ep 6

Ukrainian President Zelensky recently visited the United Nations and met with President Biden to seek support for Ukraine's ongoing war with Russia. Zelensky's main goal was to maintain the unity of democracies in fighting against Putin's autocracy and genocide. He also sought support from Canada and the United States in countering the waning support for Ukraine, both internationally and domestically. There is concern that the GOP and MAGA movement in the US may cut off or reduce aid to Ukraine, especially if Trump is reelected. Zelensky is trying to show that there is sustained and deep support for Ukraine. The success of Ukraine's counteroffensive against Russia is crucial, but there is debate about whether Ukraine should focus on decisive military victories or be prepared for a longer war. Canada has made a commitment to support Ukraine on a multiyear basis, sending a message to Putin that the counteroffensive will not be the end of the war. Zelensky also You're listening to the Bill Kelly Podcast. Here's your host, Bill Kelly. And welcome once again. Thanks for joining us here on the Bill Kelly Podcast, critical conversations in critical times. Our guest today is Elliot Tepper. Elliot, of course, is a professor emeritus of political science at Carleton University. He's been a guest on my program for many, many years now with an expertise in what's going on in global politics. It's a very confusing, very fluid situation on a couple of different levels, certainly with what's going on between Canada and India that we're going to touch on in a couple of minutes. But Elliot, first of all, welcome back to the program. It's good to have you with us today. Thank you. Good to be with you, Bill. Let's focus a little bit on Volodymyr Zelensky and his trip to, well, the North American continent, really. A trip to the United Nations, a meeting with President Biden. And later last week, this past Friday, of course, Zelensky was in Ottawa and in Toronto for that matter, too. Maybe first of all, the importance of Zelensky going to the UN to address the United Nations and the importance of meeting with Joe Biden. Talk to us about that. I think the biggest takeaway from this, since you and I have been talking about Ukraine all along, is this. He was on a mission to be sure that when he's fighting a two-front war, that both fronts are looked after. One of the fronts, of course, is definitely the battlefront. And we can talk about that a bit if you'd like. He came on a shopping mission of sorts, and he got a lot of support from materials that are required in the war, including some from Canada we can return to. But the other and primary goal of this entire visit, remember, any time he travels, he's at risk. He's a wanted man, and there are teams looking for him. I think his primary mission was on the second front, which was to main the unity of the democracies fighting against Mr. Putin's autocracy and dictatorship and genocide, as he put here during his talks this time. Mr. Putin is counting on winning this war by war fatigue, that we will all give up on it. We will not create disunity, as he did in regard to, now Poland is pulling away because the grain blockage. Mr. Putin is counting on war fatigue, and this trip was to counter that. The other element to this, too, and I want to focus, I know the United Nations things was very, very important, because Zelensky is looking for support from some of those nations, and asking Canada, I guess, and the United States to be an intermediary, I guess, with some of the African nations in particular, because, as you say, the support seems to be waning. But it's waning even within the U.S. political system and the Congress there, too, which is, I would think, maybe to a point of greater importance to Mr. Zelensky right now, because, I mean, as you mentioned, arms, money, and support from the Americans has been key in this whole thing, and that could well change. I mean, if some of the Republicans in the House have their way, we've heard stories about anywhere from cutting off aid altogether to reduced aid, which would be catastrophic for Ukraine. Yes. He can try to muster support by going to the U.N. and on to Washington and to the Pentagon to show that, really, there's cross-party sustained and deep support, but we know that there are, for example, four senators, important Republican senators, Amy Klobuchar and Lindsey Graham among them, have sent a letter to Biden saying, yes, we want to continue support. Six others, Republicans, said, no, we want to cut it off. There's kind of what I think accurately can be labeled the Putin wing of the MAGA movement that is very strong in terms of being vociferous, not necessarily in terms of numbers, but they are dragging the U.S. debate into exactly how long should we be supporting this war and blank check diplomacy, and we're not going to, in fact, they just tried to defeat a faction in the House, and politics in the House of Representatives right now is a circus in a zoo. They just tried to block a separate bill there, which is a standalone bill they wanted to make for support of Ukraine. Yes, there's very definitely a movement in the U.S. on the right to not support Ukraine. Mr. Trump, if he's reelected, which is a real possibility, he's almost certain to get the nomination for his party unless something intervenes, and then right now the polls are showing he's very close to Biden neck and neck actually for the presidency. We know his background in regard to Ukraine, and Ukraine could face within, you know, by January of 2024, he could actually remember the election, he could face, Ukraine could face a cutoff of support from the number one supplier. The argument is like this, is going like this, Bill. The people who are saying this is ridiculous, we have now a situation where the U.S. is spending less than 5% of its military budget, less than 5%. The absolute dollars are high because the military budget is high, but for less than 5% of the budget, Ukraine, with no loss of American lives, is