Repatriation order for men in Syria raises questions about Canada’s consular obligations

I’m on the more cautious side on repatriation and the likelihood of rehabilitation, particularly with respect to adults:

Former diplomats say Canada should have moved to repatriate four men from northeastern Syria without a court order, avoiding another decision from the federal bench that casts more doubt on the country’s obligations to its citizens held for wrongdoing in foreign countries.

A day after the government came to an agreement to repatriate 19 women and children, the Federal Court ruled on Jan. 20 that four men held in detention camps for suspected ISIS members in northeastern Syria must be repatriated, too, noting that their living conditions are “even more dire than those of the women and children who Canada has just agreed to repatriate.”

The government has yet to indicate whether it will appeal the case. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) said on Jan. 23 that the government is looking at the situation “carefully” and is “making sure we’re defending Canadians’ safety and security.”

Former Canadian diplomat Daniel Livermore, who was director general of security and intelligence in Canada’s foreign service, said the Federal Court ruling will force Global Affairs to change its consular policy unless it is appealed.

“The tradition in consular service, the way it has been delivered … it doesn’t matter who you are and what you’ve done, you get consular service irrespective of background,” said Livermore, who authored Detained: Islamic Fundamentalist Extremism and the War on Terror in Canada. “Now, that didn’t happen with these people, and it didn’t happen because of their background.”

Livermore noted that there is little sympathy to provide any kind of assistance for those who are linked with allegedly going abroad to join a terrorist organization.

“I think the court case is really going to force the hands of Global Affairs to come up with something a lot better, and hopefully it is something that is anchored in a more sensible policy than they’ve pursued so far,” he said.

He added that in an “ideal world,” the case shouldn’t have even come to court and the repatriation should have taken place long ago.

In its policy framework to “evaluate the provision of extraordinary assistance,” the government notes that it has “no positive obligation under domestic or international law to provide consular assistance, including repatriation.”

The framework was unearthed as part of the Federal Court case.

The policy notes that Global Affairs “may” provide consular assistance to Canadians abroad with their request and consent, and pursuant to the government’s “royal prerogative on international relations.” The Federal Court ruled that the royal prerogative isn’t “exempt from constitutional scrutiny.”

Livermore said Canadian courts, in successive cases, have undermined the government’s claim of not having to provide consular assistance, including the most recent January decision. He said the notion was also disputed in 2010 when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Omar Khadr’s case. The top court ruled it could order the government to ask the United States to repatriate Khadr from detention in Guantanamo Bay, but chose not to. Livermore also cited the case of Abousfian Abdelrazik, who the Federal Court ordered be repatriated from Sudan in 2009.

“[The three cases show] a nice little pattern, which undermines the royal prerogative argument and limits it very substantially,” he said.

He said the consular policy is a “residue” of Canada’s post-9/11 policies.

“A lot of our policies were changed without thinking them through,” he said. “A lot of the security agencies at the centre, at the [Privy Council Office], began to exercise powers that they don’t legitimately have a right to claim. Now we’re starting to untangle all this stuff … so presumably Global Affairs will have to work on that a bit and it will be interesting to see how it will come up with it.”

Livermore said one solution for future consular cases is to remove the RCMP and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) from the co-management of the situation, suggesting that could be done by invoking the individual’s rights under the Privacy Act.

Under the government’s framework, CSIS and the RCMP will determine the “potential threat” an individual poses to public safety and national security, which includes “the individual’s involvement in, or association with, terrorist activity, and whether the risk of their return to Canada can be sufficiently mitigated in transit and upon arrival.”

Unlike other countries, Canada has made little progress to repatriate its citizens who have been held in Kurdish-controlled camps in the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria (AANES).

The government has cited safety concerns for its inability to travel to the camps to assess the consular cases. Under its framework, it notes that one of the guiding principles is that government officials “must not be put in harm’s way.” Other countries’ diplomats, as well as academics, journalists, and civil society advocates, have gone to the AANES camps.

Patricia Fortier, who served as Global Affairs Canada’s assistant deputy minister responsible for security, consular, and emergency management prior to her retirement in 2016, said the duty-of-care issue is a “very live issue.”

“There is no question that it is more top of mind now than it was in the past,” she said. “No one wants to order an officer into a place where they might not come back or they might be injured.”

She said the recent Federal Court decision continues a “long string” of cases involving the post-9/11 context and return to Canada.

