a signal from the central government.

No. Not political winds. But it is fair that the political leadership declares that it is not attempting to game the outcome. What Freeland's comments do is publicly say that Canada disapproves of politcs entering the case. This underlines the fact that the judge should not try to please the political leadership but it also underlines the fact that Canada will not become involved politically on behalf of either China or the US. It avoids anyone thinking that the government of Canada wanted this to proceed in a particular fashion.

Her comments also publicly say to the US and China that Canada does not want to make it a political issue. This is also helpful as neither side are told that any benefit can come from pressuring Canada politically.

I hope the judge determines that the political interference from Trump invalidated the extradition. It may also be appropriate for Canada to say that it may have to review the treaty if the US asks Canada to detain people for political purpose.

I do not think there is fault here on behalf of either the Canadian judicial system or Canada's political leadership. Although if this continues, there could be a political question about the treaty itself.

Sean in Ottawa

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I am amazed that most posters here think that our court system is corrupt. Sean do you think that our Judges are looking to the papers to see which way the political wind is blowing so they can decide on the merits of a legal application?

Trump's comments highlights that tha whole affair is political. The concept of trying to effect regime change through enforcing sanctions against non-nationals is in itself political. Claiming someone failed to act in accordance with a political process may by itself be enough to get this case bounced. I am sure that we will see some very good legal talent in court at the next hearing with far more sophisticated arguments than relying on the hope a Judge will pick up on a signal from the central government.

I think you misread the point of the posts on this: the legal case against the extradition will certainly be argued well. There is a principle in law that justice must be seen to be done and the high profile nature of this did mean that it was appropriate for the Canadian government to declare to the two countries we are caught between, to the public, and yes even to the court, that the political class does not want politics involved here in Canada. This is a positive signal. Nobody is saying that it is a determining factor legally, but it is helpful in such a politicized case for the judge to see a declaration of hands off from the politicians as two powerful countries make conflicting political demands on Canada. Freeland's comments were not so much designed to interfere as to offset attempts to interfere by political actors outside Canada.

Sean in Ottawa

quizzical wrote:

i don't think the US is even going to forward a formal request for extradition.

Sadly, the US political and judicial process is not as independent as it ought to be. The US has made the request already and I do not see them retracting it. It is up to the Canadian legal system to determine if this request is valid. Given Trump's comments, I hope the determination is that it was not.

Sean in Ottawa

My post upthread saying that the government would "not mind if the judge let her go" is to make the point that there will not be political interference from Ottawa in the case. Given the public pressure form the US there could have been a presumption that the Candian government wanted to please the US. Freeland's comments allow that it could go either way on the legal merits -- as it should. It is not a request from the Minister that she be let go.

NDPP

Comment from #106 by No Paseran:

"Trudeau's insinuation that extradition is a purely judicial process in Canada is simply wrong.  the 'International Assistance Group' in the Department of Justice works actively with the requesting state against the person sought for extradition and this can be a hugely political process involving outright lies to the court, as the Diab case revealed. Extradition law is so politicized that even when a judge commits someone for extradition, the matter is then referred to the Minister of Justice, who has the ultimate say. All of this is to maintain Canadian political alliances at the expense of the rights of the accused. Extradition, kidnapping and extraordinary rendition are almost indistinguishable in Canada."

quizzical

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

quizzical wrote:

i don't think the US is even going to forward a formal request for extradition.

Sadly, the US political and judicial process is not as independent as it ought to be. The US has made the request already and I do not see them retracting it. It is up to the Canadian legal system to determine if this request is valid. Given Trump's comments, I hope the determination is that it was not.

no the formal extradition request has not been forwarded yet.

voice of the damned

NDPP wrote:

Comment from #106 by No Paseran:

"Trudeau's insinuation that extradition is a purely judicial process in Canada is simply wrong.  the 'International Assistance Group' in the Department of Justice works actively with the requesting state against the person sought for extradition and this can be a hugely political process involving outright lies to the court, as the Diab case revealed. Extradition law is so politicized that even when a judge commits someone for extradition, the matter is then referred to the Minister of Justice, who has the ultimate say. All of this is to maintain Canadian political alliances at the expense of the rights of the accused. Extradition, kidnapping and extraordinary rendition are almost indistinguishable in Canada."

