Posted by Yes Trudeau Jr., the best laid schemes of mice and men often go awry. But in the case of the detainment of Meng Wanzhou, CFO (and daughter of the founder) of Chinese telecom giant Huawei, Trudeau’s arrogance, stupidity and naivety has gone a little more than awry.
It is probably good to start with a quick recap of how events unfolded. As part of America’s trade war with China, one of the key battlegrounds is technology. Your average Westerner still considers China to be relatively poor and backwards despite all the pictures of the modern and gleaming metropolises that have popped up over the past 30 years. A place where peasant and slave factory workers sew T-shirts and shoes for affluent European and Americans. The smarter ones know better.
From virtually nothing a decade ago, China has emerged rapidly to rival America as its internet tech giants have grown by leaps and bounds in the world’s second largest economy with nearly one billion netizens as customers; more than America and the European Union combined. In fact, the list of top 20 internet companies in the world is quite striking because not only do American and Chinese firms dominate, there is not a single European, Japanese or Korean firm on the list. America has its GAFA (Google, Amazon, Facebook, Apple). China has its BAT (Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent). Even if we broaden the definition away from internet to technology, as they did in this article, we can add on companies like Microsoft, Samsung of Korea, and TSMC of Taiwan (which most people have never heard of because they aren’t a consumer facing company) the Europeans and Japanese still don’t make the list.
But this list reflects a bias towards market capitalization and one of the big problems is that Huawei is an unlisted private company. If Huawei hadn’t expanded into consumer handsets (its core business was and still is telecommunication equipment) and the United States government wasn’t putting it in the news every week with some new sanction or embargo on the company; most people in the West would never have heard of or recognize the name Huawei (just as I pointed out above that nobody has heard of TSMC despite it being the 9th largest technology company in the world). As the chart below shows, Huawei completely dominates the world in the field of telecom equipment (i.e. all the 5G backbone infrastructure equipment that is unsexy and is only used in memes by conspiracy nutters showing a cell tower killing bees, trees and spreading coronavirus)
The reality is, as pointed out in this Independent article, “The Huawei saga is really a fight between US and China over who will dominate the global economy“. Or as the New York Times puts it, “China’s Dominance of 5G Networks Puts U.S. Economic Future at Stake, Barr Warns“. Mr. Barr said that allowing China to establish dominance was not only a “monumental danger” as Beijing could use the technology for monitoring and surveillance, but also that “the stakes are far higher than that.” “Our economic future is at stake,” Mr. Barr said in a speech delivered during a conference in Washington on threats that China poses to the United States. “The risk of losing the 5G struggle with China should vastly outweigh other considerations.” Mr. Barr noted that two Chinese telecom giants, Huawei and ZTE, account for about 40 percent of the global 5G infrastructure market, which is expected to serve as the backbone for trillions of dollars’ worth of economic and industrial activity in an increasingly digital global economy. 5G networks promise substantially faster network speeds and prospects for new commercial applications in multiple industries like transportation and health care. Mr. Barr said it was the first time in history that the United States was not the leader in a major technological sector that will underpin future innovation.
The problem is, William Barr is the United States Attorney General. While that post is an important cabinet position, he is not the Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury. In other words, what the heck is he commenting on matters of national security, economics and trade for? Barr does raise one very important point though which is, that he agreed that too few companies were making 5G equipment; Nokia and Ericsson are the only other global competitors. He said that proposals had already been floated to address this problem, including the possibility that a consortium of private American and allied companies could put financial might “behind one or both of those firms” to make them more competitive and guarantee their staying power. “It’s all very well to tell our friends and allies that they shouldn’t install Huawei, but whose infrastructure are they going to install?” Mr. Barr said.
In other words, the United States under President Trump and Secretary of State Mike “China is the central threat of our times” Pompeo are pushing a very hawkish policy towards China and their main punching bag is Huawei.
With this is mind, The Canadian Press has this pretty good timeline of events:
Aug. 22: A New York court issues a warrant for the arrest of Huawei Technologies chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou.
Dec. 1: Canadian authorities arrest Meng at Vancouver’s airport after an extradition request from the Americans. The news becomes public on Dec. 5.