“In each of those, everyone predicted that it would change things and it didn’t,” she said.

She said that the repatriation of the women and children had to come, but the question of the men is a more difficult one for potential public safety reasons.

“It’s going to be a really difficult security question,” she said, noting the situation is unlike many other consular cases as the Kurds who have control over the camps want to offload all the detainees.

“It is an odd situation,” she said, noting that it is unlikely that a similar case will have to be dealt with in the future.

Fortier said the situation will likely be resolved by Global Affairs and the security agencies, with the possible input of the defence department, before winding up on Trudeau’s desk.

She also noted the concern of the Yazidi population in Canada. In 2016, the House of Commons passed a motion that recognized that ISIS was committing genocide against Yazidi people. CBC News reported that survivors of the genocide who have resettled in Canada feel “heartbroken and betrayed.”

She said it is not always possible for the government to have a positive obligation to provide consular assistance, noting that could require Canada to repatriate a Canadian abroad who simply runs out of money.

Former diplomat Gar Pardy, who was the director general of the consular affairs bureau in the foreign service, said he doubted that the government would be interested in using the Federal Court’s decision as a foundation to change its consular policy.

He said that is why he thinks the government will appeal the decision.

Regardless of how the court process ends, Pardy said the government should be repatriating its citizens in northeastern Syria.

“The Canadian government should join what other governments have done,” he said, noting that many of Canada’s allies have repatriated their citizens who were in Syria. “Why the Canadian government has not followed this path—it just doesn’t seem to make any sense.”

The NDP and Green Party have called on the government to move forward on repatriation.

Source: Repatriation order for men in Syria raises questions about Canada’s consular obligations

What duty of care does Canada have? Joly denies abandoning Ukrainian embassy staff

