Monday, July 16, 2007

So if Pinochet and Stroessner did it, that makes it okay?

When Bill Clinton ran for US President, he insisted he'd only sign on to NAFTA if Canada and Mexico agreed to protocols on the environment and labour rights. Moreover, the EU regularly insists countries to which the grouping collectively gives Most Favoured Nation status must comply with basic human rights standards.

So why is it that Stephen Harper is against linking human rights to a free trade deal in Colombia? A double-taxation treaty which is pending with that country is one thing -- Canada after all does have that with a few dozen nation states. But apparently Harper is OK with 30,000 people just disappearing and about 3 million internally displaced refugees.

I guess that means he was also okay with Augusto Pinochet making people disappear in Chile during the 1970s and 80s as well. Or with what Alfredo Stroessner did in Paraguay.

Let's not forget the drug cartels still control a big chuck of Colombia too -- and they're likely in bed with al Qaeda. Guess Harper's fine with that as well.

Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.


susansmith said...

None of that is ok. Same thing; it's not ok to support a corrupt and crime induced govt like in Afghanistan that is 100 per cent for Sharia law. What about all those little girls going to school and women's rights. It's all the same.

KSM said...

I knew I'd see this argument on LibBlogs sooner or later -- I've actually posted a defence of the deal here: