The question was not whether the federal government would opt for a diplomatic boycott of the Beijing Olympics, but rather WHEN that decision would be announced.
It would have been both embarrassing and inconsistent for Ottawa not to move forward. Several very good reasons prompted him to do so.
Because we are all, as Justin Trudeau said on Wednesday, “deeply troubled by the human rights violations” of the Chinese regime. Starting with the fate of the Uyghur minority.
Because Canada has paid the price, too. The arbitrary detentions of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig are the most striking example.
And because some of our greatest allies in the Western democracies have themselves announced a diplomatic boycott.
After pleading that our allies should show solidarity with China – and especially in the case of arbitrary detentions, where their support was crucial – what would we have looked like if we had turned our backs on them for the Olympics?
This decision will inevitably displease Beijing. But it is not a declaration of war either. Far from there.
Our athletes will go to China. And the event is likely to be a success.
A diplomatic boycott was therefore the bare minimum acceptable. This is what our editorial team had recently supported.
Let us not err by being too naive, however. Our relationship with Beijing, even though Meng Wanzhou was able to return to China after the two Michael’s were released, continues to falter.
That is why, now that the abscess of the diplomatic boycott has been broken, it is important to quickly address the diplomatic challenge that this relationship represents.
It needs to be recalibrated, so Ottawa urgently needs a new ambassador to Beijing.
Because it was also announced this week that Dominic Barton, the current ambassador, will end his mandate at the end of the year. After only two years in office.
His tenure was not easy, to say the least. Nevertheless, his hasty departure is unfortunate.
His experience in times of crisis, dearly acquired, would have been invaluable while we are still in a zone of turbulence.
This episode illustrates the potential problems with political appointments to fill such crucial ambassadorial posts.
Neither Dominic Barton nor his predecessor, former minister John McCallum, were career diplomats.
Should we remember that John McCallum was there less than two years … before resigning in the midst of controversy?
There are certainly some advantages to a political appointment. It is possible to choose a candidate with particular skills, if he is from a business background, for example. Or to select someone with whom the Prime Minister could have a special relationship.
There are also, however, many drawbacks.
With a career diplomat, you make sure you have someone who masters the language of their host country and who has developed a fine knowledge of it.
Someone, too, who knows by heart the challenges and issues of his diplomatic work and who is capable of forging important networks of contacts in the field.
All of this is not necessarily obvious when recruiting from outside the diplomatic corps.
Improvising as an ambassador overnight is not for everyone, and it is certainly even less easy if you do not master the language of the country in which you are.
Let us add that political appointments are not very good for the morale of members of the diplomatic corps.
And the new federal Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mélanie Joly, has turned swords in the wound by arguing that Dominic Barton “will go down in history as one of Canada’s great diplomats”.
First of all, it is wrong.
Then it was terribly awkward.
We can of course not exclude that we find, to replace Dominic Barton, an exceptional candidate outside the diplomatic corps.
But everything indicates that Ottawa would do well, this time, to favor a career diplomat over a star in finance or politics.