taking apart the Russian army, and why is that a bad thing? And we're supporting democracies and supporting the geopolitics of Europe as we know them. The other side of that is, oh, this is an unending war, it can't be won, we're not going to support it, we think Putin has a point, so let's force Ukraine to negotiate. That's kind of the discourse going on, and it's a grave threat, definitely a grave threat, good for pointing it out, to the ongoing war in Ukraine. And everything, as you've mentioned before, is interwoven here, the GOP, the MAGA element in Congress right now that seems to be of the mind that, okay, enough with Ukraine. Kevin McCarthy, of course, is the Speaker of the House, a Republican, and part of that MAGA group, who clearly is getting his marching orders from Donald Trump, even though Donald Trump is no longer the President. And as evidenced, I guess, by his trip to the States earlier, when he was going to meet with President Biden, he was not invited to address the Congress. McCarthy's excuse was, he says, well, we just don't have time for something like that. You're supposed to make time for world leaders like that, but clearly it's a slap in the face to Zelensky, isn't it? Yes, again, backing up, because we're also talking about Canada, the primary mission that President Zelensky is on is to shore up the unity of the democracies in this war. And that's as much a threat to him as the battlefield front, where people are dying. We have to remind ourselves, again, that Ukraine is paying a very high cost in blood and treasure, in blood in particular, for their counteroffensive, and for the unbridled and illegal attacks that Russia is committing all across Ukraine. There is no battlefront. Ukraine is under attack all across this entire breadth and width by an illegal war from Russia. You talk about Putin waging a war of attrition, you've got to wear these people down. What are the chances, if any, of that happening to Putin and to the Russian army? You know, you and I talked when this whole thing started, the invasion started some time ago right now, that they expected this thing to be over within a week, or maybe a couple of weeks, and here we are right now. And the Russians, although they, as you've mentioned, are a much more powerful military presence, well, they're not winning. I mean, a lot of the territory that they had taken over is being retaken by Ukraine. We can talk about the offensive launch of the Ukrainian army some months ago. Some critics are saying that it's stalled, some say it's a failure, others are saying that strategically they're going in different directions right now. Are you seeing what's happening there? Because that's going to be a key part of the debate going forward, as to how effective this is going to be, and can Ukraine, if not win this war, at least force Russia to go away? Yes, and that, of course, is all wrapped up in the visit that we're talking about, because sustaining support for the long haul is the primary purpose of the visit of President Zelensky, where he was received so well at the United Nations and rapturously here in Canada, but mixed, of course, in the U.S. because of the things we just talked about. Yes, the whole question now is, I think, going to come down to, do we put too much pressure on Ukraine to have decisive military victories in this counter-offensive, or do we have the stomach to carry out a longer war, and that, of course, is what this is about. Keeping in mind Canada just now did something, since we're talking about President Zelensky coming to Canada, Canada made a major point of saying, yes, we are going to support Ukraine, militarily, humanitarian, financially, but we're also going to do it on a multiyear basis, and that is very important, showing we're in this for the long haul, as long as it takes and whatever you need, but also that G7 has already said the same thing, so this is sending a message to Mr. Putin that this counter-offensive is not going to be the be-all and end-all. If you can maintain that line, Russia, you still are not going to win this war. We're in it for the longer haul, and that, unfortunately, remains an open question. Far too much emphasis is being given to success on the immediate battlefront in this counter-offensive. This is a marathon, not a sprint, as the Ukrainians point out. And I noticed that in the tenure of some of Zelensky's comments, both to the U.N., certainly with his meeting with Biden, and with Prime Minister Trudeau later in the week, he wasn't just saying, poor us, you've got to help us get rid of this demon, Putin. He was talking about, look at what's going on in the world these days, and a lot of it is because of the war that we're fighting right now. You're tired of high gasoline prices, you're tired of high grocery prices, this is part of the cause. So, in other words, he was kind of, you know, the old Tip O'Neill thing, that all politics is local. This is affecting people in Iowa, and Nebraska, and Alberta, and other places, too, and it's all because of this war. Not singularly, but it's a major factor here. So he's saying, look it, if you're not going to do it for us and the people of Ukraine, do it for yourselves. Yes, and the Prime Minister of Canada led off his introductory comments in introducing President Zelensky to Parliament was precisely along those lines, Bill. This is really, this is all about us. It isn't just about them, and all the things you just mentioned. If you want to fix those, you better help Ukraine win this war. And the emphasis on winning the war, I think, is very important, because the long-term question comes, well, what's the end point here? Where's this war going? And the answer is, I can't tell you where the war is actually going. I can say that the pressure on Ukraine to make, come to a peace table now, right now, is growing, and that Ukraine is, of course, resisting that. And the reason is that the pressure is really saying, when you lean on Ukraine right now, you've got to give up a whole lot of