True North

BY: LEO KNIGHT

The federal Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale said this week that he expected a decision on whether the government will allow the Huawei Chinese tech giant to provide the 5G technology to Canada to be made before the next federal election.

At first blush one would wonder what the heck is the hold up?

In July 2018, a meeting was held in Canada between the so-called ‘Five Eyes’ partners in sharing intelligence. The Five Eyes are the U.S., the U.K., Australia, New Zealand and Canada who collect and share raw intelligence, primarily signals intelligence or SIGINT.

The group had its genesis in the wake of the Second World War when it became apparent that the then Soviet Union would be an adversary of the West. While there is some intelligence sharing with other countries like France, Germany and Japan and NATO in general, SIGINT developed by the Five Eyes is largely kept within the group.

The intelligence chiefs of the Five Eyes attended this meeting last July and the principle piece of the discussion was Huawei and how they might contain its growth. Principally, not to let them provide the 5G infrastructure technology to their countries.

While there are varying levels of concern in these countries about the risk Huawei poses, there is consensus about the ties to the government of the People’s Republic of China. Chief among them is the possibility that a firm tied to the PRC could threaten infrastructure grids.

In a report in the Wall Street Journal the Australian Signals Intelligence Director General Michael Burgess warned that the entire transport and utility grids were vulnerable to attack if a company like Huawei had access to the networks.

This is not pie-in-the-sky stuff. There has been concerns among western governments about Huawei for more than a decade. In 2012, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence of the U.S. Congress held hearings about Huawei and another Chinese tech company ZTE to try and understand the potential threat.

A couple of key findings of that committee’s report stand out.

1) “the Committee finds that Huawei did not fully cooperate with the investigation and was unwilling to explain its relationship with the Chinese government or the Chinese Communist Party.

2) Huawei admits that the Chinese Communist Party maintains a Party Committee within the company.

There’s more in the 52 page report from the Committee, but that alone raised the red flags. Huawei for its part claims independence from the Chinese state, but anyone with a knowledge of China and how it operates knows that is highly unlikely.

The chief concern about the provision of 5G network technology is the potential for so-called backdoors that could allow Chinese cyber geeks to spy on the west or in the extreme situation to attack networks and, for example, take down the hydro grid or all air traffic communications.

So, with that as a possibility, or perhaps even probability, that exists, why would a decision by the Public Safety Minister be so difficult?

Now, I expect little from Goodale. He has been an MP since he was first elected in 1974 at the age of 24 when Trudeau The Elder was the Prime Minister. He has never held a job in his life. He has been ensconced in Liberal politics his whole adult life.

But even his current job title as the Public Safety Minister should tell him that his role is to look after the security of the nation. How then can he even consider Huawei as the supplier of 5G technology given the risks as stated by the Five Eyes and investigated by the U.S. Congress? Especially when there are other more palatable options.

Why would he risk our relationship with the member nations of the Five Eyes or indeed, would they consider cutting Canada out of that group if he decides to accept Huawei?

The risks of allowing Huawei to control our 5G networks are too great.  

This should be a no-brainer.

On Monday Conservative leader Andrew Scheer held a news conference calling on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to get tougher on China. The motivating factor was how Beijing has blocked our canola-seed shipments from their market due to the questionable claim that they have “pests” in them. This is hurting Canadian farmers because China makes up about 40% of our current export market.

One of Scheer’s requests was to see added financial support for canola farmers by increasing the amount of money the feds loan them to cover the time from when they harvest the seed until it finds a buyer. Trudeau actually did just that on Tuesday and doubled the available funds from $400,000 to $1 million per farmer.

That’s an easy one though. That’s the feds doling out cash, something no federal government has never shied away from doing. The other options on the table are tougher ones. But they’re also arguably more important ones that will send a message to China and the world that we won’t kowtow to the rising superpower’s demands.

Here is a list of just some of the things that have been proposed by numerous experts that Canada can do in response to China:

1)     Expel their ambassador. China’s Ambassador to Lu Shaye, writing in The Hill Times, claimed that “white supremacy” and “Western egotism” played a role in why we called for the release of the two Canadians detained in China. This is beyond offensive language for a diplomatic to toss at the residents of the country he’s serving in. It’s within our power to send him packing.

