Canada-China Relations Then and Now

My good friend, Wenran Jiang of the University of Alberta has put forth that Canada-China relations are presently at their lowest point since Canada established diplomatic relations with China in October 1970. I am not sure what criteria Wenran is using to assess this. To me it is is hard to square with the impact that the pervasive xenophobia of the Chinese régime of the 1970s had on Canadian interests in the PRC in the 1970s. In those days Canada was really constrained in what we could do in China. For example:
Political: we had very limited access to Chinese citizens and very little access to Chinese publications due to the restrictive laws and regulations of that time. Canadian reporters could be expelled peremptorily for very gentle truth telling about the negative side of the Cultural Revolution.
Immigration: we had a lot of trouble getting the Chinese authorities to implement our family Reunification Program. Canadians with valid reasons for wanting to enter China were usually denied visas.
Trade: we could not get fair access to the Chinese market, except for some grains, minerals and newsprint. The non-market currency exchange rate made Canadian products very expensive in China.
Culture: we could do virtually no public diplomacy
Development: we were not allowed to do CIDA projects despite China's great need due to the pervasive poverty in China in those years.
And so it goes.

Essentially the context of China under Maoist revolution was so completely different that there is no valid basis for comparison.

Fragment of Statement by the Uyghur American Association Condemning Violence

The Uyghur American Association (UAA) resolutely condemns the message delivered in a terror video just released and dated August 1, in which a man speaking in Uyghur claims to be part of a so-called the Turkistan Islamic Party. UAA condemns any groups that promote terrorism or violence, and opposes the threats of violent attacks that are presented in the video.

"The goal of our organization, and of the vast majority of Uyghurs around the world, is to peacefully resolve the problems facing Uyghurs in East Turkestan," said Uyghur freedom movement leader Rebiya Kadeer. "We advocate the principle of non-violence, and the promotion of freedom, democracy and human rights through peaceful means. We also sincerely hope for a peaceful Olympic Games."

UAA urges caution with respect to claims circulated in the media regarding the Turkistan Islamic Party, as the existence of the group, its size and level of organization and any reported links to al Qaeda have yet to be confirmed. UAA maintains a degree of skepticism that this group exists beyond the Internet. UAA is also unaware of any mention of the Turkistan Islamic Party prior to last month, when a separate video was released that was reportedly also produced by the organization. Prior to the release of this video, UAA had never heard of the group. In addition, UAA urges the international community not to discount the possibility that the Chinese government itself may have been involved in the production of the video.

UAA also urges a high degree of caution when assessing recent assertions by Chinese government officials regarding the existence of a well-organized terrorist group or groups in East Turkestan, as these assertions have yet to be independently verified. UAA also urges skepticism with regard to official Chinese claims of a strong linkage between al Qaeda and alleged Uyghur terrorist groups, which have similarly remained unsubstantiated.


Comment by me: Violence in Xinjiang only makes the situation there worse.

China Foreign Ministry Spokesman on U.S. President's Comments

clipped from news.yahoo.com China on Bush: Don't interfere in our affairs Thu Aug 7, 5:49 AM ET China has responded to President Bush's speech criticizing Beijing for repression, saying no one should interfere in other countries' internal affairs. Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said China and the United States have divergent views on human rights and religions issues, but said Beijing firmly opposed "any words or acts" that used those issues to interfere in other countries' internal affairs.

Archbishop of Uganda, Henry Luke Orombi's Observation on the Anglican Communion

Anglicans may say there are four “Instruments of Communion,” (the Archbishop of Canterbury; the Lambeth Conference; the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates' Meeting). But de facto, there is only one - the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The peculiar thing is that this one man, who is at the centre of the communion's structures, is not even elected by his peers. Even the Pope is elected by his peers, but what Anglicans have is a man appointed by a secular government. Over the past five years, we have come to see this as a remnant of British colonialism, and it is not serving us well. The spiritual leadership of a global communion of independent and autonomous provinces should not be reduced to one man appointed by a secular government.

