Sometimes, for whatever reason, when I distribute my opinions on the internet I am rewarded for my civic mindedness with insults. Often, I perceive a negative reaction where none was intended, due either to the limitations of written communication or to my own personality.

 

I think that in the NDP and on the internet especially, the kitchen is just too hot and alot of good cooks are driven out because they are too sane to subject themselves to the heat.

 

 

Foreign Affairs is one category in which I think New Democrats allow ourselves to perceived as heading in the wrong direction. I am uncomfortable when a comrade promotes or defends the Stalinist dictatorship of Cuba while the democratically elected government of Iraq, headed by members of the Socialist International, is abandoned, left to the mercies of Islamic-Fascists and the U.S. religious right.

 

Are there between 40-50,000 members in our Party? There are dozens of possible positions on each issue that can be adopted. If everyone insisted that their position become "official" and that all representatives in the Party condition their activities according to the dictates of this policy, would there be any one left in it?  Politics would be abandoned by all except those advancing their own selfish short-term interests.

 

If your committment to a party is predicated on one position and everyone were to follow that same decision-making style then how large and effective would your party be?

 

I do not believe that all our candidates should vote the same on every issue.  

 

If in Newfoundland, most working class people are opposed to a woman's right-to-choose, then by all means, elect a pro-life socialist.  You don't like an NDP candidate's position on a given issue; then find a New Democrat in another riding you can support.  The more detailed a Party's platform becomes; the more potential supporters we alienate.

 

In his April 30th 2005 address to the Ontario NDP Provincial Council entitled "TRANSFORMATIVE SOCIAL CHANGE IN THE 21st CENTURY" Malemolla David Makhura, Provincial Secretary of the Gauteng ANC identified some the strategic errors committed by the Left in the 20th and in the new century:

 

1. Tendency towards [...] sectarianism: [...] A huge amount of time is wasted, fights around issues of disagreement instead of building alliances [...]. A progressive party needs to be able to unite various sectors, classes and ideological currents on a minimum programme to achieve an alternative society. [...]

 

2. Tendency towards dogmatism: [...] Changes in the global economy and social structures of many societies pose serious challenges around the question as to what constitutes progressive change [...] for example, our attitude to the neo-liberal dimensions of globalization should not be confused with reactionary opposition to technological progress.

[...]

 

4. Difficulties of organisational renewal: [...] A progressive party needs vibrant inner-party political life and robust internal democracy wherein election of leadership and selection of candidates is done by the party membership and grassroots structures. [...]

 

The full text can be found at http://www.ontariondp.on.ca/newsletter.php

 

My understanding of the axis that defines what is left (egalitarian) and what is right (corporate) is determined by the question "What should be the role of the citizen in determining who rules?" The Liberals would prefer to leave politics to an elite, requiring the people only to ratify the decisions taken by them. They are, therefore, a right-wing party.

 

What will determine the platform of the Liberal Party going into the next election?  It will be determined by the advisors chosen by the new leader.  Their perception of the opinion polls will determine the Liberal Party platform.  The convention delegates and membership of the party are irrelevant.

 

The means determine the ends.  Liberal practice guarantees a result favourable to the economic and communications elites of Canada.

 

On April 13th, 2006 at CAW Local 636, in Woodstock, Ontario, I attended a speech in given by Allan Slater, a Christian Brother who had spent some time in Iraq, which included the period that four of his compatriots were being held hostage.  One aspect of his stay there impressed me greatly: The Christian Brothers would meet with leaders from different communities and help them work out their differences and avoid conflict.

 

Apparently the US and British forces had no problem with the activities of the Christian Brothers, Allan commented that they were only concerned for their safety.  But the foreign mecenaries who came to fight in the name of Islam had a big problem with them.  The Christian Brothers were presented with the choice: flee or die.

 

Allan did not offer any solutions to the conflicts in the Balkans, Iraq, Darfur, Haiti, Afganistan or Zimbabwe.  As soon as bullets start flying towards them, the Christian Brothers have only one solution: leave.  Their tactics may help to promote democracy and human rights but they are incapable of assisting the democratically elected government of Iraq defeat the Fascists currently terrorizing the people.

 

New Democrats must not be perceived as being unable to deploy our military forces when the occasion demands it.  Will democratically elected feminist leaders in Afganistan's parliament be sacrificed to appease the pacificists in our Party?

 

Regardless of future events I will not abandon our Party.

 

Our Party is not equivalent to a box of cereal that you can switch for another brand because it has too much sugar; the New Democratic Party is the representive in Canada of one hundred and thirty-nine years work dedicated to the establishment of a society in which the value of a human being is not determined by the confluence of supply and demand.  That is the glue that holds us together. All other causes should be optional; left to each candidate's best judgement.

