In September, 2021, the long-anticipated release of two Canadians named Michael from their retaliatory detention in China revealed the biggest Canadian diplomacy story of a young century. The complex public and private efforts to free the two men attest to the enduring power of the personal in diplomacy, and to the impact on human lives when diplomacy works. Mike Blanchfield and Fen Hampson devoted a book to that story, The Two Michaels: Innocent Canadian Captives and High Stakes Espionage in the US-China Cyber War (Sutherland House/2021), an excerpt of which they’d adapted for this issue of Policy.

Mike Blanchfield and Fen Osler Hampson

Two Canadians, Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor, were arrested in China in on December 10, 2018, ostensibly on espionage charges — the Chinese government claimed they were spies. In reality, their capture was in response to the detention and subsequent arrest of Huawei Technologies Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver. Her arrest took place at Vancouver International Airport on 1 December 2018, in response to a provisional extradition request from the U.S. Justice Department alleging fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud in order to circumvent US sanctions against Iran. This allegation stems from statements she made to HSBC about Huawei’s relationship with Skycom Tech Co. Ltd., which conducted business in Iran but was controlled by Huawei.

The release of the Two Michaels almost three years later on September 24, 2021, was the result of intensive, behind the scenes diplomacy led by Canada’s ambassador to Beijing, Dominic Barton, and other Canadian and US officials. However, Canada’s efforts did not stop there. Canada also worked hard to build a broad, international coalition that condemned China’s actions. These efforts were critical to putting pressure on the Chinese and upping the ante on a country that clearly was finding itself odd-man-out in a part of the world where maintaining “face”— represented by 面子 or miànzi, meaning status and social position, and 臉/脸 or lian, meaning sense of shame — is deeply culturally ingrained.

A stern message was delivered to Beijing when diplomats from twenty-six nations assembled outside Beijing’s Second Intermediate People’s Court on Monday, March 22, 2021. It was both a show of solidarity for the Two Michaels and a protest that Canadian consular officials had been shut out of Kovrig’s trial, which was just getting under way.

Three days earlier, a similar show of diplomatic support had taken place outside the courthouse in the Chinese city of Dandong, on the North Korean border, where Michael Spavor was on trial and Canadian officials were again denied access to the proceedings. The only saving grace in both cases was that the Chinese police were not thumping journalists, diplomats, and demonstrators as they had in December 2015 at the trial of Chinese human rights lawyer Pu Zhiqiang — events Michael Kovrig documented at the time in his diplomatic report.

That diplomatic roll call in Dandong was an important moment in the effort to win the release of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor. It showed that many Western countries stood solidly behind Canada, although Asian countries and the developing world pointedly refused to participate. It was a show of support that had not come easily, the product of a hard-won international campaign fought over several years under the direction of three successive Canadian foreign ministers.

The effort to build the international coalition was launched soon after the Two Michaels were arrested. Just before Christmas in 2018, Canada’s then-foreign minister, Chrystia Freeland, announced in a telephone call with reporters that Canada had begun to “work with a broad group of allies to raise this issue” and that Canada’s envoys would be taking their plight to “governments around the world.” She thanked the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Union for issuing strong statements in support of the Canadian position while underscoring that “we absolutely believe this not only a Canadian issue,” but “an issue that concerns our allies.”

That diplomatic roll call in Dandong was an important moment in the effort to win the release of Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor.

Canada understood that it needed its friends and allies to stand up to Beijing.

It also understood that its coalition-building would anger China, and it did. The “wolf-warrior diplomacy” warnings became more strident and shrill. The Chinese responses amounted to variations on two themes: “Don’t do it or you will suffer consequences” and “Your allies don’t scare us; we have many more in the world.” Canada was clearly getting Beijing’s attention and putting its leadership under the harsh spotlight of international public opinion.

Under Freeland’s successor, François-Philippe Champagne, Canada continued to secure global support for release of the Two Michaels. The European Union, which was busy negotiating trade and investment deals with China, was a hard sell because nobody wanted to ruffle Chinese feathers with awkward conversations about human rights. After successive rounds of diplomatic appeals, however, the EU raised the situation of the Two Michaels directly at their 22nd bilateral Summit with China on June 22, 2020.

Since taking on his new portfolio in November 2019, Champagne also worked quietly to build support for a new global initiative, a declaration against arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations. In a visit to Austria for an update on Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) efforts to broker peace in the full-scale war that had broken out between Azerbaijan and Armenia over Nagorno-Karabakh, Champagne secured the first solid commitment by any country, Austria, to the Canadian-inspired declaration. He also paid a successful visit to one of his top allies, British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab, in London.

Formally launched on February 15, 2021, the declaration called on all states “to prevent and put an end to: harsh conditions in detention; denial of access to legal counsel; torture; and other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment.” Announcing the initiative, Marc Garneau, the astronaut-turned-politician who succeeded Champagne in the Foreign Affairs portfolio, said the law applied to “all cases of arbitrary detention, whether they target Canadian nationals, dual nationals, nationals or partners and other states.” He also said that Canada would continue to “fight against arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations, now and for the future.” The announcement of the declaration was accompanied by strong statements of support by British human rights lawyer Amal Clooney, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken, then in office less than a month.

