My Responses to my Department's Ph.D. Program Retreat Discussion Questions

1. What do you think are the key themes, debates, issues, foci of research that characterize the discipline of political science, understood in its broadest sense?
I don't think it is possible to meaningfully characterize political science as a discipline in a broad sense at this time. This question presupposes an answer based in a coherent consensus on an orthodox theory of political science. But liberal political philosophy is becoming more and more removed from the empirical realities addressed by political scientists today and there is no indication that current political theory offers us a usable framework to come to terms with emerging trends in domestic and international politics.

2. What do you think are the the key themes, debates, issues, foci of research that need to be addressed by the discipline in the next five to ten years, in order to take into account the changed and changing nature of the political world?
I think that we need to do more teaching to make students aware that the political world is in fact changed and changing. My general impression is that our course offerings could use a major overhaul to bring us back up to the cutting edge of PoliSci. Of course this process would not exclude my own offerings. Having already passed the half-century mark, I realize more and more how easy it is to forget that political events and new ideas of 10 or 20 years ago may not be the most relevant and most important content when a lecture has to summarize the state of knowledge in a subject in just 50 minutes. We may wish to de-emphasize some focuses to make way for new content.

3. What are your research and scholarly interests and aims at present and in the next and five to ten years?
I expect to continue to work on the challenges to Canada of China and Northeast Asia and other "non-Western" areas to human rights discourse, development theory and international relations.

RE: Canadian prof in China infuriates censors (Globe and Mail, December 30)

As a student in Fudan University's Philosophy Department's History of Ancient Chinese Thought program, I read a lot of Confucianism and the contemporary commentaries on those writings. There was much debate in China in the early-20th century about whether certain passages in Mencius and in Mozi could be rightly interpreted to suggest latent support by the ancients for liberal democratic institutions and the rights discourse. My Canadian interpretation of the classical Chinese texts supports this idea too. My reasoning is simply that human rights doctrine has at its core respect for human dignity and because dignity is the central Confucian value, modern Confucians should oppose authoritarianism. Political democracy is defined by the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a key entitlement of all citizens of every country. At the very least there is nothing in the Confucian classics that suggests that Confucius would not be a supporter of democracy and human rights were he alive today. But there are lots of reasons to suggest that Confucius would not apply for membership in the Chinese Communist Party.

Charles Burton
Brock University
905-329-9477

Jean-François Lesage: "Sous l’ombre chinoise…"

Sous l’ombre chinoise…

Monsieur André Pratte,

Dans votre éditorial du 20 novembre (Ombres chinoises) vous affirmez que les démarches du gouvernement canadien en matière de droits la personne en Chine devraient être fondées sur « un dialogue soutenu, large et respectueux ». Un tel dialogue sur les droits de la personne existe déjà entre nos deux gouvernements depuis près dix ans. En 1997, le Canada cessait de parrainer une résolution condamnant la Chine à la Commission des droits de l’homme des Nations unies, pour se lancer dans une politique de diplomatie tranquille. Une évaluation indépendante de ce dialogue bilatéral, commandée par le gouvernement précédent, a été rendue publique en avril dernier *. On y conclut que les résultats de ces échanges sont désolants. Après neuf rondes de dialogue, l’évaluateur, le professeur Charles Burton de l’Université Brock, constate que le processus fait l’objet d’un cynisme généralisé. L’interlocuteur du Canada dans cette démarche, le ministère des Affaires étrangères chinois, ne semble pas être le bon. En effet, le mandat de ce ministère est de défendre les intérêts nationaux de la Chine à l’étranger et non de promouvoir les droits de la personne sur le territoire chinois. L’évaluateur observe également que les responsables du Parti communiste chinois, qui disposent d’un pouvoir décisionnel sur ces questions, n’ont jamais participé au dialogue. Ce processus n’est donc pas satisfaisant dans sa forme actuelle et peut être amélioré.

Devant un tel constat, une nouvelle approche, moins tranquille, plus véhémente, qui ferait place à des critiques franches ne serait pas mal venu. L’amitié sino-canadienne, symbolisée par le médecin montréalais Norman Bethune, exige, comme toute grande amitié, que les critiques ne soient pas simplement balayées sous le tapis. Comme vous le soulignez, il ne suffit pas d’une déclaration fracassante, il faut aussi adopter une politique cohérente incluant tous les aspects de notre relation avec la Chine, dont le commerce et les droits de la personne. La théorie à l’effet que les droits de la personne et le commerce ne font pas bon ménage est fausse. Ceux qui redoutent les conséquences économiques d’une approche plus ferme en matière de droits de la personne ne devraient pas sous-estimer le pragmatisme des Chinois : ils achètent toujours le meilleur produit au meilleur prix (même si celui-ci devait se trouver au Soudan…).