territory in order to preserve your country. And Ukraine said, look, 2014, our country didn't go to war then. Russia started to dismember us in 2014. They're trying and failing right now. You're trying to force us to let them win. All they will do is regroup and start this war again. Because this is a war of elimination of the existence of a state of Ukraine. And he used the term genocide here, during his talk here. And his key phrase there, I thought, was, since we're talking about both Zelensky's visit on the war in Ukraine, closely linked, his key phrase there, I thought, was, genocide is not going to win this war. Ukraine is going to win this war. And I think that needs to be underlined. The other element, too, and I kind of harken back to some of the language that we heard back in the late 50s, early 1960s, from the United States, for instance, when they tried to justify their existence and France's existence in Southeast Asia. And it was the domino theory, that if we don't stop them here, they're just going to keep on going. And it might have been a philosophical concept back in those days. It's certainly not in Eastern Europe right now, because we've seen that with Crimea and so many other areas. I think Zelensky reminded the UN delegates of that, didn't he, that, look it, if you let him win this one, he's just going to keep going. And you might be next. Yes. And even the leader of Japan has said, Japan has said, what's happening in Ukraine today could be us tomorrow. Absolutely. This is an attempt by Russia to change the fundamental geopolitics of Europe. It's far more true today about the domino effect than it was back then. I'm an Asian studies specialist, and it was very specious to suggest that China and Vietnam were going to be united forever. These are eternal enemies. And even as an undergrad, just starting my studies, I could point that out then. But you know, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Moldova, more immediately, and Belarus, although they're already a satrapy, but they're going to be next on the chopping block. And there will be Russian nuclear weapons into the heart of Europe if they're allowed to absorb Ukraine. This is and this is all being backstopped by China, who clearly likes to think of the idea of a kind of a duopoly with them as the senior partner. The two big authoritarian powers will then, you know, rule the world, so to speak, and set the rules for the world. And that's what's at stake. And that's what we have to remind ourselves, plus the fact that an innocent country is being mercilessly bombarded by the most lethal weapons other than nukes so far, that Russia has as its command from the land, the sea and the air. Is it bothersome that as we see these things evolving, and the power struggles that are happening, not just in Eastern Europe or Southeast Asia, but in Africa as well? I know that was one of the key elements in Zelensky's UN address that we seem to be sadly moving towards the Orwellian picture that was developed in the novel 1984, where there are basically three factors in global politics, two of them at any given time are fighting each other and the others are kind of on the side. I mean, that scared the hell out of me when I read it way back when, the first time when we studied that in school, but we're starting to happen that way. I mean, Africa seems to be almost the diplomatic and geopolitical battleground right now. They're trying to win the hearts and minds of many of those African nations. China is a player there. Russia is a player there. And the United States is certainly a player there right now. And it really is a power struggle, isn't it? And so are we in terms of the Francophonie in particular. Well, that also takes us to Pugosian and Russia, because he was really the foreign policy arm of Russia and Africa, albeit technically and theoretically as a separate entity, but we know nothing separate about it. And his use of force to sustain certain parties, certain governments, in particular, certain factions within states has led to a very lucrative empire there in terms of diamonds and oil and other kinds of resources. And the scramble for those by Russia is following on Pugosian's removal as part of the story. Yes, there's 52 states or so in Africa. Africa keeps saying, you're trying to talk to us about taking sides in the war. What we want is grain. You can't tell us starving people to take sides. We need the grain. And Russia, of course, is weaponizing grain as a weapon of war, as we know, and trying to use it as leverage. Would they give, I don't know, a million tons of grain free to Africa to shore up support? But of course, that's a drop in the bucket for what had been coming out. The blockade of Odessa and so forth is really part of the war effort itself. I don't know if we're heading to those kinds of blocks. We have a very fluid geopolitical situation now, and the war in Ukraine is a critical factor, because as we said, if China and Russia working together can change the geopolitical order in part, in primary part right now, by taking over Ukraine and moving Russia deeper into the heart of Europe, then those two can really have a major new kind of say, and particularly if Europe is disunited, and Russia can help disunite Europe, they're very skilled at disinformation wars, and this situation with Poland is, you know, Poland, which was such a staunch supporter of Ukraine is saying, oh, we're not going to give weapons now. This is a downstream result of Poland feeling the result of Russia's weaponizing wheat as a weapon of war. And so it's a situation where I don't think we're inevitably heading to three blocks. Africa at this moment certainly lacks the unity and the resources to be a block in any event. But they will once again, Africa, have a struggle for power by outsiders, almost going back to post 1869 after the opening of the Suez Canal, and Western imperialism then flooded more directly into Ukraine, into Africa, creating the states we see today through colonialism. I'm