CCD at Foreign Affairs Standing Committee
[ Follow-Ups ]
[ Post Followup ]
[ Public Message Forum ]
Posted by CCD Testimony on 14:56:23 2005/11/01
Presentation before
Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs
&
International Trade
November 1, 2005
Presented by:
Alastair Gordon
Canadian Coalition for Democracies
PO Box 72602
345 Bloor Street East
Toronto, ON M4W 3J0 Canada
Tel: 416-963-8998
Fax: 360-294-2839
http://CanadianCoalition.com
admin@CanadianCoalition.com
Good morning. On behalf of the Canadian Coalition for Democracies, I would like to thank the Department of Foreign Affairs for this opportunity to appear today before the Standing Committee.
In April 2005, the Canadian government released its International Policy Statement (IPS) entitled A Role of Pride and Influence in the World.
The IPS identifies the cornerstones of our foreign policy: Diplomacy, Defence, Development and Commerce. But I would suggest that there is another cornerstone: Democracy. If Canada wishes to diminish conflict and spread freedom and prosperity, there could be no better foreign policy than the uncompromising promotion and support of democracy around the world. True democracies almost never attack other democracies. Imagine, for example, if the Middle East contained seven democracies instead of one Israel. We wouldn't need to discuss Canadian diplomacy, defence, development, and commerce in the region. True democracies would work out their differences and develop commercial ties, as they do today in Europe and North America, without the slaughter of innocents, and without the chronic intervention of outsiders who struggle as we do today over why things go from bad to worse despite our best efforts.
For that reason, I would prefer to use my time before this forum looking specifically at Canadian foreign policy as it is practiced today, and to ask how we can adapt it to make Canada the foremost champion of democratic nations and movements around the globe. In other words to have A Role of Pride and Influence in the World.
Let me now jump into specific areas of foreign policy, in no particular order.
China & Taiwan
In 1968, when Prime Minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau announced that he would pursue diplomatic relations with Communist China, he made the following commitment, "Our aim will be to recognize the People's Republic of China taking into account that there is a separate government in Taiwan."
Yet, on his visit to China this year, Prime Minister Paul Martin signed an agreement on behalf of all Canadians that "...Taiwan is an inseparable part of Chinese territory. Canada reaffirms its adherence to its One China policy." So much for Pierre Trudeau's pledge to a nation that has become a modern, prosperous democracy of 23 million people, a nation that has never been, not for a week or a day or even a minute, part of the Peoples' Republic of China.
How could Canada's foreign policy honour Prime Minister Trudeau's pledge and stand for democracy over tyranny in the Far East?
* We could start by revoking our endorsement of the One China policy, an action comparable to China and the US signing an agreement ending Canada's independence within North America.
* We could allow elected representatives from Taiwan to visit Canada.
* Canada could modify its policy of offering preferential tariffs to a manufacturing giant like China, while charging full rate for Taiwanese imports.
* And finally, Canada could end its approximately $60 million per year in foreign aid to China, a country with the world's largest army, a GDP over $7 trillion, and 700 missiles aimed at peaceful, democratic Taiwan.
This government has never, to my knowledge, explained to Canadians who benefits from our China policy. With the balance of trade overwhelmingly in China's favour, it isn't Canadian workers. And it certainly isn't the advance of democracy and national sovereignty in the Far East.
Sri Lanka
The Tamil Tigers (LTTE) have been designated a terrorist organization by the United Kingdom, United States and India, and have been banned from the European Union. Yet, the LTTE continues to enjoy legal status in Canada. Why?
In January, that question was put to Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, who said, "Toronto I think has the largest number of Tamils ... outside of Sri Lanka, so we've got to be very careful just in terms of our own relationships." Minister Cotler never explained why the number of Tamil voters in Toronto should influence whether it is right or wrong to bomb public markets, assassinate elected heads of state, and recruit child terrorists.
In February, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew contradicted his justice minister, saying, "Most of the people we've been consulting, including the United States State Department ... are demanding that we do not [designate the LTTE as a terrorist organization] at this time.", a claim dismissed by the US State Department who itself applied terrorist designation to the LTTE in 1997.
Prime Minister Paul Martin and several of his MPs have actually attended LTTE fundraising events, lending credibility to those responsible for unspeakable suffering in Sri Lanka.
Perhaps most damning of our foreign policy are the written words of the late Foreign Minister of Sri Lanka, Lakshman Kadirgamar, before he was assassinated in August, who said, "At one time it was reported that the LTTE raised approximately $200,000 a month from the Tamil community in Canada" and "the argument that banning the LTTE would hamper the peace process does not stand." The late Minister Kadirgamar disagreed with both tenets of Canada's LTTE policy, confirming that Canada was a major financier of terrorism in Sri Lanka and dismissing the rationale that properly designating the LTTE as a terrorist organization would hamper the peace process.
As with Taiwan, the principle of democracy must dominate our foreign policy. We must stand against terrorist organizations, regardless of the number of votes that they claim to control in Canada.
The Middle East
In the Middle East, we have one pluralist democracy under attack from several violent, dysfunctional states and their terrorist proxies. Israel is not perfect, but if there were seven Israeli-style democracies in the Middle East, the problems of the region would demand as much world attention as Scandinavia. Yet Canada has chosen to overwhelmingly demonize the only democracy, while failing to apply the same standards to others in the region.
