Lessons in law from China? No thanks

SAD FOR THE NEXT GENERATION WHO WILL BE PAYING FOR DEFICITS. — MURPHY

On Saturday the Chinese Embassy in Canada issued its latest statement “on the Meng Wanzhou incident and the cases of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor.” This, of course, follows last week’s bungled effort by a group of senescent Canadian worthies to appeal to the prime minister; they wanted him to intercede in Meng’s extradition case on the premise that China would, in return, immediately let Kovrig and Spavor go. The embassy, as is its habit, is complaining of misrepresentation in the press through an unnamed “spokesperson.” In the interests of Chinese-Canadian amity, I propose to take this statement on behalf of the People’s Republic of China seriously.

It has two main parts. In the first part we are reassured that Kovrig and Spavor are, contrary to the claims of those who propose an explicit trade of Meng for the two Michaels, being treated appropriately:

“China is a country with rule of law. Chinese judicial organs handle cases in accordance with law. After due investigation, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor were formally prosecuted by Chinese procuratorial organs. The facts are clear and evidence solid and sufficient. The accusation of socalled ‘arbitrarily’ detaining Canadian citizens is totally groundless. Chinese judicial organs will continue to handle the above cases strictly in accordance with law, and protect the two Canadians’ lawful rights.”

A very natural response to this would be: “Terrific! That’s exactly what Canada’s doing with Meng Wanzhou.” Yet, weirdly, the Chinese government doesn’t seem to be happy with the idea of leaving Canada’s “judicial organs” to do their work, nor does it appear to trust them, as we are expected to trust China’s, to exercise nonpolitical judgment and apply the law impartially.

The statement calls for the immediate release of Meng Wanzhou, but without any promise of a quid pro quo. Meng’s detention, in the Chinese diplomatic view, is the only “arbitrary” one at issue. And in the second part of the press release the embassy, for this reason, seems to firmly rule out any possibility of an exchange:

“The Meng Wanzhou incident is totally different from the cases of the two Canadians in essence. On June 24, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson quoted Michael Kovrig’s wife when answering questions from a reporter about the Meng Wanzhou incident and the cases of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. However, some Canadian media deliberately reported Michael Kovrig’s wife’s remarks as the spokesperson’s statement, and claimed that China linked the Meng Wanzhou incident with the cases of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. This is ill-intentioned, has seriously misled the public and violated professional ethics.”

The theory of the Canadians who want Meng traded for Kovrig and Spavor will be that this is just something China officially has to say. “Behind the scenes,” we can act first, releasing Meng by ministerial fiat and waiting for China to send our people back in return.

So are the 19 signers of the “give them Meng” letter concerned that China is officially contradicting them? Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s immediate response to their letter showed that it had accomplished the opposite of their goal: the prime minister’s strong commitment to Canadian judicial organs makes a trade more difficult for him if he eventually decides it is worth trying. Now we have China saying officially that it shall not feel bound to complete any trade. At a bare minimum, the Chinese government has gone out of its way to make it easier for it to wriggle out of a hostage exchange if we act first. The Chinese Embassy, after all, doesn’t have to churn out this stuff. It could have just remained quiet in the face of a public controversy in their host country, as most diplomats do most of the time.

Maybe Beijing is more content with the existing equilibrium than the “give up Meng” crowd would have us believe. Meng’s bail conditions give her the run of the Lower Mainland of British Columbia between the hours of 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. every day, as long as she returns to her Burrard Street apartment when the curfew sounds. She wears an ankle bracelet for surveillance, is subject to random police checks on her whereabouts and reports to a bail supervisor weekly. Otherwise, she’s free to go about her business — perhaps still performing many of her usual duties on behalf of Huawei — in Canada’s Chinese dreamland.

By contrast, Kovrig and Spavor are being held in small cells with very limited access to consular assistance or communications with the outside world. Canada’s judicial organs, despite Chinese mistrust, have not seen fit to impose such conditions on Meng. Our extradition proceedings are supposed by China to be very political in nature. Political considerations, I think, would suggest that the conditions under which our citizens are being held in China ought to be studied very closely, and then immediately applied to the billionaire princess of Huawei.

But this, mainland Chinese friends, is how the rule of law really works; this is its distinctive signature. In Canada we are not supposed to treat formally accused persons brutally even when it would be to our diplomatic advantage to do so. Or when it would merely be ethically satisfying.

CHINA SAYING

OFFICIALLY THAT IT SHALL NOT FEEL BOUND TO COMPLETE ANY

TRADE.