China’s economy is at a tenuous juncture in its development and that shocks potentially threaten the achievement of key goals
Say what you want about Trump but he knows when he has leverage.
It can hardly be lost on the Chinese that Canada, a rule of law country, is simply carrying out contractual obligations
Authoritarians don't believe in the rule of law.
Not just in the sense that they don't have respect for it and wouldn't implement it. They don't believe other governments actually don't have influence over the judiciary. Often for good reasons because courts are sometimes willing to bend the rules for the benefit of the government.
> They don't believe other governments actually don't have influence over the judiciary
This doesn't strike me as a reasonable generalization. It implies too much stupidity. I think Mr Putin and Mr Xi are well educated and have a grasp of how the world works well beyond what we lay people think we know.
Sure, they understand. Then they disapprove and scoff that our leaders don't have the audacity to assert their will anyway.
And, in truth, as we've learned with Trump, in many cases they do because it's harder to undo or punish his actions as fast as he can keep doing things. When there are no clear rules for enforcing the rules, we lose.
> Mr Putin and Mr Xi are well educated and have a grasp of how the world works well beyond what we lay people think we know
They’re dictators. But no man rules alone. Irrespective of how well they understand the situation, they are constrained by their sources of political power. There is no evidence those sources understand the rule of law or separation of powers.
This is a common failure mode for authoritarian regimes, by the way. A competent leader forced to make incompetent decisions by an elite corroded by years of corrupt rule.
I believe China to be a mercantile culture, that was helped by the more developed states. But instead of valuing the relations, China only values them if it can see profit.
Also China values the relations if the profit of China is bigger that the profit of the other state.
In the mercantilist others must be loosers, as opposed to mutual benefits when all play nice.
“Mercantilism is a national economic policy that is designed to maximize the exports of a nation” [1]. This is what China used to be. (Starting, mostly, with Deng Xiaoping.) Xi prioritising force projection and jingoism is a shift away from mercantilism.
I'm Canadian. I rather suspect China is taking action against our nationals in order to teach a lesson to others: "think twice before you try to extradite our royalty to Americans"
They probably understand strongarm tactics won't work on us and are counterproductive. But, I'm sure other small countries are taking notes.
You really wish random people had to sit in jail due to a political and trade wars between two superpowers? Do you volunteer to sit in jail as one of the first victims?
There are plenty of legitimate pressure points. The CPC elites value sending their children to Western countries for education, frequently under pseudonyms. Stop giving them visas, or allow it but make sure the Chinese public knows.
Beyond enforcement of multilateral sanctions (especially the NK ones), the US and Canada (and the UK) could make it much more difficult for the elites to move assets out of China. Ban anonymous ownership of property, and start enforcing Chinese currency-control laws on government-connected individuals. Sure, President Xi might be able to evade Chinese law in China, but good luck convincing the Southern District of New York to look the other way.
Any ethical concerns aside, why would we break our own laws when enforcing them (and China's as written) is much more effective?
No you don't, because then it makes it seems like you laws are arbitrary and can be swayed by politics. It seems like a good idea now but look around at how abusive that ability can be.
Don't speak for me, I think it is fair to treat others in the same manner that they treat you. If it only applies to foreign nationals, that puts pressure on them to act appropriately.
For example, we should be subjecting Americans to the TSA bullshit that they dole on others.
They are taking action against canada because canada arrested one of their execs at the behest of the US. It's basic international politics that everyone understands. It's not about sending a message to small countries. It isn't even about sending a message to canada. It's about sending a message to the US. Just like canada arresting the chinese exec was the US sending a message to China.
When significant powers want to send each other messages without escalating to full out war, they use smaller satellite states to deliver their messages. This is what happened during the cold war between the Soviets and the US. It's what's happening between the US and China.
If china or the US or russia or any major power wanted to send a message to small countries, they'd do so directly. Like we do with canada or China does with north korea or russia does with the smaller ex-soviet nations.
> Just like canada arresting the chinese exec was the US sending a message to China
If the American (or, I'd guess, Canadian) foreign policy arm had its way, this arrest wouldn't have happened. Unfortunately, rule of law. An independent prosecutor issued warrants which were confirmed by a court and executed by police.
The concept of independent agencies doesn't exist outside a small number of countries. It can be difficult for an elite in Beijing to believe the American president has no power to halt the proceedings against Huawei's CFO. This is, at its core, the mis-understanding. Not Cold War proxy war dynamics.
The arrest happened because of the change in foreign policy concerning china by Trump. It's meant to send a message and apply pressure on the chinese and on iran. This has nothing to do with the rule of law no more than north koreans arresting christian evangelists and tourists is about the rule of law.
