4 ms·

The swap of Meng Whenzhou for the two Canadian Michaels demonstrates why it doesn't matter if Huawei's equipment is trustworthy or not. Canada was obeying inte

by beloch 5y ago

The swap of Meng Whenzhou for the two Canadian Michaels demonstrates why it doesn't matter if Huawei's equipment is trustworthy or not. Canada was obeying international treaties when it detained Meng. The Chinese state took Canadian hostages and held them in questionable conditions until they were eventually able to force a swap. It is now clear that the Chinese government expects certain Chinese executives and corporations to be above both international law and the law of foreign countries in which they operate. If your country permits Huawei to do business within it's borders, that puts your own citizens at risk of being taken hostage. Let's not kid ourselves that national governments care more about people than economics, but letting foreign countries take your citizens hostage without repercussion can threaten your chances of being reelected. Thanks to this episode, public opinion in Canada is now overwhelmingly against letting Huawei operate in Canada. Given this and pressure from its allies in the five eyes, it seems almost inconceivable that the Canadian government won't soon ban Huawei from participation in 5G networks. This episode has also raised questions about permitting the operations of other Chinese corporations that are too closely associated with the Chinese government. e.g. If a Chinese mining corp operating in a foreign country had it's operations shut down for environmental law infractions, would there be reprisals in the form of trade sanctions, etc. from China? This kind of lawless behaviour is going to have a chilling effect on all commerce with Chinese companies.

bllguo 5y ago
> letting foreign countries take your citizens hostage without repercussion can threaten your chances of being reelected. Hence why two Canadian spies were detained. How this episode could possibly be framed as Chinese aggression, I have no idea. Your claims are also disingenuous. Why do you emphasize "international"? Only one party was interested in prosecuting Meng on ridiculous charges - the US.
- null0pointer 5y ago
  Present any evidence at all that they were spies. I'll wait.
  - dirtyid 5y ago
    Here's Kovrig's friend playing coy about his intelligence past. >Edith Terry: Michael Kovrig is a friend, and I am very conscious of the privations he has endured. And while his background is complex and possibly included intelligence gathering for the Canadian government during his diplomatic career, he was very open about his research interests and contacts. Kovrig, ex-diplomat working for a NATO funded NGO - textbook spy cover. Spavor's North Korean activities speak for themselves. The charges were Spavor providing Kovrig with photos of classified military equipment. I don't see why folks insist on being such useful idiots and pretend Canada doesn't have intelligence assets in PRC or PRC's formidable counter-intelligence mechanisms developed in last decade that has exposed every CIA asset somehow can't round up a few Canadian spies out of the thousands of Canadian expats in PRC. Canadian Spy Agency CSIS also didn't tweet "Welcome home, #Michaels" is just icing on cake. >https://www.chinafile.com/conversation/will-i-return-china https://www.chinafile.com/conversation/will-i-return-china >https://twitter.com/csiscanada/status/1441571942721593345 https://twitter.com/csiscanada/status/1441571942721593345
    - dragonelite 5y ago
      Every nation has a counter-intelligence dossiers ready to be used in court, some light spying might be tolerated because every nations spies on each other. But when the situation needs it they can grab the known spies as a trump card. This whole Meng situation has shown that rule of law is really flexible and that US lawfare reaches far and deep.
    - toomanybeersies 5y ago
      I won't pretend like I know anything about tradecraft beyond reading Clancy and Forsyth, but I would've thought that "ex-diplomat working for a NATO funded NGO" is about the worst non-official cover one could think of. Textbook spy cover would be a mid-level manager for a Canadian auto parts company, on assignment to the Chinese office.
      - dirtyid 5y ago
        >worst non-official cover one could think of. In real life, career diplomats wind up in NGO circles where their skills are more transferrable. NGOs are also easier to spinup where needed and raises less eyebrows when they communicate and develop relevant contacts working within the established track 2/2.5 people to people system. 1000s of NGOs operated in PRC without much scrutiny until the NGO crackdown following CIA purge explicitly to reduce espionage/influence, i.e. Kovrig's International Crisis Group wasn't licensed to operate at the time of his arrest. There's also Spavor publically spamming his NK credentials. The TLDR is that PRC retaliation is calibrated, these two were rounded up because they were the most obvious spies, and while Canada/West can fool public by insisting they're just innocent individuals, to others in the IR community the message is obvious.
- oyashirochama 5y ago
  Imagine being so brainwashed as to think the two Michaels were anything but tourists and expats living in a foreign country, they had lives friends and family in China with no reason to be spies. One of them was a great friend of SerpentZa and C-Milk, and a contributing factor for running out of China for them.
  - bllguo 5y ago
    haha fine, say they weren't spies then. I don't know 100%. My main point is that Meng was detained for BS reasons. So sure, I'm fine with the story that China detained two Canadians without cause, because that does not detract at all - why can Canada/the US do this but China cannot? what I see is the US not getting away with the strong-arm tactics its accustomed to, and I applaud it.
    - bagacrap 5y ago
      False equivalency. The company/Meng broke US laws, ones which were actually on the books. If Huawei wants to operate in the US it is subject to US laws. Meanwhile the Canadian hostages broke no laws, they were simply convenient political pawns.
- asdfsfkwqe 5y ago
  If they were indeed spies, why were they only arrested right after Meng was?
silexia 5y ago
Almost every international company that has tried to do business in China has had it's IP stolen, and quite often has been blocked from ever really being profitable. I remember in Business school in 2008, the hot trend was businesses trying to open markets in China and offshore there. Is this still the case? Why would any responsible CEO do business in China after seeing what happened to the two Canadians, what happened in Hong Kong, and seeing countless international businesses robbed?

