On September 26th, 2013, the Conservative Party of Canada tabled the Canada-China Foreign Investment Protection Promotion Agreement (FIPA) in the House of Commons. This agreement would allow China to sue Canada for loss of profits in the case of legal interference. For instance, if a Canadian legislature passes environmental or labour regulations that get in the way of Chinese foreign investors, they can sue the government for legislating in such a manner.

[thesil_related_posts_sc]Related Posts[/thesil_related_posts_sc]

It gets better. Not only would these lawsuits be settled in unaccountable tribunals outside of Canada, we would be locked into this agreement for 31 years. Article 35 of the agreement stipulates that parties can not even begin the process of termination for 15 years. Once a request to terminate has been filed, FIPA requires an additional 15 years notice before cancellation, which will officially occur the following year.

To put things into perspective, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) requires six months notice to cancel. Simply put, FIPA forfeits Canadian sovereignty and abandons the interests of Canadians. It cheapens democracy by overriding the will of the people, who have elected representatives to legislate in a particular fashion. It prohibits future governments from exiting an agreement that stands to cost taxpayers billions of dollars in lawsuits. It denies our country the opportunity to pursue our goals in environmental sustainability, protect workers’ rights, and adapt to shifting global markets.

In what world does this sound like a good idea? Stephen Harper’s world. According to the official government website, FIPA is meant to provide “a stable legal framework to promote and protect foreign investment”. This goal is accompanied by a slew of stats and figures, which are meant to demonstrate just how much money stands to flow our way, thanks to foreign investment. It conveniently leaves out how much money we stand to lose.

Moreover, the Conservatives point out that “according to the UNCTAD 2005 World Investment Report, an unusually high number of new policies introduced by host governments in 2004 made conditions less favourable for foreign companies to enter the market and affects the domestic investment conditions”.

Well, colour me surprised. Who knew that policies, geared towards sustainability and worker’s rights, would steer away investors who are looking to pillage land and disregard its inhabitants to make a profit. What confuses me is why our federal government wishes to cater to those sorts of investors, when their wish to challenge Canadian law directly subverts the will of the Canadian people.

However, Armageddon is not yet upon us. There remains a ray of hope. Although the agreement has been signed, it has yet to be ratified. This is largely thanks to outcry from groups, like the Hupacasath First Nation, who submitted an application to challenge FIPA and prevent its ratification. The Hupacasath First Nation is arguing that the federal government had the duty to consult with their band, but failed to do so.

Seeing as how the treaty would greatly affect First Nations peoples and their right to self-government, they have sought action through the courts. Their first attempt to challenge FIPA in court proved unsuccessful; however, the Hupacasath First Nation is currently seeking to appeal the decision. Potentially, their actions stand in the way of ratifying FIPA. With any luck, we can put this all behind us.

Perhaps, in a few years, we will all look back on how dangerously far the Harper government was willing to risk our nation’s sovereignty, values, tax dollars and democracy in the name of foreign investment.

Something was unmistakably amiss on Oct. 1 when walking through the outdoor Mills Plaza. The Chinese Cultural Festival, hosted by McMaster’s Confucius Institute, was in full swing, full in this case meaning a single, subtle tent and a modest display of staff.

Compared to last year, when the festival encompassed the entire MUSC Atrium in an ostentatious display of cultural pride, song, dance and prizes, it was an unfamiliar offering from the usually grandiose faculty.

Dr. Angela Sheng, Associate Professor of Art History and Director Chair of the Confucius Institute, explained the reasoning behind this massive shift in festivities. “I want [the festival] to be in the open, to attract student attention and I would like it to be driven by grassroots needs,” said Sheng.

The festival, scheduled to run from Oct. 1 to 3, encompassed many aspects, such as martial arts demonstrations, student presentations and a myriad of film screenings on Thursday, still seemed oddly cut down, sporting an almost subtle profile with few students stopping their daily activities to check out the event.

The Institute, recently scrutinized for its allegedly controversial hiring and training practices overseas for prospective teachers according to a Globe and Mail investigative report, seems to be in the process of restructuring its outward appearance to appeal to a larger student body.

“The Confucius Institute is synchronous with humanities and with President Deane’s Forward With Integrity message, and we want to highlight student endeavours and give them a platform to express their work,” said Sheng.

