Harper in Colombia

[Michael Bluth]

Hmmm...

organharvestinvestigation.net vs. ctv.ca

Which is the more neutral observer?

Edited July 16, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[jdobbin]

Hmmm...

organharvestinvestigation.net vs. ctv.ca

Which is the more neutral observer?

It is a Globe and Mail article. They are the same company as CTV.

[Michael Bluth]

Still doesn't really address the fact that you misrepresented the situation with this comment.

Harper was questioned in the press because he didn't meet or cancelled various meetings with the Chinese without explanation.

Both articles point to it as being issues on both side. Any reason why you conveniently ignored this?

[jdobbin]

As expected, Harper played down the human rights aspects of his visit to Colombia.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Prime Minister Stephen Harper dismisses criticism that Canada should build free-trade links with problem-plagued Colombia.

"When we see a country like Columbia that has decided it has to address its social, political and economic problems, it wants to embrace economic freedom, it wants to embrace political democracy and human rights and social development, then we say we we're in," he said Monday in Bogota.

And this is what the critics were saying.

"Around the country we have 30,000 that have been detained or disappeared in last 10 years, three million internally displaced people; thousands have been killed," responded Lilia Solano, the director of Project Justice and Life.

"So how can someone say, 'OK, all this blood is running but business goes first'."

[Michael Bluth]

Hmmm, imagine that an "indigenous Colombian human rights group" thinks they have the right to dictate the Prime Minister of Canada's agenda when he visits Colombia.

Maybe if you gave examples of supposed critics who didn't have such an obvious agenda, and didn't post such one-sided evidence, your posts could come across with a little more credibility.

[jdobbin]

Still doesn't really address the fact that you misrepresented the situation with this comment.

Both articles point to it as being issues on both side. Any reason why you conveniently ignored this?

Actually for many months, it was Canada's issue. China was bewildered because Harper didn't indicate one way or the other why there were cancellations on the part of Canadian ministers.

The Globe and Mail article which you dismissed because you didn't recognize the link and said wasn't credible, clearly says that Canada was responsible for the lack of contact for several months after they came to office.

Canada certainly did have issues to address when Celil was apprehended but even there, we were slow off the mark. Once it became clear that China had a Canadian citizen in custody, China cancelled meetings to show their anger at being confronted on the issue.

If you go back and read the earlier China threads on the board, you will see that it was Parliament, the press and business asking repeatedly and getting no answer about what the deal was on China. Harper never made it clear why meeting after meeting was cancelled and why after many months, MacKay had not met with the Chinese ambassador.

[jdobbin]

Hmmm, imagine that an "indigenous Colombian human rights group" thinks they have the right to dictate the Prime Minister of Canada's agenda when he visits Colombia.

Maybe if you gave examples of supposed critics who didn't have such an obvious agenda, and didn't post such one-sided evidence, your posts could come across with a little more credibility.

How about the United States as critic. Do you respect the U.S.?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/070716/...nada_harper_col

Canada started trade talks with Colombia on Monday and pledged full support for President Alvaro Uribe, who has seen his key bilateral relationship with the United States bog down in a scandal over human rights.

In a thinly veiled slap at U.S. congressional Democrats who oppose a trade deal with Colombia due to rights concerns, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper used a trip to Bogota to present himself as a steadier ally.

[jdobbin]

Hmmm, imagine that an "indigenous Colombian human rights group" thinks they have the right to dictate the Prime Minister of Canada's agenda when he visits Colombia.

Maybe if you gave examples of supposed critics who didn't have such an obvious agenda, and didn't post such one-sided evidence, your posts could come across with a little more credibility.

Here is what Human Rights Watch says about Colombia.

http://hrw.org/doc/?t=americas&c=colomb

Here is what Amnesty International says about Colombia.

http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/col-summary-eng

Here is what the United Nations says about Colombia.

http://www.unhcr.org/home/RSDCOI/45aca29c20.html

The U.S. has frozen relations with Colombia over human rights. Harper looks at it as an opportunity to do business while playing down the human rights problem.

[Michael Bluth]

How about the United States as critic. Do you respect the U.S.?

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/reuters/070716/...nada_harper_col

I respect this view from the article you linked to.

"This gives Canada an opportunity to come in and assure Colombia that it is a loyal ally," said Michael Shifter of Washington-based think-tank Inter-American Dialogue.

You aren't saying that the Democrats in the House of Representatives represent the US as a whole, are you?

Why simplify it to respecting a country as a whole? Some weak attempt to tie Harper to GW methinks.

[geoffrey]

Since many human rights groups have spoken up today in advance of the meeting, it puts emphasis on the subject. The drama will be if Harper appears too cozy to a leader who may eventually be implicated in death squads.

I didn't see many protesting Castro's visit for Trudeau's funeral. How many died for his ideological slant?

I think alot of these 'human rights protestors' are really just left-leaning naive types. They think the world can be cured of it's evils by ignoring it. However, that's never proven to be the case.

When Rob Anders wears a 'free Tibet' shirt to a Chinese embassy party the left is in a royal outrage. When Harper is respectful to a potential trading partner, someone that has not even been conclusively tied to said 'death squads,' they are also in an outrage.