Dec. 6: China demands Canada release Meng and “immediately correct the mistake” officials made in arresting her. The Chinese say they were not briefed on the reasons for Meng’s arrest. In Ottawa, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says Meng’s case is part of an independent legal process with no outside political influence.
Dec. 7: Meng appears in a Vancouver court, where allegations of fraud are laid out. The U.S. alleges Meng misled American banks in a bid to get around American sanctions on Iran.
Dec. 8: Canada’s ambassador to China, John McCallum, is summoned to a meeting with China’s assistant foreign minister so the country can register complaints about Meng’s arrest.
Dec. 9: China summons the American ambassador to China to lodge similar complaints about Meng’s case and demand the U.S. rescind the order for her arrest.
Dec. 10: Chinese authorities arrest two Canadian men. Michael Kovrig, who was on leave from Global Affairs Canada, and entrepreneur Michael Spavor. Kovrig’s arrest becomes public on Dec. 11. Spavor’s becomes public on Dec. 12.
Dec. 11: Meng is released on $10 million bail. U.S. President Donald Trump tells Reuters that he would “certainly intervene” in Meng’s case “if I thought it was necessary” to help forge a trade deal with China.
Dec. 12: China’s foreign ministry says it has no information about Kovrig but says the organization he worked with — the International Crisis Group — was not registered in China, making its activities in the country illegal.
Dec. 13: Trump’s trade adviser, Peter Navarro, says the arrests of the two Canadians were plainly a response to Meng’s arrest. China’s foreign ministry says Kovrig and Spavor have been detained on suspicion of “endangering national security.”
Dec. 14: Canadian officials are granted consular access to Kovrig, and McCallum meets with him in Beijing.
Dec. 16: Canadian diplomats in China are granted consular access to Spavor.
Dec. 20: Indictments unsealed in the United States allege two Chinese citizens targeted companies in Canada and around the world as part of a years-long hacking campaign to steal data.
Dec. 21: Kovrig’s employer, the International Crisis Group, says he has not been given access to a lawyer while in custody. A source familiar with the conditions of Kovrig’s detention says he is questioned three times a day and kept in a room with the lights on continuously. Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland formally demands both men be let go, calling in a statement “for their immediate release.” Similar statements come out from the United States, Britain and the European Union.
Dec. 24: China’s foreign ministry calls out the U.S., Britain and EU, saying the trio should be condemning Canada for Meng’s arrest.
2019
Jan. 3: At a news conference, China’s prosecutor general Zhang Jun says Kovrig and Spavor “without a doubt” violated Chinese law. He says the investigation is also following the rule of law but doesn’t provide more details about the allegations.
Jan. 7: The Prime Minister’s Office says Trump has affirmed his respect for judicial independence. In a summary of a phone call between Trump and Trudeau, the PMO indicated the leaders discussed the high-profile U.S. extradition request — though Meng was not named — and agreed on the importance of respecting the independence of judges and the rule of law.
Jan. 9: China’s envoy in Ottawa suggests Canada and its Western allies are white supremacists for calling for the release of two Canadians imprisoned last month by his country’s communist government. Ambassador Lu Shaye makes the accusation in an op-ed in the Hill Times.
Jan. 14: Trudeau says he’s very concerned to see China “acting arbitrarily” by applying the death penalty to a Canadian convicted of drug trafficking. He says Canada will do all it can to intervene on Robert Lloyd Schellenberg’s behalf when a court in Dalian in northeastern Liaoning province announced it had given Schellenberg the death penalty after reconsidering his case.
Jan. 15: China expresses its “strong dissatisfaction” with Trudeau over his criticism of Schellenberg’s sentence. Trudeau should “respect the rule of law, respect China’s judicial sovereignty, correct mistakes and stop making irresponsible remarks,” foreign ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying says.
Jan. 16: The U.S. State Department says China’s death sentence against Schellenberg is “politically motivated.” A statement says U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Freeland spoke and “expressed their concerns about the arbitrary detentions and politically motivated sentencing of Canadian nationals.”
Jan. 17: Ambassador Shaye says Canada’s arrest of Meng was an act of “backstabbing” by a friend. Lu warns of “repercussions” if Canada bars the firm from its new 5G network for security reasons, as have three of its intelligence-sharing allies.
