Governments telling very different stories
China denies Canadians’ release was connected to dropping of Meng case
OTTAWA—It was a “highly choreographed” affair, the parallel returns of Meng Wanzhou to China and the long-awaited homecoming of the two Michaels — Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor — to Canada.
But Canada, the United States and China all deny there was any deal or negotiation to liberate the two Canadian detainees in return for the release of Huawei’s chief financial officer.
And on Monday, governments in the East and West told very different stories of how and why it all came about.
The U.S. and Canada insisted that the decision to release the two men was reached by the Chinese authorities in the face of unrelenting pressure by Canadian, American and international allies, including U.S. President Joe Biden, who opposed China’s “arbitrary detention” of them.
In the Chinese version, the two Canadian detainees sought bail “for medical reasons.”
A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said they “confessed to their crimes” and were released on bail after an examination by Chinese medical authorities, a guarantee put up by Canada’s ambassador to China, Dominic Barton, and after a court order gave the green light. Hua Chunying warned national security charges could be pursued if the men fail to “abide” by the bail ruling.
In an interview with the Star, Kirsten Hillman, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, acknowledged there was a “highly choreographed” arrangement to whisk Kovrig and Spavor out of China once it was clear that Meng’s defence lawyers were poised to reach a plea deal — a deferred prosecution agreement — with the U.S. Department of Justice.
“Those stars started to align in the past month,” she said. “It wasn’t clear that it was going to succeed, but it was clear that ... something had shifted, and that there may be an opportunity here.”
Hillman, who had been deeply involved in efforts over two years to pressure China for the Canadians’ release, said the Chinese government “decided” to act when it was clear Meng’s talks with the U.S. were “advancing, and under this pressure that had been mounting” by Canada, its embassy in Beijing, and allies around the world. “China, at some point … came to the decision that they wanted to put this behind them.”
She declined to comment on China’s claim that the Canadians were released for health reasons. “China made a decision, right? China decided to detain them, China decided to let them go,” she said.
“Their motivations are their motivations, and I think people are drawing conclusions from the facts here.”
Neither Kovrig nor his family were giving interviews Monday. Aside from looking pale, he and Spavor appeared strong as they came down the stairs of a government jet in Calgary on Saturday morning, and a Canadian official told the Star they appeared “remarkably” strong and resilient.
In Washington, White House press secretary Jen Psaki insisted that there was “no negotiation” between China and the Biden administration, and that Meng’s release was an independently made “law-enforcement decision.”
The decision to reach a deferred prosecution agreement with Meng, which allowed her to plead not guilty on Friday in exchange for admissions that Huawei had tried to evade U.S. sanctions against doing business in Iran, was “an action by the Department of Justice which is an independent department of justice,” she repeatedly said.
Psaki acknowledged that Biden had pressed for the release of the “two Michaels” in a call with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Sept. 9, and that Xi raised the case of “the Huawei official” in the same conversation.
“But again, there was no negotiation on this call.”
In New York, speaking to the United Nations General Assembly, Foreign Affairs Minister Marc Garneau said Canada’s view of China’s “arbitrary” detention of the two Canadians was unchanged, and he held up the experience as the consequence of taking a principled stand.
“Two days ago, we welcomed back to Canada Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, who were imprisoned by the Chinese government after Canada applied both Canadian and international law in response to a request for extradition of a Chinese citizen,” said Garneau. “Canada observed the rule of law, and two Canadian citizens paid a heavy price for this commitment.
“We did so as a matter of principle, and we are proud of the courage of our two citizens, the good faith and resilience of their families, and the determination and creativity of our diplomats. We continue to oppose the way these two citizens were treated,” Garneau said.
“Canada will never forget this experience and this lesson. We shall continue to press for an end to arbitrary detention, wherever and however it occurs.”
Hillman said diplomats had worked ceaselessly for more than two years to get the Michaels released, and in the end the breakthrough came because of progress in the U.S. legal case against Meng.
She said it is “tricky” to outline exactly how the men’s liberation unfolded “because these are delicate diplomatic discussions that were required to bring all of those pieces together in that very highly choreographed series of events that people saw.
“And in order to make that work in a way that was good for the Michaels and worked for them, there’s a certain amount of privacy … that those involved in putting those logistics together over in Beijing want. The government there, as I said, was eager to put this behind them.”
Nor does the federal Liberal government view it as “constructive” to go into specifics because of “our desire to move these relationships forward.”
But Hillman said the case of the “two Michaels” was undoubtedly important to the U.S.
“The U.S. is very pleased that Canada abided by our extradition commitments, that we proceeded in the face of enormous pressure, economic and obviously very serious pressure at a human level, to move forward with extradition case in Vancouver, independent of any thing other than ... the rule of law. And I think that that was something that they deeply respected and were grateful for.”
Asked if she thought the Canada-China relationship is repaired, Hillman said it’s “an important step,” before she said it was a question best answered by others.
“As a diplomat, I think it‘s important for us to have lines of communication and good relations to the best that we can with all countries, and of course, including China.”