- 39 Posts
- 30 Comments
102·2 days agoThis is an op-ed by a Canadian who undoubtedly knows what he is talking about.
Addition, as a reminder:
‘From hell to limbo’: Michael Kovrig describes more than a thousand days as China’s prisoner
You may have (intentionally?) misunderstood my comment.
You got no information about Chinese supply chains, even transparency of stock listed companies in China are almost zero. China is heavily working against transparency standards in supply chains.
China is highly unreliable. Just look at China’s Belt and Road Initiative ‘partners’ and how they do (or look at those who decided to leave the initiative).
There is ample evidence. I also sure you want the best for Canada but like everyone else has been heavily influenced by Chinese propaganda to dismiss China critics absurdly accusing them of being a racist.
Chinese would also employ Canadians or any other countries investing in Canada.
No. Chinese factories abroad employ Chinese migrant workers as it has been also said here on Lemmy multiple times. Also, Canadian suppliers won’t be deliver much as Chinese EV makes employ their own suppliers from integrated value chains.
Why buying Chinese goods funding Chinese genocide in Xinjiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia?
No, China hasn’t joked about that, but they will do so if they can.
Canada can do this and all other things without close relationships with China or other dictatorships. Such governments aren’t reliable partners. There are no human rights in China, no willingness to make supply chains transparent, an the country shields off it domestic markets from foreign competition.
The entire Canadian economy would be negatively effected in the long-term by such a move.
Accusing Canada or other Western countries of protectionism while defending China is a bit of hypocrisy, no?
In addition, look why these ChEaP cHiNeSe CaRs are that cheap. I don’t want to buy a car or anything else that is made by slave labor.
This would be a bad deal for Canada.
That eliminates the assembly labour concern. As for the supply chains, that problem exists across all domestic automakers since they use the same supply chains.
No. This is not true. They don’t use the same supply chains. This is outright misinformation that is unfortunately very widespread. Chinese EV makers’ supply chains like BYD’s are fully vertically integrated, meaning local -or any- suppliers can’t sell to BYD and other Chinese rivals. The Chinese companies import everything.
In addition, they fill their factories with Chinese migrant workers, meaning there are no jobs for locals either. And, again, the slave-like conditions are evident across the globe, just look at BYD’s Brazilian plant that was shut down last year for exactly this reason. In Hungary, BYD is being filling hundreds of jobs with Chinese immigrants (according to Hungarian media close to the Orban-government, these people are housed in container-like shielded-off from the local population, a move that is typical for Chinese investments abroad).
If you talk about cheap Chinese cars you need to talk about forced labour in China and Chinese supply chains.
And, no, what is bad for a firm in a competitive market is not generally good for the rest of the economy. This makes no economic sense.
But most importantly, if you talk about cheap Chinese cars you need to talk about forced labour in China and Chinese supply chains.
The source of this information is SITE — composed of the RCMP, Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Communications Security Establishment and Global Affairs Canada.
This is neither disgusting nor warmongering (and, in principal, China should not deliver cheap and unsafe stuff to North America but better reduce their overcapacity and improve consumption at home).
There are many excellent analyses on the issue. As one states, Russia and China are building an Arctic empire:
Canada risks being shut out of critical northern trade routes and resource development opportunities …
Dalziel analyzed nearly 200 posts showing governors celebrating how Chinese imports are improving Russian lives while their natural resources flow exclusively to Beijing’s markets. The governors openly dismiss Western sanctions as ineffective and promote China as a reliable partner during international isolation …
Most concerning for Canada, Russia is leveraging its Arctic territory to build what the study describes as “an authoritarian brand” that courts non-Western partners while explicitly rejecting North American and European influence.
The whole study makes an illuminating read. The author warns that democratic Arctic nations must work together to challenge this authoritarian model. By “reinvigorating their own international engagement” through enhanced co-operation on economic development, science, and Indigenous governance, Canada and its Arctic allies can offer a compelling alternative to centralized, authoritarian control.
“Whataboutism” or “whataboutery” (as in, “but what about X?”) refers to the propaganda strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of offering an explanation or defense against the original accusation.
I guess you know the term “whataboutism”, right? It’s very widespread here: -)
“Whataboutism” or “whataboutery” (as in, “but what about X?”) refers to the propaganda strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of offering an explanation or defense against the original accusation.
Who is “we”? Other than a few tankies, no one wants that.
I don’t understand why you care more about the funding of this think tank than about the fact that China is deliberately interfering in Canadian elections. You will agree that the government in Beijing poses a big threat to democracy, right?
I don’t question the content, but the media outlet apparently has a strong article selection bias.