The Meng conundrum
China refuses to believe that Canada’s legal system is independent of government, experts say
The decision released Wednesday in the Meng Wanzhou extradition case had the usual hallmarks of a Canadian judicial ruling: a bone- dry analysis of the law, the facts and how one should be applied to the other.
There were allusions to an 1860 Saskatchewan case and a U. K. House of Lords judgment. As usual, it contained no hint of political interference.
But 8,500 kilometres away in Beijing, the ruling against Meng was likely to be viewed in much different terms — terms that could help dictate how China responds, experts say.
Whatever they might privately believe, the public stance of Chinese Communist Party leaders is that the courts in Canada are much as they are in China: a pliable tool of the central government that can be manipulated when necessary, say China hands.
It means Canada’s federal government has a daunting task ahead in insisting to China that Wednesday’s ruling against Meng was not an official slight, they say.
“Most Chinese see law and politics as intimately interconnected,” said Paul Evans, a University of British Columbia professor. “The idea of a completely independent judiciary is not part of their reality and what they believe in … The line between law and politics is permeable, it’s not firm.”
Indeed, as Justice Heather Holmes readied the judgment on Tuesday in her B.C. Supreme Court chambers, a prominent Chinese official suggested the decision would be the product of the Canadian government, not a lone judge.
“This is a serious political incident that grossly violates the legitimate rights and interests of the Chinese citizen,” said Zhao Lijian, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman. “The Canadian side should correct its mistake, immediately release Ms. Meng and ensure her safe return to China so as to avoid any continuous harm to China- Canada relations.”
In the drawn- out hearing to decide if Meng, the Huawei Technologies CFO and daughter of its founder, can be extradited to the United States on fraud charges, Holmes rejected the executive’s argument that her alleged crime in the U. S. would not be one in Canada — a key prerequisite for extradition.
It is the kind of case that routinely unfolds in Canada. But Meng’s arrest in December 2018 infuriated China and led to what are widely viewed as retaliatory measures, including the imprisoning on vague spying charges of Canadians Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig.
There has also been a steady drumbeat of calls for Canada to simply release Meng, regardless of this country’s extradition treaty with the U. S. and the laws governing how it functions.
In an article published Wednesday, the Communist Party- run Global Times newspaper said Holmes’ ruling meant “Canada has completely surrendered its self- proclaimed judicial and diplomatic independence to U. S. bullying.” The decision, it said, foreshadows the “worst- ever” China- Canada ties.
Even Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who has been generally muted in his criticism of Beijing, said recently it’s “saddening” that Beijing links the impartial legal vetting of the Meng extradition request here with the arbitrary detention of two Canadians in China.
“China doesn’t work quite the same way and ( doesn’t) seem to understand that we do have an independent judiciary,” he said.
Chinese authorities have at least discussed the idea of shielding their own legal system from outside pressures. Canada worked with officials there as recently as 2016 to encourage adoption of independent tribunals, says Guy St.- Jacques, Canada’s ambassador to Beijing at the time.
But he said Chinese authorities seemed anxious mainly to convince Canada to sign an extradition treaty. Ironically, given the current context, Beijing thought such a treaty would speed up return of economic criminals to China and ensure Canada would comply with its requests, not realizing extradition proceedings often take years, said St.-jacques.
“It’s not a very well- informed opinion.”
Meanwhile, Xi seemed to squelch any hopes China would itself adopt the rule of law, stressing in a February 2019 article that the party was supreme and “we must never follow the path of Western ‘constitutionalism,’ ‘separation of powers,’ or ‘judicial independence.’”