There is no misunderstanding. Everyone involved knows exactly what is going on. It's international politics. The only question is how this is resolved. Will it escalate or will the US and china achieve a compromise?
I agree, you even look at some of the replies to this comment. The fact that Donald trump himself is under FBI investigation or that this would probably of happen regardless of Trump changing his plan on Iran sanction seems lost. That being said you wouldn't want to live in a place where politics drove laws in the way people think it does.
The world should have been much more assertive towards China instead the US,Japan,South Korea are fighting each other for "peanuts".
Not talking about the EU in the first place that's just a union of interests where the stronger eat the weaker for breakfast and bend to China whenever they hear mandarin.
This is how I see it:
1) US signed disarmament treaty with Iran and EU
2) US unilaterally leaves the treaty and introduces
sanctions against Iran
3) Chinese company continues to sell goods to Iran
4) Executive of said company is taken to prison during
flight transit in Canada and will be extradited to US
where she is at risk of receiving life-long sentence
The bit I don't understand is how can US impose laws that apply to non-US companies/individuals? Lets even assume this is all legal under US laws and hence Canada has no choice but to extradite this person given their bilateral extradition treaty. What I suspect we will continue to see more going forward:
1) US will continue to introduce laws that effectively
apply to everyone everywhere and use extradition
treaties to enforcement them
2) These laws will be exercised selectively in cases where
US economic or political interest is at stake.
3) Other countries will follow.
4) This sets bad undemocratic precedence where law
introduced in one country is used to prosecute people
that never stepped foot on that country soil.
5) Cost and risk of doing business will increase.
> Huawei/Skycom was allegedly selling US products to Iran
Huawei stole a Canadian company's technology [1], markets products in America [2], has issued dollar-denominated debt [3] and then went and violated sanctions in dollar-denominated transactions. This is a far cry from extraterritorial enforcement for either the U.S. or Canada.
> Huawei stole a Canadian company's technology [1]
I can believe that. But how is this related?
> markets products in America
> has issued dollar-denominated debt
> and then went and violated sanctions in dollar-denominated transactions.
I don't believe any of this is true for Huawei incorporated in China. US subsidiaries of Huawei most likely follow the US law or otherwise their execs would get arrested.
> I don't believe any of this is true for Huawei incorporated in China. US subsidiaries of Huawei most likely follow the US law or otherwise their execs would get arrested.
American criminal law, like most criminal law, pierces corporate veils. Sanctions law, in particular, is an absolute responsibility law that traces liability to decision makers.
The analogy would be an American company violating Chinese laws while selling products in China and borrowing in renminbi and then getting pissed off when their executive is arrested by a neighbouring country. "The other entity broke the law" would be as silly a defense in that case as it is here.
And if we don't want to use American sanctions laws as a baseline, the alleged violations all happened while U.N. sanctions were in effect.
> And if we don't want to use American sanctions laws as a baseline, the alleged violations all happened while U.N. sanctions were in effect.
UN sanctions cover mostly military and nuclear equipment - I don't believe that either ZTE or Huawei participated in arms sales to Iran. US accuses both of integrating and reselling modem chipsets made by companies like Broadcom.
This looks to me like trade war where law is used instrumentally and public opinion is shaped to make it look differently to what it actually is.
37 comments
[ 13.2 ms ] story [ 1650 ms ] threadSay what you want about Trump but he knows when he has leverage.
It can hardly be lost on the Chinese that Canada, a rule of law country, is simply carrying out contractual obligations
Authoritarians don't believe in the rule of law.
Not just in the sense that they don't have respect for it and wouldn't implement it. They don't believe other governments actually don't have influence over the judiciary. Often for good reasons because courts are sometimes willing to bend the rules for the benefit of the government.
This doesn't strike me as a reasonable generalization. It implies too much stupidity. I think Mr Putin and Mr Xi are well educated and have a grasp of how the world works well beyond what we lay people think we know.
And, in truth, as we've learned with Trump, in many cases they do because it's harder to undo or punish his actions as fast as he can keep doing things. When there are no clear rules for enforcing the rules, we lose.
They’re dictators. But no man rules alone. Irrespective of how well they understand the situation, they are constrained by their sources of political power. There is no evidence those sources understand the rule of law or separation of powers.
This is a common failure mode for authoritarian regimes, by the way. A competent leader forced to make incompetent decisions by an elite corroded by years of corrupt rule.
They don't believe there isn't some backchannel for the regular government (the executive mostly) to influence a court ruling when it really needs to.
But they will sadly use it as a weapon on others. They call it weakness.
I believe China to be a mercantile culture, that was helped by the more developed states. But instead of valuing the relations, China only values them if it can see profit.