It is important that our decision not to attend this Lambeth Conference is not misunderstood as withdrawing from the Anglican Communion. On the contrary, our decision reflects the depth of our concern and the sober realisation that the present structures are not capable of addressing the crisis.
(published in the London Times this morning: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4438729.ece) Photo from http://www.churchofuganda.net/homepages.php?pid=9

Fragment from Washington Post Editorial on Mr, Bush's Trip to Beijing

Mr. Bush has confirmed that he will join Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe and Cuba's Raúl Castro in attending the Opening Ceremonies because he wishes "to cheer on our athletes" and because to do otherwise "would be an affront to the Chinese people." In fact, Mr. Bush is affronting those Chinese who have bravely tried to resist the regime's steamrolling of all dissent. And what if an intrepid protester manages to raise his or her voice for Tibet or religious freedom or an end to China's sponsorship of genocide in Darfur and is swarmed by the regime's thugs? What if Western media seeking to cover such an event are censored? We can only hope that in that event, Mr. Bush will stop cheering.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/17/AR2008071702679.html


July 25: An interview with me about this is quoted in Michelle Collins "Beijing Olympics:To Attend or Not to Attend?" in the July 23 Embassy: Canada's Foreign Policy Newsletter available at:
http://www.embassymag.ca/html/index.php?display=story&full_path=/2008/july/23/olympics/

What Will Be the Legacy of the Beijing Olympics?

While the games have yet to begin, it is already apparent that when the games are over, China's reputation in the world will not have been enhanced. Despite the massive investment in the Games that the Chinese Communist Government has made, China's image abroad has suffered badly due to the fiasco of the Olympic Torch relay. People throughout the world who previously were open to being convinced that China had "arrived" as a modern great nation now see China as a politically repressive, badly governed, authoritarian regime with serious environmental issues, especially if some of the Olympic events are postponed due to pollution. As the start of the Games approaches it appears unlikely that this negative impression will change and could well get worse if there are incidents at the Games that show the Chinese police acting with violence.

Most ordinary Chinese people are deeply offended at the West's support for the Tibetans and generally negative attitude toward their Government. So the Games have had the effect of increasing anti-Western nationalistic sentiment in China. This does not bode well for political liberalization in China in the years ahead.

History and Victimization by the "Anti-China West"

I had some correspondence with some one I do not know who reads this blog and other things written by me available on the internet. He described him or herself as a "typical Chinese" aged 31. My correspondent is vitriolic in attitude to the Dalai Lama and appalled at the protests against the Olympic torch relay. He also feels that the West had blackened the reputation of Chinese products by over-dramatic reaction to the problems of lead paint found on toys, etc.

Here is a summary of my responses to him or her:
Much of his anger he traces back to the ravages of Western imperialism on China starting with the First Opium War of 170 years ago. I am with him on the idea that establishment of colonies and treaty ports in China was not a good thing by today's standards of assessment. But I would also say that it is also not good to have a "victimization" mentality which seeks to blame these historical events for China's political shortcomings today (as measured by UN Covenants, I mean). Basically the situation in China today is really about domestic factors. The really damaging events in recent history such as the Heavenly Kingdom of the Taipings Rebellion, failure of the 1911 Republic and lapse into warlordism，the Anti-Japanese War, the political persecution of innocent people in the political campaigns of the '40s, '50s, '60s, '70s, and '80s, the terrible famine incurred by the enormously tragically wrong-headed policies of the Great Leap Forward Campaign, the destruction of so many books, ancient buildings and artefacts in the Cultural Revolution etc. did not involve actually "the West" in a negative role. The Korean War can be an exception to this and close to a million Chinese lives were lost (although you don't see much acknowledgement by the DPRK authorities of this huge sacrifice made be the PLA "volunteers") But basically the people in South Korea are a lot better off than those living in a kind of political hell in the North so historical verdict would not see China supporting the North as such a good choice in today's terms.

Essentially Chinese people are responsible for China's issues today and the solutions are domestic too.

But the "China will eventually become democratic some time after Burton is dead" concept that my correspondent espouses is not one I find too reassuring. I would be more convinced if there were some signs that there is progress in this regard, but they are hard to find in a one-Party state with such efficient mechanisms for suppression of political dissent.