J’ai vécu six ans à Pékin et je me suis souvent enthousiasmé pour le miracle économique chinois et pour cette société en mutation qui progresse indéniablement vers une ouverture de plus en plus grande. Mais derrière ce miracle, se profile une ombre qu’on ne peut ignorer.

Je pense d’abord à cette ombre dans la neige tracée par le corps de la novice Kelsang Namtso, une Tibétaine de 17 ans, tuée par des gardes frontières chinois le 30 septembre dernier, alors qu’elle tentait de quitter le Tibet pour le Népal, afin d’y poursuivre son éducation religieuse. Nous avons été informés de cette disparition uniquement parce que des alpinistes occidentaux passaient par là.

Et que dire de l’obscurité dans laquelle est plongé Chen Guangchen, un juriste aveugle, emprisonné pour avoir voulu plus de justice dans son pays. Après avoir identifié des cas de stérilisation et d’avortements forcés, il avait intenté un recours contre les autorités de la ville de Linyi. On l’a accusé d’avoir troublé l’ordre public. Ses avocats ont été arrêtés pendant le procès et il a été condamné à quatre ans de prison. À la suite de pressions internationales, Chen attend un nouveau procès.

Je pense aussi à la silhouette d’Huseyin Celil sur le mur de sa cellule. Il s’agit d’un Canadien de 37 ans, père de quatre enfants. Celil est d’origine uïgour, la minorité musulmane et turcophone de la région autonome du Xinjiang au Nord Ouest de la Chine. Celil a été admis au Canada en 2001 à titre de réfugié politique. Le gouvernement chinois ne fait pas de différence – surtout depuis le 11 septembre 2001‑ entre une personne qui milite pacifiquement pour l’autonomie du Xingjiang et un terroriste. En août dernier, il a été déporté en Chine par l’Ouzbékistan, où il était allé visiter sa famille. Il est depuis détenu incommunicado en raison de présumés liens terroristes. En contravention de la convention de Vienne, la Chine a refusé tout accès à ce détenu aux diplomates canadiens. Les risques que Celil soit torturé en détention sont élevés.

Enfin, je pense à ces centaines de prisonniers de conscience en Chine qui passeront les Olympiques de 2008 en prison. Pour eux, les remarques, sans doute un peu intempestives, du premier ministre Stephen Harper, après l’annulation d’un rendez-vous avec le président chinois, offrent une lueur d’espoir, peut-être vacillante, mais une lueur quand même, sous l’ombre d’un géant.

Les droits de la personne ne sont pas des valeurs canadiennes devant être exportée vers la Chine mais des droits universels. Nous ne pouvons pas appuyer uniquement la Chine des affaires, il faut appuyer les citoyens chinois dans leur quête de plus de démocratie et d’un plus grand respect des droits de la personne.


Jean-François Lesage

* Évaluation du dialogue bilatérale Canada-Chine sur les droits de la personne, rapport préparé en exécution de la lettre d’entente 12800 CB du ministère des Affaires étrangères et du Commere international datée du 1^er août 2005 par Charles Burton.

L’auteur est agent régional de programme pour l'Asie à Droits et Démocratie. Il développe en Chine des projets qui font la promotion des droits humains et du développement démocratique avec la société civile chinoise et des institutions gouvernementales

Consensus on China Policy Forming

My website http://spartan.ac.brocku.ca/~cburton has links to the Canadian Coalition on Human Rights in China letter to Prime Minister Harper of October 6, 2006 which urges the Government to implement my report on the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue and to the media reports on the Prime Minister's comments to the press that he made on the 'plane while heading to the APEC meeting in Vietnam.

