The Conservatives used their Supply Day this week to move a motion in the Commons that seeks to call on the government to declare a genocide taking place in China against the Uyghur peoples and other Turkic Muslims in the country.  Thus far, the Liberal government has been reluctant to use the word "genocide," because it is a loaded term under international law that comes with consequences, particularly around steps that the international community needs to take in order to prevent it because international law is useless without enforcement.  Without enforcement to back up the claim the Conservatives are demanding the government apply, would this make their motion a hollow gesture, the very kind of grandstanding that they so often accuse the Liberals of on the world stage?

Thus far, the Liberals are insisting that they are following international protocols in both demanding that China allow an international committee of experts unfettered access to the country to assess the claims independently, but are also pooling intelligence with other countries to evaluate what evidence has been presented to date.  These are the kinds of process that need to take place if we want to get the UN or the Hague involved, so that we can ensure that there is coordinated action on the international stage to respond to China's actions you know, the "enforcement" part that backs up international law.  It is also worth noting that the Americans have opted out of this same international law framework, so their Secretary of State making a declaration has no actual weight behind it ­ America has announced no sanctions or other actions against China.  If Canada were to follow suit without other international allies on board, we would be hung out to dry when China retaliates because they have lost face.

I am also not unconvinced that this government is currently engaged in the kinds of backroom talks necessary to get international support for such a declaration.  Earlier this week, we saw Canada lead 57 other countries in launching the Declaration Against Arbitrary Detention in State-to-State Relations.  This particular initiative was successfully kept under wraps until its unveiling, though it has been speculated that it took as long to come to fruition as it did because it depended on waiting for a change of administration in the United States, so that their signature could give the document additional heft particularly when it comes to dealing with China, whose use of hostage diplomacy Canada knows all too well given the ongoing detention of the two Michaels.

We also have history around the effectiveness of backroom diplomacy in this country, particularly around the opposition to apartheid in South Africa.  Canada very much depended on behind-the-scenes talks during Commonwealth summits, to the point where it appears that the Queen got involved in an unofficial capacity in order to help pressure then-UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher into changing her position.  Granted, this was an easier sell because South Africa is not the economic powerhouse that China is, which makes it all the more important that we don't alienate our allies by going off half-cocked with making declarations before we have our ducks in a row.

The other danger with a premature declaration of genocide is that a political declaration, separate from the legal declaration, has the ability to undermine the label of genocide, which is the most heinous crime imaginable.  Canada is already walking a fine line with this because of the way the government handled the use of the term in the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls by accepting the term "genocide" in that report without any notion of enforcement or consequence, this government ran the same risk of undermining the label.  Justin Trudeau later walked-back his acceptance of the term "genocide" by saying that he conceived of it more as cultural genocide, but it may have already damaged Canada's credibility on this file credibility that could be further eroded if this Conservative motion goes ahead.

A political declaration, absent allies and enforcement, has the very real possibility of turning into slacktivism on a global stage like Canada putting a black square on its Instagram account for a week, or putting a border around their Facebook profile picture.  There will be consequences to a resolution in that it may not be the best way to proceed in order to get the outcomes that we want namely for said genocide to be halted.  And without a concerted and allied effort, there will be retaliation from China, both economic and symbolic, because we will have caused them to lose face.

What I find most peculiar is the fact that a lot of that economic retaliation will be hitting the Conservatives' voter base, particularly in Western Canada.  We've already had issues with canola exports, and we could pretty much guarantee that would dry up immediately.  Pork is another big export to China, and when there were a couple of weeks nearly two years ago when China halted Canadian imports because of a very real issue of smugglers using falsified labels, pork farmers in this country freaked out.  Lobster exports to China are also a very big deal, and if the Conservatives want to make inroads into Atlantic Canada, they will also be facing those whose livelihoods have been affected by their decision to posture without backup.  And then there is the fate of the Two Michaels, who would likely bear even more of the brunt of such a unilateral declaration.

All parties in this country have a record of deep unseriousness when it comes to foreign policy, and of standing on soap boxes as they declare Canada as being "back" in one capacity or another, with very little follow-through.  This is an extremely serious issue, and there can be no doubt that a genocide is taking place, and that the world has a responsibility to uphold the pledge of "never again."  But we have to be smart about it, and we need to be effective in our enforcement.  I am dubious that a non-binding motion in the House of Commons is the smartest or most effective way for Canada to act at this crucial point in time.

Photo Credit: Jeff Burney, Loonie Politics