not sure we're headed to, I too was weaned on 1984, and some of the phrases that came out of it are still so resonant, and the switching of sides so smoothly, all of that is there. But I don't think 1984 is necessarily a map for our future. But it's well worth reading and remembering. Yeah. And as you say, some of the phraseology may be different than it was in Orwell's times. But the intent of some of the language and some of the politics there seems eerily similar to what's going on, which, by the way, it kind of segues us in because I wanted to bring India into this discussion, too. And I guess maybe the overriding question here, Elliot, to bottom line this, whose side are they on? I mean, they pride themselves. And oftentimes, the experts and the observers will say, well, you know, this is the largest democratically elected country in the world. But Modi has his own situations. I mean, we'll delve into the situation with the Canada-India thing here right now. India is very cozy with Russia. They buy arms from Russia. They buy grain from Russia. And the other element to this, too, is, well, they seem to have this relationship. China would like to have a stronger relationship with India. The United Nations or the United States, rather, and President Biden are looking at that. It seems as if everybody's looking at India and say, we've got to be friends with these guys. We may not like that guy. We may not like what they're doing politically, but we can't ignore them. And the fight is on right now to find who's going to influence this. And Modi is sitting back right now just saying, bring it on. Show me what you got. Yes. Whose side is Modi on or India? They're on India's side. One thing you mentioned, the long connections with Russia. These are very long and deep connections. Canada served on the International Control Commission since you mentioned Vietnam. It was not a pleasant experience for the Canadians dealing with the Indians through that long process as well. But India has been buying Russian oil. This is at a time when the West is fighting this war and they're cutting off the primary income earner. The only income earner just about that Russia has is oil. There's the two main countries buying that oil right now. And the first in magnitude is India. They're buying this oil at a discount, refining it inside India, then selling it back to Europe to refine products, as well as the rest of the world. They backed off a little bit. Now, Russia and India have a very long and deep relationship. But at the same time, China has emerged as number one economic partner for India, along with many other states, of course. Mr. Modi, and I backed it up a little bit, India uses its weight very, very well in the shifting geopolitics of the world over decades. Mr. Modi is a nationalist leader of a different sort than previous leaders. He also has an election coming. His actions toward Canada, which I suspect you want to talk about, are part of that. He wants to come off as the leader that can make India feel proud. And that's a very potent message. The element to this, and I'm looking at the dynamic that's happening here, and I get a sense of deja vu sometimes, Elliot. We know how Modi governs in India. We know the conflicts that are going on between Sikhs and Hindus. We know that there is persecution, that there's an awful lot going on. We've talked about human rights violations. Yet it seems as if the United States and many other United Nations members here seem to turn a blind eye to that because they, to use the vernacular, they don't want to piss Modi off. We want to keep him as a friend. Didn't we do the exact same thing with China? And where did that get us? Well, China and India, of course, that's why India is in this era playing its weight so skillfully because everybody, including the U.S., wants to have India be a counterweight to the emerging China. And it's the way that China is choosing to emerge that I think we need to come back to when we talk about India. China is a superpower, but under Xi Jinping, they are an aggressive, hostile, adversarial superpower at the same time saying they want stability in the world and they're everybody's friend. And India at the same time is saying we are not aligned to any group. Historically, we are a non-aligned country. We are a democracy. And so we welcome in Xi Jinping. Then we welcome in Joe Biden. Joe Biden has gone to great lengths to woo India. Other countries are doing so as well. The U.K., Rishi Sunak, his ancestry is from India. But the U.K. right now is desperate for a free trade deal with India because how they, if I could put it gently, mismanaged their relationships with Brexit. They pulled out the world's most successful free trade bloc. Now they are looking for partners and India is prominent. So what does the world do now when it's discovered through what's happening in Canada that India is not a benign player? How is the world going to react? Well, poorly might be the short answer to that because of, as you say, the consequences of those actions. And I guess that's how we can bring Canada into this as well. The conflict between Hindu and Sikh in India is not new. It's been going on for God knows how long now. And it seems as if that very, very volatile, incendiary political atmosphere is being exported to different parts of the world. And Canada is a big player there. We have a huge population, of course, of people from India, mostly Sikh, I guess, but there's some Hindus here as well. And that war between those two factions is now being fought on Canadian soil. And the Indian government is not really pleased with that, are they? Well, there's so many dimensions to this one. The first major dimension is that there has been within India a movement among Sikhs for a very long time, coming up to a higher point in the 1980s, for, well, do they want an independent state representing Sikhs carved out of the Punjab, or do they want an independent country carved out of the Punjab? You know, like Pakistan was carved