Now senior Liberal Party policy advisor, Tom Axworthy has issued his The Four Key Questions: An Essay on Liberal Renewal (http://www.queensu.ca/csd/publications/Axworthy_4_Key_Questions.12.4.06.pdf). It says: "We need a two-part strategy in dealing with China: first, people-to-people exchanges, scholarships, and business partnerships should be encouraged. As many Chinese citizens as possible should be exposed to a real democracy and to our thriving civil society. The peaceful transition of China from autocracy to democracy is one of the great potential 'what ifs' of world history, and anything Canada is able to do, in a modest way, to help this along, would be useful. Inviting large numbers of Chinese students, for example, to study our legal system – and especially the Charter of Rights – could have very beneficial impacts within China itself. So Canadians must work on developing friendships with the Chinese people. But the same does not apply to the Communist regime. The Communist regime abuses its own people at home, and supports autocracies abroad. There is no question that life in China has greatly improved in recent decades, and life today does not compare to the horrors of Mao and the Cultural Revolution. But, civil liberties are still not respected and the current regime has embarked on a severe crackdown on journalists, internet users, and dissidents. Many Canadian businessmen worry about raising human rights abuses, but they should also realize that there is no such thing as property rights in China. The state-owned business sector in China, far from being autonomous, still follows the dictates of the Party. The Communist regime cannot be isolated; it must be dealt with because it controls China. But it is also a mistake to treat it as if its dictatorial tendencies do not matter. The future of the regime will be decided within China. But any potential Chinese Gorbachevs should be able to use international legitimacy as one reason why the existing regime should reform. In particular, Canadian assets should not be allowed to be sold to state-owned Chinese companies. Security considerations should be added to the criteria of Investment Canada. Human rights should be raised in a forceful and regular way with the Communist leadership so that they know that such values are central to Canada and central to the relationship. Our strategy toward China should be – engage, but never kowtow."

Most recently, BDO Dunwoody has issued a CEO/Business Leader Poll by COMPAS published in The Financial Post on November 27 entitled "Human Rights in China: Harper's Public Diplomacy Outperforms Chretien's Quiet Diplomacy; Excellent for Human Rights, Neutral for Business" which can be accessed at http://www.bdo.ca/library/polls/documents/27Nov06-FPCEOPoll-HumanRightsinChina.pdf


It appears that a national consensus on Canada's future China policy is forming.

Fragment of E-Mail from a Student Who Saw Me on Chinese TV being interviewed by Diana Xiaoping Dai

From: XXXX
To: Charles Burton
Sent: Saturday, November 25, 2006 8:10:28 PM
Subject: XXXX is very impressed!
I don't want you to think that this is a big surprise to me, but I saw you fluently speaking Chinese on OMNI 2 (channel 15). In fact, it seemed as though you were more fluent than the hot Chinese babe who was interviewing you! I sat and watched you for 10 minutes, not understanding a word but incredibly impressed.

Comment: a surprising number of non-Chinese speakers have contacted me to say that they were taken aback to see me on Chinese-language TV news programs. It seems that people channel surf more than one might think.

E-Mail about Citizenship & Immigration Canada PRRA decisions and my Report

From: XXXX
To: Charles Burton
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 3:32:15 PM
Subject: Citizenship & Immigration Canada PRRA decisions and your Report:

Pre-Removal Risk Assessments Based on your July 14, 2004 Report entitled "Report on Matters relating to Canadian-born Children Resident in China Whose Parents are Citizens of the People's Republic of China"

I am the lawyer for a number of failed refugee claimants in Vancouver, B.C. who had made claims based on the one child policy in China. This report above had been used on a number of instances as reasons why these claimants who have had children born here in Canada should be returned to China. Are you at liberty to e-mail me or direct me to a copy of this report? Moreover, would you like to see excerpts of decisions (mostly from the Pre-Removal Risk Assessment Unit of CIC) based on your Report? Thanks in advance.

Mr. Harper, Mr. Hu, Mr. Celil, Human Rights, Trade and Canada-China Relations

Charles Burton
Associate Professor, Political Science Brock University
Former diplomat at Canadian Embassy in Beijing
Author of “Assessment of the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue” report released by the Department of Foreign Affairs and current subject of review by the Parliamentary Subcommittee on International Human Rights and Development
Burton@ncf.ca
(905)329-9477
FAX: (209)231-4087

