|
 |
|
|
|
TORONTO STAR Behind Canada's Mideast shift Has `even-handed' Canada swung to Israel's side? Surprise No vote at U.N. signals marked change LYNDA HURST Every year at the United Nations, a predictable series of anti-Israel, pro-Palestine resolutions are placed before the General Assembly. And every year, in an attempt to appear unbiased, Canada joins Europe in abstaining on the more ferociously worded of them. The United States, colours permanently nailed to the pro-Israel mast, routinely opposes them. But this year, the script changed. On Dec. 1, Canada joined the U.S. in voting No to a resolution extending the mandate of the Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. Why? Because it had "reservations about its work and objectives." That explanation was lost, however, in the frenzy of speculation ignited by the surprise No vote: Had "even-handed" Canada just quietly swung over to Israel's side? No one seemed to notice that on the same day, it voted in favour of or abstained from five other, less inflammatory pro-Palestinian resolutions. A few days after, Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew belatedly explained that the contentious vote signalled the start of a new "principled" approach at the U.N. From now on, Canada would not automatically align with any one, but judge each of the 20 or so annual resolutions on its own merit, weighing the content and language against its Middle East policy. And that policy is not changing, stressed Pettigrew. Ottawa still advocates a two-state solution in the Middle East. It still supports the Palestinian right to self-determination, but not the use of terrorist attacks. It still defends Israel's right to live in peace and security, but not its settlement expansion. Only now, Canada truly will be the balanced, honest broker it claims to be. On the face of it, how could there be a problem? But there is. In the realm of Canada's Mideast policy, things are not always what they seem. "Nuance" is the currency; polar-opposite perceptions the norm. Why the shift? Why now? Why not? are easy questions to ask, not necessarily to answer. Officially, it's because Prime Minister Paul Martin wants to play a stronger, more credible role on the world stage, especially in the Middle East. And it happened now because this is the first General Assembly of his tenure at which Canada could formally distance itself from resolutions that it believes hinder the pursuit of peace. A laudable goal, say foreign policy critics, but it's not the way to go about it, not the best time even to try. They argue that the recent death of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat is an opportunity to push for peace, not to alienate the Palestinians or other Arab states. It's illogical to change the voting pattern now. One long-time consultant to the foreign affairs department says many officials there and at the Canadian International Development Agency were caught by surprise and are infuriated by the sudden shift: "There are layers of tension there right now," he says. "It's a mess. I've never seen things quite as nasty." Many in Ottawa continue to favour the status quo, saying that no matter how distasteful the rhetoric, the General Assembly is the only place Palestinians feel they get a fair hearing, if only a symbolic one. Everyone knows that the binding votes occur at the Security Council, which has passed 70 of them in Israel's favour. Many officials also feel that hiving off from the European majority is a high risk. "We're asking for trouble," says career diplomat Steve Hibbard, until this summer Canada's representative in Ramallah. "We're not in a position to part from the herd. The Palestinians will think our Mideast policy is being dominated by the U.S. That's what we've been trying to get away from." U.S. President George W. Bush was in Canada on the day of the tradition-breaking vote. But that was just a coincidence, say analysts. Ottawa is forging its own line, not bowing to any Washington request: the U.S., to understate considerably, is not viewed as an "honest broker" in the Mideast and Canada doesn't want to be too closely associated. To Canada's pro-Israel lobby, the shift is simply a "small and welcome readjustment," says Paul Michaels of the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, an umbrella group formed earlier this year. "We'd like to think our arguments had some effect on this happening, but there were a number of factors, it wasn't uni-causal. This isn't an earth-shattering change," he says. For a true policy shift, says Shimon Fogel, chief executive of the Canada-Israel Committee, the senior lobbying group, "Canada would have to say: `The U.N. treats Israel so disgracefully that we will vote for it across the board.' "They haven't done that, nor did we expect it." The switch didn't come out of the blue, he says. The "different stakeholders" knew it was coming because Martin had promised to do it during his election campaign this spring. Even though many foreign affairs staff are "not comfortable with switching from the status quo," says Fogel, serious discussions have been happening for months about a more activist international role for Canada. He pauses, and sardonically adds: "But, of course, it's the all-powerful Jewish lobby." `We're not in a position to part from the herd. The Palestinians will think our Mideast policy is being dominated by the U.S. That's what we've been trying to get away from.' Steve Hibbard, career diplomat Fogel is well aware that some pin the voting change to years of relentless pro-Israel lobbying that finally paid off. Indeed, some critics do cite "domestic pressure" and "influential cabinet pressure" for the change. They point to the five cabinet ministers who belong to the Liberal Parliamentarians for Israel, a group set up last year with the express purpose of altering how Canada votes