So, how come Canada was able to keep Charles Ng in the country for six years, while the courts debated whether or not he could be sent to a death-penalty state? Surely, the Americans wanted him back pronto.

NDPP

After the US president's recent remarks about his willingness to intervene in the process if China behaves in ways America wishes it can now truly be said that these are 'Trumped up' charges. 

The US Not China is the Real Threat to International Rule of Law   -  by Prof Jeffrey D Sachs

https://t.co/3uJpGcrGxP

"...When global trade rules obstruct Mr Trump's gangster tactics, then the rules have to go, according to him. US Secreutary of State Mike Pompeo admitted as much last week in Brussels: 'Our administration,' he said, is 'lawfully exiting or renegotiating outdated or harmful treaties, trade agreements, and other international arrangements that don't serve our sovereign interests, or the interests of our allies.'

Yet before it exits these agreements, the administration is trashing them through reckless and unilateral actions. The unprecedented arrest of Ms Meng is even  more provocative because it is based on US extra-territorial sanctions - that is, the claim by the US that it can order other countries to stop trading with third parties such as Cuba or Iran. [ps It told Canada precisely that in the USMCA  with respect to China and Canada agreed like the good little doggie it is.] The US would certainly not tolerate China or any other country telling American companies with whom they can or cannot trade.

The Trump administration, not Huawei or China, is today's greatest threat to the international rule of law and therefore to global peace." 

This media clip went viral on Chinese social media (and vid)

https://twitter.com/GregWSong/status/1072813637297819648

"US State Dept spokesman Robert Palladino looks embarrassed when asked by AP journalist Matthew Lee at a press conference about Kovrig's arrest. Let's figure out why he would answer Matthew hesitantly."

Martin N.

Trump just threw Canada under the bus with China. He has politicised the extradition process. Canada has no support from other nations.

The solution is for the courts to deny the extradition request as a political, not legal manoevre and set Meng free.

There is absolutely no reason for Canada to carry Trump's water while he stabs us in the back.

contrarianna

The distinction made that Meng is not charged with breaking sanctions is technically correct, but it's clear that the fraud charges derive from, and were justified by the existence of the US political-economic sanctions:

The fraud allegations against Meng centre around the relationship between Huawei and a company called Skycom, that did business in Iran. According to U.S. prosecutors, Skycom was a "hidden" subsidiary of Huawei.

Iran is subject to U.S. sanctions and banks can be found criminally liable if they help move money out of a sanctioned country and into the broader global banking system.

Reuters did a series of stories exposing the relationship between Huawei and Skycom.

U.S.prosecutors said Meng — who once served on Skycom's board of directors — denied those allegations during a PowerPoint presentation to bankers in New York in 2013.

They accuse her of making "misrepresentations" — including the assertion "Huawei has sold all its shares in Skycom, and I (Meng) also quit my position on the Skycom board."....

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/huawei-meng-extradition-...

There are several points here: 
US Iran sanctions are clearly politico-economic warfare against Iran, and were declared illegal by the UN:

The UN’s international court of justice has reprimanded the US over its re-imposition of sanctions on Iran, ordering Washington to lift restrictive measures linked to humanitarian trade, food, medicine and civil aviation.

The Hague ruling, delivered on Wednesday, is a victory for Iran after it complained to the ICJ in July that the return to sanctions imposed by Donald Trump following the US withdrawal from the 2015 landmark nuclear agreement was in violation of the Treaty of Amity, a 1955 pre-revolutionary friendship treaty.

The US secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, reacted by announcing the US was terminating the treaty, which the US signed with Tehran two years after orchestrating a coup to topple the elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh....

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/03/international-court-of-jus...

By using the sanction inspired fraud charges, it gives our US colonial spokespeople, like Freeland, (im)plausable deniability when she says the charges are "not political", but merely criminal.