On the subject of anti-Israel resolutions at the UN, Canada made an announcement in late 2004 that it would end its traditional reflexive support for Israel's adversaries. Not only has there been no meaningful change in Canada's voting record, but true balance would require that Canada vote NO on every anti-Israel resolution. That may sound unbalanced in the opposite direction, but let me explain the logic. These resolutions have not been an even-handed mechanism of censure applied proportionately to the wrong-doing of states. Instead, they are used almost exclusively against Israel while infinitely worse regimes are spared criticism. If, over time, the application of these resolutions becomes even-handed, then Canada can vote according to the merits of the resolution. But until that day, Canada is participating in an undemocratic, bullying farce that only strengthens the promoters of violence and makes a mockery of the UN.
Does Canada's foreign aid promote peace and democracy in the Middle East? Palestinian Authority President, Mahmoud Abbas, came to office promising (1) to disarm Palestinian militants, (2) to end incitement in schools and media, and (3) to end glorification of suicide bombing. On that understanding, Prime Minister Martin promised another $12.2 million in May of this year.
Since receiving those Canadian tax dollars, President Abbas has reneged on all his commitments. Specifically, (1) Abbas's Foreign Minister publicly declared in June that the PA will not disarm Hamas and other terrorist groups under its jurisdiction; (2) Palestinian textbooks and PA-controlled media that deny the existence of Israel and preach the destruction of "the Zionist entity" have not changed; and (3) Abbas himself, speaking to a group of high school students and educators in Gaza, glorified suicide bombing when he declared, "What has been achieved here [in Gaza] is due to the martyrs".
The consequences? In September, our Prime Minister rewarded Abbas's bad faith with another $24.5 million from Canadian taxpayers.
Does it help the cause of peace to fund a government whose constitutional charter calls for the genocidal destruction of another people? Article 9 of the Palestinian Charter still clearly states "Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine", while Article 20 states "Jews [do not] constitute a single nation with an identity of its own", and other articles call for the destruction of Israel through violence. This is no guarded secret. The constitutional Charter of the PA is proudly displayed on the PA website for our government to read.
Foreign Affairs has tried to make the case that the funds are for humanitarian projects, such as roads. However, funding is fungible, and money that is not spent on a road will be spent on violence against innocent Israelis, as evidenced by the funds available for atrocities committed and apprehended daily. Until those monies are being spent building a responsible democratic society, then Canadian dollars should not be adding fuel to the fire.
Canada has poured one third of a billion dollars into the Palestinian territories, and today there is more violence, hatred, and dependency than ever. When a medicine produces such deadly adverse effects and no demonstrable benefit, a competent doctor will consider a strategy other than continually increasing the dosage as demanded by the patient and his friends.
I could go on all day, but let me end the Middle East section with Canada's decision to continue funding UNRWA at a level of $10 million per year even after evidence was presented, including videos and an admission by UNRWA's secretary-general, that Hamas members were on its payroll. Hamas is illegal in Canada. If I were to write a cheque to an organization for $10 million that funnelled some of those funds to Hamas, I would go to jail. Why, then, is it acceptable for our Ministry of Foreign Affairs to fund this organization, and what benefit can be shown? I have asked that question a number of times, and have only ever been told, "The Israelis want us to do it." So does Jerusalem set our foreign policy? I would prefer to hear that Canada has some reasons of its own for funding UNRWA, and that these reasons actually work towards peace and democracy.
United Nations Reform
Canada has rightly called for reform of the United Nations, a forum that has become dominated by non-democratic nations. Yet Canada has failed to promote India's entry as a permanent member of the security Council, just as Canada joins with undemocratic China in opposing Taiwan's entry as a member of the General Assembly. Could there be better role models for aspiring democracies than India, a nation with 23 official languages united under the world's largest democracy, and Taiwan, a nation that has moved on its own from civil war through military dictatorship to full parliamentary democracy? Why would Canada not want these democratic success stories to have a voice at the United Nations?
What explanation could there be for such a foreign policy? It is often speculated that foreign policy is shaped to appeal to domestic voting blocs that our government is convinced it will lose if it does not serve the interests of violent groups claiming to represent those blocs. To me, that sounds like the racism of low expectations, believing that because a voter shares the ethnicity of a terrorist organization, he or she must also share its brutality.
The other explanation I hear is that at the ministerial level, there is a desire for a more pro-democracy foreign policy, but that we have an unaccountable civil service whose sympathies are, not to put too fine a point on it, Islamist and left-wing. I think I speak for the majority when I say that the minister has the support of millions of Canadians for doing the right thing regardless of political or staff pressures.
I would like to end with a plea to the Canadian government to measure every foreign policy initiative against its impact on promoting democracy. While diplomacy, defence, development and commerce are vital cornerstones of our foreign policy, they will never bring peace in the absence of democracy. But history has proven that diplomacy, defence, development and commerce will all emerge organically from the growth of democratic nations, and with them, peace.
Thank you.
........
Follow Ups:
Post a Followup
[ Follow Ups ]
[ Post Followup ]
[ Public Message Forum ]