Canada's Ambassador To China Hopes US Won't Extradite Huawei Exec, Gets Fired (go.com)

First, a Canadian diplomat on Thursday contradicted what he'd said on Wednesday, according to a story shared by hackingbear: John McCallum, Canada's ambassador in China, appeared to provide legal advice to Meng Wanzhou, who is fighting extradition to the U.S. over fraud allegations. Saying she had a "strong case", McCallum outlined numerous weaknesses of the legal proceedings: political interference from Donald Trump, the extraterritorial nature of the charges and the fact that Canada is not party to American sanctions against Iran.

"I regret that my comments with respect to the legal proceedings of Ms Meng have created confusion. I misspoke," McCallum said in a statement released late on Thursday afternoon. "These comments do not accurately represent my position on the issue. As the government has consistently made clear, there has been no political involvement in this process."
But ABC News reports that the same diplomat then said Friday that it would be "great" for Canada if the U.S. dropped its extradition request, "in what seem like off script remarks again...."

"The Canadian government didn't return multiple messages in response to questions about whether McCallum is speaking for the Canadian government."

UPDATE (1/26/2019): "Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has fired Canada's ambassador to China, John McCallum," reports the BBC.

Comments

Balancing Act

[lazarus]

I feel sorry for him in a way. He is probably a great ambassador, but these diplomats when the spotlight suddenly shines on them sometimes have no idea what to do. He is basically right on all counts -- she does have a strong case, and it would be better for Canada if the US just dropped the issue. He just doesn't know enough to keep his mouth shut while this is going on, because in Canada (unlike in China) this is a legal case, not a political one. That is why the PM is keeping his mouth shut (and why he should to). In the US the president has (as we have seen) his/her own set of powers. In Canada the PMs power ends with the ruling party's will to go along with him/her. They don't have any power unto themselves unless emergency measures are declared.

Since I'm on my soapbox anyway... Before open source was the bomb we had something called "source code licenses". You sign a legal document and you got the full source of the product which you could compile yourself or even make changes to if you needed to. If I were worried about a foreign power spying on my citizens I would require (by law) that providers of communication technology from foreign powers have the source code in their possession, require deployments to be compiled from source, and enact stiff fines for unauthorized surveillance (that could be globally enforced). Yes it could still happen, but just imagine a foreign power like China thinking about the geeks of a foreign nation pouring over one of your pet company's source code. Either they have nothing to hide or they will suddenly not be that interested in selling to you after all and the political BS will stop.

Re:Balancing Act

[tlhIngan]

He is basically right on all counts -- she does have a strong case, and it would be better for Canada if the US just dropped the issue.

Perhaps he's a useful idiot (ambassadors aren't necessarily smart people, just diplomatic ones). By outlining why Meng has a strong case, he's just given the US lawyers preparing their case the potential Chinese defense strategy, and what parts they need to focus on to bolster their case. In effect, he's just outlined how China intends to resist the extradition and the US needs to prepare rebuttals to all those points.

Sure, a good lawyer would already do so, but it doesn't hurt to have someone make sure you're prepared for the defense arguments.

He is probably a great ambassador, but these diplomats when the spotlight suddenly shines on them sometimes have no idea what to do.

No, he knew what he was doing. He actually invited the Chinese newspaper reporters to a meeting where he spewed why he thinks China has a strong case. Note he didn't invite over "reporters" in general - none of the many English speaking news reporters were present, just the ones working for Chinese newspapers and TV. (Note that by "Chinese newspapers and TV" does not mean "TV and news from China" - there are plenty of Canadian Chinese newspapers and TV networks, most of whom would've shared newsrooms with the normal English press and who may have tipped them off as well).

Re:John McCallum were completely inappropriate

[hackingbear]

Before the case reaches the court, the Canadian DOJ can decide whether to proceed with the case first. The Canada government should therefore stand against US political persecution.