Boycott Beijing Winter Games?
While the government is pondering over a new approach to dealing with China, the Conservative Party is urging the Liberals to consider a boycott of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics.
The idea was raised on social media by Canada's former senior public servant, Michael Wernick. “Perhaps it is time to start preparing the Canadian public for a boycott of the 2022 Winter Olympics in China,” he said.
Michael Chong, the Conservative foreign affairs critic, agrees.
“China is threatening our citizens and undermining our rights and freedoms with its covert operations in Canada. Everything should be under consideration to defend Canada and Canadians — including a boycott of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics,” he said in an email.
Chong pointed out that it is an option where this country has some leverage. “Canada is a winter sports powerhouse. No Winter Olympics could be a success without Canada's participation,” he said.
The idea received a tepid response from the government.
The department of Canadian Heritage professed impotence when it came to the question of a boycott. “The decision on whether or not to participate in the Olympic and Paralympic games lies with the Canadian Olympic and Paralympic Committee, as they operate independently of the government,” it said in a statement.
A boycott has pros and cons — it would send a clear message to Beijing that Canadians are incensed at their fellow citizens being jailed arbitrarily (Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig are approaching two years in detention), while the Communist Party engages in intimidation and influence-peddling on Canadian soil.
On the other hand, it is unlikely to succeed in securing the release of the two Michaels.
The games were designed to lower international tensions and this would exacerbate them. A boycott would be a symbolic gesture unlikely to shift Chinese foreign policy, while the real victims would be the athletes.
Wernick said he is not sure it is a good idea, especially if Canada was on its own. “Did boycotting Moscow in 1980 make a difference?” he asked.
At the end of the day, a boycott is no substitute for a proper foreign policy, which is something Canada lacks when it comes to China.
François-philippe Champagne, the global affairs minister, said this week that his government is working on a new plan to deal with China because it is not the same country it was four years ago and Canada needs to respond to the “new reality”.
But this reset has been in the works for a year. The delay is said to be related to bureaucratic resistance to a tougher line on China, based on the notion that Xi Jinping is facing internal opposition and will be forced to moderate his foreign policy.
That is wishful thinking. The Economist's Changuan columnist met with a senior official in Beijing earlier this month. “Can the U.S. or the Western world accept or respect the rise of China?” the official asked.
Changuan's conclusion was that the Chinese believe it is their destiny to rise, and so come into conflict with the West. Any rapprochement should be understood for what it is — a bid to buy time while China becomes stronger.
Former U.S. secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, told Bloomberg's New Economy Forum this week that president-elect Joe Biden should move quickly to restore a relationship with China or risk a crisis that could escalate into military conflict. Unless there is some form of co-operative action, the world will slide into a catastrophe comparable with World War One, he said.
The credulous response is that China will never go to war because its export dependent economy is interwoven with those of its potential adversaries.
Re-reading the Guns of August, Barbara Tuchman's masterful account of the opening months of World War One, is a reminder that the same was said then, an assumption that proved to be incorrect. As Helmuth von Moltke, the chief of the German General Staff said when warned of the economic consequences: “I am a soldier, not an economist.”
Fortunately, the Chinese do not appear inclined to risk everything in an allor- nothing clash. Historically, Chinese diplomacy has relied on the patient accumulation of advantage.
The West, i ncluding Canada, should use that inclination to come up with a coherent China policy that counters the subtle, multi-faceted nature of the Communist Party's assertiveness.
A cyberthreat assessment by the Communications Security Establishment, Canada's electronic spy agency, warned on Wednesday of state sponsored efforts to disrupt this country's critical infrastructure such as its electricity supply.
It also cautioned that online foreign influence campaigns were not limited to political events like elections and represented the “new normal”.
Last week, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service told the Globe and Mail that undercover Chinese state security officials are attempting to silence critics here, including through threats of retribution against families still in China.
The new China policy, when it emerges, should explicitly recognize the values war we are engaged in with Beijing; bring in a watchdog body to counter Chinese influence; and, introduce new rules to force influential people to register payment from foreign governments, including China — a long overdue reform that would match disclosure requirements in the United States.
China's paramount leader in the 1980s Deng Xiaoping said China should observe carefully, secure its position, cope with affairs calmly and bide its time.
Canada and its allies have to play China at its own game — be firm and relentless in pursuit of their democratic strategic interests, just as Australia and Japan have been in the defence pact signed this week.
At the same time, we should engage where interests overlap and avoid being unnecessarily provocative.
An Olympic boycott would be counter-productive from that perspective.