Front Burner - A conversation with Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs

Episode Date: July 10, 2019

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. “Democracy versus dictatorship” in Venezuela. Why Canada should not release Meng Wanzhou. These are just some of the topics we cover in a feature interview with Chrystia Freeland, Canada’s Minister of Foreign Affairs. She tells us about how she formed her political worldview, and how that worldview shapes Canada’s foreign policy: “Small-l liberalism … does also require that we stand up for the rules-based international order and multilateral institutions because only in a world where those rules exist … can our own liberal Canada thrive.”

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. In the fall of 1998, an elderly woman known as the Cat Lady went missing. In the fall of 1998, an elderly woman known as the Cat Lady went missing. She had a very distinctive silhouette and very recognizable when you'd see her walking into town. A handkerchief on her hair, long overcoat, like somebody that lived on the street.

All police could find were her 30 cats shot dead. I always knew something had happened to her, to just vanish like that. Uncover the Cat Lady Case from CBC Podcasts is available now. Hello, I'm Jamie Poisson. Today, I'm talking to Canada's Foreign Minister, Chrystia Freeland. I sat down with her in Toronto while she was in town for a conference in support of democracy and economic reform in Ukraine.

We do not agree that the liberal idea is dead. We do not accept that the rules-based international order should just be thrown away. Newly elected Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky was there too, and Freeland announced new supports to the country. We also talk about Venezuela and our eroded relationship with China, and how the minister's own life experiences shaped her worldview. This is Frontburner.

worldview. This is Frontburner. Minister Freeland, thank you so much for coming on the podcast today. It is great to be here with you, Jamie. Well, I'm hoping that we can start with the latest news. Last week, you met Vladimir Zelensky. I'm very pleased to be surrounded by friends who sincerely care for Ukraine. You announced $45 million in additional funding to the Ukraine, some of which will go to police training and strategic defense. Ukraine has Canada's full support as it continues to develop and implement the fundamental reforms that are needed for a secure, sovereign, and prosperous future. And Prime Minister Trudeau reiterated your government's commitment to stand with Ukraine against Russian interference and aggression.

A strong, stable Ukraine is not only important for Canada, it's important for the entire world. Why make this move? What's in it for Canada? that this was the third year running that a very broad international coalition of countries standing with Ukraine and supporting Ukraine came together. We had representatives of 37 different countries here, many of them at foreign minister level. There was also a strong multilateral institutional presence. So there was a representative of NATO, of the IMF, of the World Bank. So this is really not only or even principally about the Canadian commitment to Ukraine. What this is about is a core approach of our foreign policy, which is bringing together and leading international coalitions, groups of countries that are like-minded with us and share our commitments to particular

objectives. In this case, our commitment to Ukraine, but even more importantly, Ukraine, but even more importantly, our commitment to standing up for the rule of law and the rules based international order. And the reason that supporting Ukraine does that is probably the most flagrant violation of the rules basedbased international order in recent years. We're talking about Russia's incursion on eastern Ukraine. Not just incursion, Jamie, but Russia invaded Ukraine in 2014, and Russia has annexed Crimea. Armored Russian vehicles burst through the wall of Crimea's Belbeck base, firing warning shots and throwing sound grenades as Russia now completes its takeover of Crimea.

A hundred nations have voted at the United Nations General Assembly in support of a resolution calling Crimea's referendum on joining Russia illegal. And Russia continues to support military aggression against Ukraine in the Donbass. support military aggression against Ukraine in the Donbass. This is the first time that Europe's borders have been changed by force since the Second World War. So it's really serious. And it is incredibly important for the world to make very clear to Russia that it's not okay. You know, I think Putin is actually surprised at the extent to which this international coalition has held together. I think that he is surprised at the strength

of the transatlantic sanctions. Interestingly, as you know, Jamie, our Ukraine reform conference came right after the G20 summit in Osaka and just before that meeting Putin gave an interview to the Financial Times in which probably his headline statement was that liberalism is obsolete? Yes, exactly. Or the liberal idea is dead. The vast majority of people in the world oppose multiculturalism, immigration