As stated before, charging Meng rather than her company is not usual. Charges against companies allow even heavily culpable executives to partially indemnify themselves from persosnal prosecution when operating on a corporation's behalf. Such corporate friendly laws are  standard and  offload penalty costs to shareholders, and sometimes, ultimately, taxpayers. In this case the choice to single out an executive is deliberately antagonstic, that is, political.

As for Skycom allegedly being a Huawei shell company, it is certainly possible, but without the Huawei -Iran connection shells companies are business as usual for the  highly exceptonal "greatest nation on earth":

BROOKINGS NOW
One year after the Panama Papers leak, starting a shell corporation in the US may be easier than getting a library card
Molli FerrarelloFriday, April 7, 2017

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2017/04/07/one-year-after-t...

========
The secondary target of the Trump's prosecution of Meng is is to isolate and weaken further Canada trade negotiations with the US. Trump Inc.'s "America First" attack on Canada trade is not news.

Now, having Canada arrest Meng is a win-win for the US. China is Canada's distant second largest trading partner but increasing at a faster rate than  the US.  Souring relations between China-Canada assures Canada's increased dependence and subservience to its southern master.  It's colonial governent in Ottawa was content to comply.  

NDPP

'Five Eyes' Intelligence Agencies Behind Drive Against Chinese Telecom Giant Huawei

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/12/14/huaw-d14.html

"Evidence has come to light that US operations against the Chinese telecommunications giant Huawei, and the arrest and detention of one of its top executives, Meng Wanzhou, to face criminal charges of fraud brought by the US Justice Department are the outcome of a coordinated campaign by the intelligence agencies of the so-called 'Five Eyes' Network.

According to a major report published in the Australian Financial Review (AFR) yesterday, the annual meeting of top intelligence officials from countries in the network - the US, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada - held last July decided to 'coordinate banning' Huawei from 5G mobile phone networks. In the months that followed 'an unprecedented campaign' has been waged by the five members of the network 'to block the tech giant Huawei from supplying equipment for their next-generation wireless networks' which has now led to the arrest of Meng in Canada..."

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

contrarianna wrote:

The distinction made that Meng is not charged with breaking sanctions is technically correct, but it's clear that the fraud charges derive from, and were justified by the existence of the US political-economic sanctions:

<snip>

By using the sanction inspired fraud charges, it gives our US colonial spokespeople, like Freeland, (im)plausable deniability when she says the charges are "not political", but merely criminal.

As stated before, charging Meng rather than her company is not usual. Charges against companies allow even heavily culpable executives to partially indemnify themselves from persosnal prosecution when operating on a corporation's behalf. Such corporate friendly laws are  standard and  offload penalty costs to shareholders, and sometimes, ultimately, taxpayers. In this case the choice to single out an executive is deliberately antagonstic, that is, political.

<snip>

The secondary target of the Trump's prosecution of Meng is is to isolate and weaken further Canada trade negotiations with the US. Trump Inc.'s "America First" attack on Canada trade is not news.

Now, having Canada arrest Meng is a win-win for the US. China is Canada's distant second largest trading partner but increasing at a faster rate than  the US.  Souring relations between China-Canada assures Canada's increased dependence and subservience to its southern master.  It's colonial governent in Ottawa was content to comply.  

All very good points, expressed very clearly. Thanks, contrarianna.

Noops

Martin N. wrote:
...The solution is for the courts to deny the extradition request as a political, not legal manoevre and set Meng free. There is absolutely no reason for Canada to carry Trump's water while he stabs us in the back.

   This!

Noops

NDPP wrote:

'Five Eyes' Intelligence Agencies Behind Drive Against Chinese Telecom Giant Huawei

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/12/14/huaw-d14.html

Thanks, very informative article.

NDPP

 Water Carriers & War Criminals Meet in Washington

https://youtu.be/IK67maQkfzE

"Thank you Mike!...'We are allies and partners,' 'side by side', 'rules based international order', 'deeply shared values'...We all agree that the most important thing we can do is to uphold the rule of law,' yadda, yadda, yadda.

