Last week, an open letter signed by over 100 academic experts, political represenatives, and members of the non-governmental community – including at least one former Liberal member of Parliament and a number of sitting Conservatives – declared that:

“The roots of the pandemic are in a cover-up by CCP authorities in Wuhan, Hubei province.”

Since then, the Canadian government has faced questions over its unwillingness to use similar language.

I am largely, even if not entirely, sympathetic to the signatories’ conclusion. (The failure of much of the international community to take public health security seriously over the last number of decades is also a real problem.) Moreover, credible sources confirm a number of their specific accusations.

But the implication that Ottawa should be speaking out loudly at this point is puzzling.

The Toronto Star’s Martin Regg Cohn, with whom I often agree, thinks it’s intolerable that we are “behaving like boy scouts at the multilateral level — deferring to diplomacy and authority.” The thoughtful former diplomat David Mulroney has said of the government: “I think they are genuinely afraid of China, and therefore flattery is their default position.”

It seems to me that Canada’s elected political representatives should be afraid right now, very afraid.

Two innocent Canadians, Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, have been unfairly detained in a Chinese prison for over a year in retaliation for Ottawa’s legitimate arrest of Huwaei’s chief financial officer, Meng Wanzhou, in response to an American extradition request. Since the COVID-19 outbreak, the two Michaels – who were never treated humanely to begin with – have been denied even their monthly consular visit.

So the Chinese government has a propensity for retaliation, and innocent Canadians are in the direct line of fire.

Consider also, as the prime minister has hinted, that Ottawa is sourcing some of the medical supplies so crucial to its management of the pandemic from China. Again, it makes good sense right now to avoid anything that might provoke a retaliatory response.

Third, Beijing's mismanagement of this crisis is already clear. Its influence in the World Health Organization is being undermined; its influence in Africa is suffering as well.

Regg Cohn suggests that Canada can act indirectly by supporting Taiwan’s entry into the World Health Organization. I don’t disagree, so long as such advocacy is part of a broad-based coalition that immunizes the Michaels from direct blow-back.

Indeed, Ottawa has already taken the prudent position of demanding a full investigation of the international community’s response to the outbreak of COVID-19 once the pandemic is under control.

For now, however, it might also consider the following:

• Launch a strategy to develop the domestic capacity to source materials critical to national security (including public health security) here at home, if not with our most trusted NATO allies. The strategy can build on the Canada-United States Joint Action Plan on Critical Minerals Collaboration signed this past January.

• Strongly encourage Bell and Telus to voluntarily end their plans to build their 5G networks with the Chinese firm Huawei. Bell and Telus claim that the cost of rejecting Huawei would be immense, but the current economic crisis provides an opening for Ottawa to offer funding to mitigate the impact. If no Canadian businesses are willing to work with Huawei, there will be no need to invite the retaliation that will inevitably come from banning the company altogether.
  

I understand that some Canadians interpret prudence as cowardice. And I suspect that some of our allies would appreciate greater boldness as well.

But the government of the day must defend and protect its citizens, and for now that means minimizing any further harm to the two Michaels, and to other Canadians who currently depend on Chinese benevolence.

***
On Canada and China, I enjoy reading Wendy Dobson and Paul Evans. Both are also true professionals. Dobson’s most recent book, Living with China: A Middle Power Finds its Way, is a finalist for this year’s Donner Prize.

If you need something longer to read while sheltering from the virus at home, you can find some my books here, here, or here.
 
To be notified of the next blog post, follow me on Twitter @achapnick. 

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.
 

Last week, the National Post’s editorial board released a fascinating article: “If COVID-19 has taught us one thing, it’s that Canada needs to be more self-sufficient.”
 
The essay calls into question the Post’s long-time promotion of free markets and open trade. Over the next few weeks, articles in the paper will “ask tough questions about how our desire for more and freer trade must be balanced against our responsibility to always ensure that Canada can look after Canadians.”
 
Inasmuch as proponents of protectionist initiatives like supply management and Canada's Industrial and Technological Benefits Policy might say ‘I told you so,’ the Post’s position is hardly a turn to the political left.
 
Looked upon favourably, it is a prudent re-imagination of the national interest. More critically, it is also a surrender to those who seek an end to the liberal democratic world order that has dominated the international system since the end of the Second World War.
 
That order, anchored by the United Nations and its affiliated organizations and agencies, has been held together by two complementary forces: first, the immunity of the great powers (the United States, the Soviet Union / now Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France) from its reach; and second, the unspoken commitment of the United States to defend its integrity (presumably on their behalf).
 
There are plenty of flaws within this framework: for instance, it ignores the wants and needs of the Global South. Nonetheless, the trade-off has meant that in times of existential emergencies, Canada's only critical ally in terms of security, economic prosperity, and just about everything else could be counted on to engage.
 
The authors at the Post seem to be implying that Washington has abandoned its preserver role for good. All Canada can do now is look out for itself.
 
Perhaps they’re right. Arguments that the current US administration is less an aberration than representative of an ongoing American withdrawal from global leadership abound.
 
But it seems to me that it’s too soon to give up.

I can’t disagree with the argument that Ottawa should think seriously about “how much of our safety should be kept in Canadian hands.”
 
But the best future for Canada still includes renewed American leadership within the liberal democratic system that it did so much to create.

Now is not the time to give up on the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization, the G20, and the other international institutions that have served Canadian interests so well over the last 75 years.

If we do, they are even more likely to be undermined, if not replaced. And whatever comes next will be far worse than what we have now.

***
 
On international organizations, I like the work of David Bosco. You can find some of his writing here. On the future of the Canadian economy, the work of Sean Speer (a Conservative) and Robert Asselin (a Liberal) is getting a lot of good press. You can find some of it here. And if you’re on Twitter and are looking for a combination of thoughtful commentary, wit, and good humour, why not follow @loleen_berdahl, a true role model for Canadian academics.
 
If you need something longer to read while sheltering from the virus at home, you can find some my books here, here, or here.
 
To be notified of the next blog post, follow me on Twitter @achapnick. 

You can subscribe to my newsletter at https://buttondown.email/achapnick.