and rights for people who are LGBT. There is also the so-called liberal idea, which has outlived its purpose. Our Western partners have admitted that some elements of the liberal idea, such as multiculturalism, are no longer tenable. In a way, I think it was quite useful

that he was so clear about what he stands for. And I think that we need to have, and I believe we in Canada do, need to have equal clarity about what we stand for. And to be very clear and very self-confident, very proud, very optimistic in asserting that actually the liberal idea is alive and well and kicking. And I think it is stronger in Canada than anywhere in the world. And I'm very proud of that. Can we define that idea? Because, you know, liberalism is sort of an amorphous term. I think one way to talk about it is to talk about the open society, a society which is open to trade, a society which is open to immigration, a society which is open to trade a society which is open to immigration a society which is open to

ideas a society which is open to dissent a society which is open to the work of investigative journalists like you and i think you know liberalism small liberalism it's a lot about how we choose to live in our own country. But it does also require that we stand up for the rules-based international order and for multilateral institutions because only in a world where those rules exist and where those institutions that support those rules exist can our own liberal Canada thrive?

I'm hoping we can pull on this thread as this conversation goes along, but I do want to talk to you a little bit about your own personal background and try to get a better sense of how it has informed your worldview, right? This very strong belief in small liberalism and multilateralism. And so in 1939, I know that your grandparents fled Western Ukraine when Stalin and Hitler signed their non-aggression pact. One of the provisos, that Russia would not interfere with a German invasion of Poland. Stalin's price for remaining neutral? Eastern Poland.

Your mother was born in a displaced person's camp in Germany, but their identity as Ukrainians remains strong. They spoke the language at home. They continue to advocate for an independent Ukraine. And can you tell me what political conversations were like for you at the table growing up? Well, I would say the first experience that has really shaped my thinking isn't from my baby years or elementary years. It's actually from my early years as a journalist.

And so I began my work as a journalist covering what was first the Soviet Union and then the former Soviet Union. I was a student in Ukraine in 88-89, just as the environmental movement very much, I was going to say inspired by Chernobyl, but Chernobyl isn't really an inspiration, very much provoked into being by Chernobyl. An official announcement from the Council of Ministers. There has been an accident at the Chernobyl atomic power station. There's no way to say how much lasting damage that cloud may have already caused. And then I worked for the Financial Times and the Washington Post and the Economist starting in the spring of 1991 in Ukraine, chiefly sometimes in Russia too.

And this is about at the time that the Ukraine regained independence? It was just as the Soviet Union was falling apart. So I started working in the Soviet Union, and the reason that it became a story is the Soviet Union fell apart. Mikhail Gorbachev today quit as party chief and then ordered steps effectively to dissolve the party. Having analyzed the position of the Central Committee of the Communist Party and the Politburo during the attempted coup, we must admit that both bodies sided with the

conspirators. And that was a profoundly formative experience for me because I saw that people who want to be free can organize themselves against this incredibly powerful state, right? A state which in its time had shown murderous intent and ability towards its own people. And it was very inspiring to see that people, first of all, you know, to meet some of those brave people. I met some people who had been dissidents in the Soviet era who had just been released from prison. And that's a very inspiring thing, like to meet someone who is prepared to go to jail for 25 years for their political beliefs. Just to stand up for what they believe in. Yeah.

And, you know, I think maybe you and I would hope that we would have such courage. It's hard to know if you would. So that was very inspiring. But the other thing, probably the most powerful thing, and what makes me deeply optimistic, And what makes me deeply optimistic, medium term, about the small L liberal idea is seeing how a seemingly incredibly powerful authoritarian regime actually turned out to be very brittle. And that it could fall apart really, really quickly, more quickly than anyone imagined. During that period, George Bush, George Bush the elder, traveled to Kyiv and delivered what William Sapphire dubbed the Chicken Kiev speech. Because he traveled to Kyiv and told the Ukrainian parliamentarians that it was sort of wrong and foolish of them to seek to be independent.

