SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Huawei Arrest Tests China's Leaders as Fear and Anger Grip Elite
The arrest of one of China's leading tech executives by the Canadian police for extradition to the United States has unleashed a combustible torrent of outrage and alarm among affluent and influential Chinese, posing a delicate political test for President Xi Jinping and his grip on the loyalty of the nation's elite.
The outpouring of conflicting sentiments — some Chinese have demanded a boycott of American products while others have expressed anxiety about their investments in the United States — underscores the unusual, politically charged nature of the Trump administration's latest move to counter China's drive for technological superiority.
In a hearing on Friday in Vancouver, Canadian prosecutors said the executive, Meng Wanzhou of the Chinese telecom giant Huawei, faced accusations of participating in a scheme to trick financial institutions into making transactions that violated United States sanctions against Iran.
Unlike a new round of tariffs or more tough rhetoric from American officials, the detention of Ms. Meng, the company's chief financial officer, appears to have driven home the intensifying rivalry between the United States and China in a visceral way for the Chinese establishment — and may force Mr. Xi to adopt a tougher stance against Washington, analysts said. In part, that is because Ms. Meng, 46, is so embedded in that establishment herself.
Previously: Canada Arrests Huawei's Global Chief Financial Officer in Vancouver
Related: New Law Bans U.S. Government from Buying Equipment from Chinese Telecom Giants ZTE and Huawei
Australia Bans China's Huawei (and maybe ZTE) from 5G Mobile Network Project
Washington Asks Allies to Drop Huawei
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Blymie on Sunday December 09 2018, @09:32AM (25 children)
Erm. Sigh.
There's been a warrant since August. Maybe the warrant was 'dumb', I don't know. But the arrest? NO.
The true mark of a democratic and non-elitist society is that you aren't above the law. Other foreign nationals are arrested and extradited to and from Western nations all of the time.
Are you suggesting that because someone is special "They're from China!! Don't arrest them!", or that because someone is powerful "They have money! Political power! Don't arrest them!", that the arrest should be abandoned?
You're pretty much suggesting that the rich and powerful shouldn't be touched.
No, the arrest wasn't "dumb".
(Score: 2) by Lester on Sunday December 09 2018, @11:00AM (2 children)
Laws that try to tell to foreigners what to do in their own countries with their own money are absurd. Even UN sanctions are complicated. Let alone unilateral sanctions from a country.
Those laws are not justice, just economy and geopolitic. The message is not none is above the law, but none can escape from my power.
(Score: 2) by Blymie on Sunday December 09 2018, @12:00PM
The US is far from the only nation to have laws that effect non-citizens outside their borders.
However, my stated point was that the *arrest* was not 'dumb'. The OP was, as I mentioned, saying that the power and money and connections of the arrested, made the choice to arrest "dumb".
You are countering with an argument on whether or not the laws in question are wrong and inappropriate. Well, that's not really what I was even discussing, and yet you're linking my statements about the *arrest*.
However, to respond? I think you're wrong.
Why?
Well I don't know about your country, but my country (Canada) monitors, tracks, and gathers evidence on international spies -- even when not in Canada. And if as case is built (eg, spying against Canada), then they can be arrested in say.. the UK, or German or what not, and extradited to Canada for trial.
But that's wrong too, I suppose? I don't think that is.
What if a country has a law, stating that genocide is wrong? Crimes against humanity is wrong? Where ever committed?
Or are you suggesting that a dictator should never pay for his crimes, as long as he stays in his own country?
It isn't the concept that's wrong.
Now I think the US overreaches too. But that doesn't make the concept wrong.
Nor does it mean that my statements about an arrest, performed via a bilateral treaty, are wrong.
