This post was edited by wchao37 at 2019-1-22 14:11|
It is obvious that Meng Wanzhou has been held hostage by the 5-eye Anglo nations intent on sabotaging not only Huawei's 5G dominance and the fairness of the ongoing Trade Talks, but most importantly -- China's image in the world.
You only need to take one look at Senior Negotiator Liu He's appointment calendar to realize that his Washington trip coincides with the deadline date by which time U.S. extradition papers have to reach the Vancouver court for Meng to be extradited.
If the trade-talk outcome satisfies Trump's avaricious appetite, then the papers would not be filed and Meng would be freed. If not, then the papers would be sent and Meng's ordeal will continue, in which case Chinese concessions are leveraged as ransom for Meng's release.
So you ask why all these affronts to America's much-ballyhooed human-rights ideals are still allowable in their negotiators' minds? The most important reason is that American hegemony is in the throes of its death-bed struggle and Trump doesn't have too many morally presentable cards to play. So as in the case of a drug smuggler he took the route of least resistance and approved the criminal plan albeit laced with a creamy salad of scrumptious words like "rule of law," "extradition-treaty obligations," etc.
Just remember: the reason why former U.S. Secretary of State Tillerson and a whole host of other capable men had to call it quits after a short tenure at the White House was because they had found it impossible to work with a tyrant with a criminal mindset -- a person temperamentally and ethically unfit to lead his divided nation in a rule-based world.
That's why the former Secretary of State's most famous exiting quote was that"he (Tillerson) had on many occasions told Trump that his methods were illegal."
That feeling of betrayal and disgust was shared by many in Trump's entourage ranging from former FBI director James Comey to Tillerson and beyond.
In otherwords, these witnesses found that Trump would choose to use any means -- legal or illegal -- to get what he wanted. It was a "shoot first - talk later" approach to solving problems the nature of which the con man with 7000 lies to his credit (ca. NYTimes) can only pretend to understand.
In the instant case, Liu He's acceptance of his proposal to go to Washington on Meng's extradition-deadline date gives the impression that China is blackmailed at precisely the same moment that she needs to appear strong in the minds of the world's peoples.
Let me remind you that the image of the nation is everything -- that's what China's 1949 revolution was all about.
Otherwise all of China's declared statements of her intention to lead globalization in the New Era will be regarded as empty cannons of rhetoric -- something that we obviously cannot allow to happen as a matter of principle.
As the first U.S. president who had entered White House with no political experience whatsoever in the capacity of either a governor or a senator, Trump was expected to discuss the feasibility of his ideas with those who knew the rules of engagement in international politics.
Not only did he not bother to ask questions from experts, he simply fired them unceremoniously before surrounding himself with yes-Sir sycophants instead. That means his government has now been reduced to an autocracy after his self-enthronement as the Emperor.
In trying to combat Huawei -- a company which symbolizes China's burgeoning high-tech clout -- Trump disregarded long-established rules of fair competition in international trade and resorted to the use of bullying tactics by simply charging in and approving the scheme to kidnap Meng, using his country's own sanctions against Iran as an excuse. Therefore it is obvious that in his mind, U.S. law overrides international law.
The premeditated kidnapping of the senior executive of Huawei has opened a Pandora Box of unimaginable risk for all nations including the U.S. itself, because the supply chain of any enterprise depends on the free and secure movement of its executive officers in international negotiations or else no decisions can be made within the scope of reasonable business time constraints, and for this reason such actions have been disallowed by all international covenants in order to facilitate trade. Usually what is done to resolve trade disputes is that a legal entity is created to represent the company and any suits arising from business conflicts are taken up by attorneys dealing with the legal entity only, and not its CFO like Meng.
So the act itself was the brainchild of a criminal mindset unprecedented in the history of international politics, with Trump apparently aided and abetted by the criminal minds disguised as political hawks in his team of trade negotiators. Its ultimate purpose is to disrupt the supply chain of the competitor's business entity. That's why Trump's threatened sanctions have already slowed down global economic growth prospects for the current year.
Not only does Trump have a criminal mindset, he's also donkey-obstinate as is evidenced byhis uncompromising attitude towards the Democratic Party regarding the US$ 5.7 billion funding of HIS wall against Mexico, resulting in the furlough-related hardships of 800,000 federal employees.
And yet Trump has recently built up high hopes on Wall Street by repeatedly sending signals envisaging a winning result for the U.S. in the coming talks. Under these circumstances, it would be hard if not impossible for any Chinese negotiator to bring back a truly win-win accord from the prospective meeting at the end of the month.
So to forestall or minimize losses at the negotiation table, it behooves our side to make a realistic appraisal of the entire global landscape. In my opinion, there are only three plausible outcomes of the talks.
The first outcome is that Trump is so beset with domestic problems that he is willing to compromise and stop the trade war. In that case everyone would come out a winner even thoughTrump might still cling to his notoriously bad habit of changing his mind at the last moment.
The second outcome is that our side will try to avoid further damage at all costs and end up losing a huge chunk of hard-won economic benefits and allow Washington to dictate to us the re-structuring of our economy by letting Western capital flood our markets in hitherto inaccessible areas and molest our national economy with impunity. This would be the worst outcome unbecoming a great nation like ours -- and so it is unlikely to occur unless the decision makers have their own reasons to do that as a delaying tactic.
The third outcome is the best and is workable -- let Chief Negotiator Liu He call in sick at the last moment and send in a surrogate with no decision-making power. This is workable because negotiation appointments are flexible and changeable -- witness the present gathering at the Davos Symposium in Switzerland to be missed by the leaders of the U.S., UK and France citing their own domestic problems as the sole excuse -- while the deadline date for sending in Meng's extradition papers are inflexibly predetermined.
Future trade talks can then be conducted without the omnipresent threat of unwarranted extraditions.
Wei Chao, M.D.