The festival itself, while smaller in scale, promoted a single, unified message. It highlighted spirituality as a means to promote overall well-being, as well as stressing the importance of values shared between heritage students and students without a Chinese background at McMaster.

Looking forward in the year, Sheng has further plans to engage the student body in Chinese culture. “We have the upcoming Distinguished Speaker Series to look forward to. On October 30 an archeologist is going to speak about the first emperor of China. Later in November a linguist will come and speak about the phonetic system [of Mandarin].”

The Institute’s current plans do not end at festivities alone, as it is currently engaged in a proposal to found a new Chinese business course.

“It would be a language course that focuses on business language, and business etiquette and know-how that is different in China,” said Sheng.

The proposal has been submitted to the Curriculum Committee of the Faculty of Humanities and if passed will move on to review by the Senate’s Undergraduate Planning Committee this fall.

“I’d like to know what students would like [to know about China]. These projects have to be initiated by students and then they can be incorporated into next year’s budget proposal,” said Sheng on how students could get involved in the faculty.

The Confucius Institute will continue to run events throughout the year, but it remains to be seen if future showings by the organization will be equally toned down.

Harper’s visit to China was less critical than many desired it to be.

Ryan Mallough

Silhouette Staff

The building quakes with the explosion of yet another shell. The hallway of a makeshift hospital is lined with the dead. The dying cry out in agony beside them.

Amidst their moans, British-Syrian activist Danny Abdul Dayem begs: “We are not animals. We are people, and we are asking for your help. ... they’re hitting us with rockets for four hours now. They’re going to kill us all. If you don’t help us they’ll kill millions and no one will find out about it. Please someone help us.”

The government-led crackdown on Syria has been allowed to continue for almost a full year. In that time, some 5,400 Syrians, the majority of them dissidents, have been killed, and the total climbs every day.

Doctors and charitable organizations are barred from entering the bombarded city of Homs. In some cases, government forces round up the wounded and execute them.

The international community has yet to meaningfully intervene. The most recent United Nations attempt was vetoed by Russia, a long-term ally to the Syrian regime, and China, who has interests in the region and strong reservations over how the Libyan intervention was handled.

In mid February, Prime Minister Stephen Harper traveled to China to discuss the expansion of trade relations with Canada. Less than three years ago, Harper boasted that he would be disinclined to do business with the Chinese until they fixed their human rights record. An economic meltdown and difficulties in expanding trade with the increasingly isolationist United States have forced Harper to seek markets abroad.

However, while economic in purpose, this trip was the perfect opportunity for Harper to backup his earlier claim – to call out the Chinese on the international stage and stand by his earlier position on Libya – that Canada will not stand by while tyrants massacre their people for dissenting. That economic growth will not come at the price of freedoms and human life.

Yet publicly, our Prime Minister said nothing.

He claims to have discussed the issues behind closed doors – something he could have done with much more potency had Canada not suffered an embarrassing defeat to Portugal for a Security Council seat – and left it at that.

While the prime minister cuddled with pandas and ate spicy pork, Syrians continued to be slaughtered at the hands of their government.

Canada’s silence on Syria is deafening, considering that our government was at the forefront when it came to the international condemnation of Libya, being one of the first countries to impose sanctions, calling for an end to the Ghadafi regime’s rule and supporting and participating in the NATO-led intervention. Yet when Syria openly bombards its citizens for months, we do nothing.

While the right to protect should be of no less value, there are important differences to take into consideration between Libya and Syria. The Syrian terrain is more complex, making operation logistics more of an issue.

The resistance is not as well organized, nor as well armed, and does not control as much territory as the Libyan movement, which likely means that intervention on the resistance’s behalf would need to be on a larger scale. It might even need to be an invasion (possessing somewhat of a stigma in those parts), which is more costly both monetarily and in terms of the human life. Finally, Russia and China, while thawing on the issue, remain staunchly opposed to any Libyan-style operation in Syria, preferring a diplomatic resolution that would see their ally remain in power and thus remain an obstacle.

But how is any of that important compared to stopping a mass murder?

Recently, the “Friends of Syria,” a group comprised of over 60 nations including Canada, met to outline an ultimatum for the Syrian government. Minister of Foreign Affairs John Baird noted that Canada would focus on preventing a humanitarian disaster, a gesture Syrians from a year ago would probably appreciate much more than those in the present day.

Some action is better than no action, but friends don’t let friends murder their citizens.