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

Hilarious comment, coming from an American.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you have more advanced brainwashing methods, doesn't mean you're relevantly different.

China is just better at capitalism than the Trump administration, and the USA is better at dictatorship than China. The grass is always more dystopic on the other side, I guess ...

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

[lazarus]

Not according to the minister of justice who is responsible for this case:

âoeAt each stage of the extradition process in Canada, there is careful balancing of the interests of the person sought for extradition against Canadaâ(TM)s international obligations. The person sought is able to challenge their extradition at multiple levels, both before the superior and appellate courts in Canada, and by making submissions to me on the issue of surrender. â

https://www.canada.ca/en/depar...

Re: Balancing Act

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh come on. You can't be that naivd. The judiciary system may be independent, but if their ruling could seriously damage the country politically or economically, they'd be reined in quite rapidly.

Re: Balancing Act

[Aighearach]

If you knew what those words mean, you'd understand that they support what I said.

Do you understand that "international obligations" is referring to compliance with their extradition treaty?

Do you understand that "balancing the interests" means making sure that they have a lawyer, and that they receive the correct process?

Do you understand that they have a right to challenge their extradition, but that is only designed to succeed where the paperwork is out of order, or where there was some legal problem with the way they were arrested?

It is diplomatic language, and you clearly don't understand what was said. That's why I used simple words.

Re:Balancing Act

[ghoul]

Extradition is not independent. Extradition is not like a normal case. It is the carrying out of a political decision - an extradition treaty- and by definition the govt can overrule any decision made an extradition court. Canada is never going to extradite Meng. This is just putting pressure on Huawei to add NSA backdoors to their code so it is as easy to spy on Huawei equipment as it is on Cisco and Nortel equipment.

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: Balancing Act

[DeVilla]

Or he's not skilled enough to keep track of which audiences he must only share his public positions with and which ones he may share his private positions with.

This is not hackingbear's story

[hackingbear]

That one is.

“One, political involvement by comments from [US President] Donald Trump in her case. Two, there’s an extraterritorial aspect to her case, and three, there’s the issue of Iran sanctions which are involved in her case, and Canada does not sign on to these Iran sanctions. So I think she has some strong arguments that she can make before a judge,” McCallum said.

Sounds like /. is also afraid of publishing stories inconvenient to the American public.

And this ambassador had to retract his words after facing political pressure from Canada’s main opposition party leader for McCallum’s removal. Great for freedom of speech!

Re:This is not hackingbear's story

[ceoyoyo]

It looks like everything he said is verifiable fact. The case does have an extraterritorial aspect (the crime she's accused of did not occur in the US or Canada) and Canada is not party to the anti-Iranian sanctions in question. Finally, Trump did make comments about the case, suggesting that he would definitely intervene to get a trade deal with China signed: https://www.bloomberg.com/news...

Those three things seem to be pretty much exactly the situation that Canadian extradition law is written to block.

Asked to step down ...

[kbahey]

Canada's Prime Minister asked the ambassador to step down, because of his previous remarks on the case of the Huaweoi executive who is detained and waiting extradition hearings to the USA.

Canadian Ambassor resigns as requested

[thepacketmaster]

He was asked to resign: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politi...

John McCallum were completely inappropriate

[FeelGood314]

Meng Wanzhou has been arrested and is facing an extradition hearing in a Canadian court. The courts are part of the judiciary. John McCallum was literally the voice of the Canadian government in China. The government can never give its opinion on an individual's ongoing case while it is before the courts. I think after McCallum's first comments it was assumed he would either resign or at least apologize. The fact that he gave another opinion on the case is completely outrageous and shows McCallum to be completely ill suited to be an ambassador or to work in any capacity as part of the government. The Canadian prime minister is going to get grilled on this issue for not having fired McCallum sooner.

Note it doesn't matter if McCallum's statements are true, false, or just his personal opinion. The fact that he is the Canadian Ambassador to China means he can't say those things.

Extradition is always political

[ghoul]

Extradiditon by nature is a political decision because a nations law do not extend beyond its borders. Every extradition treaty has national interest loophole clauses in it. What it comes down to is whether China can cause enough pain for Canada to believe it is in their interest to invoke the loophole in this case.

Re:Extradition is always political

[Aighearach]

National Interest isn't a "loophole." It is there by design.

If a country thinks that means they can decide cases based on politics, guess what? Other countries won't value their word. That is basic diplomacy, not politics.

And, isn't it a bit irrational to think that China can "cause pain" to Canada to get them to alter their stance towards their closest ally? That is just crazy talk.

If China is seen trying to do that, they lose automatically. Why would Canada reward that type of behavior by doing what they say? It seems to instead guarantee that China will lose influence in the world, and especially in Canada. China is stabbing themselves in their own face on this, how are they going to push their "belt and road" initiative when they're trying to use blackmail and nonsense to interfere in the courts of other countries?

Re: ORLY? Tell That To Transmountain!

[ghoul]

That was not an extradition case. Extradition by definition is political. Go read the US-Canada treaty. very clearly says the govt can override it in national interest.