Mickey I. and Mr Harper take note (and the Globe and Mail’s China worshippers):

U.S. takes a tougher tone with China

Curiously, a major beef rather reminds one of another maritime passage (the Americans sure are consistent, eh?):

…
Faced with a Chinese government increasingly intent on testing U.S. strength and capabilities, the United States unveiled a new policy that rejected China’s claims to sovereignty over the whole South China Sea…

The decision to confront China on the South China Sea dates back several months, after administration officials noticed that the sea — an international waterway through which more than 50 percent of the world’s merchant fleet tonnage passes each year — had crept into the standard diplomatic pitter-patter about China’s “core interests.”..

Somewhat related:

So now the British own the Arctic? [more here]

Earlier:

Mickey I. upsucking to the deadly Dragon

The end of the world as we know it, China section (plus Mickey I.)

Dragon update, or, die gelbe Gefahr

Update: This growling has nothing to do with any sovereignty claims to the Northwest Passage, however much some may spin it.

Mark
Ottawa

Spiegel Online sends a, er, message:

The Dragon’s Embrace
China’s Soft Power Is a Threat to the West

China may have no intentions of using its growing military might, but that is of little comfort for Western countries. From the World Trade Organization to the United Nations, Beijing is happy to use its soft power to get what it wants — and it is wrong-footing the West at every turn…

…the Chinese are in the process of conquering the world. They are doing this very successfully by pursuing an aggressive trade policy toward the West, granting low-interest loans to African and Latin American countries, applying diplomatic pressure to their partners, pursuing a campaign bordering on cultural imperialism to oppose the human rights we perceive to be universal, and providing the largest contingent of soldiers for United Nations peacekeeping missions of all Security Council members. In other words, they are doing it with soft power instead of hard power [Canadians are obsessed with UN peacekeeping, guess we can't stand the hard kind--but what do we get out of Pink Lloyd-style soft power?].

Beijing is indeed waging a war on all continents, but not in the classical sense. Whether the methods it uses consistently qualify as “peaceful” is another matter. For example, the Chinese apply international agreements as they see fit, and when the rules get in their way, they “creatively” circumvent them or rewrite them with the help of compliant allies.

But why are politicians in Washington, Paris and London taking all of this lying down, kowtowing to the Chinese instead of criticizing them? Does capturing — admittedly lucrative — markets in East Asia and trying to impress the Chinese really help their cause?..

The Chinese have paid particular attention to nations with large oil and natural gas reserves, such as Venezuela, Kazakhstan and Nigeria [hey, don't ignore our oil sands!], but they also cultivate relations with third-tier countries — countries that the West tends to ignore but that have voting rights in international bodies like anyone else. Beijing has forgiven billions in loans to African nations and pampered them with infrastructure projects. It has generally tied its assistance merely to two conditions that are relatively painless for the countries in question, namely that they have no official relations with Taiwan and that they support the People’s Republic in international organizations.

What Beijing is not demanding of these countries is even more telling. Unlike Washington, London or Berlin, the Chinese do not tie their development aid to any conditions relating to good governance. While the West punishes authoritarian behavior by withholding funds (and, in some cases, indirectly threatens “regime change”), Beijing has no scruples about pampering the world’s dictators by building them palaces and highways to their weekend villas — and assuring them territorial integrity, no matter what human rights violations they are found guilty of…

Don’t forget that Canadian politicians are doing their bit, note the prime minister’s pic:

Mickey I. upsucking to the deadly Dragon

The peril!  The peril!  On the other hand Kaiser Willy was all for die grüne Gefahr, go figure (via Arts & Letters Daily).

Update: This post, and the Mickster one, combined by the National Post’s “Full Comment”–though they bowdlerized the title and omitted the last line.

Mark
Ottawa

The Mickster wants those votes–Brian Lilley, newly of Sun News (that will include FNN) does a bit of his own upchucking:

CSIS boss Richard Fadden is under fire from Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff. Photo: Andre Forget, QMI

…
No senior Liberal, no Liberal on committee and no Liberal critic on the CSIS file asked for Fadden’s resignation until Michael Ignatieff did on Thursday at the Chinese Cultural Centre [note at bottom where money comes from] in the east end of Toronto.

