In the 1970s, U.S. Senator Dick Clark said his country couldn't meddle in South African policy. "But," he added, "I think we ought to meddle in our own." The same could be said of Canada and China today.
Canada's government is not obliged to ignore the Chinese government's human rights record. Canadian families are not obliged to buy their children dangerous toys or use contaminated products. And Canadian companies are not obliged to do business with a country that has a systemic safety problem.
That doesn't mean we should officially break off trade with China, only that we should be discriminating in what we buy. We don't have to shrug off safety concerns as the cost of doing business cheap.
And when it comes down to it, Canada is not obliged to send its athletes to the Olympic Games, either. Nobody wants to see a boycott. But it would be foolish to ignore the leverage potential in the Games, as a way of pushing for political reform in China.
How disappointing to see John Reynolds, the former Conservative member of Parliament, return from a trip to China parroting the Communist party line. Mr. Reynolds praises the economic boom in China and dismisses the very discussion of a boycott as "silly."
Those activists calling for a boycott may be nave, but silly? They are concerned about the harvesting of organs from political prisoners, the occupation of Tibet, the intimidation of Taiwan and the propping up of other authoritarian regimes. None of that is silly.
Mr. Reynolds even echoes every tinpot dictator when he suggests Canada can't comment on human rights until it solves all its native land claims. "Is (China) perfect? No, but is Canada or the U.S. perfect?"
When leftists try to create an equivalence between social problems in the U.S. and Canada, and systematic abuses in authoritarian countries, it undermines their credibility. The same is true of a conservative politician such as John Reynolds who is smart enough to see the difference between a democracy struggling to right historic wrongs, and a totalitarian regime that doesn't want to right them, or acknowledge them.
A string of product-safety problems has families looking at labels these days, as it should. As with human rights problems, it's true that recalls and lawsuits can happen in any country, and do. The difference with China is the official reaction. An authoritarian government's instinct is to cover up and to scapegoat.
The regime just announced a media crackdown, promising severe punishments for journalists who tell lies that "tarnish the nation's image." Given the Chinese government's relativistic attitude toward the truth, that's basically a ban on negative news.
What trading partners need to see from China is the kind of openness that encourages companies to admit mistakes and fix them. In the meantime, Canadian importers have a duty to make sure their products are safe. The outrage of international trading partners could help China improve its safety standards, which would be good for its export economy and for its own people. That form of leverage wouldn't exist if the world weren't trading with China.
Between hard isolationism and spineless enabling, there is a range of ethically and commercially sound behaviours available to Canadian politicians, businesses and consumers.