The unexpected cancellation of a scheduled meeting between our Prime Minister and the President of China while both were in Vietnam for the APEC Meeting has stimulated much public debate over Canada’s foreign policy toward China. The belief among many is that Mr Harper’s office had advised Mr. Hu’s office that Canada wanted the leaders to address matters related to human rights and that the Chinese refused to have human rights put on the agenda. Sso Canada was “snubbed” by China. But it appears that it was not human rights that the Chinese President did not want raised by Canada, but rather a consular case of a Canadian citizen, Huseyincan Celil, who is currently languishing in a Chinese jail. Despite many requests, the Chinese Government refuses to abide by the Vienna Convention and let Canadian diplomats meet with Mr. Celil at the prison so that they can know that he remains in good health. Canada also has a right under international law to attend any court hearing held for Mr. Celil to ensure that Mr. Celil is extended due process of law and a fair trial. So far China has refused to respond to Canadian requests for this consular access to Mr. Celil. It is therefore reasonable as some months have passed without any resolution, that we try and get some answers out of China at the most senior level. Mr. Celil’s fate is probably in the hands of China’s Security Ministry. Mr. Hu is not a democratically elected president but relies on the support of the military and security apparatus to remain in power. So President Hu may be in the embarrassing position of being unable to do the right thing by Canada in this matter. So perhaps his people decided on balance it is best Mr. Hu not meet with Mr. Harper at all. .This is regrettable in the sense that meeting is always preferable to not meeting, but in the final analysis it probably does not matter much one way or the other. The fundamentals of Canada-China relations do not depend on whether or not our leaders have a bilateral get together at APEC.

Actually there is no evidence that there is any relationship between human rights and trade in our bilateral relationship with China. Whether we choose to address our concerns over China’s human rights record through “quiet diplomacy” or through frank, open and effective engagement is unlikely to have any impact on Canadian and Chinese economic relations. The Chinese are pragmatists. They will always want the best product and the best service at the best price. If Canada offers the best deal, they will buy from Canada regardless. China will not sacrifice its economic interests because it is losing a debate with us or any other nation over whether or not China is compliant with its obligations to the UN Human Rights Covenants that China is signatory to: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. China may accuse Canada of betraying the traditional friendship between our nations. This sort of lament and implied threats if we do not follow China’s prescriptions with regard to Tibet and Taiwan is standard procedure in China’s public diplomacy to deflect foreign criticism of its human rights record. But in the end the Chinese authorities know very well that in international relations there are no true friends, only national interests. Anyway it is better to that we be respected by the Chinese regime for holding to our deeply held principles than praised by them for our implied support of their rule. It is in the interests of Canada to stand up for people in China who are suffering from social injustice and cannot speak out for themselves due to China’s repression of their right to organize and to speak their minds out to an authoritarian Government that prefers not to hear from them. That China should be governed in accordance with the universal norms of human rights is something that all Canadians believe is best for the Chinese people. In fact it is the firm entitlement of all Chinese citizens as members of the human family. Canadians must demand that their Government make this a policy priority. This is not a politically partisan issue. It is what all Canadians know is the right thing to do.

China has changed dramatically in recent years. It is a more mature and confident nation as it rapidly rises to major power status. There are more and more new opportunities for Canada to grasp in trade and investment, political and cultural exchanges, and immigration month by month and year by year. But in recent years other nations have passed us by continuously updating their approach to relations with China while Canada’s engagement with China has stagnated. Canada’s loss of market share in China trade over the past years compared with Europe, the US and Australia is just one indicator that there is urgent need for us to be doing our China policy better. It is time that Canada renovates its China policy in all aspects to meet the challenge of the 21^st century. This is very important to Canada’s future as a leading economy and responsible member of the global community.

My Appearance before a Parliamentary Subcommittee

On October 31, 2006 I was invited to appear before the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the House of Commons Parliamentary Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development on October 31, 2006. I presented the report I wrote for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade entitled "Assessment of the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue" and responded to questions from MPs about human rights programming in Canada 's relations with China over a two-hour session held in the West Block of the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa. Representatives of Amnesty International and Rights and Democracy also urged the Subcommittee to support implementation of the “Burton Report.”

Before I booked travel to Ottawa, the Clerk of the Subcommittee referred me to the "Guide for Witnesses Appearing Before Committees of the House of Commons." One fragment from this document that gave me pause to think is given below:

"Summoning Witnesses

In the vast majority of cases, committees are able to obtain the evidence they seek by inviting witnesses to appear before them. However, if a witness has declined an invitation to appear, a committee may issue a summons to that witness by adopting a motion to that effect. If a proposed witness fails to appear when summoned, the committee may report the fact to the House. The House then takes any action it deems appropriate."

