Hostage diplomacy: Canada's China rethink
Hostage diplomacy: Canada's China rethink
WRITTEN BY GRANT WYETH
26 October 2020
In recent weeks, Canada’s tone has changed markedly regarding its relationship with China. Something seems to have clicked in Ottawa that Beijing can no longer be considered a partner who can cooperate in good faith. Marking the 50th anniversary of Canada’s diplomatic recognition of the People’s Republic, Foreign Minister François-Philippe Champagne expressed a “sober view” of the current relationship, noting the “...importance of mutual respect and reciprocity, adherence to rules and principles, including human rights...”. These are areas where Beijing is currently failing, both broadly, and specifically with Canada, especially in regards to the arbitrary detention of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor.
At present, this remains the central issue between the two countries. Aggrieved at Canada’s arrest of Huawei executive Meng Wangzhou (under its extradition treaty with the United States), China has taken Kovrig and Spavor hostage in the hope of bullying Canada into her release. For nine months, China has prevented any consular visits to the two men, despite a bilateral agreement that stipulates monthly visits. While Beijing claims this is due to the COVID-19 pandemic, they have also stated the virus is now under control (locally, at least). When a visit was finally granted this month, it was held remotely, giving Canadian officials only a limited opportunity to fully assess their well-being.
Canada is starting to realise that Beijing has ambitions and behaviours that run counter to the international norms that it subscribes to, and can no longer be considered a partner that will act in good faith.
These tactics undermine the basic tenets of trust between countries and are a major breach of mutually beneficial international norms. They are also actions that rule-abiding countries like Canada have become increasingly offended by. In a recent exchange at the United Nations' General Assembly, Ottawa's new ambassador to the UN, Bob Rae, made it clear that China’s behaviour in detaining these two men is “something which we will never forget”.
Yet — Beijing’s behaviour has little chance of success. Canada exists in a permanent symbiotic relationship with the US. Breaking its treaty obligations with Washington would undermine the core doctrine of Canada's national strategy, which is, maintaining trust with the United States. It is a dead-end for Beijing to try and bully Canada in this way. Although with Beijing unwilling to acknowledge this, the costs of its behaviour will be worn by Kovrig and Spavor.
Ottawa and Beijing grow further apart.
The contrast between China's increasingly assertive behaviour and Canada’s natural disposition toward being a responsible international actor has given rise to several other issues between them. In early-October, Ottawa began to approve asylum claims from Hong Kong’s pro-democracy activists. In response, China's ambassador to Canada, Cong Peiwu, issued a thinly veiled threat that by granting asylum requests to people from Hong Kong, Ottawa was endangering the “health and safety” of some 300,000 Canadian citizens currently living in Hong Kong. This led to China’s ambassador being called into the foreign minister’s office for a reprimand and calls from Canada’s official opposition for his expulsion.
Alongside the issue of Hong Kong, in the past week, a Canadian parliamentary committee on international human rights — comprised of representatives of all political parties — recommended to the House of Commons that the government recognise China’s repression of its Uyghur minority as ‘genocide’ and called for Magnitsky-style sanctions against Chinese officials. Champagne issued a statement declaring that Canada is “...deeply disturbed by the troubling reports of human rights violations in Xinjiang...”. But he did not indicate whether the government would pursue the committee’s recommendations. Ambassador Cong had previously stated that Beijing would have a “strong reaction” if the Canadian Parliament were to declare its treatment of Uyghurs as genocide.
Amid China’s plan to create a new global power structure by 2049 — marking 100 years of Communist Party rule — Canada has been seen as a soft target for shifting the current global balance of power in their favour and a middle power that they could bully into subservience thus clearing the path to do likewise with other Western countries. However, there are now signs that this may no longer be the case. Canada is starting to realise that Beijing has ambitions and behaviours that run counter to the international norms that it subscribes to, and can no longer be considered a partner that will act in good faith.
Given this incompatibility, Canada’s newfound clarity on China will require more than just rhetoric, it will need to develop policies that seek to more forcefully preserve the rules and norms that have served it so well since the end of World War II. This will include playing a more active role in the Pacific and working more closely with its friends in the region. The hope in Ottawa will be that a Biden administration in the United States will be more helpful on the issue of Kovrig and Spavor, as well as providing a more consistent (and credible) posture towards China’s norm-breaking behaviour.
DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent that of the 9DASHLINE.com platform.
Author biography
Grant Wyeth is a researcher at the Asia Institute, University of Melbourne, and a contributing author at The Diplomat. He specialises in Australia and the Pacific, India, and Canada. Alongside his work for The Diplomat, his analysis has been published by The Lowy Institute, Australian Strategic Policy Institute, and the Australian Institute of International Affairs, as well as by mainstream news outlets The Age, The Guardian, Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and Inside Story. Image credit: Prime Minister of Canada.