Diplomatic relations between Canada and India have not been particularly diplomatic in the past few years. In the span of 18 months, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau himself has twice very publicly accused the Indian government of assassinating a Canadian citizen, Hardeep Singh Nijjar. India rejects the allegation. Canada presents Nijjar as an activist fighting for an independent Sikh homeland; India presents him as a Khalistani separatist and terrorist. Yes, there’s a disagreement. But given that such issues are usually resolved behind the scenes by diplomats of the countries involved, why is Canada staging such a dramatic public fight with India?

Why the public fight?

Ottawa sees itself admirably as a champion of the global downtrodden. While this is true to a large extent, there are two caveats. First, it is a selective champion. It has repeatedly scolded China over its treatment of its Uyghur population, located largely in the Xinjiang region. It scolded India over its handling of the farmer protests in the Indian state of Punjab in 2020. It was so outraged by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that it responded by committing over $13 billion in funding, largely for military assistance. However, over the decades, it has consistently supported Israel’s occupation of Palestine, voting against Palestine at the UN and arming Israel. And it continues to do so in the face of over 40,000 Palestinian deaths and many more injured in Gaza: in essence, aiding a genocide.

Second, it forgets its past crimes against its own indigenous population. And the neglect continues, with the indigenous facing disproportionately high rates of incarceration, difficulty in accessing healthcare and clean drinking water and violence against women. Such selective championing of causes and preaching to others while ignoring its own sins leads the world to question whether Canada’s concern is politically motivated and therefore weakens its moral standing on the global stage.

Ottawa feels that New Delhi has intruded on its sovereignty, which is foreign interference. However, other countries have also interfered with Canada with harmful or specific intent. For example, China has been accused of interfering in Canadian elections, surveillance in Arctic waters and coercing Chinese Canadians to spy for them. Russia too has been accused of interfering in Canada by trying to influence elections and diminish support for Ukraine. By the way, Canada’s closest ally, the US, has also engaged in foreign election interference in a long list of countries — including Brazil, Bolivia, Italy, Iran, Japan and Russia. And long before China meddled in Canada’s elections, the US had interfered in Canadian elections during the Kennedy years (helping Lester B. Pearson defeat Diefenbaker) — and yet, there’s no record of Ottawa publicly upbraiding Washington.

The assassination of a Canadian citizen on Canadian soil by a foreign element is inarguably egregious. Has such a thing — one country coming into a second country to kill a citizen of the second country — ever happened before? The list of countries and their assassinations (state-sponsored killings) is long. The number of assassinations — or “targeted killings” — attributed to the US numbers over 60, some conducted outside of the country of the victim’s nationality and some conducted within. Israeli assassinations number over 300. Interestingly, in 1990, the Israeli secret service Mossad killed a Canadian engineer in Belgium. And in 1997, two Mossad agents holding Canadian passports tried to poison a Hamas political leader in Jordan. The swamp of international assassinations is thickly populated and morally murky. Pointing a finger at one country can be risky because, to paraphrase that old joke, four fingers will be pointing back at your allies.

The breaking of the “rules-based international order”

Double standards are at work. Israel considers Hamas as a terrorist organization and India considers the Khalistan Tiger Force as a terrorist organization. Israel assassinated Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Iran this past July. Israel had announced their intent beforehand, and afterwards they did not bother to deny it. All this is quietly accepted by Canada, the US and other Western countries. However, India’s possible (denied by India) killing of Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada last year is considered a shameful and punishable offense by Canada and the West and has led to a diplomatic row.

It’s not surprising that the Global South views the glass house of “rules-based international order” cynically. The repeated hypocritical behaviors of powerful countries have caused it to become opaque, weaken, crack and finally break, leaving just one rule standing: Might is right.

Many rules of international conduct have been formulated, but a global order based on them can only work if they apply equally to all.