This document is available at http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/process/house/WitnessesGuides/Witness-e.htm

Sole Feedback I Received After Appearing on TVO's "The Agenda with Steve Paikin"

With your illustrious educational backround I am appalled that you cannot pronounce "nuclear" correctly. (TVO Tuesday night) You pronounce it the same as that poorly educated president of the United States. You say "noo-kya-ler" instead of "nyew-clee-are". So let me give you a clue as to how to pronounce it correctly every time you say it. I did this with a colleague of mine and it worked very well. As you are about to say the word, speak these two following words running together as one. "New clear." (Nyewcleer). You'll find it works and you will not ever be associated with the ignorant president of the United States of America.
E. *****, Professor Emeritus, Ryerson University, Toronto.

Domestic Implications of North Korea's Nuclear Test

North Korea's current domestic predicament is comparable to the worst periods of Chinese Communism. The excesses of China's Great Leap Forward famine of the early 1960s and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution campaign that followed are little appreciated by young people in China today. But they do know who Chairman Mao Zedong was. But what these young people mostly talk about is the national pride Mao engendered in China by being the national leader when the Chinese Government exploded China's first atomic bomb in 1964. Kim Jong-Il is seen by many in North Korea as much less of a leader than his father was. But undoubtedly Kim Jong-Ils's prestige among people in the DPRK has soared after the announcement of a nuclear test by his Government. The measures taken by the international community to sanction the DPRK for exploding a nuclear device will likely only strengthen the nationalistic resolve of Koreans in the DPRK to support the Kim Jong-Il régime. In the meantime the people in North Korea suffer from hunger and social injustice and DPRK remains the most dangerous threat to global security today. It is the major political conundrum of our times.

Canadian Coalition on Human Rights in China Letter to Prime Minister Harper

CANADIAN COALITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA


October 6, 2006


Right Honorable Stephen Harper
Prime Minister of Canada
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
FAX: 613-941-6900


Re: Government of Canada Policy regarding Human Rights in China


Dear Prime Minister Harper,

We are a coalition of Canadian organizations that has been working together since 1993 to promote human rights in China.1 In particular, the coalition submits annual recommendations to the Government of Canada around the UN Commission on Human Rights (now Human Rights Council), participates in government briefing sessions related to the Canada-China bilateral human rights dialogue and maintains an updated prisoner list. In May 2005 and June 2006, we co-organized roundtable discussions with the Human Rights Division of Foreign Affairs Canada to press for a formal evaluation of the bilateral dialogue and, with it, a strengthened approach to the promotion of human rights in China.

The Canada-China bilateral human rights dialogue is a policy of quiet diplomacy adopted by the Government of Canada in 1997 as an alternative to sponsorship of a resolution at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. It became the centre piece of Canada’s efforts to promote human rights in China. Since 1997, our coalition has expressed numerous concerns about the dialogue, in particular the lack of a clear definition and objectives, poor transparency and the absence of benchmarks and monitoring procedures and above all concrete results.

We were therefore pleased that the government agreed, following the May 2005 meeting with our coalition, to conduct a formal evaluation of the dialogue. The report, issued in April of this year, makes clear that there are substantial shortcomings and failings with both the content and process of the dialogue. It also supports many of the concerns expressed by civil society over the years. Notably, the report’s author, Professor Charles Burton of Brock University, indicates that the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs considers that the main purpose of the dialogue is to “defuse foreign unease with China’s human rights record.”

We understand that another session of the bilateral dialogue is now being planned for later this fall. In our view, this is happening without adequate reflection by government concerning the contents and import of the Burton Report. The logical next step would be to undertake a full policy development process not only for the dialogue, but also for Canada’s broader China policy. Recent media reports raise concerns that Canada lacks a coherent China policy. We believe that the time is right to launch a public process to develop and adopt such a policy with human rights at its centre. Among areas needing attention are:


* fundamental reforms to the human rights dialogue between Canada and China;
* other strategies and mechanisms focused on human rights;
* trade and investment;
* conditions for development assistance;
* various matters associated with immigration;
* protection measures for the human rights of Canadian citizens detained in China, as typified currently by the case of Huseyin Celil.

In the absence of such a process, and in light of the recent crackdown on human rights defenders in China, we recommend that the dialogue meetings be temporarily suspended. This will allow time for a policy reflection as described above including a re-visioning of the bilateral dialogue. Our coalition is currently in the process of developing recommendations specifically for the bilateral dialogue:

* The level of official participation should be raised to Deputy Director. While we do not necessarily endorse or take a position regarding the Canada-China Strategic Partnership, we do consider that as long as the Partnership continues, the human rights dialogue should be situated within it. Inherent in this recommendation is the view that human rights should not be de-linked from other elements of the Canada-China relationship, but should, rather, be part of a “whole of government” approach.