 

As members of the Second International, we are a part of the most successful political movement in history. Along the way we have been wrong, sometimes, but without us in Canada children would still be working twelve hours a day in unsafe factories, labour leaders would still be in jail for conspiracy and only men of property would be able to vote.

 

 

Party members should be free to advocate for their views inside and outside our Party but I would consider it a waste of my time to pander to anyone who would prostitute their allegiance to the highest bidder.  For those people, we have the Liberal Party.

"I said to myself here are a people who have suffered for three centuries. We can make them as free as ourselves, give them a government and country of their own, put a miniature of the American constitution afloat in the Pacific, start a brand new republic to take its place among the free nations of the world. It seemed to me a great task to which we had addressed ourselves.

"But I have thought some more, since then ... and I have seen that we do not intend to free, but to subjugate the people of the Philippines. We have gone there to conquer, not to redeem ... And so I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other land."

 

Mark Twain, 1900.

 

In his Globe and Mail editorial JAMES LAXER explains why Canada should abandon its commitment to the people of Afghanistan, using Mark Twain to demonstrate that we have been here before.  No doubt if there were no US strategic interests here, Geoge W. Bush would be bombing Caracas, not Kabul.  But George's buddies need their pipeline and so Hugo Chaves gets a pass.

 

I agree with Laxer when he writes "Canadian troops are not engaged in peacekeeping. They are involved on one side in a civil war." 

 

Yes, and just as Karl Marx and many other socialists publicly advocated for the Union's victory over the Confederacy in the US civil war, so it is also in the interests of New Democrats to support and to advocate for those forces in Afghanistan that are building democratic institutions and the rule of law. 

 

As Malalai Joya is proving, Afghanis are as deserving of democracy as any other human being.

 

How do Canada's New Democrats propose to safeguard the democratic process in Afghanistan? 
 

What are the criteria that help to distinguish the foreign policy approach of the Egalitarian Internationalist Left from that of Neo-Cons and what I tentatively label "Status-Quo" Leftists?  I borrow the term, Status-Quo Leftists, I believe, from Christopher Hitchens.

 

When do members of the Egalitarian-Left advocate intervention and who do we ally ourselves with in order to achieve our objectives?

 

Neo-Cons, it seems to me, practice the dictim "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."  It is also the policy of some  "Status-quo" Leftists, such as George Galloway. 

 

Al Qaeda is a product of the Carter-Reagan-Bush-Clinton foreign policy strategy.  When the Fascists Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were fighting the enemies of the United States the Neo-Cons helped them and status-quo leftists were against them.  When these same people became enemies of the United States their positions switched. 

 

Subscribers to the Euston Manifesto, in stark contrast, are consistent supporters of democratic governments and political movements.

 

Yesterday, we may  support U.S. actions to defeat the Iraq Baathist Party but tommorrow, when the C.I.A. gets back to its regular routine of subverting democracy in Latin America we will find ourselves opposing them.

 

When do I feel more uncomfortable?  When I agree with George Bush or when I agree with Fidel Castro?  I would feel more comfortable with the man who will not throw me in jail when I disagree with him. 

 

I would not last a day in Castro's Cuba.  Democrats like me would be extradited or thrown in prison. 

 

Those Canadian leftists who take "Solidarity Vacations" to Cuba are an embarassment.  I can drive down to Washington D.C., demonstrate and hurl all the verbal abuse I please at George W., and no one lays a hand on me. 

 

Unfortunately, for some of my comrades, the conclusion is not obvious.

 

 

 

 

WHEREAS 2000 homeless Kurdish people have been killed by Turkish troops since August 1995, and
WHEREAS the Kurdish people are facing total genocide in Turkey, Iran and Iraq;

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the federal NDP use all the means at its disposal to encourage international mediation through the UN and the Canadian government for an immediate end to Kurdish bloodshed, for release of all Kurdish political prisoners, and for the development of a permanent political solution to this problem.

 

WHEREAS Federal New Democrat Leader Alexa McDonough and the Federal Caucus have taken a strong and principled stand in response to the September 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, and in doing so have respected the policies of the federal New Democratic Party; and
WHEREAS the current U.S.-led military strikes in Afghanistan are not under the clear framework of international law and United Nations authorization and direction; and
WHEREAS it is essential that the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks be brought to justice for these crimes against humanity, as defined by U.N. Human Rights Commissioner Mary Robinson and others, before an international tribunal under United Nations auspices; and
WHEREAS the Liberal government committed Canadian military assets and forces as part of the U.S.-led military coalition without either debate or a vote in the House of Commons; and
WHEREAS there has been an alarming increase in racist and religious-based attacks on Muslims, Arab Canadians and other visible minorities including Sikhs since September 11; and
WHEREAS a humanitarian disaster is unfolding in Afghanistan as desperate refugees by the millions are facing widespread starvation and death as they flee the terror of the Taliban regime and U.S. bombing; and
WHEREAS at this critical time it is very important that Canadians be vigilant to protect against unwarranted attacks on fundamental civil liberties and human rights as part of the comprehensive response to terrorist attacks, bearing in mind the history of internment of Japanese Canadians and the proclamation of the War Measures Act in similar circumstances,

