Of all the stupid things PMS has done over the last few years, yesterday saw an apex. First at the APEC summit, he said -- again -- he's going to take no action on Omar Khadr. This time he gave a reason, saying he's charged with an actual crime unlike most of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay who have been held for up to seven years with no charge. Short answer to that: Some accused ring-leaders not from the Middle East and South Asia were charged with crimes but were repatriated to face trial in their home countries when the respective governments so requested -- among those countries included Australia.
Canadian law allows for trials where crimes were committed overseas under certain circumstances. War crimes certainly falls under that category. So what's the deal?
Second, Mr. Harper said now is the wrong time to impose trade duties, invoking the Great Depression. Canadians need no history lessons on this one, we are quite familiar with the fallout from the Smoot-Hawley Act, including making the depression in Canada that much worse. But then he used the opportunity to announce there definitely will be a free trade deal with, of all countries, Colombia.
I didn't really have that much issue with free trade with the United States -- given our generally linked economies as well as generally similar outlooks on human rights. I was rather apprehensive about extending the zone to Mexico given the rather poor human rights record there. While human rights have considerably improved it is still not to the point where I'd even contemplate a visit there. Furthermore the so-called "side agreements" on labour and the environment have proven almost unenforceable. Since they were not incorporated as protocols to the main treaty they in fact have no legal effect.
Colombia is a whole different story. Their human rights record is appalling. The government still doesn't effectively control about a third of the country which is instead under the dictatorship of the drug lords. And while we certainly should encourage improvements in civil liberties in exchange for lower tariffs (what is commonly called "linkage") it should be done as a reward for actual actions taken, not as an inducement to get promises that will never be kept. Progress in Colombia has been much slower in this regard and for that reason we shouldn't even be thinking about the possibility, yet. (And of course, the clincher: Unenforceable "side agreements" on labour and the environment!)
It's a different story when we talk about free trade with the European Union, talks of which are now on the fast-track. As I noted earlier there are huge obstacles to overcome with an agreement of that nature -- including agricultural subsidies. But when there are common values of individual liberty and collective responsibility as well as long standing military ties, it's much easier to build an environment of trust where looser restrictions to trade can flourish.
I mean, really. On the seven point scale of Freedom House ranking political rights and civil liberties (one being totally free and seven being totally not free), Colombia ranks a 3 on both (partly free -- i.e. it's either on the road to freedom or on the road to regressing back to dictatorship depending on what happens inside the country). Mexico is a 2 and 3. Meanwhile, every country in the EU, every single one, ranks at worst a double 2 -- most are double "ones", but the handful of 1 and 2, 2 and 1 and double 2 are still high enough to be considered "free countries" in the sense that democratic principles and human rights are so entrenched that they are basically non-negotiable.
Who would you rather trade with? A free country, or not a free country? Unless you're Hugo Chavez or Vladimir Putin, I hope you said the former.
Yeah, I know, we do deal with Mainland China, which is a 7 and 6. But we keep tariffs with them and will until such time as their people become truly free. We should insist no less with any other country simply because the people in those states are mostly white.
That means it's time for the Liberal Party to do its duty, and bring down Stephen Harper. If this isn't an issue on which to do it -- human rights as a condition of freer trade -- I don't know what could be.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
2 comments:
Maybe you should go over to Far and Wide and explain why voting down this govt would be the principled thing. He was frothing at the keyboard when the NDP announced they would vote against the throne speech. - Oh and it strikes me that Omar had to sit in Guantanamo through a couple of Liberal administrations (which I know you complained about) but if I were Omar, I wouldn't have much faith that a Liberal govt would be anymore likely to repatriate me.
Chrétien and Martin both leaving Khadr twisting in the wind was totally beyond redemption. The only logical explanation I can come up for their whipperwhool attitude was the appearance of Khadr's mother and sister essentially condoning the 9/11 attacks and their saying those in the Twin Towers "deserved" to die because they paid taxes to the US government. The thinking must have been that kind of an attitude runs in the family so to hell with him.
After they way the feds treated William Sampson on trumped up terrorist charges in Saudi Arabia, is it any surprise we would have gotten the same with Mr. Khadr?
Post a Comment