Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Moving-to-Blue Profile picture
@GenevaTradeLaw
Aug 19, 2019 • 10 tweets • 5 min read • Read on X
@BaldingsWorld Personal story involving mainland Chinese students (and their professor), trade law, and Chinese nationalism. Only a data point.

Over dinner, Chinese student studying trade law at a Western European university asked me: "Why is the West picking on China?" 1/
@BaldingsWorld When asked her to clarify what she meant, she and her collegue (and the professor, also Chinese), pointed to China's economic miracle and complained that the "West" wanted to impose "its values" and economic structures on China. 2/
@BaldingsWorld Long conversation ensued.

I specifically pointed to China's commitments in its WTO Accession Protocol (for example, an independent judiciary), as well as the WTO obligations itself: on transparency, a functioning market economy and so on. 3/

nytimes.com/2017/01/18/wor…
@BaldingsWorld There was not a whole lot of argument on the other side, other than the usual "China has different values" and "Western capitalism does not work in China" and so on. The crowning argument-at which point I ended the conversation-was, "Anyway, I LOVE MY COUNTRY." 4/
@BaldingsWorld The prof, who had begin similarly strident, was taken aback by this. After dinner, he said that more and more students coming out of China have a similar *argumentative disposition*: any criticism of China is existential; "love of country" overrides rational discourse. 5/
@BaldingsWorld My adolescence was spent battling revolutionary dogma even as I saw close friends succumb to it; I know how it works. External pressure-even rational argument-reinforces the under-siege mentality rather than shedding light on the contradictions of the dogma. 6/
@BaldingsWorld So my bet would be that they really mean it. Does not bode well.

/fin
@BaldingsWorld *begun

aaargh
@BaldingsWorld P.s. I avoid the term "brainwashed" because the line of thinking is not limited to Chinese students. Even the @ft sometimes falls victim to the "puw wittow China oppressed by neoliberal" narrative.

@BaldingsWorld @FT P.p.s. Some additional context on China and the WTO (this is the substance of at least part of the conversation with the Chinese student).

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Moving-to-Blue

Moving-to-Blue Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @GenevaTradeLaw

Moving-to-Blue Profile picture
Feb 19
I'll bite.

Trade lawyer and trade law prof here. I've been doing this stuff for 32 years. Mr. Leslie really should not use his platform to mouth banalities about things he knows - based on this Xit - exactly zero about.

For the Nth time, here is an explainer. 1/
Let me first address the two standard talking points. For that, let's take the latest two global tariff measures announced by the US President.

"Global? I thought they were aimed at fentanyl and our defence spending?"

Yes global. And they're not. 2/

blg.com/en/insights/pe…Image
I mean this is aside from the fact that there is no border security issue. And that at no other point in the history of any country has anyone used a threat of economic destruction to leverage defence spending. To meet targets set by an alliance Prez Trump disdains. 3/
Read 12 tweets
Moving-to-Blue Profile picture
Feb 16
I'll bite.

Trade lawyer and former Canadian trade commissioner here.

Every Canadian government since at least 1959 has tried to expand and diversify trade outside of the US. This is why we are active in multilateral institutions like the WTO. And we we've been negotiating 1/
free trade agreements all around the world - some taking decades to continue.

In trade, as in life, location counts for a lot. So does a common language (largely). So do harmonized regulations (see location, above). So does a rich market with an insatiable appetite. (Ibid.) 2/
If you're in Québec and have a widget to sell, Maine is right next door; BC is a literal continent away; Europe an Ocean (you get the drift).

In the intro trade course, we constantly remind students that *governments* don't trade, private entities do. What government can do 3/
Read 7 tweets
Moving-to-Blue Profile picture
Feb 2
I'll bite. And this time I'll avoid spicy language.

"Canadians" already know the truth. The tariffs are an unprovoked act of economic war.

This question - and the last sentence - is in extreme, unmitigated, undiluted bad faith.

1. Our entire trade establishment has been 1/
quietly talking to their US counterparts, Senators, Reps, and governors since the Trump announcement. Ministers have been in DC. (And, attempting public diplomacy, Premiers have been on American news channels.)

This is all standard in bilateral relations. And you'd know it 2/
if you actually know anything about how trade, diplomacy, or our own government works. Or if you just picked up a real newspaper at any time.

2. Negotiate on what? With whom?

The Commerce Secretary tells you that the US is using tariffs as a matter of industrial policy. 3/ Image
Image
Image
Image
Read 13 tweets
Moving-to-Blue Profile picture
Jan 31
Trade lawyer and former Canadian trade diplomat here.

No one - not one person - in the federal government has the slightest interest in a trade war.

This is a calumny of the highest order, uttered by a nepo-baby with scant knowledge of recent history or politics. 1/
In 2018, President Trump threatened to destroy Canada's economy because he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA, the deal Mr. Mulroney's father arranged with the US and Mexico.

He imposed illegal tariffs on Canadian imports. We hit back. No one wanted a trade war back then. 2/ Image
We then proceeded to negotiate the CUSMA. Mr. Trump praised the new agreement he had signed to high heaven. And immediately violated the agreement he had just negotiated. This is right before Mr. Trump attempted a coup by sending a mob to hang his own VP; we were spared that. 3/ Image
Read 9 tweets
Moving-to-Blue Profile picture
Jan 27
I'll bite.

My first case as a junior trade lawyer at Canada's trade ministry was the "Supply Management" case under the NAFTA. Perhaps more than most trade lawyers in Canada, I'm aware of our "protectionist policies."

I then spent four years litigating the Softwood cases. 1/
You want to talk about "complaints"? Look up "Byrd Amendment" in the Softwood context. Or COOL, in agricultural trade matters. Perhaps the US's sugar tariffs (ask Mexico about them).

Point is, we have trade agreements - multilateral or bilateral - and institutions and dispute 2/
settlement mechanisms since *1947* to address those "complaints". We entered into the Canada-US FTA, and then the NAFTA, to put a framework around those complaints. In the process, we paid a heavy price in industrial jobs - for long-term returns.

Then comes Mr. Trump. 3/
Read 19 tweets
Moving-to-Blue Profile picture
Jun 20, 2024
Hear ye, hear ye!

The Ontario Superior Court is in session. We have a decision in Dong v. Global.

It's not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning in a deeply disturbing and shameful episode of Canadian journalism. 1/
This is not a ruling on the underlying allegation that Global defamed Dong. Rather, it's a threshold ruling; but an important one.

In Ontario, you can't sue to shut people up on matters of public importance. This is a critical principle, essential for the free flow of debate. 2/ Image
There's no question that Global's, er, "reporting" was a matter of expression. Bad expression badly expressed, but expression nonetheless.

But, the plaintiff can try to show that there are *grounds to believe* that the case has no merit and the defendant has no defence. And, 3/ Image
Read 42 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

Send Email!

:(