 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Federal New Democratic Party
• AFFIRM its strong support for the position taken by the Leader Alexa McDonough and Federal Caucus in response to the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001;
• CONDEMN in the strongest possible terms as crimes against humanity the terrorist attacks of September 11, and call for the perpetrators to be brought to justice before an international tribunal with participation from the Muslim community, to be established by the United Nations Security Council and approved by the UN General Assembly;
• SUPPORT the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces who have been assigned to undertake this mission with a view to returning them safely home, as well as supporting their families at home in Canada;
• CALL UPON the federal government to bring this issue before the United Nations General Assembly under the provisions of Article 35 of the UN Charter, with the objective of seeking a peaceful, diplomatic resolution that would bring the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks to justice;
• CONDEMN the federal government's decision to commit military support to the U.S.-led military action without first having scheduled in the House of Commons a full debate and vote, and insists that such debate and vote take place before any further deployment of military resources, particularly given the United States' indication that they may be prepared to expand their attacks to other countries beyond Afghanistan;
• REAFFIRM our policy to "oppose offensive military intervention by Canadian forces or others where such action is not sanctioned by the United Nations and the Parliament of Canada", and call for an immediate end to the U.S.-led military action in Afghanistan, and to end Canadian participation in this action;
• SUPPORT calls to work in the longer term to eradicate the conditions from which despair, violence, hatred and discord arise;
• URGE the federal government to lead all Canadians in fighting against the rising tide of intolerance and racism in the aftermath of September 11, particularly directed at Muslims and Arab Canadians;
• CALL upon the federal government to contribute generously to an international humanitarian campaign to assist Afghan refugees fleeing Taliban persecution and U.S.-led bombing, including the offer of both significant aid and assistance in relocating refugees;
• URGE all member countries of the United Nations to ratify at the earliest possible time the treaty establishing an International Criminal Court.
• REAFFIRM the responsibility of the Government of Canada to provide security for the people of Canada and calls for a comprehensive review of security measures, so as to meet the legitimate security concerns of Canadians, while fully respecting civil rights and liberties, such review to be undertaken with urgent consultations, including human rights, civil liberties, labour and faith organizations.

 

 

 

WHEREAS the Bush U.S. Administration appears to have made the decision to attack Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein; and
WHEREAS this policy is claimed to be an extension of the U.S. led “war on terrorism”, but no evidence has been provided to show that Iraq has played any part in recent terrorist acts against the “west”; and
WHEREAS the rational that Iraq is becoming a threat to adjacent or other nations based on the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), when three years ago UN Weapon Inspectors stated that 98% if Iraqi WMD capability and the capacity to rebuild them had been eliminated with no evidence that their production base has been reconstituted; and
WHEREAS the problem of reaccepting UN Weapon Inspectors is directly tied to the inhumane and unwarranted Anglo-American sanctions against the people of Iraq,
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the NDP Federal Council and Caucus urge the federal government to clearly and unequivocally ensure that the Canadian government internationally oppose any aggression against the people of Iraq, based on an expansion of the U.S. led “war on terrorism”. In addition, Canada’s NDP must advocate the earliest elimination of the punishing sanctions against the people of Iraq.

 

