Alberta, August-agosto 2007
17
ALTERNATIVA Latinoamericana
ENGLISH SECTION
Dear Mr. Harper:
It´s time to extend a long overdue
invite to President Chavez
Dear Prime
Minister Harper,
I know that you
are extremely busy
researching that
book you plan to
write about hockey,
but I hope you can
spare a few minutes
to read this letter
and to consider the
heartfelt advice that
it offers. I was
moved to write you
when I heard the
news that Canada's
foreign policy would
soon be shifting to
focus more atten-
tion on Latin
America, and now I see that you have even taken
a break from the hockey writing to travel some of
the region, visiting Colombia, Chile, Barbados and
Haiti. It is high time Ottawa, and people in Canada
generally, paid more attention to the fact that there
is more than one America. I'm not regurgitating a
John Edwards talking point here; I'm talking about
the fact that the Americas are in fact a diverse
region that stretches from Patagonia at the south-
ern tip of Argentina all the way to Canada's arctic
islands.
Mr. Prime Minister, the best way for you and
the rest of us to learn about the exciting develop-
ments taking place in Latin America is for you to
immediately extend a long overdue invitation for
Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez to visit
Canada. This guy is arguably the most popular
leader down there, and certainly the most influen-
tial. It's high time he came to Ottawa so we can all
find out how he does it. So, with respect for your
time, and with a nod to high school English teach-
ers everywhere, I will limit myself to presenting the
three key reasons why Hugo needs to get an invite
from 24 Sussex Drive ASAP.
First and foremost, this Hugo fellow has been
in power for over 8 years and he just keeps
getting more popular, winning election after elec-
tion by ever-wider margins. In December 1998,
Chavez was elected with 56% of the vote; last
December, he was re-elected with 63% despite
implementing all sorts of socialistic policies and
believe it or not openly advocating for something
he's calling "socialism of the 21st century". He's
also easily survived a recall referendum, won
another one to adopt a new Constitution (some-
thing Canada's had so much trouble getting
consensus on) and even managed to rename the
country, making it the Bolivarian Republic of
Venezuela.
I admit that your electoral job in Canada is
harder, in part because you have to convince the
majority that they should support you despite your
ideology and policies that cater to a small minority
of corporate interests. Chavez does have the
unfair advantage of being able to "buy votes" by
massively increasing spending on social pro-
grams, health and education for the country's poor
majority. Nevertheless, surely "Canada's new
(minority) government" can learn something from
Chavez's popularity with the voters, lest you give
way to a new "new government" in Ottawa.
Secondly, you and Hugo, despite decidedly
different relationships with President Bush, have in
common the fact that your countries are key
suppliers of energy to the United States. Canada
and Venezuela have the biggest energy reserves
this side of Russia and the Middle East, and the
U.S. economy couldn't function without this steady
supply of oil, hydropower and natural gas. The
reserves that Chavez controls are a bit like
Canada's tar sands enormous and "dirty," or
very energy-intensive to extract.
Canada could potentially learn something
from Venezuela's oil politics, too. Since Chavez
has been in power, he has been steadily increas-
ing sovereign control of oil revenues and has
chipped away at foreign oil companies' profits in
order to fuel all that aforementioned social spend-
ing. Canada, in contrast, has imposed precious
few conditions on tar sands investors and seems
only too willing to ensure the US government that
this source of energy will be theirs for the wasting,
no strings attached. Chavez has been attaching
huge strings to the more than 1 million barrels of
oil that Venezuela provides to the US everyday, for
instance threatening to cut off the entire supply
indefinitely should he be assassinated by a
disciple of Pat Robertson or anyone else.
Finally, Chavez could give Canada some
lessons on foreign policy. You are always talking
about how you want Canada to be a factor on the
world stage and to be respected by the interna-
tional community. Venezuela has in recent years
become a major factor in international affairs, and
won respect by providing real humanitarian aid.
While Canada can't even live up to its aid pledge
of .7% of GDP, Chavez has been spreading the
wealth around his region and even North America.
For instance, through its subsidiary Citgo, Ven-
ezuela has been providing cheap heating oil to
poor and disadvantaged Americans; in coopera-
tion with the Cuban government, Venezuela has
been helping fund free eye operations for thou-
sands of Latin Americans; they have also been
providing cheap oil to impoverished and long
exploited regional allies like Nicaragua and Haiti;
and Venezuela has even begun building an
alternative to predatory World Bank policies with
the "Bank of the South."
Also on the world scene, Chavez has won
friends and influenced many people in the Arab
World, in the Middle East and Central Asia by
vocally opposing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
and by loudly condemning Israel's bombardment
of Lebanon last summer. Canada's maple leaf has
been, in contrast, painted increasingly blood red
by your government's shamelessly "un-measured"
backing of Israeli occupation and by your hawkish
rhetoric about the counter-insurgency in
Kandahar. You should have seen the reception
the kids of Port-au-Prince gave this guy when he
visited Haiti it was like he was bringing the
Stanley Cup to a high school in Kingston! In sharp
contrast, most Haitians view Canada as being
guilty of an old-style coup against their elected
president back in 2004. When you are in Haiti,
perhaps you could visit the impoverished resi-
dents of Cité-Soleil or another besieged slum and
find out from the people themselves what they
think of recent Canadian foreign policy.