During his now infamous CBC interview Fadden said that several countries have gained or are attempting to gain influence with Canadian politicians. Asked which countries were involved, the CSIS boss would not answer but did respond to Peter Mansbridge’s prompt about China being one of the countries by saying that media reports of Chinese espionage are generally accurate.

That is apparently his crime, he stated what everyone knows to be true [Mother Corpse has reported it!], that China seeks to influence politics in Canada and he did it on the eve of the Chinese president’s visit. Michael Ignatieff has not called for Fadden to be fired because he told lies; he’s calling for Fadden to be fired because he may have embarrassed a foreign leader that has spies in Canada and agents trying to influence Canadian politicians.

As David Akin recently pointed out, Ignatieff has gone from tough talk on human rights in China to serving up diplomatic pablum Now we can also see that he’s putting ethno-politics ahead of what once would have been his ability to call a spade a spade.

…Ignatieff has decided to ignore reality and join this camp in the hope of a few more votes in Toronto’s Chinese communities.

Not a single security expert that I have spoken to on or off the record has contradicted Fadden. I have asked politicians if they reject the substance of Fadden’s remarks, none will…

Earlier (with photos):

Mickey I. upsucking to the deadly Dragon

Mark
Ottawa

Fire burn, and Nancy bubble:

House Democrats hit boiling point over perceived lack of White House support

House Democrats are lashing out at the White House, venting long-suppressed anger over what they see as President Obama‘s lukewarm efforts to help them win reelection — and accusing administration officials of undermining the party’s chances of retaining the majority in November’s midterm elections.

In recent weeks, a widespread belief has taken hold among Democratic House members that they have dutifully gone along with the White House on politically risky issues — including the stimulus plan, the health-care overhaul and climate change — without seeing much, if anything, in return. Many of them are angry that Obama has actively campaigned for Democratic Senate candidates but has done fewer events for House members.

The boiling point came Tuesday night during a closed-door meeting of House Democrats in the Capitol. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) excoriated White House press secretary Robert Gibbs‘s public comments over the weekend that the House majority was in doubt and that it would take “strong campaigns by Democrats” to avert dramatic losses…

Earlier:

Friendly fire, or, Obamafratricide

We’re waiting for word about Mickey I.’s MPs:

…

…

Meanwhile some business as usual in the US Congress is hurl-making for the Washington Post’s David Ignatius:

I am embarrassed when I think back to a conversation last October in Wana, South Waziristan — deep in the tribal areas — with Maj. Gen. Khalid Rabbani, the commander of Pakistani forces there. He was about to launch an offensive against Taliban fighters, but he worried that the “clear and hold” phase of the campaign would fail if Pakistan couldn’t also “build” through economic development.

Be patient, I told him. Congress is working on a bill that will take a first step toward bringing more jobs to the region.

Nine months later, Congress is still caught in partisan gridlock over the plan to create Reconstruction Opportunity Zones in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas, or FATA. The House passed the bill in June 2009, but the Senate hasn’t voted on its version because Republicans oppose the labor-protection standards that were included in the House measure. The GOP objects that the bill would set a precedent for similar pro-labor rules in future trade legislation.

It’s incredible — sickening is a better word, actually — that a parochial business-labor dispute is blocking a measure that is so obviously in America’s national security interest…

…for now, this legislative debacle offers one more sign of our dysfunctional political system.

Mark
Ottawa

Photo: Wayne Cuddington/Postmedia News

Day two of Michael Ignatieff’s cross-country summer tour saw him touting a federally funded program that would send young Canadians abroad to work and gain international experience. Just like a young Mr.Ignatieff did, before returning, 35 years later, to seek the position of Prime Minister.

The Liberal leader reportedly told people at a “town-hall meeting” in Kingston, Ontario, that working abroad should not be frowned upon.

“I don’t want Canadians to think the only good Canadian is someone who’s never left these shores,” Mr. Ignatieff told the crowd.

The proposed Liberal program would provide government subsidized placements in Canadian companies or partners overseas.

