It's getting downright chilly for Canada in Cuba. By neglect or design,
our approach is mirroring Washington's, say professors John M. Kirk and Peter
Mckenna
John M. Kirk and Peter Mckenna.
The Globe and Mail. Montreal,
Monday, June 4, 2001
Having just returned from Cuba, we could see that the change in tone in
Canadian-Cuban relations was palpable. A number of close friends expressed
concern with the "frosty" approach now being adopted by official
Ottawa.
Their questions were virtually identical: Why was Canada now following the
U.S. lead in condemning Cuba? Why was the Canadian government singling out Cuba
as the hemisphere's pariah, particularly when other countries are guilty of more
flagrant human-rights abuses? Does this signal a major shift in Canada's policy
toward Cuba? Where was the vision of Pierre Trudeau?
Clearly, the past few weeks have witnessed a sharp deterioration in the
already fragile state of relations between Ottawa and Havana. Newly minted
Foreign Minister John Manley explained the rationale for Cuba's exclusion from
the third Summit of the Americas in Quebec City by pointing to Cuba's lack of
commitment to democratic principles.
He was supported by Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, who noted that he
had "spent hours and hours trying to persuade Castro" during his 1998
visit to sign various international covenants on human rights. Just a few days
before the April summit, Canada co-sponsored a resolution at the UN Human Rights
Commission in Geneva criticizing Cuba's human-rights record.
For its part, the Cuban government has responded with vigour to this seeming
war of words. First, Fidel Castro sent a note of support to demonstrators in
Quebec City. Second, he condemned the "brutal way in which Canadian
authorities repressed the peaceful demonstrators." Finally, on April 25, he
spent almost a full hour on national television refuting Mr. Chrétien's
final summit remarks about Cuba, barely concealing his anger.
Indeed, three full pages of Mr. Castro's angry comments on Mr. Chrétien's
approach to the relationship appeared in the April 26 edition of Cuba's leading
daily newspaper. (During the May Day parade and marches, some Cubans carried a
huge papier-mâché caricature of Mr. Chrétien as a sign of
their frustration.) Mr. Castro's final comments are worth repeating: "I am
sure that Pierre Trudeau would never have said that he spent four hours giving
unsolicited advice. Nor would he have sought out a justification to exclude our
dignified nation from a Summit of the Americas."
Clearly, the Cuban government is perturbed at what it regards as a
pro-Washington strain in Canadian foreign policy. Mr. Manley has made it
abundantly clear that, since the United States is Canada's most important
trading partner, Ottawa should do all in its power to strengthen the bilateral
relationship. In the case of Cuba, this evidently means backing away from
Canada's longstanding policy of "constructive engagement," strongly
endorsed by his predecessor Lloyd Axworthy.
There is an obvious need to revisit the Canada-Cuba relationship, preferably
sooner rather than later. There are two main schools of thought about the
appropriate strategy toward Cuba that Ottawa should adopt.
On one side, there are those who believe that engaging Havana through
dialogue, cultural exchanges and trade has proved largely unsuccessful. The
Cubans are simply not prepared to make any concessions, they argue, and thus it
is pointless to even try. Better, they suggest, to embrace a hard-line approach
of isolation and condemnation -- not unlike U.S. policy for the past 40 years.
They are opposed by those who contend that the policy of harsh language,
hostility and embargoes has been an even bigger diplomatic failure. Only by
engaging Havana, they maintain, will it be possible to voice concerns and to be
in a position to help promote meaningful change and shape reforms within Cuba.
Unfortunately, both sides have consistently overestimated Canada's political
clout in these matters. True, we are one of Cuba's important trading partners,
our development-assistance program under CIDA is highly regarded, and we
represent a major source of tourists to Cuba's beaches.
But these factors can only translate into effective leverage or influence
with the Cubans when they are used positively as inducements -- and when
combined with a creative and pragmatic diplomacy. The highly charged rhetoric of
today is hardly conducive to rebuilding cordial relations.
It's time to re-examine the entire bilateral relationship, and to determine
exactly what is in Canada's best interests. The current "deep freeze"
or holding pattern is no longer sustainable or constructive for either country.
Do we as a nation want to be more supportive of Washington's Cuba policy? Or do
we want to maintain a more independent approach toward Havana -- as has been the
case since 1959?
Whatever the choice, it is time for plain talk and much-needed transparency
in charting a prudent policy course. At the moment, it looks as if either
someone is asleep at the wheel (and we are hopelessly drifting into an
increasingly pro-U.S. position), or else someone is deliberately steering us in
that direction. It may well be the course in which we want this country's
foreign policy to go. But if we don't, we badly need to readjust the
co-ordinates before it's too late.
John M. Kirk and Peter McKenna are university professors in Halifax and
the authors of Canada-Cuba Relations: The Other Good Neighbour Policy.
Copyright © 2001 Globe Interactive, a division of Bell
Globemedia Publishing Inc. |