So there you have it, Steve, the case for
inviting Hugo Chavez to Canada. In lieu of an
official state invite, some determined members of
"civil society" or other pesky activists in Canada
might decide to organize an unofficial "people's
visit" by Mr. Chavez. This happened in Great
Britain, when opponents of your good friend and
foreign policy co-thinker, Tony Blair, hosted
Chavez in London last year. The Venezuelan
leader rode the huge wave of anti-war sentiment
in England and was warmly received by the Mayor
of London, among others.
Whether it gets done through official chan-
nels or not, it's high time to bring the Bolivarian
Revolution, in the person of its elected leader, to
Canada for all of us to learn from their experi-
ences.
Sincerely,
Derrick O'Keefe
Vancouver, British Columbia
Derrick O'Keefe (Seven Oaks,
www.seven oaksmags.com)
is indeed this: "to coordinate international efforts to
help the Palestinians establish the institutions of a
strong and lasting free society." (Like which example?
Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Jordan? Pakistan? Morocco? Or
perhaps even Iraq? )
Let's hope no one is rude enough to mention the
fact that the Palestinians held democratic elections for
their Parliament, not so long ago, under the strict
supervision of ex-President Jimmy Carter. As far as
Bush is concerned, that just did not happen, since the
majority of the people voted for Hamas. Therefore,
Bush mentions only the elections held before that,
when Mahmoud Abbas was elected president,
practically without opposition. Everything else has
been wiped off the slate.
So this is the up-to-date vision: "democratic
Palestinian institutions" will be in place, free of
corruption (as in the US and Israel), and "capable
security forces" will be functioning, and Hamas will be
eliminated, and the armed factions will be dismantled,
and all attacks on Israel will be stopped, and the
security of Israel ensured, and the incitement against
Israel ended, and everybody will recognize Israel's
right to exist as "a Jewish state and a homeland for
the Jewish people", and all the agreements that were
signed in the past will be accepted -- then "we can
soon begin serious negotiations towards the creation
of a Palestinian state." Wow!
What a wonderful sentence! "Soon" -- without a
timetable. "Serious negotiations" -- without fixing a
date for their conclusion. "A Palestinian state" --
without specific borders. But a hint is given: "mutually
agreed borders reflecting previous lines and current
realities." Meaning: the settlement blocs and much
else will be annexed by Israel.
It seems as if the speechwriters, after finishing
the product, noticed that it was pitifully devoid of
content. Nothing new, nothing that could cause a self-
respecting newspaper to give it a headline. I imagine
the media advisor saying: "Mister President, we must
add something that will look new." Thus the
"international meeting" was born.
"So I will call together an international meeting
this fall of representatives from nations that support a
two-state solution, reject violence, recognize Israel's
right to exist, and commit to all previous agreements
between the parties. The key participants in this
meeting will be the Israelis, the Palestinians, and their
neighbors in the region. Secretary Rice will chair the
meeting."
Wonderful. A meeting which has no date yet, but
has a season of the year. And for which no location
has yet been fixed. And no list of participants. And no
planned conclusions, except the general statement:
"She (Condoleezza) and her counterparts will review
the progress that has been made towards building
Palestinian institutions. They will look for innovative
and effective ways to support further reform. And they
will provide diplomatic support for the parties in their
bilateral discussions and negotiations, so that we can
move forward on a successful path to a Palestinian
state." The meeting will not review the progress made
towards the removal of the outposts, for example.
It is not by accident that Bush omitted to identify
the governments he intends to invite. Clearly, he will
try to fulfill one of the most cherished dreams of
Olmert: to meet publicly with a top representative of
Saudi Arabia. For Olmert this would be an immense
achievement: an official meeting with the most
important Arab country, which has no peace
agreement with Israel. A meeting for which he will not
have to pay any price. A free lunch.
The final objective is a "Palestinian state", the
"two-state solution". That is a far-far-off aim. Not for
nothing is it called a "political horizon", since a
horizon, as is well-known, recedes in the distance as
one tries to approach it.
In his poem "If", Rudyard Kipling describes all the
tests an Englishman has to endure in order to be
considered a "man". One of them is: "If you can bear to
hear the truth you've spoken / Twisted by knaves to
make a trap for fools... "
We, the small group of Israelis who raised the
banner of the "two-state solution" more than fifty years
ago, now have to endure George Bush turning it into a
rag to cover his nakedness. In his mouth, it is an
empty, deceitful and mendacious slogan. Only a fool
will fall into this trap. As Chaim Weizmann, the
prominent Zionist leader and first president of Israel,
once said: "No state is given to a people on a silver
platter." Nations achieve their freedom by political or
military struggle. Every struggle, violent or non-violent,
is a matter of power. And power means first of all:
Unity.
Uri Avnery (Excerpt,
www.straightgoods.ca)
The Middle East
according to Bush
US President's speech reinforces
myths from the Old West.