No excuses

The Colombian government representative at the Colombia-Venezuela meeting, Carolina Barco, said “there will be no apologies, there will be no nothing” (that’s a rough translation). Barco and her counterpart Ali Rodriguez (also Venezuela’s foremost oil expert with a long career in that field) met in Peru to try to defuse the crisis. Apart from that, Barco said the meeting was “very positive”.

Apparently Colombia’s official position is still that there was no kidnapping and that Granda was arrested in the Colombian town of Cucuta.

Continue reading “No excuses”

A Change in Palestine?

There is still much going on between Colombia and Venezuela, but I’ll hold off reporting on what’s going on in the Colombian press on the topic until the meeting tomorrow between Colombian and Venezuelan officials, the first since the crisis flared up. It’s worth mentioning though that the FARC haven’t been silent on this. The ANNCOL site is always a source for the pro-FARC perspective, but beyond that the Colombian press is full of reports of attacks across the country in recent days. In a situation where propaganda is as important as the massacres themselves, anything that is said about what the FARC did or didn’t do in mainstream press should be taken with a heavy dose of salt. But there are reports of – attacks on helicopters, the bombing of a ranch owned by a governor, various landmine operations, and attacks on paramilitaries – all within the past week. Even if the crisis is between Colombia and Venezuela, it’s worth remembering that it was after all a FARC member who was kidnapped and the FARC could have been expected to react in the way that an armed organization does.

More on the predictable. A friend recently asked me for my 10-second assessment of what was going to happen in Israel/Palestine now that Abbas has been elected. I said roughly that since there are still Palestinians there, Israel will still be doing ethnic cleansing, and there will still be resistance. His prediction was different – he thinks Abbas will make such drastic concessions that Israel’s political scene will divide, with some wanting to accept the concessions and others wanting to keep to a strict ethnic cleansing policy. To bolster his point, he could point to the resumption of diplomatic ties between Israel and the PA or the upcoming ‘handover’ of 4 West Bank towns to the PA. I, on the other hand, could point to the three different killings today, one in Qalqilya, one of a baby in Dir-al-Balah, one east of Tubas, and the statement by Olmert that Israel has no plans to stop the killing.

The Colombian press on the Colombia-Venezuela crisis

Today’s El Tiempo (Colombia’s national paper) is where one can find a summary of the Colombian establishment position. Chavez wants something simple: an apology from Uribe. El Tiempo says such a request is absurd, since Chavez is too ‘permissive’ with FARC. Phrases like ‘permissive with terrorism’ are useful all-purpose slurs that don’t require evidence, particularly when leveled against independent minded regimes (independent from the US, that is).

Continue reading “The Colombian press on the Colombia-Venezuela crisis”

Excuses.

Sorry about the absence. I was away from the machine for a little while. Specifically, I was giving this talk in Ottawa. Difficult subjects, and the intent, as always, is to open a conversation, not to deliver the definitive answer. Of course, since I’m someone opinionated enough to have a blog, my questions can sometimes sound like answers, but that doesn’t mean they should be read that way. So, if you think I’m wrong, let me know, and let’s move it along. It wouldn’t be the first time.

Continue reading “Excuses.”

The Surreal World of Campus Activism part 4

Just when you thought campus activism couldn’t get any weirder.

You remember the young woman removed from a campus group for expressing an opinion about an email she received?

You remember the young man expelled from campus for unauthorized use of a sound amplification device?

The young man charged (charged!) for saying “I’ll be famous one day” on the claim that the aforementioned was a violent threat?

Obviously there are much more extreme cases in the US – but keeping to Canada, it is quite clear that the administration at York University has gone and lost its collective mind. At a sedate anti-Bush inaguration event at that Toronto university, demonstrators were beaten up (beaten up! on a progressive campus!) and arrested. There is apparently video – this is the same hall that Daniel Freeman-Maloy was arrested for megaphoning in (see surreal world part 1) – and they seem to have been almost entirely devoid of a pretext.

Here’s the minimalist press release.

*Police assault and arrest student demonstrators at York University*
Students beaten, 4 arrested; specific charges pending

Recent trends of harrassment and intimidation of student dissidents came to a head early today at York University, as security worked with police to forcibly disperse a demonstration marking the inauguration of US President George W. Bush.

The demonstration, organized by GRAIN (Grassroots Anti-Imperialist Network), a campus social justice group, took place beginning at 1:30 pm in York’s Vari Hall Rotunda. Approximately 150 York community members were present, drawing connections between on-campus institutions and the US empire.

