CANADA'S APPOINTMENT WITH HISTORY

Sept 12, 2009
TO:
THE HON. MEMBER OF THE OPPOSITION - Michael Ignatieff
THE HON. CRITIC OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS - Bob Rae
THE HON. MEMBERS OF THE LIBERAL PARTY IN CAUCUS

FROM: Nchamah Miller, President of the National Council of Latin American and Caribbean Women in Canada

YOUR APPOINTMENT WITH HISTORY

The Liberal Party of Canada under the leadership of the late Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau made history, and preserved the image of Canada as a nation that put ethics before the pragmatics and imperatives of the geo-political strategies of the United States towards the Caribbean and Latin America nations. This occurred when during his time in power Trudeau refused to allow Canada’s Foreign Policy to be restricted by the actions of the United States in placing an economic embargo on Cuba. This ethical position of Canada and of Trudeau has gone into history as a moment in which human beings were placed before the geo-political interests of our neighbour to the South.

Today a very similar challenge confronts the leaders of the Liberal party. Hundreds of intellectuals and activists, residing within and outside Colombia, many due to self imposed exile, and even members of the National Assembly; have, over the years, and more so during this past year, continuously denounced the atrocities and human rights violations taking place during the current regime of the President Alvaro Uribe Velez of Colombia. Once, again the leader of the Liberal party will have to make choices upon which he writes the destiny of a downtrodden people. The U.S. has handed the Colombian government the enticement of a Free Trade Agreement in exchange for signing an agreement permitting the U.S. to operate EIGHT air bases out of Colombia. For his part the President of Colombia in order to qualify for the Free Trade Agreement has given an unsubstantiated statement that violence in Colombia has diminished during his presidency, supposedly these air bases are required as the mechanism that ensures peace in the region; but if the President is alleging that now there is no violence hence all systems are go on the Free Trade Agreement, then Colombians are left to wonder which of the two arguments is to be believed, if it is true that there is no longer an internal conflict and violence has diminished in which respect Colombia qualifies for the Free Trade Agreement, or, as a matter of fact, violence has increased as many Colombians can attest. But it certainly does not follow that EIGHT US airbases are the mechanism whereby peace will be brought to that land. Their prospect has, on the contrary intensified the tensions and spilled them throughout the continent: a case in point being the deliberations and concern of member nations of UNASUR last month in Argentina.
The mass killings of civilians, trade union leaders, originary peoples and aboriginals from every corner of Colombia, including the Amazon, persist to this day. There is now a further intensification of forced displacements due to violence and the atrocities have not diminished in Colombia, this has been amply documented by many Colombians, including myself. Canada is left with the ethical dilemma that if it does ratify the Free Trade Agreement with Colombia it is in effect condoning and siding with those who have taken part or turned a blind eye to these massacres. We see the prolongation of the devastation caused by the internal civil war, and the eight air bases are not the solution to this problem. In fact these Air Bases are a geopolitical provocation and a significant cause of the escalation of the geopolitical tensions in Latin America.
Canada is on the verge of ratifying a very controversial Free Trade Agreement despite all manner of evidence it has received from researchers from Colombia and many other countries. It is a fallacy to propose that the economic benefits of a Free Trade Agreement benefit Colombians: whatever benefits attain these certainly do not trickle down directly to the populace in general. Although such an agreement would ostensibly provide employment in a few sectors in reality these affect only a very small percentage of the work force. In terms of Canadian pragmatic decisions, the government of Canada should consider that Canadian Corporations would be best advised to avoid the moral morass entailed in condoning the politics of devastation of the current Colombian Government. If profits are the name of the game, indeed there are less poisoned regions where these corporations can benefit from their investments. Looking at Canada’s own back yard, for instance we see that certainly the state of the mining industry in Canada would lead a government to give priority to extractive industries within Canada given the ongoing economic crisis and how it has affected that sector.
Today, to operate in Colombia is fraught with ethical and moral considerations and while these may not be a priority for the corporations who have decided to continue doing business in Colombia they ought to be unequivocally a concern for the Government of Canada.
Therefore, Mr. Ignatieff and members of the Liberal caucus, today as leader of the opposition, or tomorrow as Prime Minister of Canada you are faced with the historic decision of whether you will cow tow to the imperatives of US military strategies, or if Canada will once again remain independent of these considerations and in so doing prove that Canada is ready to work for peace in Latin America, that it demands of all its trade partners at least a minimum moral standard and will not partake in any actions that bring death and misery to defenceless countless human beings, an example of which there are many in Colombia. Canada should at this time withdraw all free trade negotiations with Colombia and work with the current wide front that is looking to bring peace to the region and a Free Trade Agreement is not the conduit for that goal.

(signed) nchamah miller
President of the National Council of Latin American and Caribbean Women
(Latinas.canada@gmail.com)