off, why not carve off of the Sikh majority part of the Punjab, leaving the other kind of rump part of Punjab inside India? That movement, as we know, came to a peak in 1983, with some parts of the movement, the Kalistan movement, an independent state or homeland for the Sikh movement. Some parts of that movement became very violent. And there was basically an international war within India over this at the very, at one point, the holiest place in Sikhdom was taken over by the most violent of the factions within the Kalistan. Remember, this is only a portion of the Sikhs, but that faction did take over and then Operation Blue Star happened, that is India, the Indian government attacked the holiest shrine in Sikhdom. And after that, Zia Gandhi was assassinated. This is a scar on India's history. It's not going to go away. That's a memory and legacy. But India did crush that at home, that movement, they crushed it with some violence, and then also by using elections. After two or three elections, the sting was pulled from the movement. In fact, the leading Sikh political party, the Akali Dal ended up in coalition, all party coalitions within the Punjab. So, democrat force and plus democracy was used. And it's not a major movement at the moment within India, but among the diasporas of the world, that flame of Kalistan remains. And Canada is one of the biggest. Yes, we have a substantial South Asian population, 1.4 million or something of that, but about half of those are Sikhs. And within that Canadian dimension, there is, again, a strong Kalistan movement. We know that the worst atrocity committed, the worst act of terrorism ever committed in Canada was blowing up of Air India flight 182 back during the violent phase of what was going on. And I lost a friend on that flight. So, and there was a second flight of Air India that was also blown up. That was traced back to elements inside Canada. So, India ever since then has said correctly in a way that the Kalistan movement really is thriving in among the diaspora, parts of the diaspora, not necessarily all of them. But what we saw bringing this to a head into the current events right now is that a leader of the Kalistan movement and keeping in mind, once again, that's not necessarily all Sikhs in Canada, but those who want to keep this alive have a power base inside some of the Gurdwara, some of the temples. The leader of that, a fellow named Dujar, was organizing referenda around across Canada, but around the world among other diasporas. Do you want an independent Kalistan? And what we are told now is that the Prime Minister of Canada has stood up in Parliament and said, yes, a leader of the Kalistan movement in Canada has been assassinated. A Canadian citizen has been assassinated on Canadian soil, linked to agents of the Indian state. I don't have the exact quote, but that's pretty well the quote in front of us. And then the argument begins. Well, in Canada, you do not confuse and we will not confuse and never will confuse activism from terrorism. Activists in Canada, people in Canada, citizens of Canada have a right to express themselves. India says that's not expression. This is terrorism. You're supporting extremism and they are a threat to us. They're threatening violence back home. And what we are now learning is that apparently our intelligence services for some decades now have been saying privately to the government of Canada that India is, I'm going to quote one of our leading intelligence, most distinguished intelligence officers we have in Canada, Dick Fadden, who said on air recently, India has been mucking about in Canadian politics for decades. And we are in a situation in Canada where the government of Canada is rather sensitive to being accused of ignoring warnings from our intelligence community because of what's going on with China. And we now apparently there's been a murder and we have factual evidence, according to the government of Canada, that India actually did lead to an assassination. So not only has India been having influence operations for decades, but it has now led to an assassination on Canadian soil and that the balloon has gone up as a result of that. And I'm just wondering if the debate that's going on, of course, it's become a political football, as most things do in this country these days between the opposition parties and the government. But are they asking the right questions? I mean, you know, Paul DF stands up the next day. First of all, he was very defensive of Canada when the announcement was first made. But then, of course, he starts saying we need more information. Why isn't the prime minister forthcoming with these information? How did he come to this conclusion? And I know Andrew Coyne talked about this in his recent column that was late last week in the Globe and Mail, that Polly was asking the wrong questions in this situation. First of all, he did. This is not Justin Trudeau's conclusion. This is, as you mentioned, based on information from the Five Eyes and at least one other member there and CSIS work that's been going on for quite some time. I mean, it's the political way to do this, of course, is to blame the opposition and everything is Justin Trudeau's fault. That's not really the case here. But as Andrew Coyne pointed out, what we should be talking about here is the Canadian government's seemingly benign neglect of all of this. This is, as you say, a mountain of information, both China and India having some work and stirring the pot here in the Canadian political scene. And this government and previous governments, for that matter, as Coyne points out, have not, if not ignored it, at least decided to do nothing about it. And, you know, that seems to have placed us in the circumstance that we're in right now. Yes, there's a couple of parts to this in your comment. First of all, the evidence. How can I put this gently? I've been faintly amused by canvassing various countries' reactions. In Canada, this immediately became dragged into a domestic issue. Oh, this