at the U.N.; among them, Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, long a pro-Israel adherent. They also note the new advocacy council, which threw a gala dinner for Martin in Ottawa on Nov. 1, amidst two days of meetings with MPs. For years, Jewish groups have been flagging the U.N. votes as a symbolically important issue. They contend that abstaining on egregiously anti-Israel resolutions is tantamount to voting in favour because it has the same consequence: Israel is singled out and made a pariah in the world community, while Palestine is absolved from any wrongdoing. "Different explanations were given at different times for why the votes couldn't change," says Paul Michaels, "even though the resolutions were out of sync with Canadian values." Abstaining was also out of sync with Canada's Mideast policy, adds Fogel, but "considerable weight was always given to the company we were voting with — the European bloc." Canada may have voted with the bloc, but it always voted case by case, counters Steve Hibbard. "We, like many others, went out of our way not to be critical of Israel — that's why there have been so many abstentions." To veteran envoy Michael Bell, the former ambassador to Israel, Egypt and Jordan, there is little doubt that Canada has shifted its Middle East policy. "You can't divorce policy from votes," he says. "It's possible the government doesn't see it that way, but others will." He doesn't mean Israel. Bell says that in his three stints over nine years there, he never heard Canada's votes criticized. "They didn't think they were terribly important because they knew what we do at the U.N. Human Rights Commission and what we did in Durban." (The reference is to the U.N. Conference held in Durban in 2001. Israel and the U.S. walked out over a draft resolution equating Zionism with racism, while Canada stayed to fight it. Others argue that it was then that Israel started paying closer attention to the General Assembly.) The impact, if any, of Canada's shift is more likely to be felt on the other side of the barrier wall in the West Bank. "It helps Palestinian extremists, who now can say to moderates, `What is the international community doing for you?'"says Mazen Chouaib, executive director of the National Council on Canadian-Arab Relations. "People in our community are concerned. They're asking if Canada is going to move in the direction of the U.S. If we ever do that, we can kiss goodbye to our world reputation as honest broker." Chouaib, however, says he's been privately assured by Ottawa that "despite pressure" to do so, the Mideast policy will not change. In fact, it's been updated, he says, to call for a Palestinian state that is "viable, democratic and contiguous," occupying one unbroken piece of land. In Ramallah, analysts say that Palestinians were surprised and pleased that Canada didn't join the U.S. in the invasion of Iraq last year. But since the Dec.1 No vote, they have been "gently inquiring, `What the hell is Canada doing? Cozying up to the U.S.?'" one Western diplomatic source told the Star last week. "They aren't making a public issue of it because they don't want to anger anyone. We're at a loss to explain, but we tell them one vote isn't significant. It's fine with them as long as it means taking both sides to task." If not, then all the talk of a new "balanced" approach at the U.N. goes for naught, says Omar Alghabra, president of the Canadian Arab Federation: "Balance should mean weighing the resolutions against international law, not going after numerical symmetry." The federation is apparently not a "stakeholder," because Canada's new voting position came as a surprise, he says. Especially so as just two weeks earlier, on Nov. 16, it had held a small buffet dinner for Martin. He didn't mention it. The talk, says Alghabra, was about how to harness the opportunities for peace after Arafat and the vital importance of a free Palestinian election. "And we told him how disappointed we were that Canada was one of only 10 to abstain on last year's vote to send Israel's wall to the International Court of Justice." (That decision was widely criticized when Canada explained it by saying the wall was "too political" to send to the court. A "ludicrous" explanation, says one foreign affairs analyst.) Now, however, Martin wants to meet with the federation. Alghabra says he'll ask him why the change was made, and why the group wasn't told about it. And he'll ask what the plan is at the U.N., given that varying the votes could send a mixed message internationally. Alghabra is concerned that this is only the start of bigger shift: "The pro-Israel lobby wants a change in policy. It has just begun with the visual symbol of the votes." Even that, say some lobbyists, was a short-lived victory. Two days after opposing the pro-Palestine resolution, Canada voted Yes to a nuclear non-proliferation resolution that singled out Israel for condemnation. The Canada-Israel Committee's national chair, Marc Gold, duly lambasted its "failing to take a principled stand" on a resolution that "unfairly portrays Israel as a nuclear menace." Analysts predict the back-and-forth reaction to back-and-forth voting is what lies ahead domestically, if not internationally. It isn't the best solution, says Shimon Fogel, to the vexed dilemma of the Middle East: "This shouldn't be a we win/we lose, zero-sum game. That isn't a healthy approach.'' Meanwhile, former envoy Bell says he is "waiting for the other shoe to drop. "There could be a logic to this if the government follows up and becomes more involved in the peace process. Are we going to run with the ball? My concern is that we won't." Omar Alghabra agrees. What happens on the ground is what's important, he says. "I'd be happy to forget about the resolutions if people would just work to solve the problem." Additional articles by Lynda Hurst
|
| . |