I had been warned over a week ago there could be another strike here in Ecuador, so this time I thought I would be prepared. As I said to my dear friend back home, it will probably not be so bad this time if there is a strike because we are all more prepared. As it happens, I had a dentist appointment this past week the day before the anticipated strike. At the end of my appointment, I was asked to return the next day, the day the strike was to begin. I mentioned there was a possibility of no buses because of a strike. I had read in an Ecuadorian newspaper the indigenous peoples were quite angry and threatened to strike again, but the staff at the dentist office just gave me a sideways glance saying they were confused by my information. They then explained that yes, there would be a strike, but on the Colombian border not here, so I was not to worry.
They did not seem to understand the reasons for the strike happening at the border, which was closed for a day, but another friend thought it had to do with the drug trafficking. However on doing a bit of searching online that night, I found a similar theme – the people in Columbia are wanting to be treated with respect and equality. So we have Chile, Venezuela, Peru, Columbia, Brazil, Ecuador and Bolivia in turmoil, the poor of these countries showing their complete dissatisfaction towards the governments. To me the common thread tying all these countries together is North America, in particular the USA, however Canada has definitely played a terrible part in this situation as you will read in the article below. Long before I came to Ecuador, I had a strong dislike for Chrystia Freeland, who I found to be lacking when it comes the fundamental knowledge of how people live in these countries, her Lima group a complete farce. Today as I read this article (attached below), one of the few which shares true knowledge of the situation, I feel justified in my opinion of this woman. As with the article I shared the other day, regarding the oil-patch, this opinion is written by 2 people who have understanding of Latin America and are not afraid to share it. My hat goes off to them for speaking out!
I truly believe if someone such as Chrystia wants to help the people here, fight for their rights, she should live among them as I have been doing. I don’t mean come here and stay in a 5 star hotel, talking to the leaders, locked away from the true reality of these countries, but to walk the streets, stay in a simple dwelling, eat the local cuisine and speak to those who are most affected by the decisions she makes. Otherwise, she cannot possibly know the truth about what happens to the majority, although she seems to think she’s done a good job. In reality, North America only seems to get involved when they have interest in the natural resources of the country, supporting governments which help them to acquire the goods without concern for how it affects the land or the indigenous. So much for their claim to be “fighting hard” for both.
You only have to look at what is happening in Canada’s own indigenous communities to realize how badly the system has failed over the years. Not just one government is responsible for the continuing saga of mistreatment of people indigenous or otherwise in the country I called home for most of my life – it only worsens as the years pass, the seat of power being filled by different men, yes, but with the same agenda. Governments work for themselves not for the people, only giving the people what they want when it also serves them. This is a worldwide problem an we are seeing the results of that greed being played out in real time here in South America.
There is a distinct pattern, in my opinion, with each overthrown government, one which you cannot be seen from so far away. If Canada is “interfering” in what’s happening in another government, such as Venezuela, I have not seen evidence of it, although I do check the headlines daily. There has been no outcry from the Lima Group about the severe abuse of the protesters here in Ecuador, Chile, Honduras or Bolivia, yet Venezuela has made headlines for most of the time I have been here. I think it is because Maduro has successfully resisted the plan to overthrow him, while the other countries have not. The truth about what happens in Latin America can be found on the ground, so to speak. The people of the communities struggling to survive, this is where you learn the reality of how they feel about which leader is corrupt. How can a foreign government, with interests in the natural resources, who happen to be backing the new leader be expected to give you an honest evaluation? Does that not seem a little too convenient to you, how they pick and choose which country gets their support and who gets abandoned? Sure does to me. If we took the natural resources out of the picture, would Canada or the US be interested in assisting the people of any other country? If we hadn’t assisted in the bombing and destruction of other countries, would the people of those countries need our help? We call it peace keeping, but can we really keep swallowing that lie? Who are we in reality helping by suppling guns, ammunition and troops? We fuel the fires which cause so much destruction, then swoop in with solutions for rebuilding and providing aid for the people. Kind of a make work project, which allows those with the most power take what they want and walk away without any real connection to the devastation in their wake. The rest of us deal with the consequences, such as the immigration problems……only if it lands in our backyard do we see the reality of what happens from turning a blind eye, or justifying what we have contributed to elsewhere. And lets face it, the possibility of the machine turning back on us, is becoming more of a possibility every day. The war machine is a world industry, will we ever understand the senselessness of it?
This past week Canada has accepted a government which has turned a generally peaceful and I think stable country into one of violent protests and instability – I don’t see them stepping up to stop this violence, rather by supporting the woman who now calls herself president, they condone the discrimination and violence. So much for their claim to support indigenous rights, because this new president clearly does not feel that way. I may not be highly educated in ways of politics or government, with no statistics or knowledge of history to back up my opinions, but I do know deception when it is staring me in the face. I came to know the truth about how the world works in a rather back door way, being shown first hand what happens when governments insists on having their own way. I cannot prove what happened to me anymore than I can prove my identity, but I carry the consequences, they haunt me daily. Perhaps my perspective is unique, and of course difficult for many to understand, but this is because my circumstances are unique as well – count yourself lucky to not understand as I do. Just as we call someone “street smart, not book smart” my views come from experience, not from studying. The few indigenous people I have spoken to here about the new Bolivian President, are very much against her, they preferred Morales. The people most affected by the government decisions are the ones you should trust, not those with the most money.