* The dialogue should better integrate the participation of relevant civil society organizations in both Canada and China. Civil society participants should be self-selecting and have established expertise in China issues. Diaspora NGOs should not be excluded from the dialogue process.

* Prisoner lists and support for human rights defenders should be better managed and should include additional dimensions such as prison visits, trial observation, family support and other visible signs that the Government of Canada is strongly supportive of the work of human rights defenders in China.

* CIDA programming and the plurilateral symposium, both announced as part of the bilateral dialogue process, should be subject to a comprehensive and public review.

It must be emphasized that we are not advocating cancellation of the Canada-China bilateral dialogue. We are, however, suggesting that further sessions be delayed until the findings of the Burton Report are adequately addressed. Almost ten years have been spent in a process that was undefined and non-accountable. We now have an opportunity to learn from these mistakes and build a new approach, one that will make a more meaningful contribution to improving the protection of human rights in China.

As always, the members of our coalition offer our support and participation in the next steps of this important process. Please feel free to contact us through Carole Samdup at Rights & Democracy (csamdup@dd-rd.ca, tel: 514-283-6073, extn. 247). We look forward to continued collaboration with government in the interests of human rights promotion in China.

Sincerely,


Joanne Csete
Executive Director
Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network

Luisa Durante
National Coordinator
Canada Tibet Committee

Ken Georgetti
President
Canadian Labour Congress

Cheuk Kwan
Chair
Toronto Association for Democracy in China

Xun Li
President
Falun Dafa Association of Canada

Alex Neve
Secretary General
Amnesty International Canada, English branch

Constance Rooke
President
PEN Canada

Jean-Louis Roy
Président
Rights & Democracy

Mohamed Tohti
President
Uyghur Canadian Association

Beatrice Vaugrante
Directrice Générale
Amnistie internationale, Section canadienne francophone

* * *


1 The coalition currently includes Amnesty International, ARC International, Canada Tibet Committee, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, Canadian Labour Congress, Democracy China-Ottawa, Falun Dafa Association of Canada, Human Rights Watch/Canada, PEN Canada, Rights & Democracy, Students for a Free Tibet (Canada), Toronto Association for Democracy in China, and the Uyghur Canadian Association.

Four Aspects that Inform Canada's Relations with China

Canada’s interest in China is to take fullest advantage of the complementarity in our economies to generate wealth for Canada. Secondly, China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and an increasingly important player in global affairs due to its rapidly expanding economic influence throughout the world, so it is in Canada’s interest that China develop into a responsible “nation-citizen” in global affairs. Thirdly, Canadians are concerned about China’s human rights record. These include restrictions on freedom of expression, freedom to participate in non-government organizations, freedom to practise religion and political suppression of ethnic minorities. Fourthly, for some years China has been the primary source of new immigrants to Canada. Chinese is now our third most spoken language. This significant element of the Canadian population generally feels strongly that Canada should be fully engaged with China at all levels as an affirmation of the place of Chinese-Canadians in our national life.

Memory of 9/11 Five Years On

The morning of September 11, 2001 I went to the Logan Airport in Boston to fly back to Canada to make my first class of the term at Brock University that was scheduled for that Tuesday evening. Getting to the departure gate went very smoothly. The security measures were more or less none existent. My host from Harvard University was able to accompany me as far as the terminal gate and waved goodbye as I walked down the ramp to the 'plane. When the captain announced that we would be returning to the terminal and that we should retrieve our luggage and see the ground agent to book another flight, it seemed like a routine travel delay. While standing in line to trade in my ticket, I could see the TV in the airport bar tuned to CNN showing the first 'plane crashing into the World Trade Center in New York City. Shortly thereafter the Logan Airport was closed and we all were ordered to leave. I heaved my bags and took the subway back to Cambridge, Massachusetts where I had been staying. Walking across Harvard Yard on that sunny crisp autumn morning I passed the students chatting and laughing as they headed to their lectures not yet aware of what had happened. I soon after learnt that two of the 'planes that crashed that morning had originated from the Logan Airport. So I realized to my horror that many of the people I had seen a few hours before hustling to their flights that morning were now among the dead. A few days later, the Airport still closed, I returned to St. Catharines via Buffalo on a Greyhound bus.

