Breaking news.
The Canadian government has finally got its act together and taken the inevitable, but belated, decision to expel Chinese diplomat, Zhao Wei, from Canada.
Mr. Zhao emerged onto the public stage through leaks to the Globe and Mail regarding a foreign interference attempt he had authored designed to intimidate a Conservative M.P., Michael Chong, for his role in sponsoring a Parliamentary motion in 2021 denouncing the Chinese’s government’s treatment of its minority Uyghur population—the Parliamentary motion described it as genocide.
The attempt was known to CSIS by July 2021 and was discussed in a CSIS Intelligence Assessment branch (IAB) top-secret report that was circulated within the national security and intelligence community that month. The name of the Chinese official involved and the name of his target were not included in the report. But for some reason, even with the identifiers removed, the significance of this intelligence report was missed, and action was not taken at the time to follow up on it. It appears that Ministers and the Prime Minister were never made aware of the intelligence.
See my previous substack column,
Thanks to a leak to the Globe and Mail and a story that it published on May 1, the government was suddenly on the hot seat, nearly two years later, over what was perceived in opposition quarters as another example of a lax attitude to Chinese state interference in Canada’s democracy.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-china-targets-mps-csis/#:~:text=China%20sees%20Canada%20as%20a,the%20Canadian%20Security%20Intelligence%20Service
Now, one week later, the Foreign Minister, Melanie Joly, has issued a brief statement indicating that Canada has decided to declare Mr. Zhao Wei persona non grata. No further details were provided about how long Mr. Zhao has been given to depart the country or, crucially, about how the message was delivered to the Chinese government.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/persona-non-grata-canada-expelling-chinese-diplomat-after-threats-to-conservative-mp-1.6389430#:~:text=China%20announces%20sanctions%20on%20Canadian%20MP&text=Foreign%20Affairs%20Minister%20Melanie%20Joly%20wrote%20in%20a%20statement%20that,internal%20affairs%2C%22%20she%20wrote.
A week is a long time in politics in the face of a controversial, hot button issue. The government’s determination was cast into doubt by a prevaricating message from the foreign minister to the effect that Canada was concerned about Chinese retaliation and weighing all the options. Of course it was. Broadcasting that concern only made Canada look weak in the eyes of China (thus tempting retaliation), and uncertain in the eyes of our allies. It gave more ammunition to a political opposition convinced that the government has turned a blind eye to Chinese interference.
What exactly the Canadian government was concerned about as it dithered over the explosion of Mr. Zhao was not made clear. Diplomatic retaliation, consular retaliation, economic threats were all vaguely alluded to. The government may be gun-shy about more hostage diplomacy in the shape of a repeat of the two Michaels’ situation, or some form of Chinese economic sanctions. But it is important that fear not tip the ship. The reality is that China will probably engage in some form of tit-for-tat retaliation, by expelling a Canadian official. Even that might be headed off.
Maybe the delay was mostly political, to give time to create a sense that the Government was not simply acting on media and opposition demands.
Is there a better formula for expelling foreign diplomats? There has to be. It consists, in the first place, in paying close attention to intelligence reports on illicit diplomatic behaviour, whether its foreign interference, or espionage, or disinformation operations, or some other unwanted activity. There was to be willingness to act, where the shots will be called at the political level by Ministers. Declaring an official persona non grata is a political act, not a bureaucratic decision. There has to be better public communication of the decision. Private communication between governments is also vital. The foreign government in question has to know that you know what an interfering diplomat has been up to (without spilling intelligence beans). The message has to be we caught your guy red-handed (no pun intended) and we expect you not to retaliate against us.
It is also important to coordinate with allies. Share intelligence. See if there is a case to be made for a coordinated response. It is always better for a country like Canada to go into a David vs. Goliath fray alongside others who are engaging in contemporaneous expulsions. That makes individual retaliation against any particular state all the more difficult. But if you have to go it alone, make sure your allies will have your back. Get them to say so in public.
How much, if any, of this ideal formula was attempted over the past seven days is impossible to know. Maybe the secret story is more edifying than the public one. But the public face that the government put on its decision-making was not defensible.
What next? Watch to see if the Chinese government makes good on vague threats. Watch to see if our allies weigh in with actions or words. Watch for more drama in Parliament. Watch to see if this story tips the scales in terms of recommendations to be made by the independent special rapporteur, David Johnston, due to be delivered on May 23.
Stay tuned.
How many Canadian citizens are currently in China and within reach of its government?
That is a very careful assessment in the form of a tentative conclusion. "It appears that Ministers and the Prime Minister were never made aware of the intelligence." Another way would be to simply leave it, as it is, an assertion subject to proof, that depends, inter alia, on the credibility of the speaker: " The government claims that the PM and Ministers [i.e. more than one] were never made aware of the intelligence". But of course the same claim has been made by government spokesmen about about other things; and if anyone cares, the only way that this one can be tested further, is via a public enquiry. Where, it might be noted, an established lie might have further conseqences that just embarassment-(oops!) especially for a lawyer.