Right Honourable Jean-Robert Gauthier,
Senator Allen MacEachen,
Co-Chairpersons,
Special Joint Committee Reviewing Canadian Foreign Policy

Honourable Chairpersons:

Canada is an integral part of a world which is going through historic changes. This world is in disequilibrium at the present time as a result of the collapse of the bi-polar division of the world. What the new equilibrium should be is one of the most important questions of our time which concerns all the peoples of the world.

It is commendable that Canada's foreign policy and international trade practices are being reviewed at this time. However, in my estimation, this review is based on a flawed notion that there has to be a "balance between continuity and change." The notion of a balance between continuity and change is merely a device to cover-up a fear of change and push for the status-quo. Change amounts to putting an end to all notions which are of no relevance to the present and it seems that it is the basic tenets of Canada's foreign policy which need to be examined at this time. In my estimation, they should be replaced with new ones according to the requirements of the world for a new equilibrium which accords with the interests of the peoples of all countries.

When there is disequilibrium in the world, the end of the old equilibrium, in which two countries could determine the destiny of a third country or bring the world close to a cataclysmic war, and when several powers are already in contention for world domination, it is mandatory that a foreign policy review boldly stand for change. It must stand for a new equilibrium in which all counties, big or small, are independent to contribute to the solution of the world's problems and to put an end to the redivision of the world between big powers. Old practices have to be discontinued. The old continuity must be replaced by new relations, according to the requirements of the present time.

It is generally proclaimed that the Cold War has come to an end. But there is another truth as well. It is a dangerous illusion to think that the struggle between big powers which assumed the form of the Cold War in the past has not been replaced with another, in which the U.S. is trying to dictate through its military capabilities while others are questioning its right to do so. Furthermore, it is a dangerous illusion to believe that the struggle of the peoples for their rights against world imperialism and reaction has disappeared and that only the interests of the most powerful have remained. Finally, it will be a fatal mistake to believe that there is no need for deep-going transformations through revolution and that, just because pseudo-socialism has failed, the working people of all countries remain satisfied with their conditions of exploitation, enslavement, immiseration, starvation and death as is the lot of the peoples in many parts of the world. The entire continent of Africa is facing such a tragedy.

The point of view of the working people which I represent takes into consideration all the changes, both economic and political, which have taken place up to the present time, in order to make a contribution towards the creation of a new equilibrium. The conclusion is drawn from this all-round study that the world is going through a great historical transition, in which a new equilibrium can only be found on the basis of the defeat of all those who are striving to redivide the world between their own zones of influence and by working for deep going transformations. A profound new perspective is needed for the creation of a new equilibrium in which people could realize their desire for peace, security and prosperity, created and defended by themselves.

The changes which have taken place as a result of the collapse of the bipolar division of the world need to be analyzed and pertinent conclusions drawn. Which way should the world go? Should it go backward to a new redivision between blocs and all the tension and the arms race which go along with this, including the danger of another cataclysmic war? Or should it go forward? Working people want to go forward as do all enlightened forces, while there are others who are pushing the world towards medievalism. More importantly, working people are extremely wary and concerned about a world which is dominated by either one superpower or two or more in alliance with one another or a world divided into warring groups fighting for world domination on a regional basis. What the working people want is not retrogression but to open a path for progress and create a world order in which the peace, security and prosperity of all is the condition for the peace, security and prosperity of each and every nation or country.

It is necessary to point out right at the outset that the Joint Committee should seriously deliberate on and reject the notion given in the guidelines it has provided for this review according to which, "The government believes that Canadians want an active and independent foreign policy that reflects Canadian values and serves Canada's interests." There can be no dispute about the guideline that Canadian policy should be "an active and independent" one, both as concerns internal and foreign matters. But to say that foreign policy should reflect "Canadian values" and serve "Canada's interests" is to suffer from old colonial conceptions. When all the speeches of the ministers and of the Prime Minister on foreign policy, trade and other related matters are taken together, the outlook which runs through them smacks of the degrading notion of "white man's burden". It can be seen in the demand to link trade and aid issues and those which concern the environment with those which pertain to what is called "human rights and democracy."