Americans will not support those who seek independence in order to replace a far-off tyranny with a local despotism. And I think at the time, to kind of rate-thinking State Department people, that must have seemed self-evident. But Ukraine actually became independent just a few weeks later. At the New York office of the Ukrainian National Tribune, this was a day that dreams are made of. The Declaration of Independence is on as of today. So I guess that whole experience, reporting it, covering it, left me with two, not so much convictions, but two realities that I have observed. And one is that there is a very profound desire in humans, even people who have never known real freedom and liberty. There's a real desire to be free. There's a desire to have the kinds of rights that we in Canada take for granted. And second of all, the thing I observed is even incredibly powerful authoritarian regimes, and

probably at this point, the Soviet Union is the most powerful and successful one that we've seen in modern history. Even those can fall. So those are two very encouraging things. The red flag came down over the Kremlin tonight as President Gorbachev resigned. This society has acquired freedom. It has been freed politically and spiritually. Obviously, this experience affected how you see the world and inspired your confidence in small liberalism. I want to get to some examples. Canada strongly advocated for regime change in Venezuela. It threw its support behind Juan Guaido. The call for a military uprising came at dawn.

It is the moment. The moment is now. And we call on the Maduro regime to step aside now and allow for a peaceful end to this crisis. You hosted the Lima Group with 14 countries that shared that goal. Protesters masquerading as journalists interrupted. But it hasn't worked. A show of force from Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. The National Armed Forces are consistent, loyal, united. United as never before.

I would say it hasn't worked yet. I think it is very possible, and Venezuela is a great example of this, think it is very possible, and Venezuela is a great example of this, to be clear about who is right and who is wrong, to be clear about what rights people have, to be clear about human rights abuses, to be clear about abuses of freedom of the press, to be clear about abuses of a constitutional order. And all of that has happened in Venezuela. Canada's support of democracy and human rights in Venezuela, and I want to be very clear, Canada, as a member of the Lima Group, doesn't support any political party in Venezuela. And I want to be very clear, Canada, as a member of the Lima group,

doesn't support any political party in Venezuela. This is not about right versus left. I think that Canada has been very clear in supporting Juan Guaido, right? I mean, we could have just called for a UN monitored elections. It's very important. That is what we're calling for. Canada supports Juan Guaido as the legitimate interim president of Venezuela. That is interim president. President because of his position in the National Assembly. And Canada's position, no, but it's actually an absolutely essential point. The Canadian position is that the Maduro regime is illegitimate. And what provoked our recognition of Juan Guaido as interim president, and let me also point out more

than 50 countries around the world have also recognized him as interim president, was that the elections, according to which Maduro claims legitimacy, in our view, and in the view of our international partners in Europe and around the world, those elections were illegitimate. So when Maduro, on the basis of those elections, sought to establish himself as president, that's where Canada spoke out and said, we don't recognize you as president because those elections were illegitimate. Canada's view, the view of the Lima group, is that we believe all political forces in Venezuela, on the left, on the right, should take part on an equal free footing in those elections. And it should be up to the people of Venezuela to choose. And I really want to lean into that point

because I think that some people, maybe because of traditional ways of thinking, especially about Latin America, tend to see the situation in Venezuela through a prism of left versus right. I think that's wrong. I think it's about democracy versus dictatorship. And it is very important for Canada to be clear that what we're seeking is free and fair elections so the Venezuelan people can choose. And I do also want to be clear, and this is something that the Lima group has reiterated repeatedly, Canada is very clearly opposed to the use of any external force in resolving the crisis in Venezuela. Can I ask you, if this is about democracy, why are we trying to influence Venezuela with support from countries like Honduras and Guatemala? Hondurans react to the announcement that Juan Orlando Hernandez is back as president.

