Not the usual diplomatic prattle
I HAVE ENA BLED WHITE PRIVILEGE, EVEN AS A PERSON OF COLOUR. — ELAINE LUI
As an intervention from grandees go, it was as grand as it gets. Writing to Justin Trudeau advising, in effect, a prisoner swap to obtain the release of the “two Michaels” whom China is holding hostage and subjecting to torture, the letter from 19 eminences of Canada’s foreign- policy establishment included so many Order of Canada snowflakes that the prime minister could have used it to keep the beer cold at his St- Jean- Baptiste barbecue.
There was one former attorney general of Canada, two former ambassadors to the United States, three former foreign ministers, four former UN ambassadors, five former MPS, and a partridge — that would be, inexplicably, Don Newman of the CBC — in a pear tree.
All that was missing was the former prime ministers, but Jean Chrétien and Brian Mulroney had long ago made their views public about cutting a deal to spring Meng Wanzhou. As for Joe Clark, the special envoy appointed to obtain Canada’s UN Security Council seat, his latest failure may have gotten him a wellearned 14-day self-isolation.
A few weeks back I wrote of Canada’s supine Sino-dipl omacy, entrenched for nearly a half century, where nothing China could do — even the Tiananmen massacre — would be permitted to disrupt business as usual. If I might, to be a bit grand myself, quote my own lines:
“It’s important to note that this bipartisan consensus — Mulroney and Chrétien — in favour of practical appeasement of China in all respects had near universal support in Canada’s corporate, media and diplomatic class. Nine of 10 premiers went along (on the 1994 Team Canada mission). When Stephen Harper tried to modestly roll back Canadian enthusiasm for the Chinese communist regime, he earned the opprobrium of that class in spades.”
Who knew that a few weeks later they would assemble for a class photo? But, if I might suggest an alternate reading of the letter from the grandees, the text of capitulation may contain a more important subtext of change on the China file.
The counsels of capitulation are themselves unremarkable, even if delivered this time in a remarkable way. With increasing volume, the grandees have been advocating that course on Meng for more than a year. What they once whispered they are shouting.
But their shouting is different than it has been for the past five decades. The argument the grandees put forth is not the usual diplomatic prattle that engaging China will lead to reform, making money in China will lead to liberty and human rights, that China has to be appreciated for its distinctive approach as an ancient and noble civilization, etc.
The argument this time around is that as long as China is torturing the two Michaels, Canada must be muted in its criticism of China, for example, over incarcerating a million Muslims in concentration camps, suspending democratic liberties in Hong Kong and, incidentally, unleashing a deadly pandemic on the world through negligence, corruption and deceit.
The remedy is a) to spring Meng to make the Chinese communist regime l ess angry with us, so that b) it will stop torturing and release the two Michaels, in order that c) Canada, no longer worried about reprisals against the hostages, can abandon the foreign policy conducted by those very grandees for decades in order to be more critical of Chinese outrages. As my colleague Chris Selley aptly summarized it: “First, surrender. Then victory!”
The novelty lies not only in the strategy, but in the language and the approach of the grandees.
Before Wuhan, before Hong Kong, before Uyghur concentration camps — could anyone imagine getting the snowflakes to sign on to a declaration about China that would charge it with “bullying” and “blackmail”? That the grandees would characterize the regime’s methods as “repugnant” and indicate that the Chinese communists are of the sort that would take our citizens hostage again anyway?
The grandees now call for “boldness and clarity” in Sino- Canadian relations. Meekness and ambiguity have been the default positions to date. The grandees lament that Canada has been offering criticism in “measured tones” to avoid further provoking China. The only thing more measured that the grandees’ tones on China until now has been their bespoke suits.
Challenge, not capitulation, is the real significance of the grandees letter, and it is another ( small) indication that China’s duplicity on the coronavirus and brutality against the Uyghurs and Hong Kong is finally bringing about a shift in how the world deals with China. That’s welcome. A global correction on China, long overdue, is in the offing.