A modern foreign policy cannot be based on old conceptions, the narrow rendition of values suitable to a minority of Canadians who have economic, ideological and political interests in exploiting, enslaving and dominating the world for their own narrow aim of obtaining maximum profits for themselves.

A modern definition of democracy both in a country and internationally takes into consideration not only the interests of one's own country but of all countries, by putting the interests of the working people of all these countries at the centre. Old colonial conceptions, however, look at the interests of the economically most powerful as the driving force of domestic and foreign policy. Such a driving force is responsible for not only trade wars as is the case at this time, but also for actual wars, as have occurred several times during the twentieth century, and to wars of aggression, intervention and the installation of fascist, militarist and reactionary regimes. Such a colonial conception equates "Canadian values" and "Canada's interests" with those of the forces which are economically the most powerful and the government becomes the tool of these values and interests.

Liberalism, both the form advocated by realists and that advocated by idealists, has historically paved the way for the advent of fascism and war. Within Canada too, Liberal Party governments have been succeeded by Progressive Conservative Party governments whose basic orientation the present Liberal government is pushing, paving the way for the Reform Party to take over. History will repeat itself if liberalism is not rejected in favour of modern definitions. Such definitions recognize as a fact that all people are born to society and, as a result, society must acknowledge that they have claims upon it and that the responsibility of governments is to create the conditions -- economic, political, social, cultural and legal -- to fulfil these claims. This is what human rights are all about. A government guided by the responsibility to fulfil the needs of the people at home will fight for the same abroad. Old colonial conceptions run counter to such modern conceptions and are a naive and impotent way of responding to the fast changing world. Nostalgia about the past can be as destructive to opening the path for progress at the present time as its proper appraisal can be a great boon. Colonialism and imperialism have been rejected by the peoples as has pseudo-socialism. The demands of the twenty-first century are to look at the world on the basis of modern definitions.

Historically, communists have stood at the head of all movements for profound social transformations nationally and internationally and at the head of all movements for enlightenment and it is necessary that they play the same role at this time. It is the October Revolution in Russia in 1917 which put an end to the First World War and led to the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.), as the condition for harnessing Russian -chauvinism so as to guarantee the sovereignty of member states. During the 1940s, the Soviet Union and the anti-fascist fighters all over the world were the decisive force which put an end to the Second World War. Furthermore, Marxist-Leninists were also the first to warn the world against the dangers posed by Soviet social-imperialism and they opposed both the arms race which devastated the economies of the Soviet Union and the U.S. and their satellites, as well as all wars of aggression and intervention, including not just those in which the U.S. was implicated, but the Soviet Union and any other country as well. It is the Marxist-Leninists who warned the world that the rise of pseudo-socialism would cause great tragedies for the peoples of the Soviet Union and its satellites. Today too, those who wish to orient themselves in domestic and foreign affairs need to pay serious attention to what the Marxist-Leninists are saying. Shutting one's eyes in the style of the detractors of Galileo some centuries ago will do great damage to the cause of the peoples to open the path for the progress of their own societies and the world community as well. While our predictions came true and pseudo-socialism has fallen, there is a widespread misconception about what happened in the former Soviet Union and in eastern Europe. The most fanatical adherents of old colonial, anticommunist and anti-democratic notions are propagating the conclusion that it is communism which has fallen.

A foreign policy review and assessment of international trade should, in my view, should be carried out on the basis of starting from the actual situation as it prevails in the world at the present time. It must be appreciated that what happened in the Soviet Union and in the countries of eastern Europe was not a regional but an international phenomenon which has not lost steam. It proved that neither pseudo-socialism nor capitalism can provide for the people. The existence of social programs, remnants of the socialist system, did not assist pseudo-socialism to overcome its crisis, while the technical-scientific revolution has not helped capitalism to overcome its crisis either. The rulers of the world, especially in western Europe, Canada and the U.S., were so scared of the upheavals which took place in the former Soviet Union and eastern Europe that they created utter confusion and claimed that it is communism which failed. Right in the midst of this upheaval, the governments of Europe as well as Canada and the U.S. signed declarations on what kind of economic and political system a country should have, according to which a free market and multi-party systems are the hallmarks of democracy. Any country which sets its course differently is treated as a pariah. Such declarations have taken various countries back to a period of medievalism, to the times when Might was considered Right and the values of King and Church were the altar at which the movement for enlightenment and advances towards opening the path to social progress were sacrificed. These declarations coming from Europe, Canada and the U.S. literally stood the entire world on notice that either you submit to our values and serve our interests or else we will isolate and crush you. These governments patted themselves on the back for smashing communism and openly presented themselves as enemies of all change, development and motion which threatens the rule of the economically most powerful in these countries. Structures were put in place to stem the tide f revolutionary transformations in the midst of causing maximum confusion and diversion. At the same time, programs were put in place to eliminate social programs and all progress towards a modern life made since the Second World War.