This isn’t anything new. Back in January when Mr.Ignatieff visited UBC on his cross-country campus tour, he encouraged students there to leave Canada.

I’m not saying that leaving Canada for a while is such a bad idea. I did my “European tour” in 1997, and I even wrote a story about it here.

I think it is a good idea to travel abroad, perhaps work a little bit somewhere different and strange, and return with a sense that the world is a bit larger than it may appear by just staying in Canada.

But do we really need a government program to subsidize young people to go overseas? Can’t Canadians decide that for themselves?

Back in the spring of 1997, I didn’t have much going for me. I was unemployed, broke, and had just dropped out of University. The recession in Ontario had just begun to ebb, but the jobs weren’t paying very well for somebody with no marketable skills.

So I decided to go to Europe. Just like that. I got a job in a bagel shop in Toronto’s “village” at Jarvis and Wellesley for $8 an hour. I served bagels, washed dishes, and prepared food. Before long I had saved up $1,700.

Visiting Europe was one of the most enjoyable experiences of my life. I travelled through Holland, Belgium, France, Italy, Slovenia, Croatia [and was strip-searched at the border], Hungary, Romania, Austria, Czech Republic, Poland, and finally Germany, where I settled to work for three months. When my visa expired in Germany, I took a train through France and Spain, and my wife and I stayed in her parents house in Portugal for another month.

The government didn’t need to subsidize my trip to Europe. One moment I was unemployed, wondering what I was going to do with my life, and the next I was working long hours with the goal of travelling in mind. Poverty was no limitation to my desire.

In fact, once while hitch-hiking through Belgium, I was picked up by a doctor driving a BMW. He suggested that Canada was a very wealthy country. I told him that in Canada I was at the lowest income level, and this amazed him. If even the poorest citizen of a country could travel abroad, that country must be in very good shape, he observed.

I don’t hold Michael Ignatieff’s decision to leave Canada in low regard, but I do find it odd that he’s encouraging an entire generation of young Canadians to leave the country. And not just to see the wide world out there, but to go and work outside of Canada for an extended period of time, paid for by those staying behind.

Let’s meet the Liberal leader halfway. If you want to see the world, by all means, go forth. But do it with your own money, and for your own reasons.

Photo: Rosemary Barton, CBC

“Alabama,
you got the weight on your shoulders
That’s breaking your back.
Your Cadillac
has got a wheel in the ditch
And a wheel on the track.”

- Neil Young

The Liberal blogosphere is alight with complaints of yellow journalism today, over the light jibing the party received when their bus broke down on its maiden voyage.

It’s difficult not to chuckle softly to oneself, given the fact that the media being accused of said yellow journalism are journalists such as Rosie Barton, John Ibbitson, and Aaron Wherry. Not exactly your hostile crowd.

But the bus malfunction is, you have to admit, a perfect metaphor for the Liberal Party. All dressed up and nowhere to go. Stalled out on the starting line. Finished before they’ve begun. I could go on, but why bother when Rick Mercer can explain it visually?

Well, what did the Liberals expect the media, armed to the teeth with 3G WiFi Blackberries and iPhones, to do other than write on-the-fly updates about being stuck in a broken-down bus in the rain, and the torture of being trapped in a confined space with Don Boudria hosting a sing-along?

At least the Conservative war room is having some fun with it. Apparently reporters embedded in the Liberal tour were handed t-shirts featuring Michael Ignatieff waving over top of the slogan “Just Visiting Express.”

As for Michael Ignatieff, it would seem that his poor attempts at improvised humour need some work. As the bus arrived on Parliament Hill, the rain that had been steadily dumping on Liberals and reporters alike, suddenly turned into a downpour, soaking all concerned.

“We don’t care about this Conservative weather, do we?” Mr. Ignatieff joked.

Indeed. “Conservative weather.”

Well, nobody said the man was a great stand-up comedian. But day one of the Liberal Express did get some big laughs. So maybe it all worked out in the end.

Earlier:

Mickey I. upsucking to the deadly Dragon

Now from David Akin:

Canada caves on China
Harper, Ignatieff both change their tune on taking a tough line with the Chinese

Upchuck.

