Category Archives: China

Questioning Canada’s “One China” policy is not progressive

In a recent commentary Georgia Straight editor Charlie Smith suggested Green Party candidates’ path to victory was to question Canada’s “One China” policy. According to Smith, the candidates “missed an opportunity to win over the large number of Canadians who trace their roots back to Hong Kong and Taiwan and who are thoroughly disgusted with the behaviour of the Chinese government.”

Smith went on to say that if Green Party candidates’ had spoken out against the “Sinofascists in charge in China,” some of the large Hong Kong expat community in Canada “would have come out in force for any Green Party of Canada candidate who declared on their website that our country needs to respect the democratic desires of the former colony’s brave, democracy-loving residents.”

While Smith’s argument might persuade some caught up in the present wave of anti-China sentiment, the premise of his argument doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Whatever one’s opinion of the Chinese government, it is not wise to interfere in the internal affairs of another country—especially one so big and powerful.

So why would an otherwise sensible individual write such nonsense about China? Because as beneficiaries of Anglo-American colonialism we can be blind to our arrogance. Because the US, Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand “Five Eyes” security agencies promote this type of thinking.

Let’s start with a little background:

Between 1841 and 1997 Hong Kong was a colony and dependent territory of the UK (with a Japanese interlude during World War II). Hong Kong was taken over at the end of the first British Opium War. That war weakened China’s central government and divided the country into foreign spheres of influence.

Taiwan’s relationship to mainland China is more complicated. Historically it was more independent from mainland China but the Kuomintang retreated there with some two million Chinese supporters in 1949 after they were defeated by Mao’s forces. For 21 years Ottawa recognized the government in Taiwan as the official representative of all China and until 12 years ago the governing party in Taiwan openly claimed it represented all of China.

From the Chinese perspective a One China policy reflects the end of the “century of humiliation” spurred by the Opium Wars. But, even after Mao’s victory largely consolidated the country and strengthened the central government, foreign powers sought to weaken China. In response to Mao’s victory, Canada sent 27,000 troops to Korea in the early 1950s where they fought Chinese troops. Canada refused to recognize the Chinese government until 1970.

More recently, Canada has pursued various measures to isolate and weaken China. Canada’s navy has run provocative patrols near its waters; Ottawa arrested one of its leading capitalists; the military has sought a small base in Singapore to keep an eye on China; Canada has troops in South Korea as part of a mission to contain China; Ottawa has sold nuclear material to India to counter China; Ottawa has failed to allow its firm to provide 5G networks, etc.

But, unlike similar destabilization/isolation campaigns against Venezuela, Iran, Haiti, etc., targeting China has limited negative impact on the target population because it is a very large country that has mostly broken from foreign domination. That doesn’t mean these efforts are benign however.

Conflict with China feeds the military/intelligence apparatus. It legitimates spending on new naval vessels and fighter jets as well as justifying the racist Five Eyes intelligence arrangement.

It has broader reverberations as well. China is so powerful that the Washington-led block’s efforts to target it undermines humanity’s efforts to mitigate the current pandemic, climate crisis and other pressing global matters.

The world doesn’t need a second Cold War. Calling for an end to Canada’s One China policy pushes us further down that path. So does calling for sanctions on China.

China is the most populous nation in the world. It’s only right that it would be among (or the) most powerful. We need to accept China’s rise and not expect a return to its previous weak and impoverished state. We also need to acknowledge its sensitivities because of the foreign interference the country had to overcome during its return to independence.

This isn’t an endorsement of the Chinese government’s policy in Hong Kong and Xinjiang or towards the “two Michaels” they’ve detained or “communist” billionaires. It’s simply the starting point for a serious, healthy, discussion of Canada-China relations.