A foreign policy, if it is to be truly independent and active, must be based on serving the needs of Canadians to have a self-reliant economy which is based on harmonizing the interests of the individual and of the collective with the general interests of society. Self-reliance in the sphere of the economy does not mean isolation but to carry active economic trade and other relations for mutual benefit. Such a perspective will not only truly serve the interests of the people of Canada but will also serve the interests of the peoples of all other countries. In my opinion, the review of foreign policy and international trade must examine what kind of relations the government of Canada is to foster between the people of Caada and the peoples of all other countries. There is not much room for a review of foreign policy and international trade on the basis of a domestic policy which seeks to preserve the status quo. This status quo dictates that people are deprived of their right to participate in deciding their own affairs and those of their society and it gives the claims of the money lenders first priority over the assets of Canadian society. In order to be effective, the Joint Committee should recommend that the government should also review its domestic economic and political foundation.

It is not so difficult to appreciate that the collapse of the bipolar division of the world has provided the people with a great opportunity to work for changes which are needed immediately and in the long run. In the immediate sense, people can demand and work for the democratization of international life in order to ensure that no single power or countries in alliance should dominate the world. They can begin with the democratization of the United Nations and call for the elimination of permanent seats on the Security Council and their veto power. They can demand that the Security Council should be enlarged and the United Nations run on the basis of members controlling the Secretary General and the Security Council and not the other way around. They can call for the democratization of economic organizations by eliminating the role of the big powers in determining their policy. 

The problem of indebtedness is having terrible consequences, creating a nightmare for entire continents as in the case of Africa. But it is also a problem for Canada. Canada can play an important role in demanding a moratorium on debt payments which, many times, equal and even surpass the amount of the original loan. If peoples are not burdened by payments n their debt, they can look after their economies. This will also coincide with the interests of the Canadian people.

Another demand is that neither the United Nations nor any government should interfere in the internal affairs of member countries. People can call for the dismantling of all economic and military blocs, the banning of stockpiling and the manufacture of all weapons of mass destruction -- nuclear, chemical, biological and all others, especially those in the hands of the big powers -- and for a ban on all trade in arms and of any arms race. The Canadian government can take a lead on these immediate issues, providing a model for all other governments and preparing the world in this manner to enter the twenty-first century.

The long-term aim can only be the creation of a world which recognizes no barriers of any kind; a modern civilization for the human race. The precondition for this development is the end of exploitation and enslavement of one people by another. The Canadian government can take a lead in this respect as well, by providing itself with a modern constitution through which it separates the question of citizenship from nationality and recognizes equal rights and duties for all citizens, irrespective of their country of origin, language, race, religion, gender, lifestyle, politics, wealth or ability. Such a modern constitution must enshrine the right to self-determination including secession and establish a true basis for the creation of a free and equal union comprised of the fraternal peoples of Canada. Setting such an example in Canada, where people have settled from literally all over the globe, would raise Canada's prestige to such a level that the peoples of other countries would not only hail the experience but seek to learn from it as well.