government, they're just so clever now. They're changing the story. They were supposed to be on the defense. Look, now they're on the offense. How clever of them. And yes, where's the evidence? Some of the brightest minds in Canada were saying this. Some of the people I respect the most in Canada were saying, well, the government hasn't presented evidence. Three or four days later, the Financial Times comes out and CBC has come out with the fact that, in fact, as you alluded to very quickly, the evidence that, and again, let me back up just slightly. This announcement was made in Parliament. It wasn't made in a speech someplace. It wasn't made in a scrum. So this is Canada accusing India. This is an accusation from the floor of Parliament. And show us the stuff. No, you won't come clean, Mr. Prime Minister, et cetera. As I say, some of the brightest minds in Canada were saying variations on that. And then it's come out through the Financial Times and the CBC that, in fact, the information that led to that particular accusation, as you alluded to, came from human intelligence and signals intelligence gathered by the Five Eyes. And the Five Eyes, for those of you who are familiar with that, is a club of countries that freely share, openly share intelligence. And that's the US, the UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. And the information that led to the announcement on the floor of Parliament apparently came not only from our own sources, but from the Five Eyes sources. And now we're also learning through the Financial Times, and I was on air on this as it was breaking, that the Five Eyes members, including and starting with President Joe Biden, while at the G20 Summit in New Delhi, personally raised this same issue, directly raised the issue of Indian interference and the assassination, based on what they know from their internal intelligence operations. And others apparently did as well, directly alluding this to, directing this to Mr. Modi. So what we have now is, where's the evidence? I'm not sure how much of it can be shown, because if you expose human intelligence publicly, it can lead them to hazard. And how is all this signals, communications intercept, how did that happen? Are we bugging embassies? Because part of the charge, Bill, was that this communications intercept included communications by, between and among Canadian diplomats, including within the High Commission, the embassy here in Ottawa, a building I know well, I've visited many times. But this is startling stuff. So the fact is that Canada did not go off half cocked or slapdash, as one of our newspapers called it, apparently, because Canada had a lot of support. And that support is coming from the highest of sources, our allies in the Five Eyes. And we saw that, as you mentioned, in the G20 meeting, the rather cool atmosphere around Trudeau and Modi during that meeting. And the fact that, as you say, Biden even questioned Modi about this, not in front of microphones or anything. But this is not new information, is it, Elliot? I mean, you know, some people are trying to characterize this as if the Prime Minister decided to lay this on Parliament and to try to deflect the criticism about a whole bunch of other things that are going on. But they were aware of this now, according to that documentation, for some time, for weeks, if not months. Jake Sullivan, the security expert, of course, of the Biden administration, I think, reaffirmed that just the other day, very strongly, as a matter of fact, that this is not something we've just made up, but that we do have very strong indications. I know they're wordsmithing this, because that's the diplomacy involved in this. But in an interview for CTV News, the American ambassador to Canada has pretty much laid out the same sort of thing. He says, this is not fiction. You know, we have evidence here that indicates this. And I guess, you know, people hear what they want to hear in situations like this. But I think we're missing the point here to try to blame Trudeau for, as you mentioned, political deflection. That's, again, a political answer to that, to try to characterize Trudeau in that fashion. But we seem to be missing the clear and present danger here about foreign governments doing their business on Canadian soil. We know the Chinese did it. Now, what I find ironic about this, to your point, is when the Chinese interference seemed to be the top issue when it came to security in this country, the opposition parties were more than willing to believe all the information CSIS was giving us and say, you're right. Yeah, you guys are screwing up here, Prime Minister. And why aren't you relying on CSIS? Well, now that it's reversed and it's India, those conservatives, small C and large C conservatives, are now questioning the intelligence. That's not a spear we want to use anymore. We want to try to discredit that now. And it's really muddying the waters, I think, for a lot of people. Well, first of all, Canada did, like our Five Eyes, want to keep this out of sight. All of this was an attempt to work behind the scenes to convey to India, we have evidence of what you're up to and we don't think it's right and we want you to change your behavior because we don't want to get in a public struggle with India because we need India. India is just far too important. They use their weight very well in the world and they are an emerging power. But we learned that Canada's security advisor went twice to India, spent four days there, Jody Thomas, and then five days later, five days at a separate occasion, trying to work this out behind the scenes. But due to good quality journalism in Canada, and I think leaks from our intelligence services very frustrated, this was about to be made public. So then the prime minister, in terms of timing, stood up and made a public announcement out of it. So I guess I have two bottom lines. One is that out of all of this, generally speaking, Canada is going to be, in a major way, stepping up our games about