Comments Off on Questioning Canada’s “One China” policy is not progressive

Filed under China, Green Party

Canada’s relationship to China rooted in century of imperial violence


Front entrance to the Forbidden City, Beijing

Canada is locked in a hostage standoff with China that doesn’t look likely to end anytime soon. As relations with the world’s most populous nation deteriorate, it’s important to consider some history shaping the conflict and the impetus for the latest dispute. While most of the media present this conflict in a simplistic us-versus-them, good-guys-bad-guys framing, past and present actions by Canada and the “West” reveal a centuries-old pattern of colonialism, imperialism, military threats, diplomatic isolation and other forms aggressive behavior aimed at weakening and “containing” China.

While the Chinese government has adopted various authoritarian measures recently, today’s conflict is still centered on US efforts to curtail China’s rise. Most directly, Washington has sought to stunt the growth of telecommunications giant Huawei, the “Crown Jewel of China Inc”. The US has effectively banned the world’s largest 5G network provider from building its cutting-edge broadband infrastructure and pressed others to follow suit. Canada’s arrest and continued detention of Huawei’s chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou, is connected to Washington’s efforts to curtail that company and China more generally.

This is in line with a long history of Canadian involvement in efforts to exploit and contain China. Beginning in the 1820s, the British began to dominate the ancient empire. In two wars fought over trade and diplomatic relations, notes Noam Chomsky, “the British government compelled China to open its doors to opium from British India, sanctimoniously pleading the virtues of free trade as they forcefully imposed large-scale drug addiction on China.” The Opium War of 1836 is considered by many to be the beginning of China’s “Century of Humiliation”. Over that century Britain, France, Japan, Russia, Germany and the US all developed spheres of influence in China. The foreigners played the country’s regions off of each other, keeping China’s central government weak.

Canada, as a loyal part of the Empire, aided the British conquest of China. Some Canadians fought in China and the British commander of the Canadian Militia from 1880-84, Lieutenant-General Richard George Amherst Luard, served there. In 1900 Canada was contracted to supply the British forces quelling the Boxer Rebellion. Canadian missionaries were also a significant force in China and they generally aided the foreign powers as detailed in “When Missionaries Were Hated: An Examination of the Canadian Baptist Defense of Imperialism and Missions during the Boxer Rebellion, 1900”. By 1919 there were nearly 600 Canadian missionaries in China.

Ottawa tacitly supported Japan’s brutal 1931 invasion of China’s Manchuria region that left 20,000 dead. “Whatevermay be thought of the moral or ethical rights of the Japanese to be in and to exercise control over Manchuria their presence there must be recognized as a stabilizing and regulating force,” noted the Canadian diplomat who opened the first Canadian mission in Japan, Hugh Llewellyn Keenleyside. Six years later the Canadian ambassador to China, Randolph Bruce, told the Toronto Star that Japan’s invasion of Nanking, to the west of Manchuria, was “simply an attempt to put her neighbour country into decent shape, as she has already done in Manchuria.” Some 20,000 women were raped and tens of thousands of Chinese killed in the six weeks after Japan entered Nanking.

In the fall of 1941 Ottawa sent 1,975 troops to defend the British colony of Hong Kong from Japan. “Hong Kong constituted an outpost which the Commonwealth intended to hold” read an External Affairs message to London in response to a request for troops. A number of Chinese-Canadians were covertly sent into China during World War Two partly because “whenever the Japanese capitulated, it would be useful to have on hand a team to enter Hong Kong promptly to help reestablish the British writ there.” HMCS Prince Robert also helped the British reoccupy Hong Kong.

After the Second World War Canada sided with Chiang Kai-Shek’s Kuomintang against Mao’s Communists. Ottawa aided the Kuomintang by sending 170 planes and providing $60 million in export credits between 1945 and 1948. The money was granted even though some members of the Liberal cabinet opposed taking sides in the Chinese Civil War.

Mao’s government was met with hostility from Ottawa. Canada refused to recognize the Chinese government until 1970. A November 1949 External Affairs memo complained, “China must now be regarded as a potential enemy state.” Steven Lee further summarized the 1949 External Affairs report: “The rise of communist power on the mainland ‘confronted the Atlantic Pact [NATO] powers with considerable strategic and political problems.’ In Japan, argued the memo, the US position was threatened by a potentially hostile power in China; the usefulness of Korea and Taiwan as military bases would be undermined, and in Southeast Asia, ‘the source of vital raw materials,’ Western interests were menaced by the impetus the Chinese revolution gave to communist movements.”