The Tibet issue to Tibetans is not really about how much worse the pre-1959 Dalai Lama regime was than Han rule today. Tibetans yearn for recognition of their identity and culture. It is not about their rational self interest. I judge that they will never give up their resistance to Han domination of what they regard as their sovereign native territory. Same goes for Uyghurs. International interest In these matters is based on universality of human entitlement to rights expressed in international Covenants.

A lot of people in the West believe that China should not use the Olympics to affirm moral claims in state behaviour at this time (including in Sudan, Burma, etc.). They do not want the Olympics to be a celebration of the current political regime.

The quality and safety problems with some Chinese imports are valid, but there are international institutions and the market to address these. There used to be issues in quality shortcomings in Canada wheat exports to China that were addressed this way too.


My conclusion:
I like hearing from Chinese people who challenge what I write about China here and elsewhere. There are always more things to talk about.

Tragic Death of Diana O'Brien

The death of Diana O'Brien in Shanghai earlier this month has been given a lot of prominence in the Canadian media. From what I can piece together based on Geoff York's insightful piece about it in the morning's Globe, the alleged murderer, Chen Jun, a migrant worker from a poor village in Anhui, just 18 years-old, had recently been fired from his job in a restaurant near where Ms. O'Brien was lodging in Shanghai. The reason he was let go is because he is too klutzy and shy to do the job properly. So with no job and no money, he turned to petty theft to make ends meet.

Chen forced himself into Ms. O'Brien's apartment as she was unlocking the door to her place after she came home one evening. He threatened her with a knife and gathered up her laptop computer and camera. But unlike most Chinese victims of this sort of crime, instead of just letting him take the stuff and telling him to get out, Ms. O'Brien fought with him and chased Chen Jun down the stairs as he took off with a bag full of her modest possessions. In a panic, Chen then stabbed her to death in the stairwell. It was several hours before anyone noticed that Diana O'Brien had been killed. I do feel very sorry about this.

Chen Jun's story reveals that behind the facade of wealth and modernity in Shanghai most of the people living in that city are poor and scrambling to get by often in desperation. As one of my old friends in Shanghai wrote me about it in an e-mail this morning: "Shanghai is somehow very like what as Dickens wrote about of the 19th century London!"

Canada should thank the Chinese police for their work in solving this case. I also hope that the Canadian Consulate in Shanghai will request permission to attend the accused's trial with a view to ensuring that Chen Jun gets due process and that Diana O'Brien's family and friends can be assured that the true murderer is being held.

It is most likely that Chen Jun will be sentenced to death for the murder of Diana O'Brien. But I don't think that Mr. Chen deserves to die for what he is alleged to have done considering the circumstances.


March 13, 2009: News reports are that Chen Jun was sentenced to death but the execution delayed for 2 years. I suppose that this means that he will be get life imprisonment if his behaviour in prison is deemed "good" after the two years: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090313/china_model_090313/20090313?hub=TopStories

My Answers to Questions on Canada-China Relations Posed by a Student at McGill

Is it accurate to say that Chinese-Canadian relations are usually warmer under a Liberal government as opposed to a Conservative one? If so, why do you think that is the case?
That would not be accurate to say because since 1970 we have had 4 Conservative Prime Ministers: Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney, Kim Campbell and Stephen Harper. Clark, Mulroney and Campbell did not have China policies much different from those of Trudeau, Turner, Chretien and Martin. Stephen Harper's less compromising stance on China's poor compliance with some international norms for state behaviour is part and parcel of his overall approach to government. But this is not to say that it is not associated with changing international dynamics that transcend partisan politics. So under a future Liberal government the Harper-initiated approach could be continued.

Do you agree with the statement occasionally made in the Canadian media that, as Jeffrey Simpson put it, Chinese-Canadians “overwhelmingly” vote Liberal. If so, why do you think this is the case?
I am not too familiar with the statistics on voting behaviour of self-identified ethnic groups in Canada, although I have heard this before from both Liberals and Conservatives. There is a perception that Chinese-Canadians feel grateful for Government programs facilitating migration from China to Canada that they identify with the Liberal Party. The hard work of the Conservative Government's Secretary of State for Multiculturalism and Canadian Identity, Jason Kenney appears to be changing this perception. I understand that Michael Ignatieff plans to spend much of the summer making appearances to counter Conservative Party progress in establishing strong relations with self-identified Canadian ethnic groups.