How can you win with these types? I think it's best to ignore them. They'll go away (or grow up).

[jdobbin]

I respect this view from the article you linked to.

"This gives Canada an opportunity to come in and assure Colombia that it is a loyal ally," said Michael Shifter of Washington-based think-tank Inter-American Dialogue.

You aren't saying that the Democrats in the House of Representatives represent the US as a whole, are you?

Why simplify it to respecting a country as a whole? Some weak attempt to tie Harper to GW methinks.

Congress and Bush have been of equal minds on Colombia. It is Harper who is out of step with Bush.

I happen to think Bush and Congress are right on pushing hard on human rights in Colombia. Harper played it down today.

Edited July 17, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

I didn't see many protesting Castro's visit for Trudeau's funeral. How many died for his ideological slant?

I think alot of these 'human rights protestors' are really just left-leaning naive types. They think the world can be cured of it's evils by ignoring it. However, that's never proven to be the case.

When Rob Anders wears a 'free Tibet' shirt to a Chinese embassy party the left is in a royal outrage. When Harper is respectful to a potential trading partner, someone that has not even been conclusively tied to said 'death squads,' they are also in an outrage.

How can you win with these types? I think it's best to ignore them. They'll go away (or grow up).

Bush and Congress in the U.S. are hardly lefties. They are the ones pushing hard on Colombia.

As far as Castro goes, I think he should be pushed on human rights at every opportunity.

I think some right wingers care little if 30,000 people are detained or disappeared as long as they make their money.

Edited July 17, 2007 by jdobbin

[geoffrey]

I think some right wingers care little if 30,000 people are detained or disappeared as long as they make their money.

I'm sure Stalin didn't feel for the Ukrainians either. Apathy for money/power isn't a left-right divide.

[jdobbin]

Apathy for money/power isn't a left-right divide.

It is still surprising that Harper has chosen to plow through with a free trade agreement in light of the U.S. position on it.

When I heard he was planning on a visit to South America back in spring, I thought he was off to Brazil, Argentina with some possible Carribean countries and a Mexican stopover.

I wouldn't have guessed a Colombia visit considering the position of the U.S. and several human rights watch groups.

Edited July 17, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

It is still surprising that Harper has chosen to plow through with a free trade agreement in light of the U.S. position on it.

Guess he isn't GWs puppet after all...

[Alexandra]

Congress and Bush have been of equal minds on Colombia. It is Harper who is out of step with Bush.

I happen to think Bush and Congress are right on pushing hard on human rights in Colombia. Harper played it down today.

This rationale escapes me. Why would G. Bush even consider alienating his one true ally in South America? Considering the fact that the loud mouth Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez, has been rattling the nationalist, socialist, saber against Bush & Co. and considering the fact that Peru, Bolivia, etc. have swung to the left as well.

The answer is; G. Bush would not cut off his close ties with Alvaro Uribe. Nor would Bush cut off hundreds of millions of US dollars promised to Uribe/Colombia this year no matter how much the Democrats thump their desks and speak with all of their bombastic high-blown rhetoric about human rights.

If even Leech contradicts all of the yada yada about Bush & Co.'s stance on Uribe and Colombia then jdobbin's sanctimonious protestations about human rights, death squads and the cessation of friendship between the US and Colombia is seen for what it is. An anti Harper tempest in a teapot. As usual.

http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia252.htm

: )by Garry Leech

As the Colombian government becomes increasingly engulfed by the rapidly evolving “para-politics” scandal, the Bush administration refuses to question the legitimacy of democracy in Colombia. The US government continues to stand firmly behind Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, Washington’s closest ally in Latin America, despite the fact that dozens of pro-Uribe legislators, the president’s former campaign advisor and head of Colombia’s secret police, the family of his foreign minister, and several top military officials have all been implicated in the scandal linking government representatives to right-wing paramilitary death squads. Despite all the overwhelming evidence suggesting a significant democratic deficit, the Bush administration has not once questioned the legitimacy of Colombia’s democracy or re-evaluated its massive funding of a government and military closely linked to paramilitaries on the US State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.

[jdobbin]

This rationale escapes me. Why would G. Bush even consider alienating his one true ally in South America? Considering the fact that the loud mouth Venezuelan dictator, Hugo Chavez, has been rattling the nationalist, socialist, saber against Bush & Co. and considering the fact that Peru, Bolivia, etc. have swung to the left as well.

The answer is; G. Bush would not cut off his close ties with Alvaro Uribe. Nor would Bush cut off hundreds of millions of US dollars promised to Uribe/Colombia this year no matter how much the Democrats thump their desks and speak with all of their bombastic high-blown rhetoric about human rights.