More than three dozen countries attended the launch, held over video conference. Austrian foreign minister Alexander Schallenberg offered a blistering statement of support for the new initiative: “If the question is: rule of law, or the law of the jungle, our answer must be clear. We have to prove again and again, that we stand by our values and that our joint commitment to human rights and to the rule of law does not know any lockdown. There is simply no room for discussion: arbitrary arrest and detention do not comply with international law. This practice must end.” The United States, Britain, the European Union, Germany, Japan, Australia and others followed suit in voicing support.

As Garneau rolled out the announcement, he took pains not to point the finger directly at China or draw what was an obvious connection to the Two Michaels. The initiative was positioned as a broad declaration to stamp out an odious practice used by several countries. But there is no doubt it was born out of the China cri- sis and hatched in response to Champagne’s relentless pressure on Canadian foreign affairs staffers to do more for the Canadian captives. In an exclusive briefing on the initiative with senior federal officials, a public servant, speaking anonymously, as is customary in such discussions, said it was Champagne as the minister who carried the ball forward in the effort to free Kovrig and Spavor. “Everybody understands that he has spent the better part of the last year personally shepherding this initiative. And he’s made, I would say, hundreds of calls,” the official said.

The Chinese embassy in Ottawa made the connection, too, and was not pleased. Envoys lambasted the appearance at the announcement of Human Rights Watch director Roth, who drew a pinpoint connection between the new Canadian-led initiative and what was happening to the Two Michaels. “The Chinese government’s detentions of the Canadians Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor epitomizes this despicable practice,” Roth said, adding that China had subjected Australian citizens to the same treatment. The Chinese embassy charged that Canada had “arranged” for Roth to be its mouthpiece to criticize China in what was a “fact-distorting and ill-intentioned” move. The Chinese statement affirmed that it had undertaken its own lawful prosecution of Kovrig and Spavor. “The Canadian side’s attempt to pressure China by using ‘megaphone diplomacy’ or ganging up is totally futile and will only head towards a dead end.” Once again, the embassy urged Canada to immediately release Meng so “she can return to China safe and sound.”

Five days later, Cong Peiwu, China’s latest ambassador to Canada, was on the telephone with The Canadian Press. The Chinese embassy had pitched an interview with him because Canada’s Official Opposition Conservatives were planning to introduce a motion in Parliament that would declare China’s treatment of its ethnic Muslim Uyghur population as genocide. The embassy wanted to get ahead of that, but it also wanted an opportunity to state the Chinese perspective on the arbitrary detention declaration. Cong turned it on its head:

“We must point out that Mme. Meng Wanzhou has been arbitrarily detained for over two years, despite the fact that she hasn’t violated any Canadian law. This is the most accurate illustration of arbitrary arrest or detention of foreign nationals. So, the declaration looks rather like Canada’s confession in the Meng Wanzhou case.”

The Declaration proved to be enough of a show of diplomatic unity among like-minded countries to ultimately force a negotiated, face-saving solution to what had become a festering irritant to Beijing.

In all, 58 states and the European Union were founding endorsers of the “Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations” when it was launched (the number grew to 66 by the summer of 2021). Nevertheless, some critics felt it was little more than empty words absent a commitment to direct, punitive actions. As former Canadian ambassador to Beijing Guy Saint-Jacques noted, if the signatories had decided to impose collective sanctions on China for its behaviour, they might have stood a better chance of getting Beijing’s attention.

Nevertheless, the declaration was an important start, lifting out of existing international norms and law specific provisions to apply to the arbitrary arrest or detention of foreign nationals by other states. At the G7 meeting in London in May 2021, the declaration was not only reaffirmed but G7 members committed “to work together and with likeminded partners to deter those who conduct arbitrary detention to compel to action, or to exercise leverage over a foreign government, by amplifying the declaration against arbitrary detention in state-to-state relations.” Those were diplomatic codewords indicating that the G7 recognized real action was a necessary accompaniment to reprobation. The G7 also invited “countries that have endorsed the declaration and other likeminded partners to actively consider taking part in the voluntary areas of cooperation and engagement outlined in the partnership action plan.”

The Declaration now has 70 signatories and a concrete action plan, which outlines “six areas of cooperation and engagement that states can support to deter arbitrary arrest, detention or sentencing in state-to-state relations and sustain momentum against those practices.” They include advocacy and awareness raising, research and analysis, information sharing civil society engagement, targeted media campaigns and period meetings of declaration signatories to strengthen its effectiveness.

As for the resolution of the case of the Two Michaels, the Declaration proved to be enough of a show of diplomatic unity among like-minded countries to ultimately force a negotiated, face-saving solution to what had become a festering irritant to Beijing. In the end, China agreed to a prisoner swap, after nearly three years of maintaining the cases of the Kovrig and Spavor and Meng Wanzhou were not at all linked. It put the lie to Beijing’s rationale for wasting nearly three years of the lives of two innocent Canadian men. The Declaration also offers something far more pragmatic: it is one more diplomatic wedge to help leverage the end of the inevitable, next state-sponsored, potentially life-wasting, politically-motivated hostage taking.    

Mike Blanchfield is an Ottawa-based consultant with Bluesky Strategy Group who spent three decades as an international affairs journalist for several major Canadian news organizations.

Fen Osler Hampson is Chancellor’s Professor at Carleton University and president of the World Refugee & Migration Council.