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the Federal Council endorse the following resolution passed by the Socialist International Council:
The Socialist International hereby announces that its member parties – the Israeli Labour Party, Meretz and Fatah – agree that the mutual recognition of the state of Israel and the state of Palestine, as two states to live side by side, should be the initial commitment before negotiations start between the two peoples.
The main elements of a final settlement have long been clear to most involved parties: implementation of Security Council resolution 242; establishment of a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel under irreversible security guarantees for both sides; borders ensuring that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip are part of the Palestinian state, but opening the possibility of negotiated land swaps; both states to have their capital in Jerusalem, and a just solution to the refugee issue.
The Socialist International and its above-mentioned member parties stress that negotiations have to be opened immediately and handle all outstanding issues. A cease-fire cannot be a condition to the start of negotiations. Extremists cannot be given the upper hand. The above parties renounce violence and will refrain from participating in any violent activity that harms civilian lives. Firm measures must be taken against such acts. We ask the parties to pay particular attention to the protection of the civilian population.
The Israeli Labour Party, Meretz and Fatah will immediately engage in confidence-building activities together, with the help and support of the Socialist International and member parties. Joint groups will be established to discuss and prepare specific issues that will come up within the framework of final status negotiations.
The Socialist International will work with the aim of encouraging the United States, Russia and the European Union to find a common stand on final status issues. This stand must be consistent with international legality, and enjoy the support of the UN Security Council. It must also allow concerned Arab states to adhere to it. Particularly, it must take into consideration the parameters included in the recent Saudi initiative.
This basic common position should be elaborated before an international peace conference with the participation of Israel, the Palestinian Authority, relevant Arab countries, the U.S., EU, Russia and the UN.
The parties to the conflict should be invited to the Conference on the basis of basic principles: land for peace, 242, and an agreement on the establishment of two states and security for both. The Conference should set a timetable for final status negotiations.
The Socialist International also encourages our member parties who are parties in conflict to prepare their respective public opinions for a compromise. Israel may not have peace and at the same time keep settlements, while Palestinians may have to accept an internationally supported compromise on the refugee issue.
The Socialist International supports the idea of building an international Fund for the Palestinian refugees, which the UN could administer once a permanent political settlement has been achieved on this issue. The Fund should ensure compensation for the losses and the suffering of the refugees, and provide them with the opportunity to start a new life on the basis of the conclusion of a final peace agreement. The better we can show that solutions are within reach, the more likely people will start working for a political settlement rather than a military one.
Urgent recovery and reconstruction programs for the Palestinian Authority are needed, including the recovery of taxes, customs and other fees still withheld. Development and security are dependent upon developing democratic institutions and establishing a centralized security authority.
The Socialist International insists on the need for international guarantees, international monitoring of implementation of any agreements, international political follow-up of negotiations, and the presence on the ground of a multinational peace-keeping force patrolling borders.

 

BE IT RESOLVED that the New Democratic Party endorse the following policy statement on Iraq, adapted from the Socialist International resolution passed on January 21, 2003:
The world is living under the threat of war that creates fear around the world. We stress that war is not inevitable. We should do everything possible in order to avoid war: we must give peace a chance.
Therefore we give full support to the UN Secretary General to continue his endeavors in co-operation with the Security Council members, towards the fulfillment of UN Weapon Inspections, and to continue ensuring that all required conditions for their success are met; and for the UN to assume its responsibilities.
The New Democratic Party
• Stresses that the mission is to achieve complete disarmament of any Iraqi chemical, bacteriological and nuclear weapons of mass destruction, in order to remove any threat to the Iraqi people and the region. Even if they appear in a residual manner, it is the inspectors who must oversee the destruction of these weapons. The UN disarmament inspectors must have all the time they need. If necessary they should be instituted in a permanent form.
• Considers that UNSC Resolution 1441 does not authorize automatic recourse to the use of force. Any further steps must be taken by the Security Council after a full assessment of the situation and on the basis of a new resolution.
• Expresses its opposition to any unilateral military action and believes that a pre-emptive strike would be contrary to international law, and furthermore could lead to a deeper crisis involving other countries in the region. Diplomacy must be emphasized to avoid unnecessary military action.
• Expresses once again its solidarity and support to those who are working for democratic and peaceful change in Iraq.
• Expresses its concern with the current humanitarian situation that affects especially women and children.
• Calls for the lifting of economic sanctions against Iraq.
The use of force to keep or enforce the peace must stem not from the unilateral judgment of the powerful, but from respect for international law and at the behest, or at least with the express consent of the United Nations Security Council. This, imperfect as it is, is the only body which has the legitimacy to take decisions in the name of the international community. It is in this new light that we view the recent developments in Iraq. We wish to reaffirm our conviction that military solutions must always be the last resort in seeking a just peace, when all other political and diplomatic means have been exhausted, and that the international community and its legitimate representative bodies must act on the basis of clear criteria and with no trace of political or economic opportunism. Equally, we cannot allow the international community to be held hostage by a single state. This is the only way to maintain confidence in the institutions which govern international relations.  We confirm our commitment to re-launching a multilateral approach in international relations and consider that the respect of the role of the UN and its bodies - and respect for international law - is the best way to reinforce this perspective.

Whether or not the resolution will make it to the floor for debate is still to be determined.

 

Date of the convention: September 8 - 10, 2006

 

Submitted to Panel (category): Reclaiming Canada's Place in the World

 

Human Rights for all

 

Whereas:  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is binding on all governments and political movements and U.S. foreign policy has often opposed progressive movements and governments and supported regressive and authoritarian ones; therefore, be it resolved that:

Violations of the Universal Declaration are equally to be condemned regardless of context.  Canada's New Democrats reject double standards that find violations of human rights by one more deplorable than violations by another.  The cultural relativist view that human rights are not appropriate for certain nations or peoples are to be opposed.  Furthermore, this policy does not justify a rejection of actions taken by Americans or their government in support of democracy and human rights.