Noops

NDPP wrote:

"...The unprecedented arrest of Ms Meng is even  more provocative because it is based on US extra-territorial sanctions - that is, the claim by the US that it can order other countries to stop trading with third parties such as Cuba or Iran. [ps It told Canada precisely that in the USMCA  with respect to China and Canada agreed like the good little doggie it is.] The US would certainly not tolerate China or any other country telling American companies with whom they can or cannot trade."

Which comes full circle to the original post I made for this thread.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

But then it goes around the same circle again.

China is not "forbidden" from trading with Iran.  But a Chinese business might be, as a condition of doing trade with the United States.  What's more, U.S. companies are understandably forbidden from trading with Iran -- it's their country's law.  Evidently, when Huawei claimed they were not doing business with Iran (but, it's alleged, were) then this implicated U.S. companies in trade with Iran (hence the rationale of "fraud").

I get that way more political hay can be made by saying "Look, the U.S. is playing World Cop and demanding that everyone on earth obey their laws!!", but that's really not the case.

Martin N.

Interesting that none of the other Eyes have come out in support for Canada arresting Meng. While I understand Canada's desire to kept in the loop regarding security threats, playing useful idiot for Trump seems a rather high price to pay.

I wonder if the Ozzies would endanger their relationship with China if Meng landed there?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
I wonder if the Ozzies would endanger their relationship with China if Meng landed there?

Australia does have an extradition agreement with the U.S.

Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, Australia is also negotiating an extradition agreement with China.  It would be quite fascinating if China were to insist on Australia breaking its extradition agreement with the U.S. even as it works on its own agreement with Australia.  How could China make such an agreement with Australia, knowing that Australia is ready to ignore extradition treaties if someone rattles a sabre.

At any rate, if Australia were to break an extradition agreement because it could "endanger their relationship with China" wouldn't that turn a rule-of-law situation into a political one?  "We'd like to respect this agreement we signed, but we also want billions in Chinese investment, so the official story is that Meng slipped out while the jailer was napping."

WWWTT

You may be right Mr Magoo! Australia is very dependent on China. I’ve met many Australians in China. And if Australia ever arrested a Chinese national like Ms Meng on US charges, China may very well cause the collapse of the Australian economy to send the Aussies a hard learned lesson. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
China may very well cause the collapse of the Australian economy to send the Aussies a hard learned lesson.

A hard earned lesson about what, though?  That China's wishes supersede signed treaties??

The lesson that Australia would learn if it hopped-to when told by China would be that other countries aren't that interested in agreements with them that can be unilaterally torn up by Beijing.

It's not super-clear what lesson China is trying to teach Canada right now either.  "Ignore your own treaty because we want you to... it'll be easier for you that way"?

WWWTT

So far, I think this whole fiasco has shown how weak the US and Canada really are against the powerhouse China. 

What a huge dismal failure for the US.  And vise versa, China has shown the entire world that it will pull Trumps ass over his head backwards. 

China has proven to every market in the world who has the more stable secure environment. This blunder gave China a trillion dollars worth of positive advertising! And a trillion dollars of anti US/Canada advertising!

I can’t see how Trump could get re elected after this? And Justin and crew????

WWWTT

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
China may very well cause the collapse of the Australian economy to send the Aussies a hard learned lesson.

A hard earned lesson about what, though?  That China's wishes supersede signed treaties??

The lesson that Australia would learn if it hopped-to when told by China would be that other countries aren't that interested in agreements with them that can be unilaterally torn up by Beijing.

It's not super-clear what lesson China is trying to teach Canada right now either.  "Ignore your own treaty because we want you to... it'll be easier for you that way"?

Ya that’s pretty much it actually! However I would describe it in a more insightful intellectual way. 

The arrest of 孟晚舟 is a part of US imperialism. The latest NAFTA free trade deal clause allowing the US to block Canada Mexico entering trade deals also is s part of US imperialism. 

Just because these laws were written up by lawyers and the words “justice system” are being thrown around (ya Freeland again) doesn’t mean shit!

Communist China is fighting US imperialism! Just like she always has. And like she always has, China wins!

Who's side are you on?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Who's side are you on?

For obvious reasons, Canada's.

You?