Jan. 18: Public Safety Minister Ralph Goodale says the government’s decision on whether to ban Huawei from being used in Canada’s next generation 5G wireless network will not be influenced by threats of retaliation from China.
Jan. 22: China demands the U.S. drop a request that Canada extradite Meng. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said Meng’s case was out of the ordinary and Canada’s extradition treaty with the U.S. infringed on the “safety and legitimate rights and interests of Chinese citizens.”
Jan. 23: Ambassador McCallum says there are strong legal arguments Meng can make to help her avoid extradition to the United States. Speaking to Chinese reporters a day earlier in the Toronto area, McCallum listed several arguments Meng’s legal team can make in her defence.
Jan. 24: Trudeau dismisses calls to remove McCallum following his comments to Chinese reporters, saying such a change wouldn’t help the two Canadians detained by Chinese authorities get home any sooner. Later, McCallum says he “misspoke” when he suggested detained Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou had a strong case to avoid extradition to the United States.
Jan. 25: McCallum tells StarMetro Vancouver it would be “great for Canada” if the United States drops its extradition request. “We have to make sure that if the U.S. does such a deal, it also includes the release of our two people. And the U.S. is highly aware of that,” he told the Star.
Jan. 26: McCallum resigns as ambassador to China at Trudeau’s request.
Jan. 28: The U.S. Department of Justice formally levels criminal charges against Huawei, two subsidiaries and Meng. The charges, contained in two newly unsealed indictments, allege that Huawei misrepresented its ownership of a Hong Kong-based subsidiary to circumvent American sanctions against Iran. Furthermore, they say Huawei stole telecommunications technology, trade secrets and equipment from U.S. cellphone provider T-Mobile USA. Meng is charged with bank fraud, wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit both. In a statement, Huawei denied committing any of the violations cited in the indictment.
Jan. 29: The Canadian government says it has received a formal request for the extradition of Meng, who appears in a Vancouver court to change the people who are providing her with some of the financial sureties for her release.
March 1: The Justice Department gives the formal go-ahead for the extradition case to proceed.
March 3: Meng’s defence team announces it has filed a notice of civil claim alleging “serious violations” of their client’s constitutional rights.
March 4: China accuses the two detained Canadians of acting together to steal state secrets. Trudeau dismissed the allegation made in Chinese state media, saying: “It is unfortunate that China continues to move forward on these arbitrary detentions.”
March 6: A lawyer for Meng tells a judge the United States bid for extradition raises serious concerns about the political motivations behind the case.
March 14: Huawei pleads not guilty in a New York court to charges accusing it of plotting to violate Iran trade sanctions. Lawyers enter the plea in federal court in Brooklyn, two weeks after Huawei pleaded not guilty to separate federal charges filed in Seattle accusing the company of stealing technology from T-Mobile.
March 22: A judge orders the RCMP to provide copies of the content on seven electronic devices owned by Meng after they were seized when she was arrested. Justice Heather Holmes of the British Columbia Supreme Court says the RCMP must make copies of data on an iPhone, an iPad, a Macbook Air, a Huawei phone, two SIM cards and a flash drive.
March 29: The federal government says it is considering subsidizing farmers hit by China’s $2-billion ban on Canadian canola imports.
April 29: Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe says Ottawa needs to treat Chinese imports with the same scrutiny China is showing Canada’s canola shipments.
May 1: The federal government changes a payment program for canola farmers to help those affected by China’s decision to ban the Canadian product.
May 2: China suspends the export permits of two Canadian pork exporters, including Quebec-based Olymel LP, amid growing tensions between the two countries.
May 8: Meng’s defence team tells a judge it plans to argue that she shouldn’t be extradited to the United States because she hasn’t committed fraud under Canadian laws and her arrest was unlawful.
May 9: Canadian diplomats are joined in a Chinese courtroom by American, British, French and German colleagues to watch an appeal in Schellenberg’s case.
May 16: China says it has formally arrested Kovrig and Spavor, bringing them closer to trial on vaguely defined state security charges. A Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman says they have been arrested for allegedly stealing state secrets. Goodale says the federal government is “deeply concerned” about China’s decision, adding that no evidence has been produced to indicate any validity to allegations made against them.