Why do you think Harper toughened Canada’s stance towards China in 2006?
I think his motivations were to better reflect his own and Canadians' values on the moral imperative to stand with Chinese people whose entitlements to human rights have been repressed by the Chinese Communist Party's policies. My 2005 report for DFAIT that showed that the "quiet diplomacy" of the Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue was ineffective may have made a small contribution to the policy debate.

There have been suggestions that a large part of Harper’s hardened stance towards China had to do with domestic politics. For example, some have said it is partly a Conservative attempt to win over the segment of Chinese-Canadians critical of the regime so as to undercut the Liberals’ electoral success with that ethnic group. Another view suggests that it is an attempt to reclaim the “human rights mantle” the Liberals have supposedly possessed since the Trudeau era. How much of the policy switch towards China do you think was motivated by domestic politics?
It has been good domestic politics as public opinion polling shows that most Canadians want Canada to be frank and transparent in its approach to China on human rights. But most recent immigrants from China do not support this approach. So I think it is more about doing the right thing for Canada than anything else.

Has Canada’s firmer stance with China over the last two years been more or less effective at bringing about positive domestic reform within that country than the bilateral human rights dialogues were? Or have the effects of both approaches been negligible? Are all of these approaches merely devised to make it appear like Canada’s politicians are doing something about human rights abuses in China or are they genuine attempts to bring about reform within that country? How realistic do you think it is that a middle power such as Canada could actually influence domestic reform in China?
Chinese domestic factors are the most critical for determining China's political destiny. It is important that Canada not be complicit in supporting non-democratic institutions by standing idly by and tacitly accept attempts by the Chinese regime to put forward a moral equivalence of their political institutions and ours. Our Parliament and their National People's Congress for example are by now means comparable. We should not leave any impression that Canada accepts them as only varying due to cultural and historical factors. The Chinese regime clearly does not like the dark side of their regime such as repression of freedom of expression, freedom of association, brutal suppression of dissidents to be known in the West. So being open and frank about our concerns is a way to disincentive this sort of thing. But it is Chinese people in China that will bring China to democracy. The best we can do is to support agents of change in ways consistent with international norms of interaction between sovereign states. And we expect the Chinese Embassy to Canada to behave in ways consistent with international diplomatic treaties and not attempt to intimidate Canadians of Chinese origin in Canada or engage in espionage here.

Why has the Lai Changxing case been largely overlooked by both journalists and politicians alike when examining the current poor state of Canada-China relations? The common narrative presented by the media is that the decline in Canada-China relations began in early 2006 when the newly elected Conservative government toughened Canada’s approach with China. Another perspective relayed to me by a former bureaucrat with connections in the Chinese government was that, in fact, the decline in relations began near the end of the Chretien government. Supposedly, during a meeting between Chretien and former Premier Zhu Rongji, Chretien made the error of suggesting that as long as the Chinese government promised to waive the death penalty for Lai Changxing, Canada would, in return, extradite him to China. When the Lai case continued to make little headway in Canadian courts, even after the Chinese made the exemption Chretien sought, the relations between the two countries soured because the whole affair was seen as a breach of faith by Chinese officials. Seen from this perspective, Harper’s policies have really only aggravated an already declining relationship. Do you think there is any validity to this interpretation? How much of an impact do you think the Lai case has had on China-Canada relations? How realistic do you think the suggestion is that if Canada were to, hypothetically, extradite Lai Changxing tomorrow we would suddenly see progress on a variety of issues currently dogging relations such as the Celil affair or China’s reluctance to grant Canada “Approved Destination Status”?
I agree that the Lai case was bungled by the Liberals and bureaucracy. They should have appreciated that the Canadian judiciary might render judgements making it impossible for Lai to be returned to China. So we raised Chinese expectations that they would get Lai back and now the Chinese authorities feel betrayed by us. ADS is said to be related to the Lai case, but another factor might be the Canadian refugee determination system in general that has led to a large number of corrupt Chinese officials and criminals being able to escape being made accountable to Chinese justice permanently by touching base in Canada and making a refugee claim. Not sure that there is much basis for characterizing Canada-China relations as "poor." But Canadian exports' share of the Chinese market has been declining for more than 10 years, so I would take that as an objective indicator of something being not right.

