|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|||||
|
January 23, 2005 By Jim Terral Canadians like to travel to the far corners of the world. But except for the US, which we treat almost as if it were a subject apart, we are not very attentive to or knowledgeable about the details of our foreign policy. So today we’ll begin to look at a new theme on Monday Morning World Report: Canadian foreign policy. Over the course of the next few months we’ll focus one at a time on the separate regions of the world: the Middle East, Africa, Asia, the Pacific, Latin America, the Carribean, Europe, and the US. These reports won’t be a back-to- back series so much as they will introduce an observation post for this ongoing concern. As a starting place, I’m going to begin with the Middle East. Why the Middle East? Why not, say, Europe? Europe wouldn’t be a bad place to start. But Canada doesn’t have a free trade agreement with Europe. The Canada Israel Free Trade Agreement has been removing tariffs from most manufactured goods since January 1, 1997. This is Canada's only free trade agreement outside the Western Hemisphere. Indeed, Canada and Israel have a number of other agreements too. A 1999 Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty added to legal and judicial ties that were already present. Former Justice Minister Yossi Beilin once commented that Israel has followed the legal footsteps of Canada, with numerous direct and indirect references to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms found in Israeli jurisprudence. The Canada-Israel Industrial Research and Development Foundation (CIIRDF) is a binational organization which promotes collaborative research and development projects and the commercialization of innovative technology. Export Development Canada (EDC) is open for insurance and financing in Israel. There is non-stop daily air service between Toronto and Tel Aviv. Canada’s tradition of international peacekeeping arguably began in the Middle East dating back almost 50 years to Lester B. Pearson's Nobel Peace Prize- winning efforts during the Suez Crisis in 1956. What then is Canada’s policy toward the Middle East? Do we support the formation of a Palestinian state? Israel wants its capital in Jerusalem. So do the Palestinians. Does Canada take a stand on this thorny question? How about the refugees? Does Canada support the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes? How about the security fence or Israel’s stockpile of nuclear weapons? Most of us know that these are issues. But we probably would know more about the answers to these questions if they were about the US instead of Canada. Less than two months ago, Canada’s vote on a UN resolution about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the subject of numerous opinions--but not so much factual reporting--in the Canadian press. John Ibbotson at the Globe and Mail called the vote a “significant shift.” Bill Kaufman at the Calgary Sun called the shift “dramatic.” Linda McQuaig at the Totonto Star said that “Canada reversed a long standing policy.” Eric Sorenson on CBC's The National, cited Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew who says “Canada has not made a fundamental shift in Canadian policy.” Paul Michaels at Canadian Jewish News said that the vote was “nothing earth-shattering” and called the media response “hyperventilation.” The Canadian Arab Federation issued a press release expressing “displeasure” and calling the vote a “mixed message.” Let’s spend a few minutes looking at the facts of the vote. Keep in mind these were resolutions of the General Assembly, not the Security Council. Security Council is the one with 15 members, 5 of whom are permanent members with a veto. The other 10 are rotating members. Canada is only on the Security Council when it’s our turn. The General Assembly, on the other hand, consists of all 191 members of the UN. Every country votes and no one has a veto. Some resolutions of the General Assembly come up every year for renewal. The vote that Pettigrew, Ibbotson, McQuaig and Michaels were on about was a General Assembly resolution. In fact, there were six General Assembly resolutions that day. The General Assembly concluded its debate about the Middle East issue on December 1 by adopting these six resolutions: 1) To support and continue the work of the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, 2) Palestinian Rights Secretariat Division, 3) Department of Public Information, Special Information Program on Palestine, 4) Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine, 5) Jerusalem, 6) Golan Heights (CAF Dec 2 04). Canada voted against the first of these motions, abstained from the second and sixth, and voted in favour of the remaining three (two, three and four). (See below.) On November 30, Alan Rock announced in a speech that Canada would be voting against the motion in 1 and 2, but 2 ended being an abstention. Rock claimed that ""Indeed, for many years now, neither of these resolutions have enjoyed the strong support of the international community." In voting against motion #1, Canada joined a tiny group of regulars--Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Australia, the United States and Israel. 