Our Klamath Basin
Upholding rural Americans' rights to grow food,
own property, and caretake our wildlife and natural resources.
Planned and Carried Out?
Commentary by Rudy Hiley, Tulelake, for KBC News 5/21/2020
Ottawa blocks Chinese takeover of Aecon on
Vision for the Klamath Basin was
the title of Andy Kerr’s July
1993 presentation to the Tulelake Rotary.It
threatened a future in which the entire paradigm of agriculture
in the Klamath Basin would be upset and forever changed.Basin
irrigators where ridiculed, marginalized and it
was foretold that in the end they would become isolated.Interestingly,
four dams on the Klamath River have been defined and demeaned in
much the same Saul Alinski fashion.
It was conveyed that a prejudicial if
not bigoted perception already exists wherein many urban voters
look upon us, if not rural people in general as intolerant,
obsolete, potentially paranoid, deniers and out of step with
that it is believed that European style farming as practiced in
the Klamath Basin is environmentally unsound.Furthermore,
that many of that same constituency are either ambivalent
towards or see no value in the Basin agriculture community or
its future; regardless of how hard they work or even what they
actually provide or accomplish.Because
of changing societal values the audience was left to consider
that it didn’t matter if Klamath agriculture resists, surrenders
or cooperates, in the end Basin agriculture would never be the
Shockingly and tragically those
threats continue to be in large part realized and materialized.It
is doubtful that Klamath irrigators would have been abandoned
and left to face the ruinous restriction of irrigation water
deliveries, overwhelming stress, alienation and legal expenses
without the outrageously dubious underlying assertion that the
naturally putrid Klamath Lake system historically and
consistently remained at a near clear and full level prior to
the arrival of Europeans and their agricultural practices.
So it would seem plausible that there
had to have been at least some form of cooperation ongoing
between private, public (federal, state and local etc.
government), various organizations, sovereign nations and
and entities as such acting across state lines in order to keep
dark, dubious and devastating contentions in play against U.S.
citizens. The most basic honest human and scientific inquiry,
thought and historical research (if allowed) should have easily
refuted such assertions or at the very least reduced them
rightfully to the status of wild unproven theory.
It is conceivable then that
cooperation and consensus (if it, in fact, exists or existed)
may well have had the illegal and devastating consequence of
Restraining Basin Commerce.One
would think that such restraint, accomplished across
state lines, with negative intent while minimizing
whistleblower complaints and conflicting scientific input should
have invited a RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
is also the ever-present probability of pursuing civil RICO
should be noted that Civil RICO actions can carry triple damage
goes without saying that the resultant injury, harm, loss and
damage to United States citizens, businesses etc. and their
futures could easily approach billions of dollars.
The nature of actions pointed toward
the restriction of irrigation water flows have so far been
purportedly (at least in part) conducted in the name of
fulfilling Native American hunting and gathering rights as well
as endangered or threatened species protection.If
irrigation curtailment and its resultant severe harm to citizens
of the U.S. were clearly, truly, honorably and with honest
balance undertaken in concert with sound science while assuring
the protection of constitutional rights, that would be one
on the other hand a constitutional and civil rights tragedy is
being perpetrated for incursive etc. reasons, that would be an
entirely different matter.Especially
if those involved were acting above and outside of their
governmental power and authority. An
internet look helps to nicely
spell out what is being sacrificed in the Klamath Basin, by whom
and by what means:
A pattern has emerged which can only
be invisible if one chooses not to see it.Basin
agriculture has been threatened and attacked on many fronts,
most of which would appear to seek to deprive the agricultural
community and those associated of those things necessary to
sustain and continue in the ownership, use and enjoyment of
their lives and property.All
of this with negligible positive species and restoration
Abraham Lincoln once said: “… if
destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and
finisher. As a nation of free men, we will live forever or die
by suicide”. That
has turned out to be quite an intuitive prediction indeed.
There is a choice
can accept the newest symbolic assurance
of a happy, balanced, fair and water-rich future which of
course includes the decimation of four Klamath River dams.That
may be worth considering if it wasn’t for the reality that some
involved or those with abusive litigation potential most likely won’t
rest until complete control of all Klamath Basin waters is
wrestled away from Basin agriculture.Then
there was the logging industry relief related bipartisan Herger-Feinstein
Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery (and Economic Stability)
Act and Agreement
(settlement) which was ratified by congress yet quickly
it turned out weaponized Spotted Owl issues were involved and
some of those with actual decision making collaborative
power in the issues simply did not want any logging to take
so the concerned economy continued to be Restrained. The
word “recovery” says it all. Some
appeared to simply seek recovery from human influence.
I believe that Dave Muerer, currently
of the Klamath River Renewal Corporation, should have been
pretty well informed about the failures
of that particular “collaborative agreement”. But
maybe it is possible that he could have actually worked
for Congressman Herger yet still know nothing about that.Hopefully
when he worked toward dam removal with the Canadian concern AECON
Corporation he was unaware that they were being absorbed by the
Chinese conglomerate known as CCCI, an arm of the Chinese
government (see: Canada Blocks AECON Sale to China).Thank God
that the Canadian government was awake enough to shoot that
over national security concerns. Paying one of our military
adversaries to take our dams out would be unique indeed.
So maybe the Klamath victims should seek another form of
settlement instead, through civil RICO. Something needs to be
done and soon since out of control governments have been known
to possess the power necessary to bring about massive levels of
starvation, deprivations, destruction and death; for albeit
noble and so-called sustainable reasons.