How damaging has the ongoing Celil affair been on Sino-Canadian relations? How far should Canada go to achieve Celil’s release to the detriment of Sino-Canadian relations at large?
I don't think that the Celil affair has damaged overall Sino-Canadian relations. I think we should do everything we can consistent with international diplomatic norms to get the Chinese Government to accept that Mr. Celil is a Canadian and address his case in accord with international standards for foreign nationals arrested outside their home country. I don't think we should ever give up.

When quoted in a Maclean’s article two years ago (RE: Tories Deadlocked over Canada-China Relations, November 2006), you suggested that Canada’s firmer stance towards China, particularly regarding human rights concerns, would likely not affect trade between the two countries because the Chinese rarely linked the two issues together. In a Globe and Mail essay recently, Peter Harder suggested that the continuing chill between Canada and China, which many attribute to Harper’s tougher stance on human rights, is now resulting in lost contracts for Canadian companies doing business in China. Do you think that your original assessment two years ago still rings true or has it changed at all? How effectively has Canada harnessed the increasing trade opportunities presented by China’s economic rise in recent years when compared to other industrialized nations such as Australia? Are we remaining competitive or are we lagging behind?
Mr. Harder was unable to provide any evidence to back up this claim. So I think my original assessment remains unchallenged. Canada's approach to trade promotion is rather fragmented in that the DFAIT, EDC, Provincial Economic Offices and CCBC do not coordinate their efforts very well. We also lack expertise in Chinese and cultural knowledge compared to the Trade Promotion people in Australia. We are definitely lagging behind. I don't see the problem so much as attributable to Mr. Harper as to Mr. Harder himself as a director of CCBC.

Do you think that recent developments this year such as the opening of new trade consulates, the expressed support of the “One China” policy, and the appointment of David Emerson to Minister of Foreign Affairs, are indications that Canada is softening its stance with China? Does this constitute an affirmation that Canada’s China policy over the last two years has been ineffectual?
No. I don't. The "One China" policy may not have much presence in what we do with China. I personally see it as inappropriate because this issue is a domestic Chinese concern. Conversely, China does nor have a "One Canada" policy, nor should they. I think the new trade offices will only be effective if we put the right people into them.

Do you agree with Harper’s decision to not attend the opening ceremonies of the Olympic games? Why?
Olympic opening ceremonies function as a celebration of the host nation. There is no tradition of foreign leaders attending them. Mr. Harper indicated that he has other commitments on August 8. But Canada will send Cabinet-level representation to the ceremony.

China Nationalist's Interpretation of Increase in Price of Oil

A Chinese friend explained to me today that the United States is purposefully artificially inflating the world price of oil as means to force China to raise the value of the RMB yuan. The increase in the price of oil will also make the cost of production of Chinese products more expensive and therefore render them less competitive in the U.S. market. Furthermore igher oil prices increase the cost of shipping products from China to the United States. So all three factors will make Chinese products less competitive in the U.S. market.

To most Canadians this interpretation is rather far-fetched and irrational. But to the Chinese nationalist's mind when things go wrong, such as gas prices going up by 18% as they have in China recently, the default response is to blame it on hostile foreign forces. The idea in this case is that hostile elements in the United States are manipulating world oil prices as a means to make problems for China. I strongly suspect that this may be in interpretation that many Chinese would readily accept without question.

Irrational nationalism can be a very dangerous thing.

David Emerson is a True Mandarin?

Gary Mason's column in Saturday's Globe and Mail entitled "Will Emerson re-enter the fray in a new riding?" (p.A11) says: "Mr. Emerson speaks fluent Chinese and is married to a Chinese-Canadian."

Seems that the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs and I are more alike than I had previously been aware!

A fluent Mandarin speaking Minister of Foreign Affairs would certainly be a great boon for Canada.