Also China values the relations if the profit of China is bigger that the profit of the other state.
In the mercantilist others must be loosers, as opposed to mutual benefits when all play nice.
“Mercantilism is a national economic policy that is designed to maximize the exports of a nation” [1]. This is what China used to be. (Starting, mostly, with Deng Xiaoping.) Xi prioritising force projection and jingoism is a shift away from mercantilism.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercantilism
They are nationalist, and want to gain things at the expense of others all the time (I don't have first-hand experience but I believe it to be so).
So when I say China is mercantilist, I am referring more to their approach to relations as a zero-sum game.
They probably understand strongarm tactics won't work on us and are counterproductive. But, I'm sure other small countries are taking notes.
Beijing doesn’t care about the average Chinese. But its elites? It cares as much as any other government.
Aside from the fact that it's morally reprehensible...
Beyond enforcement of multilateral sanctions (especially the NK ones), the US and Canada (and the UK) could make it much more difficult for the elites to move assets out of China. Ban anonymous ownership of property, and start enforcing Chinese currency-control laws on government-connected individuals. Sure, President Xi might be able to evade Chinese law in China, but good luck convincing the Southern District of New York to look the other way.
Any ethical concerns aside, why would we break our own laws when enforcing them (and China's as written) is much more effective?
For example, we should be subjecting Americans to the TSA bullshit that they dole on others.
When significant powers want to send each other messages without escalating to full out war, they use smaller satellite states to deliver their messages. This is what happened during the cold war between the Soviets and the US. It's what's happening between the US and China.
If china or the US or russia or any major power wanted to send a message to small countries, they'd do so directly. Like we do with canada or China does with north korea or russia does with the smaller ex-soviet nations.
If the American (or, I'd guess, Canadian) foreign policy arm had its way, this arrest wouldn't have happened. Unfortunately, rule of law. An independent prosecutor issued warrants which were confirmed by a court and executed by police.
The concept of independent agencies doesn't exist outside a small number of countries. It can be difficult for an elite in Beijing to believe the American president has no power to halt the proceedings against Huawei's CFO. This is, at its core, the mis-understanding. Not Cold War proxy war dynamics.
There is no misunderstanding. Everyone involved knows exactly what is going on. It's international politics. The only question is how this is resolved. Will it escalate or will the US and china achieve a compromise?
Not talking about the EU in the first place that's just a union of interests where the stronger eat the weaker for breakfast and bend to China whenever they hear mandarin.
The bit I don't understand is how can US impose laws that apply to non-US companies/individuals? Lets even assume this is all legal under US laws and hence Canada has no choice but to extradite this person given their bilateral extradition treaty. What I suspect we will continue to see more going forward: 1) US will continue to introduce laws that effectively apply to everyone everywhere and use extradition treaties to enforcement them 2) These laws will be exercised selectively in cases where US economic or political interest is at stake. 3) Other countries will follow. 4) This sets bad undemocratic precedence where law introduced in one country is used to prosecute people that never stepped foot on that country soil. 5) Cost and risk of doing business will increase.
Huawei stole a Canadian company's technology [1], markets products in America [2], has issued dollar-denominated debt [3] and then went and violated sanctions in dollar-denominated transactions. This is a far cry from extraterritorial enforcement for either the U.S. or Canada.
[1] https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/former-nortel-exec-warns-ag...
[2] https://www.huawei.com/us/
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeanbaptiste/2018/04/26/huawei-...
I can believe that. But how is this related?
> markets products in America
> has issued dollar-denominated debt
> and then went and violated sanctions in dollar-denominated transactions.
I don't believe any of this is true for Huawei incorporated in China. US subsidiaries of Huawei most likely follow the US law or otherwise their execs would get arrested.
American criminal law, like most criminal law, pierces corporate veils. Sanctions law, in particular, is an absolute responsibility law that traces liability to decision makers.
The analogy would be an American company violating Chinese laws while selling products in China and borrowing in renminbi and then getting pissed off when their executive is arrested by a neighbouring country. "The other entity broke the law" would be as silly a defense in that case as it is here.
And if we don't want to use American sanctions laws as a baseline, the alleged violations all happened while U.N. sanctions were in effect.
UN sanctions cover mostly military and nuclear equipment - I don't believe that either ZTE or Huawei participated in arms sales to Iran. US accuses both of integrating and reselling modem chipsets made by companies like Broadcom.
This looks to me like trade war where law is used instrumentally and public opinion is shaped to make it look differently to what it actually is.
Why were there no war crimes charges brought up?
It seems like western nations are always quick to invoke "the rule of" law when it suits them