Episode Info
- Season19
Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove
Guest
Robert Rae
Robert Rae is Canada's Ambassador to the UN discussing credible allegations that Delhi was behind the shooting of a Canadian Sikh activist in Vancouver.
Episode Summary
Canada’s Justin Trudeau threw a petrol bomb into the opening of the annual United Nations General Assembly in New York last week—announcing that there were “credible allegations” that Delhi was behind the shooting of a Canadian Sikh activist in Vancouver in June. Prime Minister Modi is riding high after a successful G20 summit, having entertained a slew of world leaders from the West, all hoping to curry favour with the biggest population in the world. Is Canada mad to start a fight with Delhi at a time when allies are needed to square up to China and Russia? Or does human rights trump geopolitics? One Decision sits down with Canadian Ambassador to the UN Robert Rae to discuss.
Listen & Subscribe
- Watch on YouTube
- Listen on Apple Podcasts
- Listen on Spotify
Transcript
INTRODUCTION
Mcfarlane: You're listening to One More Decision, a short update from the team that brings you One Decision, the podcast examining the choices made that shape our world. I'm your host, journalist and broadcaster Julia McFarlane, and I'm joined by, as always, my host, sir Richard Dearlove, the former chief of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service. Every week, we speak to the world leaders, experts, and journalists on the front lines of geopolitics and consider the impact felt tomorrow by the decisions made today. We drop full podcasts every Thursday. And here's one decision that was made last week that certainly sent shock waves around the world. At start of the annual UN General Assembly, the Super Bowl of global politics, the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, stood up in the House of Commons and made a staggering announcement that the government was investigating credible allegations that the murder of a Canadian citizen earlier this year may have involved agents of the Indian government. Hardeep Singh Nijjar, an Indian born Canadian and Sikh activist living in Vancouver, was shot dead outside a temple in June. The bombshell allegation made by the prime minister was met with outrage by the Indians, who dismissed the allegations as absurd and suspended visa services for Canadians in the country. India has long criticized Canada over its population of Sikh separatists, campaigning for an independent state within the Indian region of Punjab. The Canadians themselves have long argued for the importance of freedom of speech as part of any democratic nation. But Trudeau's announcement meant that at a time when global leaders have been vying for closer ties with India and its prime minister Narendra Modi, who, by the way, just hosted a very successful G20 summit in Delhi, and it presents Canada and its allies with a tricky situation. Does human rights and values trump geopolitics and pragmatism? The US Secretary of State, Tony Blinken, over the weekend finally reacted to the news with a carefully worded statement. He began by saying he was deeply concerned about the allegations and had been consulting and coordinating closely with Ottawa. I'm not going to
Blinken: characterize or otherwise speak to diplomatic conversations that we've had. We've been engaged directly with the Indian government as well. And again, I think the most productive thing that can happen now is to see this investigation move forward, be completed. And we would hope that our Indian friends would cooperate with that investigation as well.
INTERVIEW WITH BOB RAE
Mcfarlane: Well, last week, we visited the Canadian mission to the UN in New York to have a chat with their UN ambassador, Bob Rae. I started by asking Bob how the prime minister's shock announcement had impacted their relationship with India so far.
Rae: Well, obviously, it's a challenge. I mean, there's no point in pretending that it isn't. But the prime minister would not have made this statement in the House of Commons on Monday unless he had credible intelligence and information that he believed was sufficiently clear and transparent, that he shared it for some time with the government of India. And we continue to work with the government of India in saying we wanna get to the bottom of this. We obviously can't accept Canadian citizen being killed on our soil by people connected to the government of India. And if that didn't happen, then obviously, that's also something that has to be very clearly established. But they will now follow the evidence. There is a criminal process, that investigation process that's underway. And I just think it's, you know, one of the thing that you hear comments that are made by different governments and so on, you say, yeah. Of course, there's always gonna be a reaction, and that's fine. We understand that. And we're not interested in escalating the war of words. What we do want is to get to the bottom of it and make sure that everybody understands that this kind of activity is completely unacceptable to us and we believe to any other sovereign country. And we asked for quite a while. We asked for explanation or response, didn't get any. Looked as if the story was gonna be leaked to the media, so the prime minister decided that we should make it clear what the situation is from our perspective. And that continues to be the case.
Mcfarlane: That's interesting. The prime minister was asked about the timing of this, and in response, he said that we wanted to make sure we were taking the time to talk to our allies. Now India has dismissed the allegations quite stridently. They have now warned their citizens to exercise utmost caution now when visiting Canada. They've suspended visa services for Canadians in India. It seems that by making this public, if, as you say, your government had been asking the Indians for their cooperation in finding out what happened to Hardeep Singh Nijjar, by speaking publicly about this now, do you think that might possibly a way to force the Indians to play ball? The fact that they are now denying it very stridently might suggest that prime minister Modi is sticking to his guns and denying that there were any Indian agents involved in this.