WWWTT

Imperialist Canada? You sure you don’t want to change your answer?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I'll stick with it.  This really isn't our fight, WWWTT.  I don't really care whether Trump wins or loses, or China wins or loses.  And frankly, arresting a couple of random Canadians in order to "fight U.S. imperialism" like bombing an Afghan wedding party in order to "fight Al Qaeda".

Canada's done nothing wrong here, and I have little interest in deciding who we're supposed to appease.  Is it honestly your belief that Canada should have just torn up our extradition treaty because China is larger and more powerful than us and they angrily demand it?  Should Canada be taking its orders from China, IYHO?

WWWTT

WDIYHOM?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

We use "IMHO" all the time as an abbreviation of "in my humble opinion", so "in your humble opinion".

NDPP

On China, Has Canada Lost its Sense of Shame?   -  by Lu Shaye

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-on-china-has-canada-lost...

"...It all comes down to the fact that many still have a cold war mentality, believing that China - a socialist country led by the Communist Party of China - is an abnormal country. They are worried that China is catching up to Western countries too quickly, and that it will surpass them in terms of the economy as well as science and technology. That's why they crack down on Chinese enterprises and impede Chinese development under the pretext of national security.

The detention of Ms Meng is not a mere judicial case, but a premeditated political action in which the United States wields its regime power to witch-hunt a Chinese high-tech company out of political considerations. The so-called long arm jurisdiction of the US however, has no legal basis in international law. The reason behind all the bullying behaviour of the United States is that it pursues power politics against other countries relying on its huge advantage in national strength. Just imagine how the US would react if an American company suffered from such unfair treatement in a foreign country.

The Canadian side detained Ms Meng in an unreasonable way given she has not received any charges according to Canadian law, which is clearly not judicial independence but a miscarriage of justice. While Canada has continued to stress its judicial independence, did it insist on that independence when facing the United States' unreasonable request? The Canadian state has not made its judgement independently, otherwise it would not have arrested Ms Meng. The Canadian government has asserted that it was fulfilling the international obligation to the US but did it fulfill the international obligation of protecting the lawful and legitimate rights and interests of a Chinese citizen?

The Chinese people used to have a favourable impression of Canada. But Canada's behaviour this time has chilled their feelings."

 

Opinion: Why is Huawei the Real Trade War Target?

https://news.cgtn.com/news/3d3d774d3359544d31457a6333566d54/share_p.html

"...When this is examined in light of the Trump administration's trade war and other hardening stances against Beijing, it becomes very evident that there is a very specific agenda against the firm by the administration. The trade war is at its heart a technology war."

NDPP

WWWTT wrote:

That was quick!

https://www.straight.com/news/1175931/former-canadian-diplomat-michael-k...

NDPP wrote:

More on 'International Crisis Group' that Canadian 'diplomat' Michael Kovrig was reportedly working for.

ICG

https://twitter.com/AlexanderSoros/status/1046884945518563328

'In pursuit of peace.' Yeah, right...

Noops

Mr. Magoo wrote:

But then it goes around the same circle again.

China is not "forbidden" from trading with Iran.  But a Chinese business might be, as a condition of doing trade with the United States.

I hear you loud and clear.
What if said business is Huawei?
What if Huawei is not doing trade in the U.S.?
The U.S. has essentially banned it from doing business in their country.
Could it then do business with Iran?

And this whole  affair has been with respect to trade with Iran that took place from 2009-2014.
Why did the U.S. go after Huawei nine years after they started to "break U.S. law"?
Why the delay?

 

Martin N.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
I wonder if the Ozzies would endanger their relationship with China if Meng landed there?

Australia does have an extradition agreement with the U.S.

Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, Australia is also negotiating an extradition agreement with China.  It would be quite fascinating if China were to insist on Australia breaking its extradition agreement with the U.S. even as it works on its own agreement with Australia.  How could China make such an agreement with Australia, knowing that Australia is ready to ignore extradition treaties if someone rattles a sabre.

At any rate, if Australia were to break an extradition agreement because it could "endanger their relationship with China" wouldn't that turn a rule-of-law situation into a political one?  "We'd like to respect this agreement we signed, but we also want billions in Chinese investment, so the official story is that Meng slipped out while the jailer was napping."