Mr Akin is newly of the Sun papers, along with another good man.  Foxy fellows–more from Adrian.

Update: One reason for a new news network:

…

One case involved a report filed by Neil Macdonald, a senior TV reporter for CBC’s flagship news program The National. The story aired early in September 2008 and was a backgrounder piece on Sarah Palin, the evangelical politician who had just been named the Republican Party’s vice-presidential candidate. Macdonald’s report was supposed to reveal to the Canadian public who Palin really was and what she was all about. What it seemed to reveal was Macdonald’s own biases.

At one point in his story, Macdonald ran a snippet from a speech Palin had delivered to a local church earlier that year. It showed her telling those in the pews that she believed America’s war against Iraq was endorsed by God. The interview clip was meant to convince viewers that, as a staunch evangelical, Palin was dangerously jingoistic. The problem was Macdonald had edited off the beginning of the clip and in doing so had changed the meaning completely.

A posting on YouTube where Palin’s complete speech can be viewed lets one compare Macdonald’s version to the real McCoy. The portion of interview that Macdonald included in his report began with Palin saying, “Our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God.”

However, what Palin had actually said was this: “Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country [pray] that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God.”

Someone watching or reading the full quote in its true context could see that Palin was not raising a war cry, she was raising a question. A question steeped in humility with no hint of jingoism; she asked: “Is this war a task from God?” It’s a question to which she does not have an answer and advises praying for divine guidance in the hope of finding the right path…

Mark
Ottawa

Now is the time at UA when we juxtapose:

Michael Ignatieff sucks up to the ChiComs by asking for advice on how to win democratic elections [Steve Janke]

US geologist sentenced to eight years for dealing in state secrets

The Good Count is so, er, nuanced:

Ignatieff in China: Avoiding “megaphone diplomacy”

…. I’m in China to build relationships and build trust.

I’m in China to understand, to listen, and to learn.

I am here to engage China as a friend to Canada, and to speak frankly, as good friends do.

And I intend to be back frequently.

Want to bet on any frank speaking about this?

China challenged over executions

Human rights group Amnesty International has called on China to publicly state how many people it puts to death each year.

In its annual report on the use of the death penalty worldwide, published on Tuesday, Amnesty said the number of people executed by Beijing last year was likely “in the thousands” – estimated to be more than the total in the rest of the world.

“Chinese authorities claim that fewer executions are taking place. If this is true, why won’t they tell the world how many people the state put to death?” Claudio Cordone, the Amnesty International interim secretary general, said in a statement.

The 41-page Death Sentences and Executions in 2009 report refused to even estimate the toll in China, saying that the organisation believed publicly available statistics “grossly underrepresent” the actual figure…

This (from another Liberal type):

As for our government:

Canada and China broaden strategic partnership

…

Where seldom is heard (these days) a discouraging…Meanwhile, here’s something about which to keep our knickers really knotted.

Update: Spector Vision has a wicked thought:

…If the idea of summoning business leaders to parliamentary committees takes off, perhaps we will learn one day why Stephen Harper no longer believes that human rights in China are much of a problem — a position that former human rights professor Michael Ignatieff extended yesterday in China…

Upperdate: The National Post cuts to the quick:

Beijing’s Canadian apologist
…

While teaching rights theory at Harvard University, Mr. Ignatieff routinely cited China as one of the worst rights-abusers in the world, lumping it in variously with North Korea, Libya, Saudi Arabia and others. But now he leads the party of Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien, men who made a habit of “engaging” China, while at the same time ignoring its right record. Mr. Trudeau even toured China during the height of the Maoist purges, but never once makes mention of them in his travel memoirs.

Mr. Ignatieff now seems eager to return to his weak-kneed roots and take on the see-no-evil mantle of his Liberal predecessors. This may gain him a few votes, but is a denial of the torture and terror China inflicts on all those

it punishes for their thoughts. It is a sad and somewhat pathetic moment for a political leader who once was sold to the Canadian public as an icon of principle, and an expert on human rights.