Strange that this information about David Emerson's fluency in Chinese does not seem to have been reported in any of the Canadian-Chinese media reports about our new Foreign Minister that I have seen.

This claim in The Globe and Mail about Mr. Emerson reminds me that in years past the Chinese media reported that the Chinese Premier at the time, Zhou Enlai, was fluent in 8 languages. But despite his alleged amazing linguistic skills. he used interpreters in his meetings with non-Chinese as a way to gain strategic advantage in negotiations.

The 60th Anniversary Radio 4 Reith Lectures, on the subject of China, given by Professor Jonathan Spence

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/reith2008/

I recommend these lectures most highly.

Summary of recent events of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee Study on Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue

I spoke to the Committee on April 17 (http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/CMTE/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=235986&Lang=1&PARLSES=392&JNT=0&COM=13185)

They met to consider the report on April 29

May 1st met again and decided to hold two more meetings on the Report to hear from further witnesses

May 27 heard from:
Gregory T. Chin, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Graduate Studies and Department of Political Science (worked for China Division of DFAIT and for CIDA in Beijing);
Bernie Michael Frolic, Professor Emeritus, Political Science Department;
Jeremy Paltiel, Professor, Carleton University;
Pitman Potter, Professor of Law and Director of the Institute of Asian Research , Director of Chinese Legal Studies, Centre for Asian Legal Studies, UBC;
Daniel C. Préfontaine, President., International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy
(http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/CMTE/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=242499&Lang=1&PARLSES=392&JNT=0&COM=13185)

May 29 heard from:
Thomas In-Sing Leung, Professor Culture Regeneration Research Society;
Rev. Jian Miller Zhuang.
(http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/CMTE/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=242825&Lang=1&PARLSES=392&JNT=0&COM=13185)

May 27 decided that the Committee continue studying the draft report on Afghanistan during the meetings on June 3 and June 5, 2008 and that the Committee continue studying the draft report on Afghanistan during the meeting of June 10, unless they have completed the report and then they will continue studying the draft report on China.

http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteeList.aspx?Lang=1&PARLSES=392&JNT=0&SELID=e22_.2&COM=13185&STAC=2422146

Additional Paragraph to My Review of Simon Winchester's "The Man Who Loved China" Published in the Globe and Mail

The Globe and Mail published my review of Simon Winchester's new biography of Joseph Needham today (it can be read here). There is a paragraph that I wrote that was not used by them. Here it is:

"Simon Winchester has published 19 books to date many of them non-fiction about East Asia. The Man Who Loved China follows along the lines of Winchester's bestseller The Professor and the Madman: a Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of the 'Oxford English Dictionary' that came out to much acclaim 10 years ago. Winchester had full access to the massive collection of Needham papers held at the Cambridge Library and Needham Research Institute including Needham's diaries and letters. He was also able to interview a large number of people that Needham had known and worked with. The book is a very compelling read. But to make it so, Winchester has selected out those colourful aspects of Needham that emphasize the man's eccentricity, but are ultimately rather trivializing of one of the greatest scholars of the 20th century. Needham is often aptly compared to the 15th century scholar Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam, after all. So in Winchester's telling Needham comes off as more shallow and self-indulgent than he truly was. Joseph Needham deserves a more serious and comprehensive biography that does much better justice to his place in modern intellectual history."

Why Limit the Freedom of Human Right Activists in the Face of Sino-US Human Rights Dialogue?

Wan Yanhai is director of the Aizhixing Beijing Institute, one of the leading organizations doing advocacy in China for the human rights people living with HIV and of groups affected by HIV. I met him in Beijing when I was researching my report on the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue for DFAIT.


Why Limit the Freedom of Human Right Activists in the Face of Sino-US Human Rights Dialogue?
May 25, 2008

By Wan Yanhai

As a result of the human rights dispute prior to the Beijing Olympics, China and the US started dialogue on human rights again. From the information I gathered in the past few days, the dialogue will take place on Monday in Beijing .