Much as I agree with the rule of law as the glue that holds a civil society together, the political underpinings of this exercise in realpolitik leaves me concerned that Canada is living in a fantasy world where 'friends' are considered more valuable than national interests.

In real terms, national interests trump alliances and Canada is merely the next generation Czechoslovaka, Nato Article 5 or not.

The Orange Apparition is merely the face of a world populated by the likes of Putin and Xi.

voice of the damned

Heh. I had a hunch this guy would be weighing in with one of his anti-American rants...

"The United States is not, by Canada’s standards, in criminal matters, a society of laws"

https://tinyurl.com/y9lm92xs

Possibly some good points in there, though Full Disclosure would probably dictate that the writer admit his own qualifications for critiquing the US justice system are the same as John Gotti's.

 

 

NDPP

CGTN: Policy Analyst Brian Becker on Latest in US-Canada Talks on Arrest of Meng Wanzhou

https://youtu.be/8ifi2G5S1hE

"CGTN's Mike Walker interviewed Brian Becker of the ANSWER Coalition on the latest on the meeting between Canada and US officials on the arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou."

 

China Prepares Counterattack to Canada

https://youtu.be/uNW7Cm8h9EA

"More blows to come..."

cco

WWWTT wrote:

Communist China is fighting US imperialism! Just like she always has. And like she always has, China wins!

Billionaires are Marxist-Leninist icons now? Seems a lot more like a case of "致富是光荣的" to me.

NDPP

First Saudi Arabia, Now China - Canada Has a New Foe and its Southern Ally Isn't Helping (&vid)

https://globalnews.ca/news/4761758/canada-saudi-arabia-china-united-states/

"First US President Donald Trump attacked Canada on trade. Then Saudi Arabia punished it for speaking up for human rights. Now China has the country in its cross-hairs, detaining two Canadians in apparent retaliation for the arrest of a top Chinese tech exec on behalf of the US. Canada is caught between two super-powers and taking the punishment - and its ally to the south has been conspicuously absent in coming to its aid.

In years past the US might have defended Canada when it came under attack and other countries would know the US had Canada's back. Not now. And now the stakes are much higher. And Chinese trade with Canada is increasingly key as Canada looks to boost its exports in Asia as its trade with the US is threatened by Trump's tariffs..."

 

Huawei CFO Case: What Does it Mean for China, Canada and US? (and vid)

https://youtu.be/pSHOSumep9E

CGTN on the Meng Wanzhou/Huawei case.

Neocynic Neocynic's picture

All Canadians should feel embarrassed and ashamed by this blatantly politically motivated kidnapping and arrest of Huawei's CFO. Cowardly Canadian officials allowed their greater loyalty to American neocons and their militarist agenda to trump their presumed loyalty to Canada's best interests and the rule of law. If anyone should be in jail, it should be those officials for treason. Sad sad day for all Canadians.

What is so surprising if Canada gets into the hostage-taking business for their American masters, a Canadian is taken hostage?  Kovrig works for the Canadian government funded "International Crisis Group", another one of those many infamous faux NGO/CIA entities.   The facts:  Wanzhou is accused of "misrepresenting", as CFO,  Huawei's lack of legal ownership and control of Skycom, from which she resigned in 2008,  in a 2013 presentation to HSBC to escape liability for Skycom's alleged breaching the American Iran Sanctions (you know, the ones lifted by a multilateral treaty of which the US was a signatory in 2013 and unilaterally cancelled by Trump in 2018).  Americans argued in a secret arrest warrant made out in  August, 2018 that because Skycom employees used Huawei bank accounts and email addresses (which alone does not constitute legal ownership and control) Skycom was effectively still an operating subsidiary of Huawei.  Hence, the "fraud".  The case is so ridiculously flimsy that it is obviously a politically motivated prosecution to hold her hostage to US/China trade talks, as Trump the Twit himself has just now admitted.  It is pure cowardly bullshit to argue this is a "purely" legal proceeding.

WWWTT

cco wrote:
WWWTT wrote:

Communist China is fighting US imperialism! Just like she always has. And like she always has, China wins!

