Canada's "Moral" Behaviour: Only When It Suits Harper & Washington

From the Sunday, November 18, 2007, Toronto Star, Canada section, page A8, is an article about Prime Minister's Harpers selectively moral foreign policies.

HARPER'S 'SELECTIVE' MORALS BAD NEWS FOR DESERTERS

Thomas Walkom

The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the refugee appeals of two U.S. Army deserters should come as no surprise.

Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey do not qualify as refugees under the United Nations definition used here. They are not fleeing political persecution; they do not face torture. They are merely trying to escape what they - and most Canadians - see as an unjust Iraq war.

This does not mean that the pair should be sent home to face court martial. Quite the reverse. If Canada's federal government had the inclination to face down Washington just a bit, both men - who almost certainly qualify for permanent resident status - would be welcomed, not as refugees but as landed immigrants. That's how Canada treated U.S. draft dodgers and deserters from the Vietnam War. And it worked out fine.

However, it is most unlikely that Prime Minister Stephen Harper will take this path.

True, he has promised to deal with foreign affairs "on moral grounds." But his is a selective form of morality. Harper is willing to go to bat against countries that the U.S. criticizes - like China. But he is not willing to take on those that President George W. Bush deems friends. And he is certainly not willing to take on Washington itself.

Nowhere is this double standard more apparent than in the government's approach to Canadian citizens detained abroad.

Harper has been outspoken in his defence of Huseyin Celil, a Canadian tried and convicted in China earlier this year on charges of terrorism.

Harper has raised Celil's case personally with the Chinese leadership. In July, then foreign affairs minister Peter MacKay rebuked China again, saying that "due process for this Canadian citizen was not followed and his rights were not respected."

Compare this to Ottawa's tepid response in the case of another Canadian, Bashir Makhtal, who has been languishing for months in an Ethiopian jail. Makhtal was seized at the Kenyan border last December as he tried to escape Somalia's latest bout of mayhem and handed over illegally - to the Ethiopian army. While he hasn't been formally charged with anything, it seems that Ethiopia suspects him of connections to a separatist group it regards as terrorist.

Yet from Harper, there has been radio silence. The reason? Ethiopia is America's proxy in the Horn of Africa. Its invasion of Somalia to depose an Islamic government (the invasion that caused Makhtal to flee) was sanctioned and militarily supported by Washington.

In this context, it seems, the Canadian government finds a mere Canadian citizen expendable.

But nowhere is the double standard more apparent than in the case of Omar Khadr, another Canadian imprisoned abroad on charges of terrorism. Khadr faces trial in a setting so unfair that it makes the Chinese justice system look reasonable.

He can be convicted on the basis of secret evidence and statements obtained under torture. In the unlikely event that he is acquitted, his captors have reserved the right to keep him in jail anyway.

Yet Ottawa insists that the process if fair. That's because Khadr's human rights are being abused not by Beijing but Washington. And this government does not wish to irritate Washington.

For the two U.S. deserters, none of this is good news. Their ability to remain in Canada depends on the federal government's willingness to accommodate U.S. war resisters.

Alas, there is little likelihood of this. This government won't protect even its own citizens without U.S. clearance. It is unlikely to help Americans trying to escape Bush's wars.

Thomas Walkom's, column appears Thursday and Sunday.

Chinese Journalists' Lawsuit with Yahoo Settled

Here is an article about Yahoo settling with Chinese journalists, after Yahoo provided Chinese authorities with information about the online activities of the journalists. Obviously greed in setting up business in such a new and expanding market overrode any moral misgivings about snitching on online clients to a repressive Chinese regime.

This is from the Wednesday, November 14, 2007, Business Section of the Toronto Star, page B8:

YAHOO SETTLES LAWSUIT OVER DISSIDENTS' EMAILS

San Francisco - Yahoo Inc. yesterday settled a lawsuit with two Chinese journalists who were jailed after the company provided Chinese authorities with information about their online activities.

Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

The two journalists and a family member sued the Sunnyvale, Calif.-based company earlier this year after Yahoo HK, Yahoo's Hong Kong subsidiary, gave Chinese authorities emails containing pro-democracy literature. The jailed journalists alleged in the lawsuit that jailers have tortured them and that Yahoo was responsible.

The company has denied any responsibility and maintained it was complying with Chinese law when it turned over the emails.

The case has raised questions about whether Internet firms should co-operate with governments that deny freedom of speech and frequently crack down on journalists.

Neither side discussed terms of the settlement other than to agree that Yahoo would pay the lawyers' fees of the two journalists and the family member who sued. The three were represented by The World Organization for Human Rights in Washington, D.C.

Shi Tao, a former writer for the financial publication Contemporary Business News, was jailed under state secrecy laws for allegedly providing state secrets to foreigners.

According to the suit, the other journalist, Wang Ziaoning, was arrested in 2002 after Yahoo HK gave police information linking him to his anonymous emails and other political writings he posted online.

Yahoo lawyer Michael Callahan was summoned before the House foreign affairs committee last week to explain testimony he gave to Congress last year. He said then that Yahoo had no information about the nature of China's investigation when the company handed over details that ended up being used to convinct Shi.

Callaghan subsequently has acknowledged that Yahoo officials had received a subpoena-like document that made reference to suspected "illegal provision of state secrets" - a common charge against political dissidents.

But Callahan continued to insist that Yahoo did not know the real nature of the Chinese investigation.