After the Dust Settles: Reflections on Meng Wanzhou and the two Michaels

As the dust settles on the recent ‘hostage’ exchange between the U.S. and China (via Canada), the once murky balance sheet on this issue is becoming increasingly clear.

One decision, four lives

Meng Wanzhou, CFO of Huawei daughter of Huawei founder and CEO Ren Zhengfei and, was arrested by the Canadian authorities during a transfer at the Vancouver International Airport before an important meeting between President Donald Trump and President Xi Jinping in Buenos Aires, Argentina on December 1, 2018. Not too long after that, President Trump commented that Meng could be used as a bargaining chip during the ongoing trade negotiations between the U.S. and China.

Shortly after, on December 10, two Canadians, Michael Kovrig, a Canadian diplomat on leave to work for an international think tank and Michael Spavor, a business consultant with relationship with the North Korean government, were detained in China. Both were later charged with espionage.

A month later, on January 14, 2019, Robert Lloyd Schellenberg, a convicted Canadian drug felon in China, was retried by a court in Dalian, China. His initial 15-year sentence was upgraded to a death sentence.

On January 28, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice officially charged Meng Wanzhou with financial fraud and employing a subsidiary company to facilitate business activities in Iran in violation of U.S sanctions. Beginning this saga, Washington sought the extradition of Meng from Canada to be tried for sanction violations.    

Meng soon began a long legal fight against her extradition to the U.S. Yet, during this time, she was on bail— she lived at home, ate in restaurants, and shopped, but was required to wear an ankle monitor and return by a mandatory evening curfew. The two Michaels were jailed with only rice and boiled vegetables to eat, did not have consular visits during the initial days of their initial detention, and were not afforded due process in accordance with the rule of law.  

Michael Kovrig was tried on March 22, 2021 and no verdict was announced. On August 11, 2021, during Meng’s last extradition hearing, Associate Chief Justice Heather Holmes declared she was going to make a ruling on Meng’s extradition in October. A day before, a court in Dandong, China, convicted Michael Spavor of espionage. He was fined 50,000 Chinese yuan, sentenced to 11 years in prison and would soon be deported. On the same day, the Supreme Court of Liaoning Province denied Schellenberg’s appeal and upheld the death sentence.

On September 24, 2021, 1,021 days after this saga first began, Meng reached a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice. She acknowledged that she had misled a financial institution on the relationship between the Huawei subsidiary, Skycom, and Huawei. A U.S. District judge declared he would move to dismiss all the charges against Meng when the deferral period ends on December 21, 2022, therefore ending the U.S. request to extradite. Meng was consequently free to leave Canada, leaving to the airport and boarding an Air China plane bound for Shenzhen. A short time later, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced that the two Michaels had been released and were on their way home from China. There is no word on the fate of Schellenberg.    

Clearly, one decision, whose merit is debatable, has impacted four individual lives in severe ways to varying degrees, along with their relatives, their countrymen, and their governments. Three of the four individuals have now regained their freedoms and politicians, diplomats, and legal professionals who negotiated on their have all claimed victories. However, if one looks deeper into this case, the balance sheet is ultimately murky.

One case, three losers

So far, China has been the loudest in claiming victory. After Meng Wanzhou was airborne, Hua Chunying, one of Chinese government spokespersons, issued the following statement, “Through unremitting efforts of the Chinese government, Ms. Meng Wanzhou has already left Canada, on 24 September local time, on a charter flight organized by the Chinese government. She will soon return to her home country and reunite with her family.” During the September 27^th regular press briefing, Hua elaborated why Meng’s triumphant return to China was a victory for the Party, the Chinese government and the Chinese people. She declared,

Justice may be late, but never absent. This again fully proves that a strong China under the leadership of the CPC will always have the back of every single Chinese citizen. The Party and the Chinese government have the firm will and strong capability to firmly uphold the legitimate and legal rights and interests of Chinese citizens and companies as well as the interests and dignity of the Party and our nation. No force can hold back China’s progress!     

However, according to the analysis of Scott Kennedy, Senior Adviser and Trustee Chair in Chinese Business and Economics at CSIS, China has suffered irreparable damage as a result of standing up to American efforts to politicize Meng’s case. China is now known for conducting and succeeding in the so-called “kidnap diplomacy.” This is not a reputation a rising power desires to have. Furthermore, the abrupt release of the two Michaels without even a semblance of legal procedure is powerful evidence that Chinese government has little regard for the rule of law, and, ultimately, that there was a strong connection between Meng Wanzhou and the fate of three Canadians.

Additionally, the arbitrary arrest of the two Michaels and the secrecy of their espionage trials and conviction have sowed deep fear in the hearts of Western scholars and NGO workers who traveled to China on frequent basis before the COVID-19 pandemic. In a recent survey of experts, as high as 40% of this group of Americans say they will absolutely not or are very reluctant to visit China after the pandemic lockdown of China is lifted.

