Paul Martin's Blurred Vision

First he was in Santiago, Chile for the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit. Martin was playing up his idea for an L-20, a group of twenty countries that would fit someplace between the G-8 and the UN, partially to act on humanitarian crises like that occurring in Darfur. The world does need such an organisation, but Paul Martin’s version seems somehow hazy and confused.

Such an organisation may be a laudable goal if it is used to create fair trade rather than free trade and give voice to those who would tie the environment and human rights to trade issues. The idea of combining the G-8 with 12 other selected nations to do the work that the UN is already ineffective in doing doesn’t wash. The mandate is unclear and the L-20 would include the five permanent members of the Security Council.

How placing the same countries in another multi-lateral forum to respond to problems they have already shown themselves to be incapable of responding to will solve the problem of nightmares like than happening in Darfur is far from clear. There is bound to be much carry-over from the UN and the G-8, not to mention groups like APEC and trading blocks like the European Union and whatever coalition eventually forms out of the FTAA.

George Bush is reportedly cool to the idea largely because US dominance would not be guaranteed. European and Asian leaders like it, at least partially because US dominance would not be guaranteed.

The question is why George Bush and the other permanent members of the Security Council and G-8 were asked at all. The L-20 is supposed to be a gathering of key nations, some wealthy and some just emerging as economic powers. While the US is unarguably a key nation, it’s overwhelming economic dominance and it’s roles in the UN, NATO, and as a political force around the world are also reasons that an L-20 should be considered. A way to balance unequal power structures would add greatly to the international conversation.

The same can be said of the permanent members of the Security Council, who are not known for being able to reach a consensus on anything more important than what to order for lunch, and the G-8, who are viewed suspiciously by developing nations who often see them more as imperialistic forces than friends and neighbours.

Martin’s version of the L-20 is largely of an expanded G-8 masquerading as a new multilateral organisation. It is designed to give growing powers such as Brazil a voice and to bring China and India to the table...a recognition that they that they can run with the big dogs. It, like the G-8, would be based largely on the concerns of the elites. While a new multi-lateral institution that addresses the concerns of developing and newly developed nations is important, the world does not need yet another venue for men in expensive suits to sit behind closed doors and discuss how to make even more money by forcing their wills on the world’s troubled spots.

After Martin went to Brazil, to discuss trade issues and sell his L-20, trying to build more consensus for his idea of acting on humanitarian concerns without the consent of sovereign governments, he headed to Darfur. A nice way to underline what he sees as the main reason for an L-20, to react to genocides that nobody wants to call genocides unless they can score political points for doing so.

As usual, Paul Martin has it half right. We do need something like the L-20. We do not need yet another ineffective group that includes the same old rich white guys though. We certainly do not need an organisation that gives even more voice to the nations that already have too much influence in the world.

We need a group that includes those that are normally excluded, that gives voice to emerging nations and existing middle powers in a way that the G-8 and the Security Council are forced to listen to. A better starting place for this may be in Hugo Chavez’s Bolivarian Revolution than at an APEC meeting. It may be in the African Union. It may be in many places, but it is most certainly not in the land of George Bush, Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair. It is not in the boardrooms of Europe and North America.

Paul Martin’s attempts at an L-20 are sending a mixed message. Instead of looking for approval from the already powerful countries of the world, he needs to attract the interest of the less powerful. Instead of seeking the approval of APEC and the G-8, he should be seeking input from the anti-globalization movement, the peace movement, environmental groups, and human rights groups on what measures they would like to see an L20 addressing.

The L-20 will undoubtedly contain countries guilty of human rights violations, environmental degradation, supporting illegal and immoral wars, and joining in the race to the bottom characterised by the current push for globalization. Canada is one of the guilty parties, though not the most guilty. If Paul Martin truly wishes to change things in this world, to improve the lot of the disadvantaged and to enrich the poor while championing social justice, then he needs to throw off the stigma that comes with first including the rich white guys, then expecting the rest to clamour to join up.

Mr. Martin also needs to avoid the pit-fall of granting concessions to developing nation so that they have a chance to be just like us. Canada and the other wealthy nations of the world have achieved some great things, but we have done so at a great cost not just to the environment but to nations and peoples that did not have the same advantages that we had. There is no reason why other nations should be encouraged to follow in our footsteps. Instead they should be encouraged, even required, to reach the same position by following their own paths. Paths that avoid the traps we set for ourselves and others.

Paul Martin is off to China next. Monday night in a speech to the Canada China Business Council he said, "The growth of a strong and enduring country depends not only on economic prosperity but on environmental sustainability, rule of law and respect for people." Tuesday during Question Period, Paul Martin seemed unwilling to give NDP leader Jack Layton any real assurance that environmental concerns would be an issue when he landed in China, clearly favouring oil sales to environmental concerns.

Although China’s poor human rights record never came up in Question Period, it is unlikely that Paul Martin will put any more emphasis on that issue than he does on the environment when he sits down to do business in Beijing next month.

No doubt Martin will be pushing the L-20 while in China, just as he did in Santiago. No doubt he will continue to pay lip service to issues that concern Canadians and try to disguise his business agenda as being somehow representative of social issues that concern Canadians. Just as Martin claims that joining in a program to put weapons in space is not the same as the weaponization of space; just as he is willing to go on foreign television and refuse to state that Canada will not contribute troops to the illegal adventures of other nations; Mr. Martin will no doubt make some vague statements about human rights and the environment in China, ask for a further endorsement of his L-20 plan, and place no corresponding restrictions on access to Canada’s natural resources.

Perhaps somebody should point out to Paul Martin that the Canadian people are not stupid. While we recognise the value of trade not only as a means to financial gain, but to making the world a better place, we fully expect our leader to understand that actions speak louder than words.