Security intimidation commenced quickly, overseen by Amelia Golden, assistant director of Student Community Building. Security personnel ordered people to disperse and asked people for personal information. Police moved in shortly after, throwing students and members of local CUPE 3903 to the ground, and in certain instances beating them with extendable batons. While overtly violent repression is a new element of the campaign to shut down basic political freedoms at York, it is a natural extension of the policies of the administration of Lorna Marsden towards student politics.

Information regarding specific charges and other details will be available shortly.

The Granda Affair – Roundup from El Tiempo

Jorge Uribe, Colombia’s Foreign Minister, was responsible for offering a bounty on FARC spokesperson Rodrigo Granda’s head – that is apparently what led to Granda’s kidnapping in Caracas in December 2004, which in turn led to a diplomatic crisis between Colombia and Venezuela. Jorge Uribe offered to resign – but that decision is up to another Uribe, this time, Alvaro, the Colombian President. The reward for Granda offered by the Colombian government seems to have been $350,000, an anonymous source told El Tiempo.

Continue reading “The Granda Affair – Roundup from El Tiempo”

Charging Constant

Remember back in 2001 when Bush was saying that there would be no negotiations with the Taliban, who had offered to hand over bin Laden given evidence of his implication in 9/11? Some commentators pointed out that the Taliban were being more reasonable than the US government was with its own harbouring of terrorists. The names of numerous Cubans guilty of terrorism against their own people and residing in Miami came up. Another frequent name was that of Emanuel Constant, a major killer from the Haitian paramilitary heyday 1991-1994, anti-Aristide coup part I.

Continue reading “Charging Constant”

A Foreign Policy Innovation from Canada

An interesting piece on an interesting intellectual idea courtesy of Canadian foreign policy thinkers. This little gem is called ‘proportionate response’ and it is to be applied to Israel.

‘Proportionate response’ is when Israel gets to kill 5,10,40 Palestinians for every Israeli killed in Israel’s campaign of ethnic cleansing (The ratio since 2000 is about 5:1, the ratio for recent months is much more disparate, which is no doubt pleasing to advocates of ‘proportionate response’). According to the moral and intellectual giants advocating ‘proportionate response’, the doctrine is that “the attacked party must establish the proportionality of its own response.”

This is imprecise. They don’t mean ‘the attacked party’, because if they did, Palestinians would be able to determine the proportionality of their response when attacked, which is certainly not the idea. Too bad Canada doesn’t have a figure like Orwell these folks can look to. He’d be proud: they say ‘proportionate response’ when they mean ‘disproportionate response’.

Who are they, you ask?

Why, they are a large number of the members of Canada’s Liberal Cabinet, of course! Here is their statement.

I learned about this statement because one of these folks is set to become Canada’s new Minister of Immigration, deciding on the life-and-death matters of who gets to stay and who gets deported. This fellow, Joe Volpe, will be replacing Judy Sgro, who went down in scandal (one of those scandals I don’t want to report on because everyone who said anything about it seems to have said something not worth reporting or repeating).

Canada is going to make the US proud one day very soon. Helping in that effort will be Foreign Minister Allan Rock. If you’re in Toronto tomorrow, check him out and ask him about Haiti, Israel/Palestine, SNC-Lavalin’s war profiteering, Afghanistan, Canada’s role in Iraq, or any other thing that comes to mind:

Topic: “Reforming the United Nations: Canada’s Objectives for Change”
Date: Tuesday, January 18th, 2005 at 7:00 pm Innis Town Hall (2 Sussex Street) U of Toronto.

Below is a good letter on Volpe and ‘proportionate response’ from some law students.

Dear Prime Minister Martin,

We are law students completing our final year at the University of Toronto, Faculty of Law. We currently reside in the riding of Mr. Joe Volpe, who was recently sworn in as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. We are writing to you today to express deep reservations regarding his appointment.

As you undoubtedly know, Canada welcomes well over 200,000 immigrants and refugees a year, from dozens of different countries. In addition, Canada grants hundreds of thousands visitor and work visas. These newcomers – whether in Canada permanently or temporarily – enrich Canadian society with their differing cultures, religions and traditions. Moreover, the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration plays a significant role in the continuation of Canada’s long-standing tradition of granting asylum to those who flee persecution in their countries of origin. For this purpose, the Ministry has established a complex administrative apparatus to determine whether claimants are in fact bona fide refugees. This administrative framework operates through tribunals and adjudicative officers that apply international law and policy in their decision-making. Hence, any Minister of Citizenship and Immigration requires a balanced and nuanced understanding of, and respect for, international legal instruments and institutions.