Today, it should be recognized that the economically most powerful want to construct barriers when it suits them and destroy them when it suits them. Such an attitude is not conducive to lasting peace, security or the prosperity of all peoples. The Canadian government, instead of being an instrument of these economically powerful groups, should work with other governments to control and abolish such groups which are marauding the world and destroying the economies of various countries, including that of Canada. Already it has become clear that the "market economy" with all the technical and scientific revolution at its disposal is only beneficial to the most powerful, while it is leaving extremely lop-sided and volatile economies in its wake and a "jobless recovery". The formation of economic blocs, whether in Europe which is fulfilling the dream of Adolf Hitler of a United Europe under the dictate of the economically most powerful German interests or of the Free Trade Agreement or North American Free Trade Agreement, can only lead to the intensification of competition and trade wars and the ruination of those economies not able to withstand the competition. Trade blocs such as the EEC lead to the loss of sovereignty for the weaker countries and the formation of military blocs -- a trend developing in Europe. The People's Republic of China, the Republic of India and the Islamic Republic of Iran are contemplating the formation of an Asian Common Market which will have the greatest number of first-rate consumers, on one pole, and the greatest number of poor people, on the other. It will be a source of intense competition and conflict regionally and globally, as is already the case with the other formations.

There is no going away from the fact that Canada must think about its foreign policy options and do so hard. Time is working for the peoples at this time which may not be the case later on. The twentieth century was ushered in with the U.S. declaring its "Open Door Policy" and the Germans and other staking their claims. This Open Door Policy led by the U.S. and other policies similar to it advocated by other countries will rightly be called crimes against humanity after exploiters and enslavers have been overthrown and humanity takes the time to mull them over. The question arises: Will the world enter the twenty-first century with the same policies? Can the world find peace, security and prosperity if everyone continues to direct policis according to their own narrow interests at the cost of others? The Joint Committee should think about where the world is going to be by the year 2000, 2015, 2030 and so on. If the present premise of pushing "Canada's values" and "Canada's interests" were to carry on, along with the same pushed by other countries on their own behalf, there will be a cataclysmic world war. Should the fundamental approach being taken as concerns domestic and international questions not be the subject of a review?

Canada as a "peacekeeper", a country which has a history of sending its soldiers abroad for well over one hundred and forty years and whose bouts of industrialization have coincided and been dependent on two terrible world wars, cannot but re-examine this role by going deeply into the problem. How can Canada, which is a member of NORAD and NATO really be a "peacekeeper" when its interests have been placed on the side of the bloc led by the U.S.? For a country to play its role as a peacekeeper it must have a foreign policy of positive neutrality, condemning all acts of aggression and intervention and unjust wars and supporting all movements which open the path for social progress and lasting peace in the world. There is no reference whatsoever to the study of this experience in the materials issued in the form of speeches by the ministers concerned, except that the policy of "peacekeeping" is applauded as if it is a recognized truth. Far from calling for getting out of NATO and NORAD, the speeches are indicative of strengthening participation in these military blocs which are not in keeping with the image of a country which calls itself a peacekeeper.

A peacekeeper can only have one standard, that of creating the conditions for peace without, at the same time, being an interventionist and aggressor or defender of militarism and fascism. Positive neutrality under all circumstances must be the watchword if the role of peacekeeping is to b given substance and be suitable for the creation of a new world equilibrium.

At this time, a policy of double standards is being pushed internationally. The Canadian government seems to be favouring this as well. Wherever a big power proclaims its interests it can do whatever it wishes, as in the case of the Korean peninsula where the U.S. led international forces to participate in a civil war on the side of their own interests and those of the Japanese and their collaborators, to the detriment of the people of Korea. More than three million Koreans lost their lives, millions were turned into refugees, the north of Korea was literally devastated, the country was divided and a fascist government was imposed on the people of South Korea. The Joint Committee should look into this matter and do so without any prejudice whatever. It should also look at the fact that the U.S. has filled South Korea with nuclear weapons and its ships are also nuclear armed, while a pretext is being created that North Korea is manufacturing nuclear weapons, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. The Joint Committee, in my estimation, should take a sober approach to this question. 

I have read André Ouellet's contribution to the debate on foreign affairs in the House of Commons on March 15, 1994, stating that "All our new initiatives must be pragmatic; they must be well-considered and capable of giving new life and hope to the world system." The people of Korea may not understand what ideological consideration is intended if the Canadian government continues its old policy towards Korea and does not change its basic premises on other questions as well, as the times are demanding. The Canadian government recognizes the Republic of South Korea but continues to isolate the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, with which it has yet to establish diplomatic relations, even though both are members of the United Nations. The Canadian government continues to support the absurd claim that North Koreans were aggressors within their own country in 1950 while Canada itself had sent armed forces as part of the Commonwealth Contingent against the Korean people. The Joint Committee should recommend that the Canadian government immediately recognize the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and weaponry from the Korean Peninsula and surrounding seas and support the reunification of the country on the basis of one country, two systems and the free movement of the people throughout the entire country. The concrete wall erected by the U.S. along the 38th parallel should be dismantled. 

Canada should also support the peaceful reunification of Ireland, the reunification of Kashmir and take other such positive stands which favour the interests of the people of Canada and other countries.

Cuba is another example in which, although the Canadian government favours the elimination of the "commercial embargo" by the U.S. against Cuba, it still continues to carry out anti-Cuban propaganda on the basis of "Canadian values". It is quite clear that Cuba should have Cuban values. It is really astonishing that the Canadian government actually believes that it can impose its values on others and still be called modern and democratic. The Joint Committee will do well if it analyzes the kind of democracy Cuba has which, the "special period" notwithstanding, guarantees a livelihood for all, as well as access to health care and education free of cost. In spite of the economic hardships imposed by the U.S. blockade and the collapse of the Soviet Union and the regimes in eastern Europe, its traditional trading partners, the government of Cuba has not withdrawn its extensive social programs. It is fighting under the most difficult circumstances for the interests of the people of Cuba in order to preserve the social programs and extend them. 

The Joint Committee should also look at the example of Russia and the countries of eastern Europe where the social programs were the first to go and these countries are now facing both economic and political chaos. The Canadian people themselves are extremely upset with the politicians and the political process and the Joint Committee will do well if it recommend that the House of Commons recognize the right of all peoples to have the economic and political system of their choice, at the same time, study all systems and propose one which would suit Canada, in which the people could exercise control over their lives.

It is quite well-known that the world economy is shrinking. At the same time, within the operation of the law of uneven economic and political development, it is imperative that the people of Canada not put all their eggs in the basket of trade with just western Europe, the U.S., the Pacific Rim countries or countries of South America. On the contrary, it should have a policy of all-round trade with all countries on the basis of mutual benefit. Canada, with its natural resources and educated working people, can play an important role in world development by breaking loose from old prejudices, on the basis of which the worth of a country has been judged by the power of the most powerful economic interests. A country should be evaluated on the basis of its human power, natural resources and what a country stands for, the three playing an equal and interdependent role. Canada needs to go through a program of disengagement from its colonial past and enter the twenty-first century as the standard bearer of peace, security, prosperity for all peoples and of human rights and the environment, on the basis of modern definitions.

In the end, it must be stressed that to base one's economy on export is an old conception. Such a conception has not worked in any country of the world. Considering the social, economic and historical conditions of the countries based on export, whether of the north or south, whether of military goods or civil, their economies have been unstable and volatile. There is a law which plays its role in this. It is the law of parasitism and decay, the law of the last stage of capitalism which is demanding that old and archaic notions be abandoned and modern ones, those consistent with modern conditions, be taken up. 

People all over the world are striving to find the way for progress, whether in South America where neo-liberalism has devastated the economies of all the countries or in the ex-Soviet Union and countries of eastern Europe, where pseudo-socialism and capitalism have caused such devastation, or in Britain and other countries of the EEC, to say nothing of the U.S. and other countries, including Canada. What are the deteriorating economic conditions on the world scale telling us? They are calling for an end to moribund systems and the creation of new ones, suitable to modern conditions. There is no need for Canada to impose its values on others or push its interests at the cost of those of others. On the contrary, the people of Canada would benefit from an exchange of experience with other peoples and all peoples should strive together to create a system which is beneficial to all.

Facing the old world which is in decay, a world which being turned on its head, a system which is rushing back to medievalism, it is the duty of all to look at the situation carefully and made a contribution in order to open the path for progress. This brief is intended as a contribution in this direction. I am available to elaborate on any of the views it contains.