There were serious irregularities and suspicions of fraud. Thousands took to the street of the Guatemala capital to protest the government closure of an anti-corruption unit. The mission had sought to investigate the president on suspicion of campaign finance violations. And these countries are no pinnacles of democracy themselves. So if this is really about calling out what's right and wrong, then why have we aligned ourselves with them? I'm going to give you two answers to that. So the first is we have a real obligation to work with other countries in our hemisphere. In fact, our hemisphere actually has, with the Quebec Declaration, a stated commitment to democracy in the hemisphere.

Inside our hemisphere, the most egregious abuse of human rights and of democracy is without question in Venezuela. of democracy is without question in Venezuela. There has been an intentional and systematic dismantling of the constitutional order and of democracy and of human rights. The Maduro regime is not a paragon of socialist virtue. The Maduro regime is a murderous kleptocracy, a murderous kleptocracy, which occasionally puts on T-shirts with leftist slogans in order to perpetuate itself in power. And if you don't believe me, talk to a Latin American woman of the left like Michelle Bachelet to really understand. Human rights groups say currently there are over 700 political prisoners in Venezuela. The UN human rights chief met with some of their relatives. I'm calling on the government to free all of those who have been detained or deprived of their liberty for exercising their civil rights in a peaceful manner.

But I want to address one other point that you raised, Jamie, rights in a peaceful manner. But I want to address one other point that you raised, Jamie, which is the question about how can you be active on Venezuela if there are other problems in the world? That's kind of essentially your question. Or even how can you be active on Venezuela with countries that themselves have perpetrated human rights abuses? And here, here, I think it's an important question. And I am very committed to the answer. It's a, it's actually a very familiar question from Believe It or Not. And I'm sure that this is not the roots of your question. But it was a very beloved Soviet propaganda technique. You got me. I'm a Soviet propaganda.

And I know that that's not where you got it from. But this was such a familiar trope of Soviet propaganda, that it actually has a name, which was whataboutism. And the idea was that how dare you denounce the treatment of the refuseniks in the Soviet Union when African-Americans are not being treated well. I suppose you could have turned it to Canada and say, how dare you Canadians denounce the repression of Ukrainian political prisoners when indigenous people in Canada are not treated well. And I think that there can be a strain of that in saying, well, how dare Canada focus on the abuses in Venezuela when there are other abuses in the world, indeed, other abuses in our hemisphere. And I think that it is so important to push back against that, because that kind of a line

of thinking, there's a reason that it was a beloved Soviet propaganda ploy, because the ultimate result is to throw your hands up, to be cynical, to say a pox on all their houses, to say everyone is bad and flawed. There actually really is no such thing as liberal democracy. And because there's no perfect liberal democracy in the world, that it's not worth fighting for. I could talk about this particular issue with you all day.

But let's move on. Our time is running out. I know. But let's move on because when we talk about this rules-based international order, you know, I want to talk to you about China. So our relationship with China has eroded, thanks largely to the detention of Meng Wanzhou because of this extradition agreement with the United States. Canada's arresting a top executive with the Chinese telecom company Huawei

at the request of the United States. You know, China is now attacking our pork producers. China's announcing a ban on all Canadian meat imports. At the center are health certificates. Ottawa admits bogus documents were found recently. They're detaining two Canadians in extreme conditions. The Chinese government is saying this morning that Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor are accused of stealing state secrets.

And their detention has up until now been widely seen as almost hostage diplomacy, retaliation, if you will. These guys have not been outside in months. They are subjected to artificial lights 24 hours a day. They are subjected to regular interrogations. How has following the rules helped us here? Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor are two exceptionally brave Canadians. I talk to both of their families regularly. I get the consular reports right away.