Rae: This is not a game of tactics or even strategies. That much I know. I mean, I know I'm not in a position to tell you everything I know, but that much I can tell you very clearly. So it's a mistake to think that this is some kind of poker game or some kind of strategy game. It's not. It is what it is. If our government receives information and on a further examination says, yes, this has credibility attached to it, sources of it are credible, and we wanna engage with the government of India in getting somewhere. And then, frankly, if we find that we're not getting a response and we feel that because people in your profession and others are very good at digging out, well, where did this come from? And we wanted to make sure that we're not simply responding to something which looked as if we didn't know what we were doing. We're just saying, no. This is what we know, and this is how it plays out. And I think it's very important for the public to take it at face value, and, you know, we are as the government of Canada is committed to protecting its citizens. We're committed to allowing freedom of speech in our country, and we're also very committed. And mister Trudeau has said this on a number of occasions, and I'm certainly happy to say it again. We're very committed to a united India with its full territorial integrity. We're not interested in upsetting any applecarts. The consequences of all this are too great. This is a consequential business right now, so we need to understand how important it is to get it right.
Mcfarlane: I mean, this was an extraordinary story. The alleged assassination on foreign soil of a civilian. It makes one think of Salisbury. It makes one think of the case of Jamal Khashoggi. But if what prime minister Trudeau has said, if these allegations are correct, this involves a citizen, a Canadian citizen, being assassinated by a foreign government, and so in a sense makes it a step above the likes of Salisbury, where UK allies, show solidarity, expelled Russian diplomats on all their territories. Obviously, the investigation is ongoing, we don't yet know if there were Indian agents linked to the Modi government behind this, but if it transpires that that is the case, is this something that is serious enough to really cause Canada to maybe even break both relations with the Indians? Will you be asking your allies to show solidarity? Will we see the expulsion of diplomats on either side?
Rae: I don't think it's possible to predict exactly what's gonna happen, because so much of it depends on the response through time of the Indian government. And I think it's important for people to remain in control of their emotions and their responses. So, I mean, I know that in the media, there's a desire to, you know, follow every headline with another bigger headline. And so I'm trying to lower the tone, as you can perhaps tell from my voice. It's been a long week. But, no, I just think it's we gotta keep this in perspective. We still have extremely close and valuable relationships with the people of India. We have a substantial economic and trade relations with India, with the Indian Subcontinent and so on. And we have many, many strong common interests with India. So we have no interest in ending any of that. What we do have is an interest in getting greater cooperation on trying to provide us with an explanation as to what happened.
Mcfarlane: Prime Minister Trudeau quite famously spoke up in support of farmers in India who are protesting against agricultural reforms that the Modi government was trying to put in place a few years ago, and Delhi was again very unhappy with the prime minister for speaking up on behalf of the farmers. They accused him of interference. How has the relationship been with the Modi government over the last few years? I also noticed that talks on planned free trade deal between Canada and India were called off. Is the relationship testy?
Rae: Well, look, you can't separate out what's happened from saying, is it testy? I'm not gonna supply you with another adjective, but, obviously, it's challenging at the moment. But I just wanna say, I mean, my own personal experience with this goes back quite a long way. Forty years ago, there was a bomb exploded on a plane, going from Canada to India. It blew up off the coast of Ireland. It killed over 300 people. And eventually, two people were charged, who were Canadians. And there was a third person was charged with manufacturing the bomb. He was convicted. Two others were not convicted. And then I was asked by the government of the day, fifteen years ago, to do a review of what had happened and what more could be done. That report called lessons to be learned is still available on the Internet, if anybody wants to read it, published by Public Safety Canada. And it's an attempt to describe how over the years, the continuing force of the events in India had their echo and reverberations in Canada. And this was no different than in The UK, no different than in The US. Eventually, as you know, Indira Gandhi was assassinated. Then there was serious response from the Indian government to that as one would expect. And this event then happened. And there's no question that it's been a long standing view of the government of India that Canada needs to do more to deal with extremism in our own country. And I think, frankly, we are. We have, and we continue to. We continue to be very closely and very vigilant with respect to where we think extremist behavior is taking place. And it remains a problem for us as it does for people in The UK and in The US and, as I said, around the world. Terrorism is a continuing problem. I co chaired and co facilitated the discussion at the UN on counterterrorism this year. And I've talked about this with Indian representatives many, many times. Gave them copies of my report to say, here's what I've said about this issue as we go forward. So it has been challenging. But I think one of the things that I would say to anybody is you cannot use an excuse to intervene directly in the affairs of another country, not by giving a speech and saying, hey, we think your agricultural reform is causing challenges, but by interfering in the life of people and taking away a life. And so we have to get to the bottom of this particular incident. Nothing justifies what's taken place. I've not seen a justification that would make any sense to me, so we need to get to the bottom of it.
ANALYSIS WITH SIR RICHARD DEARLOVE
Mcfarlane: Canadian ambassador to the United Nations, Bob Rae, speaking to me in New York. Let's bring in my cohost, sir Richard Dearlove, for his analysis. Richard, this was obviously a really interesting time to talk to the Canadian ambassador to the UN during UN week, and during a week where the Canadian prime minister stood up and revealed to the world that there were credible allegations suggesting that the killing of a Canadian citizen, a Sikh Canadian citizen early this year in June, may have been possibly linked to agents of the government of India. That was a huge bombshell that sent shockwaves across New York during UNGA week. And of course the inescapable timing of India having only just hosted the G20 reaping the diplomatic harvests of that, Modi really hitting his stride on the world stage, being courted by everyone left, right, and center, vying for his allyship, for his solidarity. When you saw those push alerts come into your phone, you saw the story drop. What were your immediate thoughts?
