China’s security challenge—let’s use our resources

Even after all the concerns voiced these past years, including by our own intelligence service, we still do not have a clear sense of the Trudeau government’s position on Canada’s national security interests when it comes to China. Take Huawei. The government has been dithering, even though four of the Five Eyes have prohibited that company from supplying equipment into the 5G system because of security concerns. The government seems to be hoping the issue will somehow fade as internet service providers like Rogers, Bell, and Telus pivot to European equipment suppliers. The immediate issue of Huawei and 5G aside, given its geopolitical ambitions and aggressive behaviour, including unacceptable threats from its ambassador and intolerable interference in Canadian domestic affairs, why has there been no guidance from Ottawa—let alone a policy framework—setting out Canada’s national security objectives in dealing with China? Admittedly, the relationship is complex and multi-dimensional, layered with interests, from trade, to intellectual property, to human rights, to immigration. So many disparate views on Canada’s engagement with China have been expressed that even assembling these into any kind of coherent package is a challenge. Yet on the security front, the views of many experts about the Chinese threat has been remarkably consistent. The House of Commons Canada-China Committee, created over the objections of the Liberal government, heard from numerous witnesses this past spring who articulated the nature of those threats. And it wasn’t only those testifying before the committee. The same message has been conveyed by think tanks, such as the C.D. Howe Institute, the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, and others. In our relations with China, Canada is fortunate in having an admirable reservoir of expertise, particularly former heads of post and senior diplomats that have served at our embassy there and have first-hand knowledge of the Chinese system and Chinese geopolitical ambitions. Several have been warning about the security dimension. There are former senior members of the security and intelligence community that have also spoken up. These persons make up a valuable collective asset. It begs the question as to why the foreign affairs minister has not brought these experts together as a brain trust to provide outside advice on China’s security challenges, independent from Global Affairs and other policy bureaucrats. Together with not calling on former Canadian diplomats and other public officials with China expertise, the government has not sought outside advice from private sector interests either, at least not in a co-ordinated way. It would be immensely valuable to harness this expertise by appointing an independent, non-partisan commission or advisory body charged, as a first step, with providing the government with clear, well-formulated assessments of the extent and nature China’s threats. This body could work in parallel with the House committee, but would be non-political in composition. Its reports would be public, at least in large part, spelling out the security issues in dealing with China as a long-term and unsympathetic adversary. Appointing such an apolitical group would set the stage for formulating a broader set of responsive policies to meet those threats. In the U.S., the independent China Security Review Commission reports separately to Congress on China-related security issues. In its just-released report this past week, it does not mince words, describing the situation with reference to the Chinese Communist Party’s quest for global primacy in a variety of geopolitical areas: “The CCP seeks to revise the international order to be more amenable to its own interests and authoritarian governance system. It desires for other countries not only to acquiesce to its prerogatives but also to acknowledge what it perceives as China’s rightful place at the top of a new hierarchical world order.” The report reflects the global interests of the U.S. as the world’s paramount economic and military power, much different from those of Canada as a smaller player. But while in some respects the report is alarmist, it provides a wake-up-call (if such was needed) to other western democracies, consistent with what Canadian experts have been warning: “The CCP seeks to co-opt established international governance institutions by increasing its leadership and functionary positions within these institutions and rewriting the norms by which they operate to align with China’s model of international relations. Within these institutions, the Party builds coalitions that support China in the UN and portray its political priorities as supported by international consensus.” This is not to say Canada should accept the U.S. report and its ominous warnings at face value. However, the report is significant, not only because of its contents, but also because it emanates from an independent, non-partisan expert body with a mandate to keep the Chinese relationship under review and report to Congress on an ongoing basis. Canada lacks such a body. Given all of the factors referred to above, given the technological, geopolitical, and security challenges posed by China’s ascendency, it is high time for the Trudeau government to call together our collection of China hands, forming an independent, outside group to provide advice on the nature and extent of these security threats and, where appropriate, on ways of dealing with them. We have these valuable resources. Let us use them. Lawrence L. Herman is fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, a member of the Deputy Minister’s Trade Advisory Committee, the North American Forum and the Executive Committee of the Canada-US Law Institute. He currently chairs the Canadian International Trade Tribunal’s National Advisory Committee. The Hill Times