May 23: China’s ambassador to Canada says the bilateral relationship is at “rock bottom” compared to any time since diplomatic ties were first established decades ago. In prepared text for a speech, Lu Shaye says he’s saddened Canada-China relations are at what he called a “freezing point.”
June 5: Lawyers for the RCMP and Canada Border Services Agency deny allegations that their officers searched Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou’s phones and electronic devices after a border official wrote down her passwords. A joint response filed in court to Meng’s civil lawsuit says a border officer asked Meng for her phone numbers and passwords in case he was required to search the devices for customs or immigration purposes. Meng’s civil lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court alleges “serious violations” of her constitutional rights and accuses officers of detaining and questioning her for three hours before notifying her of her arrest.
June 13: Freeland rejects the purported view of former prime minister Jean Chretien that the extradition request be cancelled to improve relations with China and win the release of Kovrig and Spavor. Freeland said while she respects Chretien, Canada is either a rule of law country or it is not. Chretien’s comments were reported in the Globe and Mail citing anonymous sources.
June 24: Defence lawyers for Meng ask Ottawa to stop the extradition process against their client, saying the request made by the United States was for political purposes, not legitimate law enforcement reasons.
Aug. 20: Court documents released ahead of Meng’s extradition hearing suggest a Canadian border official questioned her about her business before the RCMP arrested her. The nearly 1,100 pages of material released by the court were collected by Meng’s defence team.
Aug. 21: Meng’s lawyers allege Canadian officials acted as “agents” of American law enforcement while she was detained at Vancouver’s airport for three hours ahead of her arrest. In court documents, they point to handwritten notes by Canadian officers indicating Meng’s electronics were collected in anticipation of a request from the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States.
Sept. 4. Business consultant Dominic Barton is named as Canada’s new ambassador to China.
Sept. 23: The Crown says Canadian officials followed the law when they detained Meng and the defence has no proof to substantiate its “conspiracy theory” that she was illegally arrested. The Attorney General of Canada says in court documents that there’s no evidence to suggest that the RCMP or the FBI asked border agents to elicit information from Meng during the detainment.
Sept. 24: A lawyer for Meng says there was nothing “routine” about the way she was questioned by border officials before she was read her rights and informed of her arrest as Meng’s defence team asks the B.C. Supreme Court to compel the release of further documents to support its arguments ahead of her extradition hearing in January.
Oct. 1: A Crown prosecutor tells a judge Canadian border guards mistakenly gave the RCMP passcodes to electronic devices belonging to Meng when she was questioned at the Vancouver airport. The Crown says when the border agency realized it had made a mistake, it told the RCMP the codes could not be used or shared because they’d been obtained during a border examination.
Oct. 29: The federal government says Canada’s new ambassador to China has met with Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor.
Oct. 31: In documents, Meng’s lawyers maintain there is an “air of reality” to an allegation the RCMP illegally shared details of her electronic devices with the FBI, despite new affidavits from the Mounties denying the claim.
Nov. 5. A Chinese ban on the import of Canadian pork and beef products estimated to have cost farmers almost $100 million is lifted.
Nov. 24: Canada’s new foreign affairs minister spends an hour in talks with his Chinese counterpart over the fate of Kovrig and Spavor. Francois-Philippe Champagne spoke with China’s Wang Yi a day earlier at a G20 meeting of foreign ministers in Japan.
Nov. 28: Lawyers for Meng say the United States is “dressing up” its complaint that she violated sanctions as a case of fraud as they ask the B.C. Supreme Court to decline her extradition. In court documents released, Meng’s legal team says the alleged misrepresentation does not amount to fraud and the transactions processed by HSBC were not illegal in Canada.
Dec. 2: Meng says she has experienced feelings of helplessness, torment and struggle since being arrested, but no longer fears the unknown. In a post on the Chinese telecom company’s website, Meng says she has passed the time on bail in one of her homes in Vancouver reading books, chatting with colleagues and painting.
Dec. 10: Justice Minister David Lametti says he is troubled that Kovrig and Spavor have been denied access to lawyers as they face trials where convictions are virtually assured. Meanwhile, Meng wins an application in the B.C. Supreme Court for more documents to be disclosed as she alleges there was an abuse of process during her arrest.