Unpublished Letter to the Editor of the Toronto Sun Newspaper About Peter Worthington's Column on the Celil Case

Re: Curious Case of Canuck Abroad August 31

Mr. Worthington completely misses the point of the Celil case. Mr. Celil does not, as Worthington asserts, enjoy "dual Chinese and Canadian citizenship." Under China's Nationality Law, dual nationality is not allowed. Chinese citizenship is automatically voided by the acquisition of citizenship of another country. Whether Mr. Celil is guilty of any crimes or not is beside the point. Many Canadians have been convicted of offences in China, most of them connected to drugs or financial fraud, and languish in Chinese prisons. The Canadian Government does not maintain the position that Canadians can violate the laws of China with impunity. But by the Vienna Convention within 48 hours of arrest of a foreign national, the embassy must be informed, information about the basis for the arrest given, access to the accused by the consular officials arranged, and notice of the trial be given so that the accused's embassy can observe the proceedings and protest any miscarriage of justice. There is no question that Mr. Celil is as Canadian as any other Canadian. If these fundamental rights of his Canadian citizenship are denied Mr. Celil, then they can be denied any other Canadian. That is why the imperative principle of Canadian consular access to Huseyincan Celil is so critical.

The rest of Worthington's misinformed racist twaddle about the Celil family and Uyghurs in general is not worthy of response, but his lack of respect for the sanctity of our Canadian citizenship and passport is really beyond the pale.

Charles Burton
St. Catharines
905-329-9477

Celil Case and Chinese MFA

I think that the reason the Chinese MFA has refused to acknowledge Celil's citizenship is because the MFA is a weaker actor in China than the Security Ministry and associated Party agencies. Celil's transfer from Uzbekistan probably did not involve the MFA. So if the MFA is powerless in this matter, they have no choice but to claim the Vienna Convention does not apply because they cannot deliver consular access to us as the Security people just ignore the MFA. My conclusion: we should no longer focus so much on the Chinese MFA. Under Gotlieb we figured this out with regard to the US State Department. Similar principle applies with regard to China.

Comment to a Friend about Chinese Request to Albania to Extradite 5 Uighurs Released from Guantanamo Bay

Evidently all Uighurs are considered by CCP as supporting "terrorism" to some extent. The Chinese authorities will probably claim the "evidence" against them cannot be made public for reasons of national security. But the Chinese Government would surely have provided this evidence to the US investigators at Guantanamo. If there was any basis for the Chinese Government's allegation that these 5 men are terrorists, the Americans would not have released them from custody to "freedom" in Albania. So they have a strong case for UNHCR Convention refugee status on the basis of "fear of political persecution" if repatiated to China.

Would North Korea Use Nuclear Missiles to Reap Terrible Destruction on Japan, China or the USA?

North Korea's recent missile tests suggest that at present the DPRK would probably not be able reap destruction on neighbouring countries with nuclear weaponry. But presumably sooner or later the DPRK will have this capability. But while many countries have the capability, none make use of it due to the horrendous risk of escalation into a full-blown nuclear war. The rather dilatory response of the global community to the stream of bellicose utterances pouring out of the Government in Pyongyang, suggests that most people do not think that these threats are real.

The other evening I had a chat with my Uncle Patrick Greaves over supper at the Swiss Chalet at the corner of Bathurst and Bloor in Toronto. His memory is that a major factor that informed the unpreparedness of the United States for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 was the racist assumption on the part of many in the West that it was inconceivable that Japanese pilots and aircraft could possibly be of a level comparable to that of European 'planes and military pilots. There may be some parallel with the dismissive Western attitude toward the DPRK today. Moreover my Uncle speculates that if Germany had had a nuclear bomb when Adolph Hitler was holed up in his Berlin bunker in 1945 that Hitler would likely have ordered its use and that the German military would have followed this order. Presumably the same might well turn out to be true of Kim Jong Il when his time comes.

Comment to a Friend with Regard to His Upcoming Book on Hu Jintao in Government

We always keep hoping the younger generation of Chinese Communists will be less conservative. Many people assumed that Hu Jintao was ingratiating himself to all those old cadres for all those years to get them favourably disposd to him so he could realize his plan of becoming President, but then once he got into power it would turn out that he has a secret agenda to liberalize China. It seems that we tend to project our own values on these people (including Zhao Ziyang, even Qiao Shi). So far we end up disappointed. But as you say there are always surprises. My record of anticipating those has been pretty weak over the past more than 30 years!