I and the Prime Minister are extremely, troubled is too weak a word. We take these cases extremely seriously. And I do want to say to them, to their families, that I admire the courage and the grace under pressure of the two Michaels. and the grace under pressure of the two Michaels. And I admire their families too. And I think they deserve and I think they have the full support of all Canadians. Just on another specific, I think that it is quite important in the case of the pork and the beef to be clear on the facts. We, the government of Canada, are aware of some concerns around fraudulent certificates. Around pork in particular, the shipments of pork coming to China. And we are extremely proud of Canada's meat inspection system.

The integrity of the system is important for Canadians who eat Canadian pork and beef, and it's very important for us to maintain the integrity of that system because we sell a lot of our great pork and beef to the world. There are some legitimate concerns which we are working to resolve with our Chinese counterparts. There are inevitably trade irritants between major trading partners, and it's important not to conflate. But I want to get to your core question.

I take it that there are maybe things happening behind the scenes with the pork and beef question, but can we get to the core question, which is essentially that we followed the rules, and now we are being punished. The core question you raise is a really important one. And it is 100% the case that Canada, in being a rule of law country, in abiding by our extradition treaty commitments, and that treaty has been in place probably since before you were born, Jamie. And it's a very important treaty. Canada and the United States have the longest non-militarized border in the world. We need to have a working extradition arrangement. There was, as ought to be the case, absolutely no political interference in the decision taken to detain Meng Wanzhou. She has had

full access to Canada's outstanding impartial judicial system. As Canadians know, she is currently released on bail. And she has great lawyers, and they have every opportunity to make their case before the courts. without any political involvement, without seeking any sort of political tension, we now find ourselves in a difficult situation with the world's second largest economy and our second largest trading partner. But what I would say to Canadians is we need to think about the counterfactual. We need to think about whether it is feasible for us to choose not to be a rule

of law country. Is it feasible for us simply to, because it's difficult to be a rule of law country in this case, to say, oh, well, in this one instance, we'll bend the rules. And some people have suggested it. That's not how laws work. If what you say is, I'm going to be a rule of law country, except whenever it doesn't suit me, you have stopped being a rule of law country. except whenever it doesn't suit me, you have stopped being a rule of law country. And that is an essential principle. Equally essential is the reality that if Canada were to stop being a rule of law country, to cease to honor our treaty commitments in the face of pressure, like the pressure that Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor are facing.

Imagine what kind of precedent that sets, and imagine for a moment the danger that every Canadian traveling outside our country would find themselves in. So yes, it is a difficult situation. It is a personally heartbreaking situation. But I am 100% certain that we are doing the right thing and that any other path would create a situation which is far, far worse, and a situation for the long term which would be far, far worse. I just wanted to mention that when you talk about people who have floated the idea of letting her go, among them is former Prime Minister John Kretzschian, right? And I understand everything you're saying, but there's this part of me that's struggling with this

because we are stuck between these two powers. China often doesn't follow the rules and the United States seems to follow the rules when they feel like it. And it seems like in this case, the United States has put us in this position. Maybe the best route for us is just to cut bait and walk away. So you mentioned Prime Minister Chrétien, and since you've raised his name, I do want to say that I personally admire him hugely. He is one of Canada's great prime ministers and one of our great statesmen. is one of Canada's great prime ministers and one of our great statesmen. In particular, I think I, like many Canadians, always admired his decision not to join the war in Iraq.

When it comes to this issue, I just have to say I disagree. I think there's that great Talleyrand line, it's worse than a crime, it's a mistake. It would be both wrong in terms of principle and pragmatically the wrong thing for us to do to cease to be a rule of law country and to not honor our treaty commitments. Christopher Elam, this has been a pleasure. Thank you so much. Pleasure to talk to you. That's all for today. I'm Jamie Poisson, and thanks so much for listening to FrontBurner. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.

It's 2011, and the Arab Spring is raging. A lesbian activist in Syria starts a blog. She names it Gay Girl in Damascus. Am I crazy? Maybe. As her profile grows, so does the danger. The object of the email was, please read this while sitting down. It's like a genie came out of the bottle and you can't put it back. Gay Girl Gone. Available now.