FAIT Committee Report
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
|
The New Democratic Party dissents from this submission. The Committee heard brilliant, moving testimony from presenters. The process was enlightening and engaging. I commend staff and committee members on the work that went into this report, much of which the NDP supports, however, I dedicate this space to key points of difference and missed opportunity. It is important to revisit the testimony Retired General Lee Butler of the United States Air Force, gave before this committee, in July 1998: “As you examine the vital question of how Canada, this extraordinary nation of diverse peoples and great friend of the United States, should align itself on the continuing role of nuclear weapons I encourage you to ponder deeply the opportunity and the stakes at hand. My country is badly in need of a new moral compass on this issue. We have committed the fatal sin in public policy making of becoming cynical and arrogant with respect to decisions affecting the lives of hundreds of millions of people. We have trivialized the likelihood that deterrence might fail, thus providing easy moral cover for ignoring the consequences. We have learned to live with a weapon that numbs our conscience and diminishes our humanity. We need to hear voices of reason, urging us to a higher standard of rectitude and global leadership. We await your call.” CANADA’S MARGIN OF “ManoeuvrE”: The Majority Report is premised largely on a perceived reduced role Canada can play in the world in the aftermath of September 11th, and in light of strained Canada-US relations related to Iraq. By referring several times to Canada’s realistic “margin of manoeuvre,” it raises the question of whether we can any longer afford to project Canadian values, or whether they are expendable as an element of Canada’s foreign policy. And it “reminds” Canadians that, “an effective working relationship with the United States is the only true imperative in the conduct of Canadian foreign policy.” New Democrats and vast numbers of Canadians are concerned with references to Canada’s “margin of manoeuvre” because we believe in Canada’s historically proven ability to carve a significant space for manoeuvring. While it is this federal government’s sad legacy that it has wilfully and wrongly abandoned much of that valuable diplomatic space, the NDP feels strongly that Canada still retains enough of the world community’s goodwill and stands in good position to reclaim that space. What’s required is political leadership. THE UNITED NATIONS’ FUNDAMENTAL ROLE: The NDP rejects attempts to dilute or diminish in any way, the existence, significance and necessity of the UN to, “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small,” among other important responsibilities outlined in its Charter. The UN must remain the foundation of Canadian foreign policy. The need for UN reform is urgent and evident, which is why the NDP insisted the Committee pursue this matter when it visits New York in May 2003. The NDP is proud of Canada’s contribution to international law; human rights; child labour; environmental protection; nuclear and non-nuclear armament non-proliferation treaties; the landmines treaty; international criminal court; the list is long. Regrettably, Canada does not insist, nor evaluate whether its own foreign policy decisions are in accordance with these international covenants and treaties, earning the reputation for talking the talk, but not walking the walk. It is deeply disturbing that this Report failed to recommend strongly that Canada’s foreign policy must continue to be founded on the UN, and must, in its in-depth review of its foreign policy, develop and institute a mechanism to ensure that all existing and new policies are consistent with international covenants, law and treaties to which we are signatories. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND HUMANITARIAN AID: The NDP also regrets the committee’s decision not to recommend a fixed timeline within which the government must attain Lester Pearson’s thirty-year old guideline of 0.7% of GDP in Official Development Assistance (ODA), which is now embraced and in some cases, exceeded by progressive countries. Shockingly, Canadian Council for International Cooperation (CCIC) estimates that Canada will reach the 0.7% target by 2040 at its current rate of increase. The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis & Malaria: While the UN’s role is central, there remains a need for humanitarian assistance beyond the UN. In the most powerful testimony at Committee, Stephen Lewis, UN Special Envoy on AIDS/HIV in Africa reminded Canadians that: “The total number of people living with HIV AIDS at that time were 42 million internationally; people newly infected were 5 million; the numbers of deaths were over 3 million; that’s in the year 2002 alone. All you need do is make an arithmetic extrapolation of those figures and one can see the toll cumulatively that is taken on the human community…Africa has suffered almost 20 million deaths. It has over 3 million new infections every year. It has over 2 million deaths every year. It now has some 14 million orphans attributable to AIDS.” He challenged us to be the first country to contribute our fair share to the Fund, and to lead by example in convincing other countries to do the same. While we are pleased the Report called for Canada to lead the fight against AIDS/HIV, TB and Malaria, the Committee in yet another example of talking the talk, but not walking the walk, failed to live up to that challenge by not recommending Canada triple its current four-year contribution of USD $100 million to the Fund. Human Security: The core insight of human security policies is that a secure and stable world order cannot ultimately be sustained by repression or military superiority, but by building the social, political and economic conditions that serve human needs. In short our lives, and our nations are more secure when the well being and security of others is also assured International law and multilateral agreements are generally seen by Canadians as being in our interests. Washington on the other hand, occasionally sees international law and agreements as an impediment to its freedom of action. (i.e. US rejection of ABM Treaty, Comprehensive Test ban treaty). Canada has been a leader in the construction of a rules based international order, and the provision of a measure of human security in the world, through vehicles such as the Landmines treaty, the International Criminal Court, the UN Convention on Human Rights. Canada should not now abandon its legacy as an international peace builder to become powder-monkey to the US or debris catcher for the fallout from Star Wars. New Democrats believe that Canada’s security, as well as its long term relationship with the US, is best pursued through the multilateral development of international law in an interdependent world. DEFENCE: The committee dedicates a great deal of space to the existence of a perceived strain on Canada-US relations in light of President George W. Bush’s doctrine on pre-emptive military actions (National Security Strategy of the United States), the US-led war on Iraq and Bush’s plans for a national missile defence system (NMD). The Report rejected the NDP plea to restate the current position that Canada not participate in the US Star Wars plan (NMD). Instead, it implicitly ties Canada’s sudden decision to enter negotiations with the US on NMD, on our government’s assessment of what it would take to ‘repair’ the frayed Canada-US relations resulting from Canada’s decision not to participate in the US-led war on Iraq. Further, the Bush Administration’s current commitment to National Missile Defence includes a commitment to break the current normative barrier against the weaponization of space. This raises the crucial question of whether Canada is about to renege on its commitments under international law for the goal of closer integration with a more aggressive US. New Democrats believe Canada should be saying No to Star Wars, and No to the weaponization of space, and should work instead to negotiate an international ban on weapons in space. We remind this government of the Prime Minister’s 2001 promise to consult widely with Canadians before it made any decision on participating in NMD. The NDP supports the Report’s view that “a full-scale and transparent review of Canadian foreign policy remains essential.” Nevertheless, the NDP reiterates what it stated in its Dissenting Opinion to the Committee’s Report on Advancing Canada’s Relations with the US and Mexico that, “military personnel must be well equipped to carry out the tasks they are assigned, including peacekeeping, coastal surveillance, search and rescue and international humanitarian or combat missions under UN mandate and in conformity with international law. Dangerous or outdated equipment such as the Sea Kings must be replaced at the earliest possible time. Beyond these immediate needs, it is only following a comprehensive review of our foreign and defence policies… that any increases in the global military budget may be supported, and only to achieve the objectives identified by such a review.” In short, this report, while containing positive elements supportable by the NDP, shied away from meaningful recommendations, thereby missing a valuable opportunity to insist on our government matching its words with its deeds. |