This is another embarrassing episode for the government in general, and Global Affairs and Minister Joly in particular. Hopefully any review of “duty of care” will start with a review of relevant historical examples such as Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Iran (1980 and 2012), Afghanistan, and analyse the similarities and differences, along with the policy rationales. But before the report, this letter to the editor provides a sharp contrast to what happened in former Yugoslavia in 1999:
When NATO bombed Yugoslavia in 1999, the Milosevic regime threatened the Serbian staff of member country embassies, labelling them as collaborators from whom retribution would be exacted. Before evacuating the Canadian staff of the embassy in Belgrade, we advanced six months’ salary to all local staff and the immigration section issued visas to them and their immediate families. None of this was directed by what was then Foreign Affairs in Ottawa. Since ambassadors have plenipotentiary powers, I was able to make the necessary decisions sur place. Had we waited for instructions, I am afraid little would have been done. That same inability to act promptly in a crisis may have been the underlying reason for Global Affairs Canada abandoning our local staff in Kyiv. Raphael Girard Former ambassador to Yugoslavia; Montreal
Source: Different time
The Canadian government says it is reviewing its duty to local staff members at missions abroad following a media report that its Ukrainian employees in Kyiv were not alerted to the threats against them and were left to fend for themselves with the Russian invasion looming. On Wednesday, Foreign Affairs Minister Mélanie Joly was asked if her office was aware of the intelligence that Ukrainian staff for foreign embassies were allegedly on Russia’s list of targeted individuals — and deliberately withheld the information from the local staff at the mission. “Never did I or the department have any information targeting locally engaged Canadian staff. We never got that information, nor me or my team or the department,” Joly told reporters at a joint news conference with her visiting German counterpart, Annalena Baerbock, after the two met to discuss the energy and food security crises as well as trade. “I know we have a specific duty of care. I know this is in conversations within the department whether that duty of care applies to locally engaged staff. I would say that morally we have an obligation toward locally engaged staff.” This week, the Globe and Mail reported that the Canadian embassy in Kyiv received a secret briefing from allies in January that the Russian invasion was imminent and that Ukrainians working for western countries could face arrest or execution. The Canadian staff members were also reportedly warned not to share the information with their Ukrainian colleagues. Joly said she had spoken “directly” with the locally engaged staff about their safety and security during her visits in Ukraine in January before the war and followed up with the department and Canadian ambassador in Kyiv, Larisa Galadza, on this issue, throughout, including on Feb. 24, when the war was declared. “Ukraine is a war-torn country, we wanted to make sure that they had options. They were offered options to come to Canada. Some of them have decided to come. Some of them have decided to stay,” said Joly, who praised the contributions of the local Ukrainian staff members. “They were also given full payment and compensation and benefits, although for some time the diplomats were outside of the country.” Joly said a review process called the “Future of Diplomacy” has already been launched to study the issues surrounding the duty of care for local employees in time of crises. The alleged abandonment of the Ukrainian local staff has called into question how Canada applies its duty of care to local staff at diplomatic missions abroad. In Afghanistan, for instance, Ottawa introduced a special immigration program for current and former Afghan employees and contractors, as well as their families, in anticipation of the takeover of Kabul by the Taliban last year. Experts on consular services say evacuations of locally engaged staff are inconsistently applied based on the quality of risk assessments. Local employees are crucial to consular operations, especially in a crisis. “There is no straight line in diplomacy and there is no straight line in security,” said Ferry de Kerckhove, a career Canadian diplomat who was ambassador in Indonesia during the 2002 Bali terrorist bombings and in Egypt between 2008 and 2011 during the Arab Spring movement. De Kerckhove, who spent 38 years in foreign service, said whether to evacuate local staff or not is decided by the ambassador in consultation with Ottawa. The assessment is complex and involves Global Affairs Canada, the immigration department and other ministries. Although he is not privy to the intelligence or circumstances on the ground in Kyiv, he said, generally, unless there’s a really dire situation, the government would need those staff on the ground. “I would assume that if there was a situation in Kyiv that would become really worrisome, we would probably consider bringing in the staff the same way we bring refugees in,” said de Kerckhove, now a senior fellow in public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa. “I don’t think there is a prima facie case of saying yes or no. It would be on a case-by-case basis.” Any evacuation involving Canadian and domestic staff is taken seriously because it’s an onerous and time-sensitve process and officials are often hesitant to let go of the essential staff. He said there are also concerns by officials over “opening the floodgate” in terms of eligibility and access. “The consistency comes from the quality of the analysis of the assessment of the given situation. It’s the situation at any given time that determines the quality of the assessment,” said de Kerckhove. “So any consular manual rule would allow enough leeway to be able to make an assessment based on changing circumstances.” Earlier this year, the Senate committee on foreign affairs and international trade initiated a review of the Canadian foreign service. In May, Joly announced the review to modernize the department and adapt to the changing geopolitical environment. Global Affairs Canada officials said discussions over the duty-of-care issue have been part of that review. Patricia Fortier, an expert on consular services with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said the inclusion of the issue in the review is timely. “There is a need for people to understand the balance that’s needed. And if this results in a more balanced approach to duty of care, this will really be helpful,” said the retired Canadian diplomat, who was most recently assistant deputy minister for security, consular and emergency management in Global Affairs Canada. “Right now, the problem of taking duty of care to its logical end is you end up (being) totally risk-averse. Diplomacy requires always a certain amount of risk. You can’t keep everybody under lock and key and not go places that are risky.” Fortier said actions required in response to a crisis are never straightforward and there are no cookie-cutter solutions. While the United States, Canada and Britain withdrew their embassy staff in Kyiv in the buildup of the Russian war, other allies opted to stay. “I’m not sure what kind of thinking went into the decisions, but what I want to address is intelligence. Anybody within the foreign service for any length of time can get a lot of stuff across their desk. And all intelligence needs to be assessed,” said Fortier. “Sometimes it’s right. A lot of times it’s not right. Nothing happens. So one of the questions I have is, how serious was this?” Carleton University international affairs professor David Carment said there’s no indication that Kyiv is going to be under any form of attack except for missile strikes, which target assets such as arms shipments that the Russians deem important to the Ukrainian war effort. If the locally engaged staff have been engaged in work and activities related to the war effort such as collecting intelligence, which would certainly put their lives at risk, a strong argument could then be made for their evacuation to Canada, he said. “We don’t know the details on that. But to automatically assume that the Russians are going to capture them and torture them just because they happen to be on the Canadian side is problematic,” noted Carment, a senior fellow with the Institute for Peace & Diplomacy, a non-partisan think tank based in Toronto. The issue is beyond just securing the safety of individual foreign service officers, but ensuring Canada has a credible presence in countries that are risky, he said. “One of the questions that needs to be considered is whether this duty-of-care approach is an effort to convince Canadians who might want to be foreign service officers to serve abroad where they’re more likely to be at risk,” said Carment. “So it is a bigger argument. It’s one that has to be placed in the context of having a strong diplomatic presence.” Source: What duty of care does Canada have? Joly denies abandoning Ukrainian embassy staff