Dearlove: Well, first I was really surprised, and the reason I was really surprised is that the Canadian government generally on intelligence and security issues is famously cautious and restrained. And in fact, after I retired I gave a public lecture at Toronto University, for which I got quite a lot of stick, because I basically, you know, criticized the Canadian intelligence community for being rather risk averse in the way that they approach their membership of Five Eyes. And I said that, you know, they were takers rather than contributors. So for Trudeau to stand up and make a statement like this is very very surprising in a way because the Canadians do not normally submit themselves to that degree of political exposure. So that's the first thing. And I mean, the second point is for a Canadian prime minister to say that in parliament, I wouldn't say suggest to me, tells me that they must have something really solid to go on. And it's rather peculiar to make a statement like that because in the end, he'll have to go public. I mean, to sustain the accusation, I would suggest he has to go public with the evidence. And it could well, it's already blown up into a very severe political row between India and Canada. And of course, the dimension to this, which is important, you know, is India's importance as a strategic ally of the West in relation to China, and the fact that both The United States and The UK, in spite of the difficulties of dealing with the Modi regime, have put a lot of time and attention into trying to build a relationship with India which has this strategic dimension. So the reverberations of this through these events is quite far reaching, and one wonders exactly where it's going to end up. The other point I would make is, I mean, Indian intelligence service is called RAW, which stands for research and analysis wing. And, you know, the implication seems to be that this was organized by RAW. Now I actually find that also pretty hard to believe. I mean, I don't think there's any precedent for RAW having been previously connected with activities that extreme. On the other hand, I would say that the issue of Sikh nationalism since the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi by her Sikh bodyguard, one of her Sikh bodyguards, makes this a very, very emotive and difficult subject in Indian domestic politics and the activity for an independent Khalistan. And there's a whole history, you know, to Sikh extremism in relation to their aspiration, you know, to happen in state of
Mcfarlane: There's also history of persecution of the Sikhs and the massacre of Sikhs in 1984, for example.
Dearlove: I mean, it's on both sides, surely. Yeah. It goes both ways, you know, and there have been bombings of, you know, the Indian Airline have blown up over the Atlantic several years back. I mean, there are all sorts of issues.
Mcfarlane: Something that has changed in recent years is the rise of Hindu nationalism and the increasingly inflammatory rhetoric espoused by Modi, the BJP, and these Hindu nationalists that have been stoking things up.
Dearlove: Yeah. There's a very fair chance that this is an emanation of Hindu nationalism. But, you know, if it's a Hindu nationalist terrorist or hit group, it isn't necessarily, you know, something that's part of RAW. It could easily be something which is, you know, detached from Indian officialdom. All I'm saying is, you know, I'm surprised if the hand of RAW is visible in this. And the fact that Trudeau got up in parliament suggests that the Canadians have pretty convincing evidence, in which case he's gonna need to state it or publish it at some point. Otherwise, the story is not gonna stick. I mean, once you've made this allegation, you've got to sustain it and go through with it. So or, I mean, it's possible that, you know, you have a almost a freelance Hindu group that may have a very tenuous connection with RAW in some way. I mean, always go back to the historical murder of the archbishop by Henry the second when the king says, who will rid me of this troublesome bishop?
Mcfarlane: I'm sure Putin has used that tactic before. But I mean, this was not a sophisticated assassination. He was gunned down at a temple he was known to frequent. And I don't know if they caught the gunman. I mean, this isn't something that required state level assassins, right? I mean, it wasn't a sort of sophisticated plot. That doesn't mean it wasn't carried out by possible agents of the government of India, but it's also, there's not much that maybe indicates that at least that we know publicly that it could be government affiliated.
Dearlove: Well, you know, except the very surprising fact that Trudeau got up and said this. And, you know, is it a misjudgment on his part? I can't believe he didn't take careful advice beforehand. And, I mean, I don't know who the current, you know, senior people are in the Canadian Intelligence Organization. And I would have thought that if they're going to make a public statement, given the implications for Five Eyes in, you know, this sort of now massive spat between Canada and India, that they've had to somehow, you know, speak behind the scenes to their Five Eyes allies and explain what the hell it's all about. So I mean, I think in a way we wait with bated breath to see whether more material and information comes out about it. And I mean, maybe we have to, you know, reassess RAW and we have to reassess Hindu nationalism, and maybe there is, you know, a new departure. But I mean India is a functioning democracy. Okay, it's been engaged in conflict both external and internal, but it's never quite, as it were in my view, crossed this rather extraordinary line.
Mcfarlane: That's it for this week's episode of One Decision. We drop new episodes every Thursday. Like and subscribe so you never miss an episode. Drop us a line. Tell us your thoughts. What decisions have impacted you and where you live? You can write to us. Our email is 1decision@1decisionpodcast.com. From me and the team, thank you for listening, and see you next time.
