No. Case has nothing to do with rule of law
The arrest of Huawei’s CFO, Meng Wanzhou, by Canadian authorities at the request of Washington has caused a deepening diplomatic crisis between Canada and China.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his ministers have insisted that Canada follows the rule of law and the judicial process will run its course without political interference.
Meanwhile, Canada is facing mounting pressure from Beijing as two Canadians are being held in China on unspecified violation of national security charges and another is one appealing his death sentence on charges of drug trafficking.
Now that the U.S. official extradition request is in place, it is time for Canada to have a clear look at the nature of the case and assert its judicial independence by not surrendering Meng to the U.S.
First, as former foreign minister John Manley pointed out, this case has nothing to do with the rule of law. It is Washington using Canada in abusing the extradition process between the two countries.
There are many corporate misconducts in global business transactions and most of them are dealt with through civil lawsuits.
Rarely is a senior executive of a company singled out to be responsible, let alone being personally charged, in a criminal proceeding.
When it comes to violations of U.S. sanctions against Iran by Chinese enterprises, the U.S. Department of Commerce litigated against a large Chinese telecommunications firm ZTE through a civil procedure last year and the two sides were able to reach an agreement.
Instead of following the same practice, the U.S. Department of Justice picked up the fight with a criminal procedure against Meng.
It is unprecedented, and the evidence associated with such a dramatic escalation so far looks weak.
Second, it is no secret that the arrest and extradition request of Meng is the result of a long U.S. effort in trying to find out if Huawei, through its presence in the U.S. market, is a threat to its national security.
It is the U.S. National Security Agency that hacked into the Huawei system and left backdoors to spy on its corporate activities.
Even without clear conclusions, the U.S. government has banned Huawei in the U.S. and is pressing its allies, including Canada, to do the same, especially in the next-generation 5G networks.
Meng’s case cannot be separated from the fact that Huawei is not only perceived as a national security threat but also a competitor to the U.S. domination in one of the most critical high-tech areas.
Third, President Donald Trump has openly discussed the Meng case not as a pure legal procedure but an explicit bargaining tool in the ongoing U.S.-China trade dispute.
He indicated that if the U.S. got a better deal with China, then he would intervene in the case.
Although U.S. Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross stated that the extradition of Meng is separate from the U.S.-China trade talks, Trump has not given such a commitment and he is the only person who has the authority to intervene.
All of the above points to one critical condition that the extradition request shall be rejected by Canada: Strong evidence that Meng is being sought by the U.S. for “a political offence or an offence of a political character.” (Extradition Act 46(1)[c])
If the Canadian judicial process reaches such a conclusion, it will not be a result of caving into the Chinese demand, but a proclamation of its own independence.
The United States then will learn a lesson that it should not subject its bilateral extradition arrangement with Canada to great power politics.
The right path to address the issue of Huawei as a security threat, or as a high-tech competitor, is for Canada and the U.S. to engage in close strategic and security consultations and reach an agreement as to whether Huawei should be banned from Canada’s 5G networks.