Finally, one of the reasons behind the U.S. imposing sanctions on Huawei is its concern over its relationship with the Chinese government. The unprecedented celebration of Meng’s return and attribution of her release to the “relentless efforts of the Party and the Chinese government” certainly vindicates the U.S. government’s somewhat controversial perspective that Huawei is closely linked to the Chinese government.

While damages to China are obvious, the U.S. has also sustained significant damages. The decision to request Canada to arrest Meng was clearly motivated by political considerations. It even appeared to be designed to sabotage the third Trump-Xi meeting at the end of 2018. To millions in China and even many outside China, this is part of an all-out American effort to destroy Huawei simply because it has been too innovative and poised to dominate the 5G industry. Appearing to use its domestic laws to go after Chinese citizens overseas, other individuals and institutions deemed to be real or imagined threats to American security and economic interests are now further within America’s long arm jurisdiction.

The fact that an online petition demanding the release of Meng collected 15 million signatures and the news of her return got 400 million thumbs-ups on the online platform of China Media Group on the night of September 25 are not just the outcome of governmental mobilization. They are indicative of genuine anti-American sentiment in China that has arisen out of this issue and other American “transgressions”. Furthermore, this sentiment can be easily manipulated by the Chinese government to serve the policy purposes that are more threatening to American values and interests. It may even have the unintended consequence of pushing China back to where it used to be—an era of international isolation, economic stagnation, ideological frenzy, and revolutionary zeal. This is not a situation American leadership should want to entertain. This, actually, was the very reason President Richard Nixon decided to freeze the U.S.’ strictly anti-Communist crusade and visited China almost 50 years ago.

Lastly, if the arrest of the two Michaels has caused many Westerners to think twice before traveling to China, what happened to Meng Wanzhou will certainly make Chinese scholars and corporate executives think three times before they decide to visit not only the U.S., but also countries that are U.S. allies. The potential for the cessation of people-to-people exchange between China and the U.S. and its allies will disrupt political, economic, and academic interactions, and cause problems for all. It is not unfair to say the Trump administration was the root cause of this impending crisis.

The country that has won the least is, of course, Canada. It is admirable that Canada enforced the rule of law and defied economic coercion from China, but its government and its people certainly do not feel comfortable uncritically performing Washington’s bidding. It is natural that more than 80% of the Canadians now have a negative view of China, but this is not desirable for anyone. The long-term special relationship between China and Canada, a result of Dr. Norman Bethune’s sacrifice to the Chinese effort to resist Japan, has evaporated and may never return. No country in the world would like to lose access to sell its commodities in the largest market in the world. By Beijing’s hand, the situation for Chinese Canadians will also continue to deteriorate. What Ottawa has done has also reminded many in China and other parts of the developing world of the old Anglo-Saxon domination that smacks of colonial exploitation and imperial arrogance. To mainland Chinese today, Washington has replaced London as the arrogant leader in this white man’s pursuit and Ottawa is just a devoted and docile accessory.

There is indeed a winner in this case

The destructiveness of the case of Meng and the two Michaels is extensive. It is going to take a long time for China to rids itself of the stain of taking hostages and acting without regards to international norms; furthermore, it will not be easy for the U.S. to claim the moral height of being a nation that embraces impartial and detached rule of law and champions a rule-based international order with fair competition and equality as central pillars; lastly, it will take a herculean endeavor for Canada to redefine itself and play an independent role when the U.S. and China engage in zero-sum rivalry.

But every dark cloud is followed by light. The negotiations and compromises to resolve this situation by leaders across the three capitals demonstrate that there is a growing consensus that guardrails must be erected to stop fierce competition from veering into catastrophic conflict. A new kind of pragmatism has emerged in both Washington and Beijing, which contributed to the release of Meng and the two Michaels.

It all began with Wendy Sherman’s visit to China back in late July. It was followed by the unique U.S.-China telephone diplomacy that culminated in the second Biden-Xi call on September 10. John Kerry also paid a second visit to China in early September. When Presidents Biden and Xi Jinping addressed the UN General Assembly in late July, both were keenly aware of the fact members states are becoming extremely concerned that their bilateral competition, if not constrained and curtailed, will disrupt the global effort to contain the pandemic, recover the economy, and slow down climate change. While neither has acknowledged their miscalculation and policy errors, they have tepidly acknowledged that both countries must work together and pledged peaceful coexistence and fair competition.

This new kind of pragmatism has enabled the U.S. and China to work together on the safe withdrawal of U.S.-NATO troops and the Afghans who worked with them in Afghanistan, denying the Myanmar military regime from appointing a new ambassador to the U.N, persuading China to pledge not to build any coal-firing power plants outside China, and getting Meng and the two Michaels released.

The winning outcome in this case is the pragmatic approach to resolve a few thorny issues through a better understanding of the position of the other side and the rare willingness to compromise when possible. Pragmatism is the keen awareness of one’s own failings and firm refusal to exult in self-righteousness. We hope this outcome persists and encourages leaders away from xenophobic nationalism, political expedience, and strategic miscalculation.