On Mr. Celil's Disappearance into the Chinese Prison System and Connection to the Lai Changxing Matter

If Mr. Celil is wanted for murder in Kyrgyzstan then he should have been deported to Kyrgyzstan, not to China where the Chinese political charge is not recognized by Interpol. But it seems he was in Turkey at the time of that murder. Looks like he is not a murderer.

This is not an issue of whether Celil is guilty of the crimes he is charged with. The issue is that he is a Canadian citizen but the Chinese Government will not comply with the international consular convention that obliges them to inform the Embassy of his arrest, the charge and the place of imprisonment within 48 hours and allow Embassy officials to visit him in jail and to attend his trial. If the Chinese cannot produce any valid reason for detaining Mr. Celil (and if they could presumably they would have made this known and evidently they have not), then he should be released forthwith. To my understanding the Celil case is the first time the Chinese Government has refused to allow consular access to a Canadian citizen of Chinese origin. I am aware of past cases where the person arrested by the Chinese police entered China on a Chinese passport (with the Canadian passport in their pocket for use in re-entering Canada on return), but the Chinese authorities have eventually agreed to consular access. Mr. Celil had no Chinese passport as he exited China on a forged Turkish passport after escaping from police custody. I don't see that the circumstances of his departure from China should have any bearing on the legitimacy of subsequent acquisition of Canadian citizenship. Even though his Canadian passport may have been illegally confiscated by the Uzbekistan authorities before they handed him over the Chinese authorities it would have been incumbent on the Chinese police to contact the Canadian Embassy in Beijing to inform them that they were holding someone who claimed to be a Canadian who has lost his identity papers so we could do the necessary investigation so as to verify whether or not this claim is valid or not. Anyway if the Celil case indicates that China has decided not to follow Article 9 of its Nationality Law for people of Chinese origin who change their citizenship on the basis of successful Convention refugee claims, then the Chinese Government should make an explicit statement of this. Then we could take appropriate measures to respond to this.

Of course there are many Canadians in Chinese prisons mostly for drug offences and financial fraud, smuggling, etc.

I cannot claim to be an expert on consular procedure. But in general I think that Canadian Embassy in Beijing has not fully exerted its influence to get the Chinese Government to communicate with us about this case. The Ambassador in Beijing should be much, much more active on this matter. He has only raised it as an aside at other activities (such as with Assistant Minister at a lunch and at a Canada Day Party). We don't know how forcefully he raised Canada's concern over our citizen, Mr. Celil. Also I suggest that Chinese Government agencies other than MFA should be contacted. In Uzbekistan the Ministry of Interior was contacted and Prosecutors Office was contacted but in Beijing it seems our people deal only with the Chinese MFA. A lot of time has passed since Mr. Celil was deported to China and the Chinese authorities perceive that Canada is not really vigorously pursuing the matter --- more like going through the motions mostly with low-level officials involved.

It could be that the fiasco over our advising the PRC Government that Lai Changxing would finally be returned to China (which China announced in their media) only to not return Lai at the last minute has really soured the Chinese MFA toward us. They would have lost face with their senior leadership because of the Canadian Embassy telling them prematurely that the Lai return was finally settled. Lai is a critical figure because of his relationship with senior leaders in Standing Committee of the Poliburo and their families (especially Jia Qinglin, wife of Li Peng and Jiang Zemin's former secretary). We also lack capacity to get info on Mr. Celil through informal means (intelligence gathering) due to relatively low expertise in language and cultural skills of our diplomats in the Political Section in Beijing.

I am thoroughly depressed and distressed by all this.

Comment on U.S. Response to North Korean Missile Tests

It appears that the USA will be able to take advantage of the recent DPRK missile texts to further two of its strategic goals:
1. Get Japan to re-militarize as a bulwark against China with possibly even a de jure abrogation of Article 9 of Japan's Peace Constitution;
2. Neutralize opposition in the US and in Canada to the "Star Wars" ballistic missile defence initiative on the pre-text that it would save our cities from destruction by North Korean missiles, but actually this missile defence system is more intended to counter anticipated future conflict with China.

The US insistence that China is "holding back" in not fully exerting its putative influence in Pyongyang to induce the DPRK regime to give up its offensive military capacity implies that the US is not prepared to bear any responsibility itself to directly respond to the DPRK missile launches. This despite the fact that they occurred on July 4 suggesting that the DPRK had the USA in mind when they pressed the fire buttons. The whole thing is very worrying.