Foreign policy based on Khalistan

The significant political clout of Khalistan-supporting Sikhs in Canada has pushed the Nijjar issue to the forefront of Canada’s foreign affairs agenda. Of the roughly 5% people of Indian origin living in Canada, less than half are Sikh and fewer still are Khalistani (desirous of an independent Sikh homeland — Khalistan — carved out of the Indian state of Punjab). And yet, they seem to have a disproportionate influence on Trudeau. In the 2015 election, 20 Sikh MPs were elected and Trudeau called four of them to his cabinet. One of them, Harjit Sajjan, holder of several ministerial posts over the Trudeau years, is said to be a Khalistan sympathizer. In 2018, Trudeau went on an official trip to India, focused largely on Punjab, Sikhs and Khalistanis — which concerned and angered the Indian government. The leader of one of Canada’s major political parties and currently Trudeau’s coalition partner is Jagmeet Singh, a Sikh who is said to  support Khalistan. However, just because there are a large number of Sikh politicians should not mean that Sikh-specific issues should get higher priority; after all, these politicians should be working for the well-being of all Canadians.

Putting oneself in the shoes of Khalistanis, it is understandable that they — with their singular focus on attaining Khalistan — would want to embarrass and discredit India as well as spoil relations between Canada and India. But why should Trudeau, as the leader of the entire country, want the same thing? Why would he want to ruin relations with India — the fifth largest economy in the world, a working (albeit chaotic) democracy of 1.4 billion people, with 1.8 million people of Indian origin having chosen Canada as their new home? Why would he want to adopt a simplistic “me good, you bad” school of foreign policy? Why would he not want to address in good faith the repeatedly-stated security concerns of a long-standing ally?

Perplexed at the unusually on-stage nature of a usually off-stage dispute, Indian analysts wonder if Ottawa has a hidden agenda. Some wonder if this public fight is a deliberate attempt by Trudeau to project an external enemy and thereby gather internal support and cohesiveness. Others wonder if the aim is to move the mantle of “master of threat” from China (a stronger foe but indispensable) to India (a weaker foe and possibly more dispensable). Yet others wonder if this is a ploy to shift the spotlight away from Canada’s stagnant economy. They theorize that this may all be done with next year’s election in mind.

One explanation for this public fight is that both sides are now deeply frustrated and not listening to the other. Canada feels that India is not accepting or explaining the evidence it has on Nijjar’s killing. India feels that Canada never properly investigated the 1985 bombing of Air India Flight 182 (“the worst terrorist attack in Canada’s history”) which killed over 300 people (most of them Canadians) and was attributed to Sikh extremists — and that Canada is still not addressing its concerns about Khalistani terrorists residing in Canada. It would not be surprising if, when a country is repeatedly stifled in diplomatic channels, it resorts to non-diplomatic means.

Foreign policy as if the whole country matters

Going forward, much depends on the role Canada wants to play in this drama. Does Canada want to break up India? If it continues to protect and enable Sikh separatists living within its borders, it will be aiding that process. This would be a surprising and ironic role for Canada, given its own long efforts to maintain a united English-French nation. And if so, does Canada want to play a similar role for other groups of refugees and empower them against their country of origin — such as Afghans, Columbians, Iranians, Mexicans and Turks who have fled their country to make their home in Canada? And then, what of French Canadian nationalists? Or, alternatively, does Canada want to play a role it could aspire to — that of peacemaker? Canada may be ideally situated to do this — having the largest Sikh population outside India, having a large number of non-Sikh Indians residing in Canada and having a historically friendly relationship with India.

Over the centuries, Canada has provided a welcoming and safe new home to various groups of immigrants who — for the most part — have left their old animosities and grievances at the door and entered with just their hopes for a new life and good intentions in hand. For the cohesiveness of all Canadians, for the well-being of the entire country and for its peaceful place within the community of nations, Canada cannot allow its foreign policy to be monopolized by the concerns of a small section of its population or the political machinations of one party or the impulses of one person. Ideally, Ottawa needs to have practical and sustainable long-term foreign policy goals that reflect national values and serve the country’s interests as a whole. And with those firmly in mind, it must decide what kind of relations Canada should have with not just India, but all the countries of the world.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Justin Trudeau, Hardeep Singh Nijjar and Canada’s Performative Foreign Policy appeared first on Fair Observer.