But something strange has happened. In the face of the human rights dialogue, Beijing public security apparatus began to limit the personal freedom of human right activists. For example, Zeng Jinyan was prohibited from leaving her residence on the morning of May 24th.
(She has just recently been allowed limited freedom, in that she can go out but is followed). Li Hai is under house arrest beginning on the same day. One human right activist were asked to leave the city, also on the same day. Many more has been contacted by the police and told to remain low key.

For the first time, I myself now have a police car parked in front of the door. Wherever I go, police car follow. On May 24th at around 9:30AM, police from the Beijing Haidian District Precinct called me and wanted to meet at 10 to "discuss something". At 10 and two policemen from the Haidian District and the person in charge of the local police station came. They told me that in the next few days, there will be policemen stationed outside my home, that if I want to go out, I will have to ride in the police car, with police escort. They then said however, that the police would "not interfere with my work and life." I was not shown any document and there was no explanation as to why these actions are taken.

I asked if this is related to the Olympics and was told no.
I asked if this is because June 4th is coming up, and was told no.
I asked if this is because we organized a charity dinner, and again was told no.

Around noon on May 24th, a policeman came to my residence. He was very polite. In the afternoon, when we went to the supermarket, the police followed. That night we went to a party, the policemen parked outside the restaurant, and then followed me home. Today, another policeman came, and there was a large picture of me in the front window of the police car, presumably so that I could be easily identified.

If it were not for the police visit, I would not have known there was going to be a Sino-US human rights dialogue. My neighbors heard from the police that some international VIPs are coming.

In the evening, others told me that this is probably related to the human rights dialogue, because apparently the US State Department Vice-secretary in Charge of Human Rights is coming to China and wanted to meet with human right activists.

In the face of Sino-US human rights dialogue, why limit the freedom of human right activists' Have our police friends thought about what this means'

Human rights dialogue is a good thing. If our government can invite those who are critical from civil society to join the dialogue, that would be the best. If our government does not want to involve civil society, it should at least tolerate the work and personal freedom of those who are working for human rights in this city. This would enhance the government's stature in respecting human rights. Thoughtlessly limiting their freedom would not contribute to the government claim that it respects human rights.

Sichuan Earthquake and Beancurd Schools for the Children of the Underclass in China

Among the public at large the tragic loss of large numbers of children suddenly buried in the rubble of their collapsed schools has been the most heart-rending. Many observe that the collapsed schools were surrounded by intact buildings including neighbouring schools for children of local officials located more or less adjacent. There is general consensus that the schools collapsed burying the innocent children because the schools were of substandard construction. This is attributed to high rates of corruption by local authorities in misallocation of funds for public projects combined with bribery that allows contractors to cut corners. Everybody knows that one is hard pressed to find a Communist Party official whose lifestyle and that of his family does not far exceed his state salary. They also tend to be negligent in fulfilling official duties. Schools "made of beancurd" are just one indication of a Party which has transferred its allegiance from the interests of "workers, peasants and soldiers" to the pursuit of money and raw power for the benefit of the ruling elite. As years go by the gap between rich in power grows yearly ever wider. While China's distribution of wealth was one of the most egalitarian the world over the Mao era, today China has one of the most inegalitarian wealth distributions, already approaching Brazilian-level inequity. The Government has already responded to the public outrage over this issue by promising to deal firmly with anyone found to have acted improperly with regard to construction of the collapsed schools. The Government has further committed to crack down on embezzlement of funds or illegal sale of emergency relief supplies.

But the underlying issues are systemic in nature.

As Jiang Wenran of the University of Alberta has put it with regard to the Chinese citizenry's attitude to the reports: "They don't identify with the government, but they identify with China as a nation, and they feel that it is vulnerable.”

Jiang's comment see: Geoffrey York, "Shock of consciousness' sweeps China in wake of temblor" The Globe and Mail May 17, 2008 available on-line at http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080516.wchina17/BNStory/International/ (accessed May 22, 2008).

Excellent account by Jim Yardley in Sunday's New York Times: "Chinese Are Left to Ask Why Schools Fell" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/25/world/asia/25schools.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=print

Report on U.S. Senate Subcomittee Hearing that Suggests CISCO Collaborating Closely with Chinese Authorities on Internet Censorship

At a hearing before a Senate subcommittee that focuses on human rights and the Internet, Chairman Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) focused on a PowerPoint presentation that discussed China's "combat" of "evil religious groups," such as Falun Gong, which the Chinese government has banned since 1999.

