How not to conduct foreign policy
Aformer leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada. A former Conservative foreign minister. Two former Liberal foreign ministers. Four former Canadian ambassadors to the United Nations, under Liberal and Tory governments. Two former Canadian ambassadors to the United States, under Liberal and Tory governments. A former Supreme Court justice. A former Liberal justice minister. A former Conservative senator. A flock of name- brand diplomats. Former CBC host Don Newman, for some reason.
This is the panoply of 19 elite opinion- makers that gathered in the Laurentian Boardroom at an online hotel and drafted a letter, released Wednesday.
It called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to intervene in the extradition process, set Huawei CFO Meng Wanzhou free, and thereby secure the release of Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor.
China, last seen denying the two men’s detention had anything to do with Meng, had changed its tune just hours earlier on Wednesday: Freeing her might “open up space for resolution to the situation of the two Canadians,” foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian said.
And who stands in the way? A prime minister who was perfectly happy to stick his thumb on the scales of justice to save a cherished member of Quebec Inc. from the indignity of prosecution for rather flamboyant alleged corporate malfeasance in and concerning Gadhafi-era Libya (or to “save jobs,” if you prefer, although it emerged no one in Justin Trudeau’s government had bothered to inquire how many jobs might actually be lost if SNCLavalin were convicted).
You can hardly blame China for noting the precedent. And it’s sorely fitting that the Gang of 19 addressed their letter to Trudeau rather than to the fellow who would actually have to give the order: Justice Minister David Lametti. We all know who calls the shots in that particular relationship. Perhaps it’s best we just admit it.
If there is a bright side to this horrible situation, it’s that Trudeau seems more willing to stand up to Beijing than he was to Quebec public opinion, or whatever else on Earth it was that motivated him to needlessly create a hot gigantic mess out of the SNC- Lavalin affair. “If countries around the world, including China, realize that by arbitrarily arresting random Canadians, they can get what they want out of Canada politically, well that makes an awful lot more Canadians who travel around the world vulnerable to that kind of pressure,” Trudeau told reporters on Thursday.
That’s just common sense, of the sort you might impart to a toddler: “If you put your hand on a hot stove, you’re going to get burned.” It’s somewhat odd to see Trudeau, who isn’t known and doesn’t want to be known as a hard nut, standing in opposition to a group of bigname foreign- policy worthies spanning what passes for an ideological spectrum in this country. But as my colleague John Ivison notes, Trudeau is developing a reputation for not playing ball with ( non- corporate) hostage- takers: He refused to parley with the Filipino jihadis holding Canadian businessman Robert Hall, who was eventually beheaded. By contrast, there is compelling evidence that Stephen Harper’s government paid in cash, in prisoner swaps, or both, for the release of diplomat Robert Fowler in Niger.
Fowler, perhaps unsurprisingly, is one of the China letter’s signatories.
Would Trudeau behave differently in the case of a government official taken hostage? It’s impossible to know. Canadian foreign policy is not something that is easily predicted or imagined in advance. That’s because it’s very difficult for a country of 30 million, unwilling to spend much to make a difference in the world, to dictate a consistent and coherent foreign policy.
Former Liberal justice minister and UN ambassador Allan Rock, a signatory to the China letter — to absolutely no one’s surprise, surely — published an interesting op- ed at Policy Options this week with former Liberal immigration minister Sergio Marchi. They proposed a concerted reaction to Canada’s failed bid for a seat on the UN Security Council.
“Let’s regroup, conduct a frank assessment of our place in the world, and address whatever frailties we find in Canada’s policies and practices,” Rock and Marchi proposed. “We suggest that ( task) be assigned to an allparty parliamentary committee, of both the House of Commons and the Senate, created for the purpose.”
At first blush, it seems rather Pollyannaish: Conservative foreign policy experts and Liberal policy experts seeking common ground? Madness! But as the China letter rather brilliantly demonstrates, Canadian foreign policy is far less defined by the government of the day than it is by purely situational decision-making. And it is publicly justified less on any ideological or philosophical grounds than it is with self- righteous bafflegab — or in the case of ransoming Fowler, with outright denial.
A perfect example: the Gang of 19 want us to believe that releasing Meng and bringing the Michaels home would “untie Canada’s hands at a time when the Canadian government must be fully free to redefine its strategic approach to China, and take the tough steps needed to protect and advance our own interests.” First surrender, then victory! It’s bonkers. Taken together, Canada’s UN smackdown and its perennially untethered position on China, with two high-profile Canadian lives at stake, could not provide a better occasion to grab this country’s foreign policy by the scruff of the neck and give it a violent rethink.