VANCOUVER—Vocal condemnation from Canada’s allies for the detention of a pair of Canadians in China, called a politically-motivated “hostage-taking” by one law professor, is the best diplomatic tool for censuring Beijing for its extrajudicial manoeuvring, say experts.

Canadians Michael Kovrig, an ex-diplomat, and Michael Spavor, an entrepreneur, were arrested in China a little more than a week after Meng Wanzhou, a top executive of star Chinese telecommunications and tech firm Huawei, was taken into Canadian custody. Meng was released on $10 million bail on Dec. 11 to one of her multimillion-dollar homes in Vancouver to await an extradition hearing.

The stakes were raised even further last week as reports emerged that Kovrig had so far been denied access to a lawyer, and was being kept in a constantly lit room and subjected to questioning several times daily.

And while national leaders stopped short of explicitly framing China’s actions as retaliation for Meng’s arrest, a number of official statements from government spokespeople pointed to both developments in their calls for the Canadians’ release.

The United Kingdom, European Union and United States all spoke to Canada’s conduct in past weeks as legitimate, fair and transparent, while expressing deep concerns over what the U.K. suggested was the “political motivation” behind China’s actions.

Meng’s arrest was undertaken by Canada in observance of a long-standing extradition treaty with the United States — a “legal commitment” of the kind the U.S. Department of State said Friday must be defended to uphold the rule of law “fundamental to all free societies.”

Meanwhile, Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland thanked allies for speaking out, adding Canada would be working closely with such countries towards the release of Spavor and Kovrig.

But a recent article in the Globe and Mail by Lu Shaye, Ambassador for the People’s Republic of China in Canada, provides evidence the detentions of Kovrig and Spavor are intended to apply political pressure toward Meng’s release from Canadian custody, said Donald Clarke, professor at the George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C. Clarke is a specialist in Chinese law.

Lu, by enjoining Canada to consider the “double standard” of detaining Meng while decrying the arrest of Canadian citizens in China, exposes his own government’s explicit and calculated interconnection between all three arrests, said Clarke. And through that lens, he added, Kovrig and Spavor’s detentions can only be viewed as a kind of “hostage-taking.”

Clarke reflected on this particular point at length in a recent, biting opinion piece for the Washington Post.

“To call this a hostage-taking and not a regular criminal investigation is a serious charge,” Clarke wrote in his article. “Here it is justified. The critical element of a hostage-taking is that the hostage-taker must tell you that it’s a hostage-taking and what his demands are, otherwise the whole point of taking hostages is defeated.”

The fact Lu’s response to criticism over Kovrig and Spavor’s detentions was to raise the issue of Meng is a clear indication China’s actions are about politics, not rule of law, he said.

An explicit and unified stance on behalf of Canada and its allies against the use of brutish diplomatic tactics represents the only clear path forward in the high-stakes political standoff, he added.

“A very clear message has to be sent that this method of applying diplomatic pressure is not what a self-respecting big power in the 21st century does,” he said in a phone interview.

“This is not the sort of thing that you expect from a country that demands respect as a major world power, and has a permanent seat on the Security Council.”

Clarke was quick to point out that he believes states are justified in retaliating if they feel aggrieved.

“If China is angry with Canada, then there are many things it can do that are part of the regular repertoire, the weapons of diplomacy,” he said.

Economic sanctions, recalling ambassadors or removing students from foreign universities are all strategies that apply diplomatic or economic pressure, and clearly convey censure.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

“But kidnapping random, innocent citizens of the other country seems to me a whole different kettle of fish, and I don’t see how Canada can possibly accept that this is a normal way to do business. Because China is just going to keep doing it.”

Speaking on the phone from Ontario, Lynette Ong, associate professor of political science at the University of Toronto, said Canada needs to reflect deeply before pursuing closer economic ties with a country like China, which views rule of law in such a radically different light.

But Ong, who has a joint appointment at the Asian Institute and the Munk School of Global Affairs, said Spavor and Kovrig’s fates seem to be fallout from a larger geopolitical escalation which may have very little to do with Canada itself.

Canada — and the lives of Canadians — appear to be little more than pawns in a power struggle between two global heavyweights vying for dominance, she said.

And while China’s record of detaining Canadian citizens has not thus far managed to deter Canada from working to deepen ties with the country, the latest round of political conflict might have garnered enough public attention to do the trick, she suggested.

“I think it would be difficult for the Trudeau administration to foster further trade ties with China, because it would be very challenging to mobilize public support … after this series of arrests,” she said.

“I think if you were to ask any fair-minded Canadian citizen, they would see China now as this pariah-state that arrests people and uses (them) to bargain against some other incident.”

Sophie Richardson, China director of Human Rights Watch, said the current political landscape suggests Canada and its allies should inform their citizens of the risks they may face when in China.

“I think governments need to step up their warnings to citizens travelling to China, though in their defence, I can’t imagine writing that travel guidance: beware running afoul of the capricious, vindictive power of an authoritarian regime that might hold you responsible for something you had nothing to do with?” she said in an email. “That (they) might prosecute you even if you’ve broken no discernible law?”

But Richardson said she also worried countries with citizens in detention may have little recourse beyond such travel warnings and voicing strident, official disapproval.

“Increasingly … I think (international leaders) have to admit that if their citizens are detained in China, there are more circumstances in which it appears that there is little those governments might be able to do to ensure people’s release,” she said.

“And that’s a pretty frightening reality.”

Read more about: