Paul Phillips argues that I share Jesse Helm's criticism of Canada on
Cuba and that it hurts Cuba and Canada to suggest the latter's policy is
motivated by imperialist greed.
Well, I think Helms is right that Canada is putting it's own commercial
interests first. I think it is also worth putting the Helms-Burton
initiative in the context of growing trade tensions between the US and
its competitors including Canada but especially Europe.
The main disagreement Paul and I have is that he argues that
Canada's position ("our position") has been to support Cuba's right to
self-determination. I wish this was true (and have long worked for it to
be so), but it is not.
Like other imperialist powers the Canadian government opposes the
extraterritoriality of Washington's Cuba policy and shares the opinion of
most that the US embargo is not an effective tactic against Castro.
However, it shares Washington's basic aims in Cuba and has said so many
times, including while voting for the annual UN resolution against the US
embargo (where, incidently, it always focuses its criticism on the
extraterritoriality issue; I have never seen a clear statement opposing
the embargo in principle). Canada's ambassador to the US recently said
Canada agreed with the US on the need to establish "democracy, a free
market and human rights" in Cuba. I think we should recognize that these
words really mean "a return to capitalist exploitation".
When Foreign Affairs Minister Axworthy visited Cuba recently he played up
the human rights angle. This shows that Canada has come into line with the
December EU resolution on Helms-Burton that stated that a "democratic
system of government must be installed in Cuba as a matter of priority"
and that expanded aid and trade to Cuba would "depend on improvements in
human rights and freedom". This is not defence of self-determination, it
is using slanders on human rights to attack the Cuban revolution.
I'm sure Paul would agree how genuine the Canadian government's concern
for human and political rights is in s. Korea or Somalia, for example. Why
give them so much credit on Cuba? He points to the aid to Cuba financed
by the Canadian government, but it is an old story that where aid flows,
investments follow more easily. There is a widespread myth that Canada is
some kind of semi-colony that can identify with fellow victims of
imperialism. The truth is that Canadian investments abroad are even larger
than those of the US in relative terms.
I'm all in favour of Cuba taking every advantage of the split between the
US and Canada, and milking every diplomatic statement for all its worth.
However, it is our job here in Canada to be more frank about the
situation. I'm sure we agree
we should do everything we can to pressure the government for policies
favouring more trade and aid. But I don't think we can be very effective
here if we believe the government shares our support for the Cuban
people.
Finally, Steve Zahnister suggests the US policy is idiotic even from a
capitalist viewpoint, and is the result of internal US politics. I think
this approach is a serious mistake too. I think it minimizes how
consistant and deep the (bipartisan) hostility to Cuba has been since
1959, and so how important they feel it is to defeat the example of the
Cuban revolution. The problem is that Steve's approach tends to also
minimize the importance of solidarity with the Cuban revolution for us in
the US and Canada.
Bill Burgess
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
home (604) 255-5957
fax c/o (604) 822-6150