Mark
Ottawa

The recent talk about the Liberal-NDP “merger” is based mainly on the fact that the Liberal Party has gone through a series of unfortunate and ineffective leaders in the past six years, and none of them have lived up to their pay grade. Paul Martin dithered. Stephane Dion withered. And Michael Ignatieff hasn’t delivered.

After two frustrating electoral losses, the last one sending the Liberal Party to a low of just 77 seats, you can almost smell the desperation. Michael Ignatieff is officially less popular than Typhus, and only the Liberal brand seems to keep the party afloat in the polls.

How else would one explain the rumours that former prime minister Jean Chrétien is doing some serious behind-the-scenes work promoting the idea of a power-sharing merge with the NDP? As the Hill Times put it:

One Liberal insider said that Mr. Chrétien, who won three successive majority governments partly due to the fact that the right was divided, doesn’t think Mr. Ignatieff has the political chops to defeat the Tories.

“[Chrétien] doesn’t see [Ignatieff] being able to pull this off and put it together. The guy is in many people’s opinion politically brain-dead,” said the source.

It’s a fair observation. Andrew Coyne even intimated that this could signal the death of the Liberal Party.

Does it sound insulting to call Mr.Ignatieff “brain-dead”? To refer to his unofficial moniker of “iffy”, for his prolific flip-flops and indecision? Would that mean that I’m ignoring his obvious academic and intellectual credentials?

Of course not. It’s well-established that the man is a successful academic, writer, historian, professor, and was even designated by Great Britain’s Prospect magazine as a “public intellectual.” Nobody would think to argue these points or denigrate his life’s accomplishments.

But intellect in one area does not necessarily lend itself to intelligence in all areas of life. And I think we can safely say that the former Harvard Professor is most certainly not a very intelligent politician.

The late Bobby Fischer, former World Chess Champion and child prodigy, is widely considered one of the greatest minds of the twentieth century. His ruthless analytical skills on a chess board combined with an almost poetic imagination that continues to defy some of the greatest computer programs that exist today, has him regarded as perhaps one of the best brains to sit before a chess board. Simply put, Fischer’s genius on 64 squares was as irrefutable as Einstein in the field of science.

But Bobby Fischer erred in calculating that his genius extended beyond the chess board, into all aspects and areas of life, which gave him an arrogant, abrasive personality. After retiring from chess in 1972 on top of the world — except for a brief resurrection in 1992 which only further exacerbated his apparent sickness of the mind — Bobby Fischer became reclusive, paranoid, and focused on conspiracy theories.

Despite being Jewish himself, he developed a hatred for Jews, accusing them of controlling the world and fabricating the holocaust. After 9/11, he went on radio condemning the United States, and praising the terrorists for their good work. It was a moment that the world of chess collectively gasped to see a former champion regarded as a genius fall so far from grace.

Though Fischer never played chess publicly after 1992, many close friends said that he continued to possess the analytical skills and imagination that made him a terror on the chess board. So while it would seem that Fischer had gone mad, he had lost none of his innate genius. Unfortunately for the world, that genius was limited almost solely to chess.

Perhaps in a similar way Michael Ignatieff has found himself attempting to do something widely outside of his element, and is coming up short. His assumption that his intellect could transcend politics may be one rooted in over-confidence nurtured by his success in academia. It’s a miscalculated error that has cost the Liberal Party dearly.

Just in case you thought the world’s opinion movers and shakers keep an eagle eye on Canada, this from a leading American columnist (and my favourite):

…Canadian and Dutch combat troops begin withdrawing this summer…

I’ve sent Mr Will an e-mail.

Oh well, one of our premier pundits can’t get his facts about the Canadian Forces and Afstan right either:

CF and Afstan: Judicious Jeffrey Simpson exceeds his pay grade

Meanwhile, as for the political debate (if there really now is one) about a continuing role for the CF in Afstan post-2011, Adrian has weighed in along with Terry Glavin.

Update: Hell yes, they want to go:

Forces swamped with deployment requests as Afghan mission winds down

File photo. The Canadian Forces have been swamped with volunteers eager to be among the last troops headed to Kandahar before Parliament closes out the combat mission next year, according Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie.
Photograph by: K. Chaudhry, REUTERS…

Mark
Ottawa