foreign interference and influence operations. I'm confident we'll be far better armored in due course after all of the inquiries. And the result of that will be legislative and procedural changes and changes in how our security apparatus works. The second is, in terms of India-Canada relations, this is very personal to me. Bill, I've been promoting Canada-Asia relations and especially Canada-India relations professionally and personally all of my career. This is what I've been pursuing. And now it's indescribably sad to me to see us come to this point. We are now at a point in our relationship where it's going to be very hard for Canada and India to claw back from this, to go back to something like decent relations. And while we're on the subject then, because you've raised it, a third conclusion is we now are going to have a very clear picture of how Modi's India wishes to portray itself as a power. We have seen Xi Jinping's China come out just a few years ago. China was very popular. Everybody, I've got business cards from an earlier visit. But now the way that Xi Jinping has chosen to behave, aggressive wolf-war diplomacy, taking over the South China Sea and militarizing it. Basically, they paid a huge reputational cost. If you follow the Pew surveys on this, it's really China is now almost in reputation, almost a pariah state, not in actual behavior. But it's gone way down, how China decided to emerge. Now we get to see, looking at Canada and India, what kind of an emerging power does India want to be? Do they want to bat us around, to put us in our place? Do they want to show they're a great big power? Keeping in mind that Canada is a member of G7, and we are a NATO member. We're not an inconsequential middle power. So how Mr. Modi chooses to portray India, using Canada as a case study, so to speak, is going to tell us a lot about what kind of power India chooses to present itself to be in the world ahead. How does any government then, a Canadian government that is, Elliot, fashion a policy like that without the influence of political ideologies? A case in point, of course, how Mr. Polyev is attacking Trudeau, and I understand that. That's how you play the game in Ottawa these days. But as some people, observers have drawn out, his old boss, Stephen Harper, is still very much active in politics in the geopolitical sense. He's not in power anymore, but he heads an organization that seems to, shall we say, curry favor with authoritarian leaders, and Modi is one of those. Hungary is another, where former Prime Minister Harper has kind of stuck his nose in there, praising people that run their governments in that fashion. I'm wondering if there is a change in government here, whenever that next federal election is going to be. Do you ignore that authoritarian rule and simply say, well, we need them there as a friend? Does it just draw a curtain across what's going on there with human rights violations, like they tried to do in China? Or do you play hardball with these guys, as some leaders have tried to do? Well, again, now, without commenting on Mr. Harper at all, but that's now the question for the opposition. One obvious way to move forward in Canada-India relations is a change of government in Canada, and maybe a change of government eventually within India, because only then can we get off on a new footing. But this is now up to the opposition in Canada, if and when they come to power, and there are 14 points in the polls, some polls. How do they want to play this? Intelligence sources, five-eye sources say this is going on, but the Sikhs are not a single community, but there's voting blocs that are available, and all the commentaries I said initially on this was, oh, this is all about domestic politics, whereas the U.S. and the Atlantic says this is all about India, and the Economist says basically, this is all about India. You have to, so the differences, and also I was reading some Southeast Asian, some actually Hong Kong sources that say, well, this is what big powers do, so it's all right, isn't it? So I've been fascinated by all this. The opposition now has its choice to make in how it chooses to proceed. Clearly, had Mr. Trudeau been unable to be backstopped by evidence, if the five-eyes material had not come out, if we did not have the new information and the strong, strong statement by Jake Sullivan, who I'm going to paraphrase here, but said, it doesn't matter what country you are or who you are, this is not acceptable behavior, thereby backstopping Canada. I'll leave that for the opposition to sort out for itself, but this disruption, the initial steps taken by India have been, the initial steps taken by Canada have been, we kicked out the intelligence chief of our unit within the embassy, and they did the same over there, but we didn't kick out the ambassador, we didn't send dozens of people home, neither did India, but this visa ban is really very disruptive indeed. India is now saying, we're not going to give visas to Canada, and they've had an advisory warning saying that because of politically motivated hatred, we are issuing an advisory warning against Canada. This is an escalation, it's not just, things are tough there, but a very specific language. The disruption of life by this visa announcement, which so far has been one-sided, Canada has not banned, not suspended visas, it's going to affect our trade, it's going to affect commerce, it's going to affect innumerable number of Canadian lives, because India does not permit dual citizenship. So Canadians of South Asian or Indian descent who want to go home for personal or professional reasons, Diwali is coming, the marriage season in India is opening up right now for the next few months, up until January. This is all disrupted, and in particular, I'm concerned about the life of our international students. 