I leave you with the article written for the CBC, appearing today online:
From the CBC: This column is an opinion by John Kirk, a professor of Latin American studies at Dalhousie University and author or co-editor of 18 books on Latin America, and Stephen Kimber, a professor of journalism at the University of King’s College and author of nine books, including the award-winning What Lies Across the Water: The Real Story of the Cuban Five. For more information about CBC’s Opinion section, please see the FAQ.
Now that Canada has a new foreign minister, we should rethink aspects of our foreign policy, particularly in volatile Latin America.
Whatever former minister Chrystia Freeland’s successes in international trade, she made some embarrassing choices of allies in Latin America, while offering selective indignation and ham-handed attempts to impose her will in response to complex political dilemmas in countries like Venezuela and, more recently, Bolivia.
For example, Canada led the so-called Lima Group, an ad hoc 14-country body ostensibly set up in August 2017 to “address the critical situation in Venezuela and explore ways to contribute to the restoration of democracy.”
Before we consider what the Lima Group actually accomplished there, it’s worth reminding ourselves who we jumped into bed with. The Lima Group includes some of the worst human rights abusers in the hemisphere, many of whom play fast and loose with constitutional niceties.
Start with Honduras. Its president, Juan Orlando, whose brother was found guilty in New York of trafficking cocaine, has been accused of receiving drug money to support his re-election. In 2017, he skirted a constitutional ban on running for re-election.
Peru? In October, president Martin Vizcarra dismissed his entire cabinet, dissolved Congress and called for new elections, thereby eliminating the opposition’s majority in the legislature.
In Chile, millions of protestors took to the streets last month to protest social inequities. The government responded by brutally repressing demonstrators. Two dozen have been killed so far. There are more than 1,000 cases of alleged abuses by the security forces, and 230 people have lost their sight after being hit by pellets fired by the military.
Circling back, what did Canada and the Lima Group really achieve in Venezuela?
They didn’t simply question the legitimacy of the results of the controversial 2018 election that returned President Nicolas Maduro to power. They attempted to orchestrate a coup to replace Maduro with Juan Guaidó, a previously unknown National Assembly deputy who, not coincidentally, was Washington’s choice for Venezuelan president.
That coup failed, leaving ordinary Venezuelans in a more desperate state today than before Freeland and her so-called democratic Latin American allies decided to interfere in that country’s affairs.
Despite that ongoing embarrassment, Canada made almost the same mis-step again last week. Global Affairs Canada announced it would work with and support Bolivia’s self-declared new president, Jeanine Áñez, a woman with a history of hostility to Bolivia’s indigenous people.
On Oct. 20, the government of Evo Morales was either — depending on your perspective —overthrown in a coup or resigned after electoral irregularities.
Most observers agree Morales finished first in initial balloting, but there were disputes about whether his ultimate margin of victory was really sufficient to avoid a run-off.
Although Morales had accepted an Organization of American States’ recommendation that he hold fresh elections, powerful Bolivian military leaders “urged” him to seek asylum abroadinstead.
To avoid bloodshed, he did.
So did other elected officials. The Senate president — constitutionally the next in line for Morales’ job — has remained in Bolivia, but has boycotted the assembly sessions because of the coup.
That gave opposition parliamentarian Áñez an opening to claim the presidency for herself. On Nov. 12, in an almost empty Senate chamber, she was sworn in. Two telling symbols: a military leader placed the presidential sash on her shoulders. And Áñez proudly held aloft an extremely large bible. She declared indigenous religious traditions — which she describes as “satanic” — were no longer welcome in a country with an overwhelmingly indigenous population.
While Canada did not immediately officially recognize Áñez, as it had Guaidó, it did agree to support her and work with her — not only looking the other way at her undemocratic power grab, but also providing tacit acquiescence to her racism and open hostility to Bolivia’s indigenous peoples.
On the streets of Bolivia, there have been fierce battles. So far, at least 24 are reported dead and more than 700 wounded. Bolivia’s interim government has issued a decree guaranteeing impunity for the armed forces and police, exempting them from criminal responsibility in any actions taken against protestors.
The situation can only deteriorate as polarization grows.
UN High Commissioner on Human Rights Michelle Bachelet has criticized the “unnecessary or disproportionate use of force,” while the Interamerican Commission on Human Rights has condemned abuses by the military.
Canada’s response?
Global Affairs Canada called for everyone to “exercise restraint and avoid violence and confrontation,” while noting “Canada stands with Bolivia and the democratic will of its people.”
Really? There has been no mention in any official statement condemning the military’s overthrow of the Bolivian government.
In fact, the opposite has been true. Canada has turned a blind eye to the criminal abuses by Bolivia’s security forces. As it did in Chile.
Under Freeland’s tenure, unfortunately, this has become Canada’s standard Latin American operating procedure.
Our silence on the widespread abuse of human rights by fellow members of the Lima Group in Chile, Honduras and Peru — not to forget Colombia and Guatemala — speaks volumes, as has our eagerness to impose our will, undemocratically, on countries like Venezuela and Bolivia.
Freeland’s departure from the foreign affairs portfolio in this week’s cabinet shuffle is an opportunity. Her replacement, François-Philippe Champagne, should use that opportunity to reconsider how well our behaviour in Latin America aligns with our self-image of Canada as an honest broker in the world.
- This column is part of CBC’s Opinion section. For more information about this section, please read our FAQ.