2020
Jan. 23: A lawyer for Meng argues the extradition case against her is a test of whether courts will reject foreign charges that run contrary to Canadian values as a hearing wrapped up in the B.C. Supreme Court. The hearing focused on the legal test of double criminality. Crown counsel Robert Frater says the judge does not necessarily need to consider American sanctions law for the allegations to amount to fraud in Canada.
March 13: Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, the Chinese Embassy in Canada says Kovrig has been allowed to have a telephone conversation with his father, who is very ill. The embassy says in a statement that they allowed the call for humanitarian reasons, and it also says Kovrig and fellow detainee Michael Spavor are being given better food to strengthen their immunity against the novel coronavirus.
May 27: Holmes rules against Meng on the double-criminality argument. The B.C. Supreme Court judge says the allegations against Meng could constitute a crime in Canada.
So what has happened in the month since then? Well lets look at some more recent reports which I will limit to propaganda from the Canadian Brainwashing Corporation. “Ottawa could do more to free 2 Canadians jailed in China, Michael Kovrig’s wife says.” “This is about Canada and Canadian lives that are in harm’s way. I am interested in Canada and Canadians standing up for Canadians and Canadian values.” She says this is not about being tough and standing up to China. “I’m interested in us being strong, but not antagonistic. We cannot win a race to the bottom with China, we cannot become aggressive and confrontational because confrontation is not a strategy.”
CBC’s take on this matter is mostly along the lines of this article, “Both [Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor] are accused of violating China’s national security. Unlike Meng, they aren’t free to move about — as she did this week while posing with a bevy of friends and colleagues on the courthouse steps in Vancouver for a photographer.”
Well, sorry the Chris Hall but your narrative is bullshit. Meng is not free to move about. She has been under house arrest for a year and a half and while you want to paint the narrative that she is living in a friend’s Vancouver mansion (she is) compared to the prison cell the two Canadians are in, she is definitely not running around free as a bird. The photo op you talk about is because she was on the way to her court appearance, not because she is going to the nightclub. While there is a difference between the two circumstances, I remind readers who have been under partial home lockdown due to the Covid-19 pandemic, that its no picnic to be stuck in your home for three months let alone the 18 months Meng has been detained.
The CBC also ran this article, “Former parliamentarians, diplomats pen letter calling on Canada to release Meng.” “We contend that the time is past due for the minister to do just that: to end the Meng extradition proceeding and to bring the two Michaels home.” In 1999, the Extradition Act was amended to include a specific provision that gives the federal minister of justice the power to intervene in an extradition at any point during the judicial phase. “The minister has the right to withdraw the authority to proceed and to end the extradition proceeding, and it’s totally at the discretion of the minister of justice,” Greenspan said in an interview with CBC News Tuesday. “The question isn’t whether the [Canadian government] can, the question is whether they should.”
Trudeau’s typical response are like this: “I think there was always going to be a moment where people have to sort of put up or shut up. Either you’re standing for the rules even as it gets awkward and difficult, and people are unhappy with you because you’re applying the rules, or you don’t,” Trudeau said. “I am very, very serene about Canada’s positioning in this and our history that leads us to this … [about] our vision for the future that says if we don’t follow rules and we accept that might is right in the international rules-based order, then nobody’s going to do very well in the coming decades.”
Even if this were true (it’s not as the Extradition Act clearly provides for the government to proceed or withdrawal the extradition at their discretion) the canard that Trudeau respects “the independence of the judiciary” or is loathe to inject politics into the court proceedings is pretty hollow given that he did precisely that with his well documented attempts to block the prosecution of SNC Lavalin during the same time period Meng has been detained. “The allegation that Trudeau improperly tried to influence the attorney general significantly depressed the prime minister’s voter support. Trudeau defended his actions by saying that he was trying to prevent the loss of jobs in Quebec, but the damage to the prime minister’s reputation had been done.” In other words, Trudeau doesn’t give two-cents about judicial independence and political interference – having done so in a case where he actually doesn’t have the right to do so. As the CBC reports in this article, “Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion released a report that found Prime Minister Justin Trudeau violated the Conflict of Interest Act by trying to influence then-justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould when he exerted pressure on her around a decision to deny a deferred prosecution agreement to Quebec-based engineering firm SNC-Lavalin.” “The evidence showed there were many ways in which Mr. Trudeau, either directly or through the actions of those under his direction, sought to influence the attorney general.”