(Score: 3, Informative) by khallow on Sunday December 09 2018, @02:23PM
The bank-related fraud apparently involved US businesses. So if true, it wasn't "in their own countries". From the story about the hearing:
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday December 09 2018, @04:31PM (10 children)
The real question is how far Canada is about to go to protect their legal privilege. Note that China, being historically Confucian country, treats the laws differently. Specifically, in Confucian religion a judge decides what the law is and executes it personally. That's because they recognize the limitations of the institution and that understanding allowed them to survive for a way longer as a developed country than any western one. Perhaps it is time for the West to change their ways or at least to get a lesson in diversity.
In practice, would Canada go all the way protecting her laws, including accepting nuclear strike? I doubt it. Canada will likely to fold.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Blymie on Sunday December 09 2018, @06:21PM (9 children)
You're not even making any sense. A nuclear strike, over a corporate executive?
If you think China would do that, the what do you think they'll do over sanctions that destroy their economy? Or tariffs?
And why do you think China wouldn't fear retaliation? You do realise that while Canada isn't a nuclear power, it's the only country in the world that *was* and *gave up* nuclear weapons? You also realise that we literally keep all components on hand, and can build working nuclear weapons in 24 hours, yes?
Regardless, this is all silly. And frankly, if you think Canada folds on things, you know so little about history... of course, I will say this...
Few know precisely what a politician might do... in any country.
Sadly, one thing that might happen, depending upon the economic / other responses from China? Well, Canada has spent decades trying to increase ties with the rest of the world, including increasing trade with China. We don't hate the US, but having all your trade in one basket is just silly.
Yet if China starts to act improperly over this, if it threatens too much, does the wrong things? It could completely and totally backfire, causing the West to grow closer together, and alienate China.
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday December 09 2018, @07:19PM (5 children)
She is a daughter of a former high level military and security executive. He can not allow anybody to threaten his family. This "can not" is way stronger than Canadian "can not". If he folds, his whole family will be in danger possibly for 7 generations.
Besides, what would you think happen if say Russia is to arrest Chelsea Clinton?
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Blymie on Sunday December 09 2018, @10:31PM (4 children)
You're just completely out of your mind. I mean, really.
You honestly think someone will throw a nuke over that? Even the most simplistic of brains, would realise that would lead to more nukes, not a resolution.
If China threw a nuke, it'd be nuked with 10x the response. And sanctions. And driven back into the stone age. It would not obtain its goals, and it would lose far more than it would gain.
I'm trying to figure out if you're a troll, or really believe this.
(Score: 2) by legont on Sunday December 09 2018, @10:48PM (3 children)
No, I don't think nukes will fly over this. What I do see though is total ignorance Canada's government as well as Canada's citizens demonstrate. They have no clue whatsoever about the consequences because they do not know the culture they are dealing with.
Canada will pay for this dearly. I don't know how it will happen, but it will sooner or later. Canada had a choice to avoid this and it passed.
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Blymie on Monday December 10 2018, @07:04AM (2 children)
You assume ignorance, merely because Canada doesn't act the way you wish. Yet it is not ignorance, but purposeful intent.
You do not keep your democracy, by allowing it to be undermined when you feel stress. In fact, it is *easy* to do the right, the correct, the proper thing when you are not pressured, not stressed, not bothered by external forces.
The true display of 'grit', if you will, is how one stands when pushed.
Amusingly however, you think this is a 'big deal'. It isn't. This is a tiny, little, minuscule incident. China can turn this into a larger incident, but if they do?
I assure you... it will turn out poorly for them, if so.
Lastly? You seem to be deluded as much as some in China are. I suspect you are either Chinese, or come from a country/culture/upbringing where you just can't understand.
Politicians in Canada? Have *no* sway here. None. Zero. Nada. No politician can demand her release. Nothing a politician can do, will cause her to be released.
Judges will not be swayed by political requests, domestic or foreign. They operate 100% independently from the executive branch. The Prime Minister, MPs, can do *nothing*, zero, nada to have her released.
There are many countries in the world that have a hire rate of corruption, and bribery as a cultural norm.
We don't. This is the way we *want* it. It is entrenched in how our democracy works.
(Score: 2) by legont on Monday December 10 2018, @11:16PM (1 child)
Man, you gonna have a few psyche shocks within the next decade.
