Using the Russia-Ukraine crisis to address the ‘Freedom Convoy’

PARIS—It does not happen every day that two major crises intersect and help to understand each other. Russian-Ukrainian tensions have been high since 2014, when Crimea joined the Russian Federation and pro-Russian forces began backing separatists from Ukraine's self-declared Donetsk and Luhansk people's republics. They have further intensified with the strengthening of military forces on Russian territory in the spring of 2021. Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping now called for a halt to NATO expansion and pledged to work together to strengthen the Shanghai Co-operation Organization (SCO). The SCO is a mutual security, political, and economic alliance established in 2001, which involves China, Russia, India, and Pakistan, among others. These events do not look promising, as Russia and China’s propensity for imperialism is matched only by similar tendencies in other parts of the world. Some observers will recall that before their summit meeting in Geneva in June 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden had accused Putin of being a killer, to which the latter had replied, "it takes one to know one." In such an atmosphere, it would have been simple for the two leaders to stop discussing. However, that did not prevent the United States and the Russian Federation from continuing to negotiate and holding another virtual summit last December. In addition, tensions between China and the United States are high regarding the fairness of economic competition, the interpretation of human rights, patterns of territorial expansion, and the treatment of minorities. The virtual Biden-Xi Jinping summit in mid-November 2021 highlighted major policy differences. The fact that Russia and China are calling for a halt to NATO enlargement, while pledging to work together to strengthen the mutual security alliance, is somewhat alarming. Such demands are equivalent to the United States and other western nations calling for the containment of the SCO. No sovereign nation can prevent others from seeking membership in an effective multilateral security alliance. Moreover, it is not in NATO's interest to prevent any sovereign nation from joining in the future, especially if it helps maintain peace among its own members. These problematic proposals suggest that international negotiations of a global security agenda are arguably much broader and include other institutions such as the UN, the OSCE, the East Asian Summit, and the EU. What is the link with the ‘Freedom Convoy’? No conflict can be solved by military or police forces alone. To think that the Russian and Chinese governments are peaceful entities—when there is no agreement on what contributes to a lasting peace—is as dangerous as labelling truckers and ordinary citizens who demonstrate for freedom as extremists interested in chaos. The key difference between these global and local crises is the institutional environment in which they occur. How international tensions are contained to promote global peace should inform how to deal with COVID-related crises in Canada and elsewhere. Since early 2020, the COVID crisis has had many adverse effects, but one of them should not be to obscure concepts of freedom and democracy. Canada, the United States, France, and others are currently witnessing impressive social movements reacting to restrictive measures related to COVID, including vaccination mandates. Truck convoys in Canada and the United States focus their messages on reclaiming freedom, which is central to a free society. In democracies, the people have the statutory right to express their disagreement with government decisions. When democratic institutions play their role effectively, tensions are diffused. Solving problems by interfering with daily life on the streets is not the norm. Thus, the fact that thousands of people across Canada demonstrate day after day for freedom, dear to Western values, and that the number of demonstrators may be increasing, should not be taken lightly. Regardless of the fundamental merits of the demands of groups, democratic governments, however, cannot discuss with disjointed individuals on the street. Parliaments are supposed to play that role. Still, governments must hear discordant voices and quickly come up with credible measures to break stalemates. Negotiations must take place with the appropriate interlocutors in the right institutional settings. Arguably, a solution must result from a joint effort involving the federal government, the official opposition, and the provinces and territories. Lack of progress reinforces the public perception that only street protests can trigger policy change. Such a model of governance is simply not sustainable, nor is the use of coercive power to force people to obey dictates, which is usually a feature of authoritarian regimes. Pascal Desbiens is a former counsellor at the permanent mission of Canada to the UN, foreign and defence policy adviser in the Privy Council Office, and policy and program planner and manager at the former Canadian International Development Agency. The Hill Times