Article content continued
Fragiskatos took particular aim at Neve. “If Canada was to take dramatic action along those lines, what is the prospect for those two individuals?” he asked. “Is it reasonable to suggest and assume that it would dramatically diminish the prospect of the release of Mr. Kovrig and Mr. Spavor?”
This was an interesting and rather telling question, which Neve attempted to answer by noting that Canada should work with its allies to curb and contain Beijing’s outrages. But Fragistakos had his own answer: “If the Government of Canada was to move ahead in that direction, I wonder about the consequences for Canadians in China, namely the two Michaels.”
And there it is, the perfect summation of the Trudeau government’s catatonic uselessness in facing the existential threat that Xi Jinping’s China poses to the entire architecture of the rules-based international order that has guaranteed Canadian peace and security for much of the past 75 years or so. We stand there and wonder about things.
To merely notice this state of affairs is not at all to deny the profound ethical dilemma that Canada should have understood it was being forced to confront the moment the two Michaels were abducted, 610 days before Tuesday’s committee hearings. The point here is rather to recognize that what Canada is facing is an ethical dilemma the Trudeau government has clearly not properly comprehended.
It’s the sort of ethical question a government has to face up to and deal with, and then get on with it. It can’t just stand there hoping that it will go away, or whining about how complicated things are and whimpering that the White House isn’t coming to its rescue, as if the dummkopf in the Oval Office can magically instruct the attorney general for the eastern district of New York to drop all 13 charges against Meng. The charges include bank fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy, arising from an investigation into Huawei’s alleged efforts to evade U.S. sanctions in its dealings with Iran.