104 votes in favour gave the motion a substantial margin even if all the abstentions and those not in attendance had voted against it. Nothing Rock could say or Canada could do would change the substantial support of the General Assembly for the motion. Even so, if there has been a dramatic or significant shift it is not yet manifest in the vote at the UN, so much as in what has been said about the vote and in the government’s statement of official policy. An English-language version of that policy can be found on the undated web page of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade called "Canada and the Middle East Peace Process". Even though there is an influential caucus of Liberal Senators and MPs known as Liberal Parliamentarians for Israel (Cotler, Volpe, Austin, Eggleton, etc.) who have worked with some success to change Canada's foreign policy toward Israel-Palestine, it would be a mistake to imply that their recommendations have been accepted without reservation. For instance, in their public document, "Canada and the Middle East," they consistenly use the term "Disputed Territories" instead of "Occupied Territories." The new Canadian policy still refers to “Occupied Territories.” Perhaps more importantly, Liberal Parliamentarians object strongly to the concept of "proportional response" being applied to the conflict by outsiders. Still the Canadian policy continues to refer to proportionality. In fact, Canadian policy is more in line with UN Security Council resolutions than most Canadians realize. Canada supports the two-state solution with a shared capital in Jerusalem. Canada views the West Bank and Gaza settlements as illegal, that is as violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and opposes the path of the security barrier. Most important, in my opinion, Canada supports the refugees' right of return as articulated in UNSC 242, and has reaffirmed its support for UNGA 198 every year since 1948. 198 states in part "...that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practical date...." The Martin Government, especially in the person of Allan Rock, has been defensive about its UN performance on this issue, insisting that policy has not changed, but is merely being implemented better. In fact, there have been several changes worth noting, and these have been much in line with the recommendations of the Liberal Parliamentarians (Austin et al. below). The Liberal Parliamentarians for Israel recommended that the "Canadian government should cease using the phrase 'end the cycle of violence,'" and replace it with the phrase “reduce tensions.” (Austin et al. Jun 6 03). The Liberal Parliamentarians call this a "rhetorical" change, but the substance of it is Canada's long-standing view that both Israel and the Palestinians are responsible for the violence. Although the Martin government has not gone so far as to euphemize about "reducing tensions," it has eliminated the phrase "cycle of violence" from all the new policy statements. Certainly Allan Rock does not mention the responsiblity for violence in his November 30 speech to the General Assembly on "Key elements of Canadian Policy in the Middle East." He does, however, say this: "On one hand, Israeli military actions and the construction of a barrier in territories it continues to occupy will not, in our judgment, give Israel long-term security within internationally recognized borders. On the other hand, a just peace will never be achieved through suicide bombing attacks targeting Israeli civilians. All acts of violence undermine the search for a peaceful settlement and the well-being and realization of the legitimate aspirations of people on both sides." Cause and effect are not mentioned. Responsibility is not mentioned. These are significant changes. A further recommendation of the Liberal Parliamentarians for Israel was that "Canadian foreign policy should be changed from 'Canada recognises the Palestinian Liberation Organisation as the principle representative of the Palestinian people. Canada recognises Yasser Arafat as the Chairman of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation' to 'Canada recognises the Palestinian Authority as the principal representative of the Palestinian people'" (Austin Jun 6 03). The meaning of changes to this particular item has been obscured by Arafat's death. Indeed the changes have changed. Several versions have appeared in recent weeks. The first, in line with the recommendation, omitted mention of Arafat. Now it repeats Bush's line about elections and democracy. The Martin government appears to have bought into the Clinton-Barak view that Arafat alone