While they framed it as anti-Communist, US mandarins feared Chinese nationalism and worried that revolutionary nationalist ideology would spread throughout the region. Some within Canada’s External Affairs department had similar concerns, worrying that “Communist China might dominate ‘all Asian communist states’ and form ‘a new Asian alliance — linked neither with the Soviet Union nor the United States.’”

Partly in response to Mao’s triumph, Ottawa began its first (non-European) aid program in 1950. The Colombo Plan’s primary aim was to keep the former British Asian colonies, especially India, within the Western capitalist fold.

Canadian aid to African countries was also designed to minimize Chinese influence. Led for two decades by socialist leaning Julius Nyerere, Tanzania became a major recipient of Canadian aid due to Ottawa’s concern that this former British colony might align with China. Tanzania’s 1964 request for Chinese trainers disturbed Washington and Ottawa. A July 1969 Canadian Interdepartmental Military Assistance Committee memo explained: “Although it is clear from Tanzania’s decision to terminate our military assistance program that we have not succeeded in preventing the swing to virtual full reliance on China, we did succeed in postponing this development until the Tanzanian forces were basically organized and had acquired their own internal cohesion, which should leave them in a much better position to deal with possible Chinese subversion.”

After Mao’s forces took control in 1949 the US tried to encircle the country. They supported Chiang Kai-shek in Taiwan, built military bases in Japan, backed a right-wing dictator in Thailand and tried to establish a pro-Western state in Vietnam. The success of China’s nationalist revolution also spurred the 1950-1953 Korean War in which eight Canadian warships and 27,000 Canadian troops participated. The war left as many as 1 million Chinese soldiers dead.

After pushing North Korean troops back to the 38th parallel, the artificial line that divided the North and South, the US-led force moved to conquer the entire country. UN troops continued north in a bid to undermine China’s new government. US officials, particularly UN force commander Douglas MacArthur, repeatedly attacked Mao’s government and before China entered the war American aircraft bombed that country while carrying out air missions in northern Korea. Even more ominous, both MacArthur and (later) President Truman publicly discussed striking China with nuclear weapons.

UN troops pushed north even after the Chinese made it clear they would intervene to block a hostile force from approaching their border. Beijing was particularly worried about northern China’s dependence on energy from the Yalu River power station in northern Korea. From the Chinese perspective the People’s Liberation Army defended the country’s territorial integrity, which was compromised by US bombings and the control of Formosa (Taiwan) by foreign-backed forces.

Since the end of the fighting Canada has maintained a small number of troops in Korea. Three years ago a Canadian became the first non-US general to hold the post of deputy commander since the United Nations Command (UNC) was created to fight the Korean War in 1950. Washington is pushing to “revitalize” UNC, which is led by a US General who simultaneously commands the 27,000 US troops in Korea. According to the Financial Times, the UN force “serves to bolster and enhance the US’s position in north-east Asia at a time when China is rising.”

As Washington has turned its focus to countering Chinese power in Asia over the past decade Ottawa has ramped up its belligerence. In June 2012 the Canadian Press reported, “Canada is seeking a deal with Singapore to establish a military staging post there as part of its effort to support the United States’ ‘pivot’ toward Asia to counter a rising China.”

In recent years Canadian vessels have repeatedly been involved in belligerent “freedom of navigation” exercises through international waters that Beijing claims in the South China Sea, Strait of Taiwan and East China Sea. To “counter China’s” growing influence in Asia, Washington has sought to stoke longstanding territorial and maritime boundary disputes between China and the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and other nations. As part of efforts to rally regional opposition to China, the US Navy engages in regular “freedom of navigation” operations, which see warships travel through or near disputed waters.