In that open letter to Trudeau, there is the caveat that “Of course, it does not sit well with anyone to yield to bullying or blackmail. The means chosen by China in this instance to advance its interests are indeed repugnant. However, resisting China’s pressure is no guarantee that it will never be applied again in the future. Indeed, if Canada resists the pressure arising from the detention of the Two Michaels, China might well decide that next time it will need to escalate by detaining more than two Canadian”. I think that this is mostly true but my issue is with the word bullying which has taken an almost mythical use in current discourse in North America.
I hate that the term bullying has somehow morphed to be a magic word applicable to any situation where you want to shut down arguments. Kind of like when you call someone a Nazi or racist; the intent is to create an ad hominem narrative rather than focusing on the issues at hand.
Meng is a powerful and important figure in China given that she is the daughter of the founder of Huawei, one of China’s most important global champions in the technology field. The Two Michaels are nobodies that no one other than friend and family would know if it wasn’t for their unfortunate fate to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Arresting Meng was not a small thing to China. If it makes it more clear, it would be the equivalent of Elon Musk being detained in Hong Kong on his way to Tokyo. Canada, and Trudeau, in all its stupidity chose to take this action in a case that has nothing to do with us anyway especially as we do not have an Embargo on Iran like America does. China did not arbitrarily detain the Two Michaels first so who is the real bully here? It’s like the proverbial 100lb skinny weakling kicking sand in the face of the 220lb muscled athlete on the beach and then complaining about bullying when he gets his ass kicked as a result.
We are, of course, talking about realpolitiks here, not a dispute on the beach. Asides from the Two Michaels there is the $100m lost by pork producers in the temporary ban on meat exports (about 55,000 jobs depend on Ontario’s hog industry while there are about 63,000 jobs in the province’s cattle industry, according to the government). The real losers are Saskatchewan and Alberta farmers who have been hit hard. “Canola seed exports to China were down approximately 70 per cent in 2019 due to trade disruptions, resulting in an estimated $1 billion in lost revenue from canola. Prior to last year’s market access challenges, China accounted for approximately 40 per cent of all Canadian canola seed, oil and meal exports. Canola seed exports to China were worth $2.7 billion in 2018.” In other words, Trudeau doesn’t have an ethical problem with trying to save jobs in Quebec with his political interference in the SNC Lavalin legal process or in Ontario, but doesn’t give a rats ass about the lost jobs of prairie farmers in the West.
At least one CBC report finally has some balanced reporting on the subject, “Those arguing for Meng’s release still have to acknowledge what it might cost“. “Today, Trudeau categorically dismissed the idea of a prisoner exchange. It was an opportunity for the prime minister to assert that his approach is based on principles.”
“But Kovrig, Spavor and their families are still suffering — and China isn’t the only one bearing some responsibility for that. It’s up to Trudeau to demonstrate that he is making a full and reasonable effort to bring them home. Every day that the government fails to take observable action is a day when Trudeau risks looking weak.”
“Principles are good and important. But they can also be cold comfort — even when the alternatives seem worse.”
My view is simple. Canada has no interest in detaining Meng. We should have just let her get on the plane in Vancouver to Mexico and just apologized to Trump for our incompetence at missing the opportunity. But more than a year and a half has passed and it looked like it will be at least a year more before we come to any resolution in the courts. If we don’t free Meng, the Two Michaels will undoubtedly spend the rest of their lives rotting in a Chinese prison while Canadian farmers will continue to lose billions in revenue, all during a time when our economy is going to be smacked hard by the Covid-19 pandemic anyway. The price of a principle (that Trudeau doesn’t really adhere to himself anyway) is far too high. We should let Trump sort his own geopolitical mess out and not stick ourselves in the line of fire. After all, Trump already threw our precious Western principals of rule of law under the bus more than a year ago when he said “If I think it’s good for what will be certainly the largest trade deal ever made, which is a very important thing — what’s good for national security — I would certainly intervene [in the Meng case], if I thought it was necessary.”