Billionaires are Marxist-Leninist icons now? Seems a lot more like a case of "致富是光荣的" to me.

Actually Hua Wei is an employee owned company! Ms Meng's father, Ren Zheng Fei only owns a very small portion of it (1.4%). Profits are shared with  64% of employees who own shares. There's a total of 180 000 employees (700 in Canada). You know of any Canadian or American equivalent cco? Zuckerberg would be jumping out of a window before he ever did something like that!

The people of China see this extradition of Ms Meng as an attack on Chinese success! And rightfully so because that's exactly what it is!

If communist China doesn't stop American western imperialism, than who is? Bernie Sanders? Democracy now? rabble? You? LOL! Keep dreaming!

NDPP

"The historical West is still violently opposed to the objective rise of a fairer and more democratic polycentric world order. Clinging to the principles of unipolarity, Washington and some other Western capitals appear unable to constructively interact with new global centres of economic and political influence. 

A wide range of restrictions are applied to the dissenters, ranging from military force and unilateral economic sanctions to demonisation and mud-slinging in the spirit of the notorious 'highly likely'. There are many examples of this dirty game.

This has seriously debased international law. Moreover, attempts have been made to replace the notion of law with a 'rules-based order' the parameters of which will be determined by a select few..."

Russian FM Sergei Lavrov, 20 November, 2018

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Cowardly Canadian officials allowed their greater loyalty to American neocons and their militarist agenda to trump their presumed loyalty to Canada's best interests and the rule of law.

Quite the opposite.  Rule of law is why Canada respected the treaty we signed years ago.  To pretend there was no such treaty, and decline to apprehend Meng (in order to tweak Trump's nose?) would have been to ignore the rule of law.

Quote:
Actually Hua Wei is an employee owned company! Ms Meng's father, Ren Zheng Fei only owns a very small portion of it (1.4%). Profits are shared with  64% of employees who own shares. There's a total of 180 000 employees (700 in Canada). You know of any Canadian or American equivalent cco? Zuckerberg would be jumping out of a window before he ever did something like that!

That's super.  But she's still a billionaire.  A communist billionaire!  Imagine that!  Karl Marx could never have.

You keep referring to China as a "communist" country.  Do you know what communism means?  And can you tell us how it's compatible with one or two individuals amassing billions of dollars by employing others to do the work?

NDPP

"NYT: Chinese Ambassador to Canada: 'The so-called long arm jurisdiction of the United States, however, has no legal basis in international law.' Correctomundo! Canada is not 'caught' between anything. Justin Trudeau chose Trump over China. They were all at G20 together and Trump and Trudeau decided to sandbag Xi with the kidnapping of Meng, holding her hostage as part of Trump's trade war against China. Meng was kidnapped by Trump and Trudeau....PS I would hope the people up there can cut through all the bull-twaddle and realize that Justin has sold them out to Trump. You can circulate this up there if you want. Fab."

Francis A Boyle

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Boyle

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
They were all at G20 together and Trump and Trudeau decided to sandbag Xi with the kidnapping of Meng, holding her hostage as part of Trump's trade war against China.

That's quite an accusation.  Is there any proof to support it?  And no, I don't mean "well, Meng is in custody, right?"

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Canada did not need to arrest her. The charge against her was insufficient as a reasonable cause to have her arrested. Do you think they would have been obligated to arrest someone for not paying speeding tickets? Would the PM have signed off on that?

The Chinese arrested a couple of low level spooks in retaliation, so that seems like a measured response. They cited national security and that severely limits the legal options available to the accused. It is also true that under Canadian law you have no rights if you get arrested under our national security laws so its not like anyone should be surprised that the Chinese system is almost identical to ours.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

You keep referring to China as a "communist" country.  Do you know what communism means?  And can you tell us how it's compatible with one or two individuals amassing billions of dollars by employing others to do the work?

You keep referring to Canada as a democratic country so what the f$$$ is your point?  I guess you don't understand the concept of oligarchy.

You sure do like to badger anytime anything "communist"comes up in a thread. A true cold warrior.

Pages