China is already bigger than the US in ppp terms. While this measurement might be controversial, it definitely the best one to assess military strenth.
But fear not, there are less controversial options available. China, for example, could drown Canada in fetanyl so your government would have to build the police state itself to stop it. Opium wars in reverse. Do you think they forgot what your ancestors done to them?
How could a sane, supposedly peaceful, government get itself in the middle of an ugly fight between superpowers? Of a country that depends on both so much...
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 2) by Blymie on Tuesday December 11 2018, @12:01AM
You just don't get it, democracy isn't worth a damn, if you don't follow the rule of law.
The arrest is doing just that.
All this hand waving, "fear of the future", doesn't matter. It's meaningless. You don't save a democracy, by giving up what makes it such.
You've blathered on with inane statements in that other thread too.
You know we've lived beside the US forever, and we certainly don't hesitate to arrest their citizens either. What the hell is wrong with you?
It's like you think China is special.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday December 10 2018, @02:56AM (2 children)
Well there's S. Africa, who actually may have tested their nukes and threw them away. And then there are Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine who inherited nukes when the USSR fell apart and gave them up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons#States_formerly_possessing_nuclear_weapons [wikipedia.org]
Besides, Harper gave the Americans most of our plutonium, the bastard.
(Score: 2) by Blymie on Monday December 10 2018, @07:10AM (1 child)
Well, the breakup of the Soviet Union did change things a bit, true. My statement was true at one time, and might be considered true with alterations.
But the point is -- we didn't truly give them up. We have the parts in storage, they are maintained, we have all of the resources to reassemble them, the knowledge and technical/scientific skill is abundant here.
They were dismantled to 'make a point' and to appease certain segments of our society. But that doesn't mean the capability is lost -- and it's even placed on hold to make it quick to recover. Very quick.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday December 10 2018, @07:21AM
While I won't argue that we have the knowledge and skill to build them, I've never heard that we actually built any or have the parts in storage. After WWII, the Americans screwed all their partners, including Canada and it probably took a while before we had the materials and as I said, about 10 years back, forget exactly, we shipped most all our weapons grade plutonium south, or at least that was the news at the time. Personally, it pissed me off as it can be a handy capability which some nations respect.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday December 10 2018, @03:10AM (1 child)
Yet, we don't arrest important Americans who have violated human rights, helped take part in genocide and are guilty of war crimes, especially the ones who are still called Mr President.
The opposite happens as well, like illegally extraditing Marc Emery to the States. In his case, his crime was worth a small fine in Canada, not the 10 year minimum that American law called for. But Harper and the Americans didn't like his politics. To quote an American official,
All for the horrible crime of selling plant seeds and founding political parties as well as running for office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Emery#2005_arrest_and_extradition [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by Blymie on Monday December 10 2018, @07:26AM
You're not discussing the same thing.
We're talking extradition via treaty. We're talking about arrest. This happens both ways, all the time.
Yet you're discussing whether or not there is sufficient evidence that a Canadian court might lay charges, and further -- if anyone has compiled, vetted, and submitted that evidence, allowing for an arrest warrant to be issued.
You're trying to divert that into "We should be doing this!". Well, fine but.. this certainly isn't about the same thing. Not even remotely.
In terms of Harper? Harper had nothing, nada, zero, zilch to do with it. Prime Ministers don't extradite. They don't arrest. The don't control the courts.
The extradition was 100%, completely and fully legal. Nothing "funny" happened, in fact? Political interference would have been *abnormal*.
I know who Marc Emery is. I also know he shipped product to the US, full well knowing it was 100% illegal there. I know he also did quite a few other things, and that legally the US, and Canadian courts were on firm ground.
This is what happens when one pushes against laws, in protest. You often run afoul of them, and end up incarcerated.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday December 10 2018, @07:09AM (8 children)
Yeah, right.
Like all those banksters who were arrested in the wake the 2008 GFC, right? And given sentences involving forced labor, eh?