Shiyu Zhou, deputy director of the Global Internet Freedom Consortium, testified that it had obtained the presentation titled Cisco Opportunities [in the Golden Shield Project], which showed Cisco working closely with the government on an elaborate scheme to control what information is available on the Internet in China.

"Cisco offers much more than just routers; it offers planning, construction, technical training, and operations maintenance for the Golden Shield," Zhou said. "Our research shows that the infrastructure of China's Great Firewall coincides with the layouts in Cisco (China)'s PowerPoint document."

Zhou charged that "Cisco can no longer assure Congress that Cisco (China) has not been and is not now an accomplice and partner in China's Internet repression and, whether directly or indirectly, in its persecution of Falun Gong practitioners and other peaceful citizens in China."

Cisco general counsel Mark Chandler said he was "appalled" to see the reference to Falun Gong in the slide presentation and asserted that Cisco merely sells generic network equipment to China without customizing it to work with the Golden Shield.

"We disavow the implication that this (presentation) in any way reflects Cisco's views," Chandler said. He added that "employees who would customize our products in such a way as to undermine human rights" would violate the company's "extensive code of conduct."

The industry has been working for two years on a voluntary code of conduct for doing business in China, and Durbin signaled that congressional patience is wearing thin. Industry negotiations are "intolerably slow," he said.


Full text of this report can be found here

Fragment from Rex Murphy's Statement on the Celil Case Broadcast on CBC National News On May 22

I know nothing of the case against him, but the regard shown in this letter, the affection for his wife, and respect for his mother is of a rare and highly singular standard. He neither rages against his own tragedy, the cruel horror of being snatched and jailed for life, nor flings his anger at officials or government.

The burden of the note is his aching concern for wife, children, and mother. We should be pleased Canada has such citizens. All the more reason that Mr. Celil's nightmare should be the active business of our federal government, our premiers and press, and all Canadians.

It is simply not enough that China declare his guilt, place him in jail for life, deny him communication, and hide him away in the darkness of its prison system -- and that we should ignore it. Trade missions and Olympic games are not worth the silence his case has earned so far.


Full text of his remarks: http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/video/transcripts/transcript_speaking_up_for_cel.html

Fragment from BBC Report of Google AGM Last Thursday and Human Rights and Censorship Proposals by Shareholders

Google defeated two contentious shareholder proposals at the AGM.

The first wanted the company to create a special committee on human rights, while the second asked Google to increase its opposition to censorship demands from countries such as China that wish to limit their citizens' internet access.

While both votes were defeated, a breakdown of the vote has yet to be released.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7391599.stm

Tian Guo Marching Band

The Falun Gong's new Tian Guo ("Heavenly Kingdom") Marching Band is currently making itself available for parades at every sort of Canadian cultural event. It is fascinating to me that this Falun Gong Band has a name eerily reminiscent of the Taiping Tianguo ("Heavenly Kingdom of Great Peace") which flourished in China from 1853-64, capital at Nanjing. At its peak the Taiping Rebellion forces occupied much of the central Yangzi valley area. and ruled over 30 million Chinese.

The leader of the Taipings, Hong Xiuquan, had a vision that he was the younger brother of Jesus and on this basis developed a revised version of Christianity with no Trinity and an additional "gospel" written by himself. Hong imposed and enforced his version of Christianity in the areas under his military control. Within the land that they controlled, the Taiping Heavenly Army established a theocratic and highly militarised rule. Hong preached that it was the mission of the Taiping Tianguo to rebel against the weak and corrupt Manchus so that China would not be forced under foreign rule by Western imperialists. The rebellion swung from one side to another, now a defeat, now a victory, now a defeat.

Mao Zedong viewed the Taipings as early heroic revolutionaries against a corrupt feudal system.

Intriguing food for thought as to why the Falun Gong also identifies with a "Heavenly Kingdom" using the same Chinese characters as the Taipings used for their political rebellion in China.

Website of the Falun Gong Marching band: www.tianguoband.org