Should Canada ban China’s Huawei Technologies Company, the world’s leading telecommunications supplier, from involvement in our fifth generation (5G) wireless networks?
 
The Canadian government has been struggling with this question ever since Beijing passed a new intelligence law in June 2017. Article 7 of the legislation dictates that “any organization or citizen shall support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence work according to law.”  
 
It appears, then, that Beijing could demand that Huawei spy on Canadians through their own networks.
 
That’s certainly what the Americans think. (They first banned Huawei years ago and have increased their pressure on the company over the last 12 months.)
 
Apparently, so do senior Canadian military officials. Australia has already banned the company, as have Japan and, most recently, the United Kingdom.
 
The British decision was taken largely in response to new sanctions announced by Washington that restrict organizations from exporting key technologies to Huawei, thereby limiting the company’s capacity to do business.
 
Washington has also made it clear that should Huawei become involved in Canada’s emerging 5G network, our access to intelligence within the Five Eyes alliance would no longer be guaranteed.
 
(The Five Eyes include the US, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. The first three countries have banned Huawei; New Zealand has thus far turned down every application from Huawei for involvement in its network.)
 
China’s disappointing international behaviour in recent years has convinced me (and, according to Angus Reid, at least 78% of Canadians) that it is not in Canada’s interests to allow Chinese technology anywhere near our critical infrastructure.
 
And yet, I hope that our allies do not ultimately compel us to officially ban the firm from involvement here.
 
It seems to me that banning Huawei risks bringing a degree of credibility to Beijing that Washington does not intend.
 
It could suggest to some states in the wider international community that if Western firms cannot compete on a level playing field, we resort to brute force to get what we want.
 
Such an aggressive posture creates a narrative of Beijing as victim, which it can use in efforts to promote Huawei as a credible partner elsewhere.
 
Ideally, Canadian telecommunications firms would not need to be directed to stay away from an enterprise that threatens our national security.
 
It would nonetheless be prudent for Ottawa to create criteria for investment here that make it all but impossible for Huawei to put forward a competitive bid on any opportunities to work on 5G networks.
 
We should aim to create incentives for the leadership at Huawei to be resentful of their own political masters. Better that they blame Beijing, and not Washington, for their lack of access to Western markets.
 
I therefore hope that Washington continues to tolerate the Trudeau government’s endless delay in coming to a final decision on a Huawei ban. I’d much prefer to see the company fail to secure contracts in Canada on any merit other than an American edict.
 
***
 
On Canada and China, I enjoy the work of Wendy Dobson and Paul Evans. Both were also delightful to deal with when I edited International Journal.

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 Trudeau government announced that Bob Rae would be Canada’s next permanent representative to the United Nations.
 
(Disclaimer: Mr. Rae has been a regular guest in my class on Canadian government and strategic decision-making and has said very kind things about my last two books.)
 
Two thoughtful journalists, Paul Wells of Maclean’s and Martin Regg Cohn of the Toronto Star, have come to virtually opposite conclusions about Rae’s appointment. I find it difficult to fully agree with either of them.
 
According to Wells, Rae might be “a gifted deliverer of impromptu remarks,” but he is not a career diplomat, and the posting to New York requires more than just a sharp intellect and superior negotiation skills.
 
The UN is “an infernally complex place. The rule book is as thick as the Manhattan phone directory, and much depends on whom you know.”
 
Perhaps it might have been prudent for the Liberals to choose from among the many seasoned professionals at Global Affairs Canada for this particular job.
 
In contrast, Regg Cohn draws attention to Rae’s time as Ontario’s 21st premier, suggesting that “There is no better preparation for the pinstripes brigade in the puffed up diplomatic corps than to run a province.”
 
Add to that his international experience, including his recent work on behalf of the Trudeau government looking into the plight of the Rohingya, and Regg Cohn can’t imagine a better choice.
 
I agree with Wells that Rae lacks UN experience, and my own research confirms that navigating the UN’s written and unwritten rules of behaviour takes time for even the best-prepared diplomat.
 
But I also concur with Regg Cohn’s suggestion that, in temperament and intellect, Rae will be an excellent fit in New York.
 
My problem with both analyses is that we don’t really know what Mr. Trudeau wants from his new UN representative. Without that understanding, I don’t think it’s possible to evaluate the quality of the appointment.
 
In recent history, there have been at least four kinds of successful Canadian permanent representatives in New York.
 
Stephen Lewis was an NDP political activist, lacking in formal diplomatic experience.
 
But his Progressive Conservative prime minister, Brian Mulroney, was looking for someone with an edge, particularly when it came to denouncing apartheid in South Africa. He got exactly that.
 
Yves Fortier, one of Mulroney’s closest friends and business associates, succeeded Lewis.
 
He, too, had no formal background at the UN, although he was a world-renowned arbitrator.
 
In Fortier, Mulroney sought someone he could trust implicitly while Canada was on the UN Security Council.
 
To compensate for Fortier’s lack of UN experience, Philippe Kirsch, one of Canada’s foremost diplomats, stayed on in New York as deputy permanent representative and took responsibility for the operational management of the delegation.
 
Fortier had the humility to defer to Kirsch on issues of procedure and protocol, and was generally a pleasure to work for. Moreover, his close relationship with the prime minister produced instant credibility at the negotiating table. No career diplomat I have spoken to resented his presence.
 
Fortier was followed by Louise Fréchette, an official with 21 years’ experience, including a number as part of Canada’s UN delegation in Geneva.
 
Fréchette was so well-regarded across New York that she later served eight years as the UN’s first deputy secretary-general.
 
Finally, in 2011, the Harper government appointed Guillermo Rishchynski Canada’s UN ambassador.
 
Rishchynski used the mediation skills he had developed over nearly 30 years as a foreign service officer to keep the low profile that his prime minister expected of him without compromising Canadian national interests.
 
That most readers won’t recognize his name suggests that he, too, succeeded.
 
Bob Rae has Lewis’ ability to effect change, Fortier’s gravitas, and the necessary deference to the diplomatic establishment.
 
He lacks Fréchette’s UN experience, and is unlikely to keep his head down.
 
He could be an excellent choice if his skill-set matches the policy objectives that the Trudeau government has presumably established for his time in New York.
 
But if Rae was selected for political purposes – as a fig leaf to the Liberal old guard, for example – the decision to pass over a number of eminently qualified career public servants is harder to justify, and morale at Global Affairs Canada is likely to suffer as a result.
 
***
 
For another perspective on this issue, take a look at what Susan Delacourt has written. And if you’d like to delve more deeply into the history of Canadian diplomacy, consider just about anything published by the late Greg Donaghy. Greg was an outstanding scholar whose kindness and generosity will be deeply missed across Canada’s academic and professional diplomatic community.
 
To be notified of the next blog post, follow me on Twitter @achapnick. 

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