40% of Canada's international students, and international students are increasingly what our universities are depending on, 40% of those only come from one country, Bill, and that's India. What's happening to them, I think an unexamined, but I think potent potential factor in the kind of discussion, oh, where is our relations going? I think there's going to be a lot of pressure on Canada and on India, by people whose lives are disrupted, to get this behind them, to find a way to fix it and to return to normal life. We've, I guess, talked a great length about how Canadian politicians have tried to use this as, to weaponize this whole situation. It's not lost on me, and I think a number of other people too, that Prime Minister Modi is using the exact same thing. As you mentioned, there is going to be an election in India shortly. He could have simply said when, long before the Prime Minister made this public in Parliament, of course, because as you mentioned, there were some discussions even through the G20 and through Jody Thomas from his office months ago now about this. Modi could have reacted and said, well, we implore violence, we implore murder, yes, we'll be part of this investigation. Whether he meant it or not, that could have blunted this whole thing too. But he chose not to, because as you say, now he looks like a nationalist hero defending his government and his people there. I don't know how you move away from that, Elliot, but that seems to be the stumbling block right now to try to move past this right now, is both parties, both the Canadian government and the Indian government, are weaponizing this to try to use it for political purposes. Well, I wouldn't put it that way in terms of Canada. You could say that whoever's Prime Minister has a responsibility to look after Canadian citizens. Clearly, it will factor into domestic politics. I'm very deeply disturbed. I didn't want to raise this, but you opened up with it, that relationship between the Sikh community and Hindus in Canada are starting to show some wear and tear. Canada doesn't need it. And the people, these people don't need it. These Canadian citizens of Indian origin do not need internal dissension inside Canada on this. And if Mr. Modi plays a role in fanning that, I think that's a mark against him. I would conclude with this is really a test case, since you framed it so well there, for Mr. Modi. What kind of leader is he? What kind of India does he want to lead? And how does he want India to use its strength, its emerging role, an increasingly strong role? How does he want to use that power going forward? And since I also have been following India for a long time, I'll go back to 1998. Well, let's go back to 1962, first of all. Let's go a long way back. But the founding of the party that Mr. Modi leads, the BJP, goes back to when China invaded India because of disputed borders, vague maps. China just rolled into India, took what it wanted and stopped unilaterally. This led to a backlash in India. Student movement became the BJP. Fast forward to 1998, and the BJP was in office at that point. And they decided to make India go from a nuclear capable state to a nuclear weapon state. And the popularity of the BJP soared. I mean, it was at stratospheric levels. And then less than six months later, Indian democracy came to life on this. And Indian democracy defeated the BJP in a number of major city and regional elections because of the price of onions and potatoes. So India is a vital democracy. It has NGOs, true. It has been moving in a more authoritarian direction. And I say this not with gladness, nor is it my opinion. You see this repeatedly in the public media. Mr. Modi is linked with Putin and Duterte and Xi Jinping. It hurts me every time I see that. But India is possibly going to be a self-corrective democracy on this. But that's the internal operation of India. We'll have to see how all of this factors domestically. Well, this nationalism, we've made India proud. Look what we can do around the world. Nobody can touch us. Look, everybody's pursuing us. No matter what they say about us over this tiny incident over an insignificant country like Canada. If the world needs India, we'll have to see as a test, as a way to judge how India is going to emerge as a power going forward. And maybe you were spending just a little bit too much time looking in the rearview mirror as to how we got here instead of looking forward and saying, who are going to be the leaders through this whole thing? Very fluid situation. Elliot, it's always a pleasure to have you with us to try to give us some perspective and some historical perspective on this. And as always, thank you so much for the time today. Really enjoyed our conversation. Very welcome, Bill. It's such important topics and it's a pleasure to discuss them with you. Well, and we'll certainly hook up again down the road as events warrant it. Thanks again, Elliot. Elliot Tepper, emeritus professor at Carleton University. And that's it for this edition of the podcast, Critical Discussions During Critical Times. I'm Bill Kelly. Until next time, thanks for watching. This podcast was brought to you by Rebecca Wissons and her team at Wissons Law. Rebecca Wissons is a 20-time winner of the Hamilton Reader's Choice Awards for their exceptional client care and legal practice, specializing in personal injury, car accidents, accidental falls, and Wilson Estates. Now, if you or a loved one have been seriously injured, or if you want to make sure that your family is taken care of for the future with the will and powers of attorney, call Rebecca Wissons, 905-522-1102 for a free consultation. When life happens, you can rely on Rebecca Wissons and Wissons Law. And trust me, Rebecca is my wife. I don't know what I'd do without her. That's Wissons Law, 905-522-1102 for a free consultation. Subscribe to my sub stack for timely news updates and commentary straight to your inbox. Let's keep the conversation going. I'd love to hear your thoughts on today's episode. Let me know what you think we should be talking about next by contacting me through my website at www.billkelly.co. Thanks for tuning in. This is Bill Kelly. Till next time, you take care.