Canada mustn’t give in to Beijing’s hostage-takers
It can’t come as a surprise to anyone that the family of Michael Kovrig is making every possible effort to free him from the brutish hands of the Chinese government.
Kovrig has been locked away in a Chinese jail for more than 500 days. The case against him is plainly political, an attempt by Beijing’s one-party state to gain the release of Meng Wanzhou, a well- connected corporate executive who faces extradition to the U. S. on allegations of fraud. Meng has luxuriated in a Vancouver mansion while Kovrig is held in a tiny cell and subjected to repeated interrogations on spurious accusations invented as an excuse to extend the state- imposed abuse. On Friday Beijing indicated it would bring formal charges of espionage against Kovrig and fellow Canadian Michael Spavor. Given the crooked nature of the Chinese justice system, the chances of acquittal barely exist.
Kovrig’s family has responded by pleading with Ottawa to gain his freedom, even if it means conceding to the extortion practiced by Beijing. Vina Nadjibulla, who is separated from Kovrig but who has fought for his release, argued in interviews that the federal government has the ability to obtain his freedom. All it has to do is drop the case against Meng. Bennett Kovrig, Michael’s father, charged that failure to do so “is tantamount to a historic betrayal.” The family has gained an opinion from a prominent lawyer attesting that it is, indeed, within the power of the government to give in to China’s demands. A new pair of voices has been added to an existing cabal of once- prominent Liberals to argue that China should have its way: Allan Rock and Louise Arbour, one a former justice minister, the other a former supreme court justice, attest that, yes, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is fully empowered to back down in the face of Chinese pressure.
Rock, in what must be among the most bizarre proclamations of someone previously empowered with upholding the law, told the Globe and Mail that Canada needs “a full debate based on a legitimate foundation of facts, rather than an incantation of rubrics, like ‘rule of law ‘ and the ‘ independence of the courts’ and the ‘sanctity of the judiciary.’ “
Phew. Rock, Arbour and others in their camp date their prominence to the government of former prime minister Jean Chrétien, whose enthusiasm for doing business with China was a hallmark of his government. Reports indicated Chrétien himself suggested Ottawa abandon the extradition case a year ago, and offered to speed off to China as a special envoy to get it done. Evidently “disgrace” is a word that doesn’t translate well in the Chrétien household.
On Wednesday the CBC revealed an additional group of worthies, including a few Conservatives and former New Democratic Party leader Ed Broadbent, had fired off a letter to Trudeau urging him to cave to China’s demands pronto. The theory appears to be that poor naive Ottawa was tricked by that wily operator, Donald Trump, into seizing Meng and bearing the brunt of China’s outrage. Someone as street smart as Chrétien, that old petit gars de Shawinigan, would never have fallen for that trap, we are supposed to believe. Capitulating to Beijing would thus entail no humiliation, but would be a thumb in the eye of that horrible U. S. president. Robert Fowler, a former hostage himself, told the CBC: “It’s not a good idea to pay ransom, [ but] that said, you do what you’ve got to do to look after your people.” Which presumably includes being prepared to pay next time, too, and the time after that, and the time after that …
Again, you can’t blame Kovrig’s family for doing all it can to help him, but the idea that Canada’s government should legitimize the practice of hostage diplomacy by bowing to the dictates of a goonish Communist regime is beyond reprehensible. Trudeau should dismiss it out of hand and would be absolutely correct to do so. There is one absolute certainty to the practice of hostage- taking: giving in to it is to ensure further hostages will be taken. Should Beijing gets what it wants in the matter of Meng Wanzhou, it will know that future disputes can easily be settled via the same practice. Release Meng on this basis, and no Canadian in China is safe. To be sure, their safety is already in question. There is not a Canadian passport- holder in China today who can be certain they won’t be seized arbitrarily and jailed indefinitely over some political demand dreamt up by Beijing. The more aggressive China’s government shows itself, the more dangerous it becomes. Just recently it announced it would impose a new national security law on Hong Kong, home to 300,000 Canadians, which would give it the power to set up an office, collect intelligence and appoint judges in the interests of “national security.”
It is unfathomable why so many one- time notables would think it was a good idea to subvert Canada’s interests to those of an unelected regime that, since the moment it gained power, has amply demonstrated its utter contempt for the rights and values on which Canada is based. The nightmare to which Kovrig and Spavor have been subjected is horrific; they are innocent victims of a callous and cynical Chinese system employing backward and uncivilized practices that only work to confirm the utter corruption of the system itself. The rule of law, and independence of the courts are not “rubrics” to be disdained as Allan Rock appears to believe, but the basis on which Canadians can be sure they won’t be seized and locked up without cause or justification, as is so easily done in China.
Every decent Canadian has to sympathize with the two Michaels and their families, and hope against hope that a principled solution is found. But for others to argue Ottawa should capitulate to the obnoxious demands of an odious state is repugnant to everything Canada is meant to represent, and would put the freedom of many more innocent Canadians at risk.