It is our opinion that Mr. Volpe lacks both of these qualities. In this regard, we would like to bring your attention to a proposal paper entitled “Canada and the Middle East” (June 6, 2003) to which Mr. Volpe and other members of your cabinet are signatories. This document can be found online through Ms. Carolyn Bennett’s official website and we urge you to review it: http://www.carolynbennett.com/dev/downloads/cdnpositiononmiddleeast.pdf. In our opinion, this paper exudes the signatories’ deep contempt for, and misunderstanding of, accepted principles of international law. While the Canadian government has regularly condemned the loss of civilian life in the Middle East conflict, whether Palestinian or Israeli, this proposal paper suggests that Canada should redefine its position of ‘proportionate response’ to permit Israel greater discretion in its military operations. In particular, the paper states that “the attacked party must establish the proportionality of its own response,” suggesting that the legality of a particular armed action is to be determined not through international legal standards but through the eyes of the perpetrator. The Fourth Geneva Convention is clear that attacks directed against civilian objects are never justified under the doctrine of proportionality. The definition of “proportionate response” put forward in this paper would have justified Israel’s August 2002 bombing of a crowded apartment complex in Gaza City, the result of which was the death of 14 persons of whom 9 were children; it would also have justified the razing of Jenin in April 2002 for the purpose of rooting out militants. Such a perverse interpretation of the doctrine of proportionality should never become the rule in Canada’s international policy.

A better view is that the killing of a civilian, whatever the nationality, is and must always be condemnable. It is clear that this is beyond the comprehension of those who support this paper.

Furthermore, the paper suggests that Canada should abstain from criticizing the actions of Israel – such as its widely condemned settlement policy – merely because Palestinian aggression is not sufficiently condemned. It also asserts that UN General Assembly resolutions against Israel are “one-sided” for they do not provide “the other side of the story.” Mr. Volpe and the other signatories should be reminded that no atrocity can justify an atrocity in response. The tu quoque principle that underlies this part of the paper has been rejected repeatedly by numerous international bodies including the ICJ, the ICTY and the ICTR. It is our opinion that such an uninformed understanding of international law has no place in a Ministry which is called upon time and time again to interpret and apply international legal instruments.

Finally, the authors of the paper fundamentally misunderstand the nature and role of our international institutions. The UN and its related bodies are democratic institutions in which resolutions are arrived at through majority vote. Unwillingness to accept the UN as a functioning democratic body based on a conspiracy theory that it has been hijacked by “pro-Arab” forces, demonstrates a grave disdain for the United Nations and its role in the international arena. We would like to remind you that the Ministry’s primary international working partner is UNHCR, itself a UN institution, and it is our opinion that the contempt demonstrated in this paper cannot possibly be conducive to a productive working relationship.

We are not suggesting that Members of Parliament be prohibited from expressing their personal political views. We are merely challenging the propriety of this appointment. Even if the proposal paper discussed above is portrayed in the most favourable light, it is still hard to dismiss the fact that Mr. Volpe’s support of it may give rise to an apprehension of bias which could potentially undermine the integrity of the entire Ministry. We do not believe that the Liberal caucus is so starved of capable persons that Mr. Volpe must be appointed to this very important portfolio.

As citizens of the country which has entrusted you with such an important office, we entreat you to reconsider this appointment.

Respectfully yours,

Lucas Lung and Gleb Bazov

CC: Mr. Joe Volpe and other Liberal MP signatories to “Canada and the Middle East” (Ms. C. Bennett, Ms. R. Folco, Ms. M. Jennings, Ms. A. Neville and Mr. J. Peterson); Mr. Jack Layton (NDP); Mr. Stephen Harper (CPC); Mr. Gilles Duceppes (BQ); UNHCR (Canada); UNRWA (Headquarters, Gaza City); Canadian Council for Refugees; Editor, Globe and Mail; Editor, Toronto Star.

Granda, Colombia, Venezuela

Two important pieces from Venezuelanalysis.com. One is on the state of the commercial deals between Colombia and Venezuela signed during the bizarre July 2004 meeting (discussed in this blog at the time). The other about Chavez’s attempts at diplomacy in the wake of the kidnapping.

Continue reading “Granda, Colombia, Venezuela”