If even Leech contradicts all of the yada yada about Bush & Co.'s stance on Uribe and Colombia then jdobbin's sanctimonious protestations about human rights, death squads and the cessation of friendship between the US and Colombia is seen for what it is. An anti Harper tempest in a teapot. As usual.

http://www.colombiajournal.org/colombia252.htm

: )by Garry Leech

As the Colombian government becomes increasingly engulfed by the rapidly evolving “para-politics” scandal, the Bush administration refuses to question the legitimacy of democracy in Colombia. The US government continues to stand firmly behind Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, Washington’s closest ally in Latin America, despite the fact that dozens of pro-Uribe legislators, the president’s former campaign advisor and head of Colombia’s secret police, the family of his foreign minister, and several top military officials have all been implicated in the scandal linking government representatives to right-wing paramilitary death squads. Despite all the overwhelming evidence suggesting a significant democratic deficit, the Bush administration has not once questioned the legitimacy of Colombia’s democracy or re-evaluated its massive funding of a government and military closely linked to paramilitaries on the US State Department’s list of terrorist organizations.

Alexandra's support for Harper is as per usual.

Aid continues to Colombia because next to Sudan, it has the most displaced people on the planet. Congress isn't cutting aid either. They are refusing to certify a free trade agreement as long as the question of the Colombian Supreme Court investigating into those close to the president remains open.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?News...r=Colombia&Cr1=

17 July 2007 – The United Nations refugee agency today welcomed a resolution recently passed by the United States House of Representatives calling for an increase in aid from Washington for millions of displaced people in Colombia.

Bush asked Uribe to Crawford, Texas to push for a free trade agreement but also to talk strongly about human rights. In 2007, the issue of human rights is holding up the free trade agreement and it isn't only Democrats as Alexandra would like to think.

Bush administration people have also been pushing the Colombian president strongly in recent months. Uribe has taken some of the pressure off by saying the Pentagon can set up an airbase in his country. It still doesn't deal with the main issue of the paras which dog Uribe though and hold up is his trade agreement.

Harper basically dismissed human rights concerns yesterday because business trumps human rights concerns.

Edited July 17, 2007 by jdobbin

[Argus]

why Michael, because economics trump human rights?

It certainly did throughout the Liberal years.

[Argus]

I didn't see many protesting Castro's visit for Trudeau's funeral. How many died for his ideological slant?

I think alot of these 'human rights protestors' are really just left-leaning naive types. They think the world can be cured of it's evils by ignoring it. However, that's never proven to be the case.

When Rob Anders wears a 'free Tibet' shirt to a Chinese embassy party the left is in a royal outrage. When Harper is respectful to a potential trading partner, someone that has not even been conclusively tied to said 'death squads,' they are also in an outrage.

How can you win with these types? I think it's best to ignore them. They'll go away (or grow up).

Bush and Congress in the U.S. are hardly lefties. They are the ones pushing hard on Colombia.

As far as Castro goes, I think he should be pushed on human rights at every opportunity.

I think some right wingers care little if 30,000 people are detained or disappeared as long as they make their money.

Yes, the Conservatives will have to go a long way to show the deep respect for human rights in the world evidenced by Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, neither of whom ever met a tyrant they weren't willing to beg and grovel with for the hint of a trade deal.

Edited July 23, 2007 by Argus

[Hobbes]

Prime Minister harper is in Colombia Today where he is wooing poetential trade partners. Earlier in the year, as well as in previous years the United States opted out of trading with Colombia due to their constant violations of human rights. Last year (or the year before?) Harper refused to talk trade with China at the Pacific Rim Sumit as he felt they did not focus on Human Rights enough. Why would Harper be so thick as to deny Canada trade with China, the emerginig economic and military superpower of the world, and instead go ahead with Colombia which has very little to offer Canada in terms of trade?

[jdobbin]

Yes, the Conservatives will have to go a long way to show the deep respect for human rights in the world evidenced by Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, neither of whom ever met a tyrant they weren't willing to fellate on the spot for the hint of a trade deal.

Nice to see Harper take on the responsibility for himself now. Is this one other task they have copied from the Liberals?

[mikedavid00]

Why would Harper be so thick as to deny Canada trade with China

I don't remember harper saying that he wanted to stop trade with China.. lol..

What on earth made you spin that.

[Posit]

Hmmmm....you misspelled the title. It should be spelled "H-a-r-p-e-r-c-r-i-s-y"

Anyway it is funny to watch Harper bend over trying to convince Chile that human rights are important in Canada, when he has set aboriginal rights, claims and protests back 50 years with the cancellation of the Kelowna Accord, the refusal to sign the UN Declaration on Aboriginal Rights, and continues to avoid dealing with key aboriginal issues. (This isn't an invitation to debate any of these issues since there really is no point to those who would defend Stevie....)

I hear that a contingent of aboriginal people are moving in behind him to expose his poor record and to scuttle any deals he attempts to make....Just so the Chileans are well informed.

Edited July 17, 2007 by Posit

[B. Max]

Why would Harper be so thick as to deny Canada trade with China,

Maybe they poisoned his cat or toothpaste, or something.

[Hobbes]

Why would Harper be so thick as to deny Canada trade with China

I don't remember harper saying that he wanted to stop trade with China.. lol..

What on earth made you spin that.

It's not ending trade, it was refusal to negotiate and bring more in, not a spin, fact.