Ottawa blocks Chinese takeover of Aecon on
China's ambassador to Canada has
said Canada is being too 'sensitive' about Chinese capital flows
into Canada, and likened the national security review to 'looney'
OTTAWA — The federal government has rejected the $1.5-billion
sale of Aecon Group Inc. to a state-backed Chinese buyer,
effectively bowing to fierce opposition to the deal as Canada
navigates sensitive trade talks with the U.S.
In a brief statement seen by the National Post Wednesday,
Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development Navdeep
Bains said Ottawa would block the deal for security reasons,
adding that Canada is “open to international investment that
creates jobs and increases prosperity, but not at the expense of
national security.” The decision was first reported by Bloomberg
In a statement Wednesday evening, the Toronto-based firm said it
was disappointed with the government’s decision.
“Aecon is and will continue to be a leading player in the
Canadian construction and infrastructure market,” said John
Beck, Aecon’s president and CEO.
“Through our proposed transaction with CCCI, we had outlined a
vision in which Aecon would be better able to compete with the
many large global construction companies actively working in
Aecon shares plunged more than 13 per cent to trade at $14.93
A representative of CCCI, which is a subsidiary of China
Communications Construction Company Ltd. (CCCC), said Wednesday
that it had no immediate comment about Ottawa’s decision to
block the takeover.
China’s embassy in Ottawa responded to Wednesday’s move by
warning it wasn’t good for the countries’ business relationship
and that it would “seriously undermine the confidence” of
The decision comes after months of intense opposition to the
transaction by Members of Parliament, business groups and
domestic construction companies, who argued the deal could give
China access to sensitive Canadian IP, and would make local
firms less competitive in future project bids. Aecon has
contracts to carry out refurbishment and maintenance work on
various nuclear facilities, as well as build and maintain
several telecommunications lines.
The financial holding division of China Communications
Construction Co., Ltd. (CCCC) proposed to buy the Canadian
construction firm last year. The Chinese state-owned enterprise
is 64 per cent owned by the Chinese government.
China observers have said that state-owned enterprises
effectively operate as an arm of the Chinese government,
exposing Canada to potential risks if given access to sensitive
“SOEs form an integral part of China’s national strategy for
global expansion,” Duanjie Chen, a senior fellow at the
Macdonald-Laurier Institute, said at a recent event in Ottawa.
“That is a major reason why China has created monstrous SOEs
through internal mergers in the first place.”
In February, Ottawa launched a full-scale national security
review of the transaction. Such probes investigate foreign-led
transactions based on whether it will impact Canada’s defence
capabilities or create the potential for proprietary
technologies to be transferred outside of Canada.
Aecon, for its part, has maintained that its contracts only
involve low-level maintenance and construction work, and don’t
involve access to classified IP. It has also rejected claims
that Chinese state-backed firms would make local companies
uncompetitive, arguing that U.S., South Korean and European
conglomerates already have a heavy footprint in the Canadian
Ottawa’s rejection comes as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau looks
to forge trade ties with China, and as Canada continues to
navigate sensitive talks with the U.S. around the North American
Free Trade Agreement.
U.S. officials have been critical of Trudeau’s approval of
Chinese state-backed purchases of Canadian technology companies
in the past, including the 2017 purchase of Norsat International
Inc. by Chinese firm Hytera Communications Corp., Ltd., a
privately held company 52-per cent-owned owned by Chinese
billionaire Chen Qingzhou.
Norsat had contracts with U.S. Department of Defence, the U.S.
Marine Corps, the U.S. Army, aircraft manufacturer Boeing, NATO,
Ireland’s Department of Defence, and others. Trudeau also
approved the takeover of Montreal-based ITF Technologies, a
fibre-laser technology company, by Hong Kong based O-Net
Communications in March 2017, reversing a decision by the former
prime minister to block the deal.
U.S. officials were less critical of the Aecon acquisition by
CCCC, but had suggested a full-scale review was necessary. Aecon
has several contracts to install and maintain various
telecommunications lines with Bell Canada, some of which
traverse the Canada-U.S. border.
“We do have shared infrastructure that needs to be looked at,”
said Micheal Wessel, the commissioner of the U.S.-China Economic
and Security Review Commission who said he was not speaking on
behalf of the government body.
Chinese ambassador to Canada Lu Shaye had said Canada is being
too “sensitive” about Chinese capital flows into Canada, and
likened the national security review to “looney” behaviour by
Lu has said in past media interviews that China would accept a
rejection of the deal, but said it would expect from Canada a
detailed rationale for the decision. The country has long argued
that China unfairly faces a deeper level of scrutiny in foreign
takeovers than its peers.
“We just hope the Canadian side could adopt the same standard
for Chinese companies compared with other foreign companies,” Lu
Trudeau failed to kick off official trade talks with China
during a recent trip to Beijing, after trying to include various
social, environmental and gender-based stipulations into the
talks. China rejected those clauses outright and suggested
Canada stick with economic and trade-based discussions.
Shares of Aecon, which helped build Toronto’s iconic CN Tower,
declined in recent weeks to the lowest since the deal was
announced in October on concern that it would be blocked.
Aecon’s construction work includes several sectors that could
impact national security, including building out the nation’s
Aecon closed at $17.34 in Toronto trading Wednesday, 14 per cent
below the $20.27 a share offer from CCCC International Holding
Ltd. to acquire the construction firm. Before the recent
declines, there was widespread speculation in Canada that the
deal might be approved as Trudeau sought warmer ties with China.
With files from Bloomberg News and The Canadian Press
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
section 107, any copyrighted material
herein is distributed without profit or
payment to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving this
information for non-profit research and
educational purposes only. For more
information go to: