Chinese opposition to Sudan sanctions is expected

Many articles are framed in a way that castigate China for vetoing the imposition of sanctions on a regime involved in human rights abuses, but fail to cite the reasons for the refusal. Although they mention the fact that China has oil interests in the country, corporate media sources do not state that the US is seeking to prevent China from securing the Sudanese oil fields. The US has been active in preventing China from realizing its oil interests by blocking the Caspian basin through its invasion of Afghanistan and then securing control of Iraqi oil reserves by illegally occupying the country. Is it any surprise then that China opposes sanctions on a regime that could be its only hope in satisfying the energy needs of a burgeoning Chinese population? Is it any surprise that the Chinese don’t want to sacrifice an oil market that hasn’t already been stolen by the US?

Furthermore, since when did genocide or human rights abuses in another country arouse such reactions in the US? They certainly did not seem to care when Rwandans were mercilessly killing each other. They also did not seem to care when they supported murderous rebels to topple the democratically elected Aristide government in Haiti, and they certainly did not care when they supported the Northern Alliance Communists in Afghanistan who are currently torturing innocent Afghanis. The sudden “concern” now is merely an excuse to disturb Chinese business operations and can also become the pretext to go into Sudan under the guise of humanitarian intervention.

Regardless, it is unfortunate to see how a battle between two superpowers can potentially escalate into a proxy war that will cost millions of innocent lives.

Blame Law Enforcement not Multiculturalism

To correlate terrorism with lax Canadian immigration policies is naïve and a tactic to deflect blame onto outsiders. If one takes a careful look at Canadian immigration policies since the 1990’s one can see how the criteria has progressively become more stringent since the advent of multiculturalism during the Trudeau years. The points system has also subsequently adopted a tougher line throughout the years effectively rooting out immigrants who are deemed unable to contribute to the Canadian economy and society in general. The changes have already taken place.

Furthermore, the contention that certain fringe elements have the power to silence a majority is absurd. Any terrorist organization regardless of what it is works in isolation and secrecy without the knowledge of the mainstream. Irshad Manji’s so-called “non-interference” pact theory which states that mainstream elements have become apathetic due to fear of extremists, is part of an effort to bank on the current climate of Islamophobia that is popular amongst fear-inducing conservative commentators. Are we supposed to believe that the moderate majority is afraid of the fringe minority? Does the majority white population in Canada feel threatened by the Ku Klux Klan? Do the traditional conservative Christians in the US fear the neoconservatives? Were the majority of French Canadians afraid of the FLQ during the October Crisis? If anything, these majority groups speak out in order to disassociate themselves from their respective fringe elements.

To claim that the immigration policy was changed only to garner votes is flawed to say the least. Immigration is crucial for population growth, a diverse workforce, and to stimulate the economy. Altruism only goes so far, the state realizes that the benefits of immigration are mutual.

If blame must be placed, it should be directed at the law enforcement authorities and the borderline pathetic Canadian judicial system that is unable to prevent potential terrorist actions. Attacking this cornerstone of Canadian identity while engendering nativist tendencies is simply not the answer.