by beloch 5y ago

bllguo 5y ago

> letting foreign countries take your citizens hostage without repercussion can threaten your chances of being reelected. Hence why two Canadian spies were detained. How this episode could possibly be framed as Chinese aggression, I have no idea. Your claims are also disingenuous. Why do you emphasize "international"? Only one party was interested in prosecuting Meng on ridiculous charges - the US.

null0pointer 5y ago
Present any evidence at all that they were spies. I'll wait.
- dirtyid 5y ago
  Here's Kovrig's friend playing coy about his intelligence past. >Edith Terry: Michael Kovrig is a friend, and I am very conscious of the privations he has endured. And while his background is complex and possibly included intelligence gathering for the Canadian government during his diplomatic career, he was very open about his research interests and contacts. Kovrig, ex-diplomat working for a NATO funded NGO - textbook spy cover. Spavor's North Korean activities speak for themselves. The charges were Spavor providing Kovrig with photos of classified military equipment. I don't see why folks insist on being such useful idiots and pretend Canada doesn't have intelligence assets in PRC or PRC's formidable counter-intelligence mechanisms developed in last decade that has exposed every CIA asset somehow can't round up a few Canadian spies out of the thousands of Canadian expats in PRC. Canadian Spy Agency CSIS also didn't tweet "Welcome home, #Michaels" is just icing on cake. >https://www.chinafile.com/conversation/will-i-return-china https://www.chinafile.com/conversation/will-i-return-china >https://twitter.com/csiscanada/status/1441571942721593345 https://twitter.com/csiscanada/status/1441571942721593345
  - dragonelite 5y ago
    Every nation has a counter-intelligence dossiers ready to be used in court, some light spying might be tolerated because every nations spies on each other. But when the situation needs it they can grab the known spies as a trump card. This whole Meng situation has shown that rule of law is really flexible and that US lawfare reaches far and deep.
  - toomanybeersies 5y ago
    I won't pretend like I know anything about tradecraft beyond reading Clancy and Forsyth, but I would've thought that "ex-diplomat working for a NATO funded NGO" is about the worst non-official cover one could think of. Textbook spy cover would be a mid-level manager for a Canadian auto parts company, on assignment to the Chinese office.
    - dirtyid 5y ago
      >worst non-official cover one could think of. In real life, career diplomats wind up in NGO circles where their skills are more transferrable. NGOs are also easier to spinup where needed and raises less eyebrows when they communicate and develop relevant contacts working within the established track 2/2.5 people to people system. 1000s of NGOs operated in PRC without much scrutiny until the NGO crackdown following CIA purge explicitly to reduce espionage/influence, i.e. Kovrig's International Crisis Group wasn't licensed to operate at the time of his arrest. There's also Spavor publically spamming his NK credentials. The TLDR is that PRC retaliation is calibrated, these two were rounded up because they were the most obvious spies, and while Canada/West can fool public by insisting they're just innocent individuals, to others in the IR community the message is obvious.
oyashirochama 5y ago
Imagine being so brainwashed as to think the two Michaels were anything but tourists and expats living in a foreign country, they had lives friends and family in China with no reason to be spies. One of them was a great friend of SerpentZa and C-Milk, and a contributing factor for running out of China for them.
- bllguo 5y ago
  haha fine, say they weren't spies then. I don't know 100%. My main point is that Meng was detained for BS reasons. So sure, I'm fine with the story that China detained two Canadians without cause, because that does not detract at all - why can Canada/the US do this but China cannot? what I see is the US not getting away with the strong-arm tactics its accustomed to, and I applaud it.
  - bagacrap 5y ago
    False equivalency. The company/Meng broke US laws, ones which were actually on the books. If Huawei wants to operate in the US it is subject to US laws. Meanwhile the Canadian hostages broke no laws, they were simply convenient political pawns.
asdfsfkwqe 5y ago
If they were indeed spies, why were they only arrested right after Meng was?

silexia 5y ago

Almost every international company that has tried to do business in China has had it's IP stolen, and quite often has been blocked from ever really being profitable. I remember in Business school in 2008, the hot trend was businesses trying to open markets in China and offshore there. Is this still the case? Why would any responsible CEO do business in China after seeing what happened to the two Canadians, what happened in Hong Kong, and seeing countless international businesses robbed?