At its most extreme, the anti-Chinese campaign reflects a worldview that longs for a divided and imperially dominated country like before 1949. But, the militarist/xenophobic/pro-US forces in Canada have to contend with China’s rising economic power and elements of the capitalist class who see conflict with this huge market as self-defeating and an obstacle to profit-making. Corporate Canada and elements of the Global Affairs bureaucracy generally prefer greater ties with Beijing while militarist/xenophobic/pro-US forces seek conflict.

People who believe in a peaceful, rules-based international order that does not reward imperial bullying, have many reasons to oppose militaristic xenophobes. While leftists should challenge capitalism, in this situation much of the corporate class are taking a more progressive position than the so-called “security” establishment.

Comments Off on Canada’s relationship to China rooted in century of imperial violence

Filed under China

White supremacist intelligence alliance pushes China hostage standoff


In recent weeks movements in different countries have toppled statues and put the police and other institutions upholding systemic racism on the defensive. But, amidst unprecedented protests against racism, there has been remarkably little interest in the white supremacist foreign policy alliance currently driving conflict with China. The “Five Eyes” intelligence arrangement has faced almost no criticism for propelling the Canada-China hostage standoff.

The seven-decade old Five Eyes — Canada, Britain, New Zealand, Australia and US — alliance has been central to Washington’s anti-China push. To counter China the component countries recently announced plans to coordinate the production of strategic goods and collectively denounced Beijing’s policy in Hong Kong. More significantly, they’ve sought to weaken the “Crown Jewel of China Inc.” Canada’s December 2018 arrest of Huawei’s chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou was part of the alliance’s campaign to curtail the rise of the world’s largest 5G network provider. Five months before Meng’s arrest at the Vancouver airport, reported a Wall Street Journal story titled “At Gathering of Spy Chiefs, U.S., Allies Agreed to Contain Huawei”, Five Eyes officials agreed in Ottawa to contain the company’s global growth. Washington claimed that country’s first global technological powerhouse posed a security risk. But, driving the campaign was a bid to halt China’s ascendance in this critical industrial sector.

Of course, the US, Australia, New Zealand, UK and Canada intelligence agencies also worried about a firm less willing to follow their directives. In fact, the Five Eyes sought what they accused Huawei/China of. In September 2018 the intelligence alliance requested communication providers build “back doors” in their systems, allowing the Five Eyes espionage agencies access to communications. The Australian government actually published a statement, which was later removed, stating that “technical, legislative, coercive or other measures” should be considered to implement these “back doors”. The campaign to paint Huawei as a privacy violator was the racist pot calling the kettle black.

The Five Eyes partnership oozes of white supremacy. Settler colonialism and empire unite an alliance that excludes wealthier non-white nations (Japan and South Korea) or those with more English speakers (India and Nigeria). It’s not a coincidence that the only four countries (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the US) that originally voted against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) in 2007 are part of the Five Eyes.

While claiming to be anti-racist, the Liberals promoted what John Price called “a race-based spy network”. Their 2017 defence policy Strong, Secure, Engaged noted, “building on our shared values and long history of operational cooperation, the Five-Eyes network of partners, including Canada, the United States, United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, is central to protecting Canada’s interests and contributes directly to operational success.” In a rare move, the next year prime minister Justin Trudeau revealed a meeting with his Five Eyes counterparts. After the April 2018 meeting in London, Trudeau labelled the 2,000-employee Communications Security Establishment (CSE), Canada’s main contributor to the Five Eyes arrangement, “an extraordinary institution.” Alongside praise, the government expanded CSE’s powers and funding.

Last week Five Eyes defence ministers held two days of video meetings. Despite unprecedented public opposition to racism and significant attention focused on the hostage conflict with China, there’s been little criticism of the Five Eyes and its actions.

It’s time Canadians debate whether they want to be part of an alliance of settler colonial states’ intelligence agencies promoting conflict with China.

Overcoming structural racism should not be limited to what goes on inside Canada. We must confront racism wherever it is found, including in our international alliances.



Comments Off on White supremacist intelligence alliance pushes China hostage standoff

Filed under China