was responsible for Oslo's final status failure at Camp David in 2000 and, therefore, that the Palestinian Authority has to "end terror" before Israel has any responsibilities at all under the Road Map. Perhaps more important Martin is repeating the American propaganda line that the Road Map is still alive and moving ahead. That is a dramatic shift, not in performance at the UN, but in actual policy away from the idea that both parties bear responsibility for the killing. If Canada chooses to emphasize Israel's right to defend itself, then a balanced approach calls on us to recognize the right of Palestinians to defend themselves. ===== Here are the 6 issues that were voted on at the UN Dec 1. Vote 1: Vote on Palestinian Rights Committee The draft resolution on the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (A/59/L.34) was adopted 104-7-63. Canada voted against and recorded the following explanation of its vote: “GLYN BERRY (Canada) said that his delegation had voted against the draft on the Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People [A/59/L.34, Vote 1 above] due to serious reservations about the Committee's work and objectives. Canada would reaffirm its long- standing support of the rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination and the right to an independent State. However, Canada strongly questioned the value added of the Committee in the pursuit of those ultimate goals. “Perhaps the time had come for the Assembly to reassess the work of that body and perhaps look at realigning funds to more strategic approaches. He said that Canada had similar reservations about the text on the Division for Palestinian Rights within the Secretariat [A/59/L.35, Vote 2 below] and had abstained in that vote. It would continue to express its concerns and would question whether the work of the Division made a constructive contribution to the peace process. Canada had voted in favour of the important text on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine [A/59/L.37, Vote 4 below] because its language had generally been fair and balanced. Nevertheless, that text should apply fair criticism on and state concrete recommendations for both parties. It could have contained specific references to the Road Map. He added that Canada would also restate its reservations regarding the non-binding status of the 9 July 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ)" (General Assembly concludes debate Dec 1 04). Vote 2: Vote on Palestinian Rights Division The draft resolution on the Division for Palestinian Rights of the Secretariat (A/59/L.35) was adopted 103-8-64. Canada abstained. Vote 3: Vote on DPI Special Information Programme on Palestine The draft resolution on the special information programme on the question of Palestine of the Department of Public Information of the Secretariat (A/59/L.36) was adopted 162-7-9. Canada in favour. Vote 4: Vote on Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine The draft resolution on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine (A/59/L.37) was adopted 161-7-10. Canada in favour. Vote 5: Vote on Jerusalem The draft resolution on Jerusalem (A/59/L.39) was adopted 155-7-15. Canada in favour. Vote 6: Vote on Syrian Golan The draft resolution on the Syrian Golan (A/59/L.40) was adopted by a recorded vote of 111 in favour to 6 against, with 60 abstentions. Canada abstains. “Mr. BERRY (Canada) said that his country supported the negotiation of a peaceful solution to all aspects of the Arab-Israeli conflict, including that of the Golan Heights. Encouraging the parties not to spare any opportunity to resume negotiations, he explained that Canada had abstained on the draft on the Golan as the text pointed blame at only one party, and put the onus to resume negotiations on only one party – Israel. However, the reality of the situation was that confidence-building measures and goodwill gestures were needed from both sides. Moreover, Canada did not support the annual tabling of this draft resolution on the basis of efficiency; the Fourth Committee approved and forwarded to the Assembly a broadly-supported text on the same subject every year” (General Assembly concludes Dec 1 04 I have added the bold facing -jlt). An English-language version of the current policy can be found on the undated web page called “Canada and the Middle East Peace Process.” Jack Austin et al. "Canada and the Middle East," Policy Proposal in connection with the 2003 Foreign Policy Review, June 6, 2003. “As Delivered” statement by Ambassador Allan Rock Permanent Representative of Canada to the United Nations to the 59th Session of the United Nations General Assembly on Item 37: the Question of Palestine," New York, Nobember 30, 2004. "General Assembly concludes debate on Palestine, Middle East with adoption of six resolutions," Fifty-ninth General Assembly Plenary, 64th Meeting (AM) GA/10308, Press Release, 1 December 2004. Your Comments |