2)      Ban Huawei from the 5G grid. The creation of the infrastructure that will underpin our 5G grid will play a part in the Internet of Things, that will see the everyday devices in our homes and businesses connected online. Our Five Eyes security allies have already seen fit to ban Huawei from having a role in creating that system, given the concerns about the tech giant’s relationship to the Communist leadership in Beijing. We can, and should, ban them sooner than later.

3)     Walk away from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. As I’ve argued elsewhere, our membership in the AIIB was always a problem even without this recent flare-up with China. The bank is China’s version of an International Monetary Fund or a World Bank, except instead of being dominated by American values, this will be guided by Chinese Communist values. Is this something we want to support? It’s one of the many levers that China can use in the decades ahead to replace the U.S. as the dominant global superpower. Scheer’s press conference included calls for us to withdraw our funding from the AIIB, which is something we should seriously consider.

4)     A firm policy banning SOEs. One of the worst decisions Stephen Harper ever made was allowing a state-owned enterprise (SOE) to purchase a Canadian oil sands company. One of the best decisions Justin Trudeau has ever made was to ban an SOE from purchasing construction giant Aecon. We need a firm policy on this, one that says we won’t allow corporations that are really just arms of the Chinese government to buy up Canadian companies.

5)     Show more support for Taiwan. Right now, China is doing everything they can to pressure Taiwan to become part of official China, including threats of invasion. But the democratic island nation wants to remain independent. China is pushing other countries to go along with their view of things, such as getting Taiwan removed from official maps and denying Taiwan entry in international bodies like the World Health Organization. If Canada makes small signs of support on these fronts, it’ll send another signal to China that we are firm believers that democracy around the world must prevail.

It’s become a fairly perennial topic, the idea of Canada attempting to score one of the rotating two-year seats at the United Nations security council.

We’ve typically served a term every decade, although controversially lost a bid in 2010 under the Conservative government. Now Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is taking another shot at it.

A new report reveals that such a bid doesn’t come without its costs. As we attempt to beat out Ireland and Norway for a 2021 spot that will be decided one year from now, we’ve racked up $1.5 million on the campaign.

Much of the discussion on this issue has focused on whether or not the effort is worth the cost. But that’s relative. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t.

It all depends on what we plan to do with such a temporary posting, how much use we make out of it. That’s the conversation we need to be having.

To say that there is growing cynicism about the usefulness of the United Nations would be an understatement. A lot of people in the West – and this includes credible experts in foreign policy – have been deeply troubled in recent years to see some truly sketchy actors on the world stage take up influential positions on UN bodies.

The slam dunk example is Saudi Arabia being on the human rights council.

This seems to be permitted and even encouraged by progressive voices based on the assumption that if we welcome these countries into the fold, our views on human rights will rub off on them by virtue of letting them in on the conversation.

That only works though if we’re willing to make it clear to Saudi Arabia and others that we think our definition of human rights is the superior one and press them to move more into our orbit.

But almost the opposite is happening.

Because so many progressives are also moral relativists, they shrink at the notion of taking a firm stand on the importance of Western values. As such, the likes of Saudi Arabia gain a foothold on the world stage and face very little pushback from the representatives of G20 nations who should technically be reading them the riot act over half of their government’s regressive policies.

Would Canada suddenly change its tune if we got a seat on the security council? Would we use it to be a force for good in the world, or just sit in it with glee for a bit, like a small child being allowed to briefly sit at the wheel or mom and dad’s car?

Take our current impasse with China as an example.

What we are currently facing is nothing less than a long-term plan by President Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party to replace the United States as the leading global power in the world. Will we take a stand on these issues? It doesn’t look like we will.

If we can’t even get around to banning Huawei from building our 5G grid, how will we deal with China more broadly on the world stage?

As long as the UN is around, it’s best for Canada to have as much influence there as possible.

The question though, is whether or not we rise to the occasion and put that influence to use.