As for " Other foreign nationals are arrested and extradited"... really? But not quite all of them, isn't it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Blymie on Monday December 10 2018, @07:34AM (7 children)
Great! You've identified an area where (primarily Americans) should do better. After all, Canadian banks weren't directly involved.
You're also confusing "compiling evidence and creating an arrest warrant" with "following through with that arrest once evidence is presented" and "extraditing".
These are different things. Do you have proof that there is sufficient evidence for a Canadian court to arrest and charge a specific US banker with a crime that is illegal in Canada?
If so, you realise that court cases can be brought in civil court, and that the burden of proof is MUCH lower there. 50.1% is what often wins a civil court case, where as 99.9% might best describe a criminal court win.
Meaning? If there was loads of evidence, why haven't people in Canada sued these same bankers, and won? Because it's very easy to register judgements in a foreign court, and collect.
Well, no evidence!
I think part of your confusion is -- people managing to evade the law, by trickery, collusion, and destruction of evidence -- without the ability to prove it, compared to "we have PROOF!" and people doing nothing.
It's a constant battle to take down crooks, get evidence on crooks.
But to not arrest when a court has the evidence? THAT IS WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING! :P
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday December 10 2018, @07:54AM (6 children)
What the banksters did was illegal in US (misrepresentation of the risk for those derivatives)
Nothing happened to them in their own country, you want me to accept as realistic the probability they would be extradited?
And no, Americans don't have monopoly in preferential dealings with 'elite corruption', as the Forex scandal [wikipedia.org] shows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Blymie on Monday December 10 2018, @08:31AM (5 children)
You're not even paying attention to what I'm saying.
Your contention is that there was evidence, and that state prosecutors / federal prosecutors / various others *ignored* that evidence... and said "Our buddies will go free!".
Mine is that there was not sufficient evidence, because those involved were good at covering their tracks. And that what they did often skirted legal acts, often inside the boundaries of laws loosened in prior decades.
From where I sit, I see you confusing "arresting because we have evidence" with "having evidence". These are two entirely different discussions. Completely and entirely different, and entirely and completely non-related in any way.
Collective evidence is not easy at the best of times. Crooks of all types get to go free. Houses are broken into by people, for example, ALL of the time -- and often charges are not laid, arrests are not made, even when people KNOW who broke into said house and robbed it. Why?
LACK OF EVIDENCE.
This is, in fact, part of what a free society must entail. Courts must not jail those, if the evidence isn't very compelling. Society can not be free, if the state monitors everything, and can use that monitored evidence in a court room. In fact, the very concept that "people can get away with things", is demonstrative of a 'chink' in the armour of a free society. And I would suggest, a necessary one.
This has nothing to do with what I stated -- that when evidence is present? The mark of a healthy, democratic society is that your political and financial powers do not prevent you from arrest, trial, etc.
I'll say it again... you are confusing 'sufficient evidence to charge' with 'once charged, arresting'. People are stating that Canada should just let her go. Or should have no arrested, when provided with an obligation to do so under democratically enacted laws, treaties, and so forth.
Do you not see the difference here? Can you not?
Lastly -- you've provided a link to a wikipedia article, stating a variety of fines for corporations? In other words, you're trying to prove your point, that corps / people get off free, by showing them being punished in some fashion?!
I'm not sure I get the argument.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday December 10 2018, @12:08PM (4 children)
In the context of your
My answer: if you really believe that we are living in a non-elitist society, I don't have a bridge but I'll sell you one anyway.
You really believe that the entire world finance grind to a halt (and needed bailouts to be supported through taxes by the plebs) and the ones who caused it covered their tracks so perfectly that nobody can be proven guilty?
From where I stand, Hanlon's razor and all that, I think is more probable those who were in charge of the investigation had their hearts in using thick brush to whitewash the banksters (as part of the elite) rather than doing justice.
What's my take on the case at hand? The ones who pushed for the arrest warrant don't have justice and law in their mind, only a burning desire to piss on Trump's "deals" (see the Khashoggi case too). I might be right, I might be wrong about their motive, just but don't sell it to me as "Fiat justitia, pereat mundus", I'm not buying it.
Ah, so it's Ok for the western corporation to pay fines but let the guys sleep well**, but when it comes to the Chinese we need to arrest their people.
Great sense of law and justice, indeed, no sign of elitism anywhere. The guys were just too smart and covered their asses, the brilliant investigators couldn't find anything provable, right?
**
From the linked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Blymie on Monday December 10 2018, @04:24PM (3 children)
You're really good at taking words, and twisting them -- but a logical argument that does not make.
Simply because I defined what I believe, does not mean there are not inadequacies to be addressed.
Yes, I defined a true mark of a democratic and non-elitist society. However, you're claiming a failure to reach that mark, and therefore saying -- what? That since there is a failure, all attempts to reach that mark should be stopped?
If your stance is upheld, then if anyone -- ever, at any time gets away with murder, then all attempts to prosecute murder should stop, are foolish, wrong, and improper.
That is precisely what you are contending.
Further, again you're not thinking clearly here. If people paid fines, they were found guilty of something, fined, sentenced, and so on. In other words -- the problem isn't the legal system, but the legislative bodies not having strict enough laws.
Lastly, you're comparing someone breaching international sanctions, with an entirely different crime.
I don't really understand what you're trying to argue.
It seems to me, like you're trying to find some obscure law somewhere, or someone that was 'let go', and then said "SEE!!! SEE!!!! Someone got off free! Someone got away with it! Clearly, that means that 'special' people should be let go!!!"
It's like you're arguing on the side of... well, evil or something.
"Let that criminal go! Other criminals got away with it, it's OK!" or something bizarre.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday December 10 2018, @10:15PM (2 children)
Didn't intend to make one. You see, democracy doesn't function well (or at all) with secrecy. And guess what? Secrecy and distortions are prevalent in the today's post-truth world; other than 'show me everything you have or I won't trust you', there's no rational position I can take
My post is exactly that: a statement of disbelief.
And therefore the ones that pretend to administer justice in US cannot be trusted.
Starting with 'the fruit of the poisonous tree's and ending with 'better X guilty go unpunished then an innocent surfer', the principles of justice are based on fairness. Show a discriminatory application of it and, in all fairness (pun intended), you cannot be trusted (to apply the same rules for all)
International court of justice orders US to lift new Iran sanctions [theguardian.com].
Europe, China and Russia want to stick with the deal, so they 'join forces with a new mechanism to dodge Iran sanctions" [cnbc.com].
From their point of view, no crime has been committed.
Providing telecom equipment is absolutely orthogonal to 'nuclear threats' this, personal point of view, I don't see a crime being committed either.
I argue that the arrest is fishy, and rotten fishy come to that.
If the US 'justice' want to regain credibility, it should start cleaning their own act and start with their own yard before asking the arrest of foreign citizens. How about starting with dismatling FISA 'court', wouldn't transparent justice be an improvement?
Bzzzt... Wrong. I argue from what the common-sense of Joe Average would consider fair.
'cause lately, what comes from US over Pacific and a whole red arid continent sounds totally alien. Like there's a space-time rift somewhere and US lives in a weird parallel universe.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Blymie on Monday December 10 2018, @11:59PM (1 child)
1) You've stated you aren't intending to make logical arguments -- therefore you are just spewing worthless blather
2) This isn't about the US, it's about a Canadian arrest. I believe you have no idea how extradition works.
3) Your response to my sanctions statement, doesn't explain why you're comparing entirely different things, it just diverts and spews more blather
4) The arrest isn't fishy.. it was performed inline with a international (US/Canadian) reciprocal treaty covering extradition. Countries all over the world have these treaties, and what is happening is 100% logical, sensible, and correct from a Canadian perspective.
We're done with this thread.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 11 2018, @12:23AM
De gustibus.
On an American DoJ (OIA)'s request.
And the relevance is...?
Phew.