Evidence of meeting #13 for Subcommittee on International Human Rights in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was political.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
First I want to apologize for how warm it is in here.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
I think we're all suffering. Some of us took off our jackets.
Thank you for your presentation. When you're down the line for questions, sometimes you're left wondering just what you're going to ask, so I always make tons of notes as I go.
One of the things I would say is that when we look at Venezuela through the lens of human rights as opposed to...as I heard in your remarks earlier, as opposed to economics or as opposed to politics. But if we look at the human rights record of this country, if you compare it to Colombia or if you compare it to Honduras or other South American countries, how do you think that comparison is? How well are they doing, first of all, today?
Speaking historically, we had witnesses before us on Tuesday who were very enthusiastic about things like the fact that, as they said, on the streets they were in dialogue, in conversation, about their constitution, and engaged. The average person was more engaged than at any other time in their history.
So I'd like your view on that in comparison to those other countries--if that's true, number one, that the dialogue is there.
They also spoke of the fact that the army was close to the people. Oftentimes when we think of South American nations we think of the people in great fear of their own army or associated squads that go with that. I wouldn't mind your comment on that, to begin.
Professor, Department of Sociology and Director of the Observatory of the Americas, Montreal Institute of International Studies, Université du Québec à Montréal
Thank you.
I will use the term "populism", which is well-known to Latin Americans and analysts covering Latin America. The word takes on a different meaning in Latin America as opposed to North America. It refers to a type of politics which is quite widespread over the continent. These are governments that are close to the people, which corresponds to our image of things, but there is also a vision according to which the state is getting closer to the people. Latin American populism always has a positive side, namely with regard to its capabilities—you mentioned the army—and the fact that institutions can get closer to the people. I stress the fact that it is not all people, but a targeted majority of people who, over the course of Venezuela's long history and that of other countries, have faced social injustice.
In a situation where the state, rather than turn to the elite, turns to more disadvantaged people, those who may have been set aside for decades, even centuries, populism may be viewed as a very interesting phenomenon. It engages citizens and according to political experts it leads to people's involvement in politics, for one. That is something we can see in Venezuela, as was seen in 1940s Argentina under Juan Perón.
That said, populism involves some downsides, of course. We should not deny that. Populism which enjoys popular support and rests on the image of one charismatic figure and his inflammatory rhetoric tends, as I mentioned, to centralize power and use state institutions to serve its political agenda. In that case, it can be dangerous. Is populism always positive or negative? It depends. In Latin America, it can lead to the involvement of men and women that have been excluded but it can also lead to authoritarianism. That has been the case in a number of countries. I believe that in Venezuela there are some worrisome trends. That said, the political system and Venezuelan society in general have both the instruments and the will needed to find a way to support true democracy, which may one day include the fundamental freedoms and social rights I referred to earlier on.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Well, true democracies are things that always come with risk. If you have a situation where there's a populist leader and you have misguided efforts on their part, damage can be done. But also, on the converse side of that--and that was the purpose of my question, about comparative to Colombia, comparative to the other parts of the region--it appears to me that there have been strides made, not just moves but strides, toward true democracy, as messy as it may be. That's why I was asking that particular question.
Very directly, do you believe today that Venezuelans are better off than they were 25 years ago?
Professor, Department of Sociology and Director of the Observatory of the Americas, Montreal Institute of International Studies, Université du Québec à Montréal
Certainly.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Do you believe that they have more of a true democracy today than 25 years ago?
Professor, Department of Sociology and Director of the Observatory of the Americas, Montreal Institute of International Studies, Université du Québec à Montréal
Yes—
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Now, I'm not trying to set you up with those questions.
Professor, Department of Sociology and Director of the Observatory of the Americas, Montreal Institute of International Studies, Université du Québec à Montréal
As a professor, I always like to point to the subtle nuances. That is why I would say "yes, but".
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
You've already expressed concerns, and I think those concerns are things that we should be attending to from the perspective of this committee. But again, through the lens of human rights and through the lens of the history of that part of the world, it appears to me that there have been dramatic moves, although there are areas we can be concerned about.
You know that this government has negotiated a free trade agreement with Colombia, about which we have raised major concerns. That was the purpose of my question. If you compared those two countries on the level of human rights, I think Venezuela would have a better record on human rights.
Professor, Department of Sociology and Director of the Observatory of the Americas, Montreal Institute of International Studies, Université du Québec à Montréal
Yes, of course. Earlier on I briefly mentioned the criminalization of social protest. It is an extremely troubling phenomenon we are seeing throughout Latin America. It exists in Mexico, and in fact, I believe, you will be discussing the matter, as well as in Colombia, where it is extreme. Of course, in Colombia, the actions of the paramilitary endanger the safety of human rights workers. In Venezuela, the government has taken steps in the direction of criminalizing social protest. That has also happened in Argentina, in Chile and elsewhere. If you want to speak of drawing comparisons, I would say that in Colombia, the situation seems even more troubling.
You could use other points of comparison, but that one illustrates what you were saying rather well.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
The picture you're painting, and the picture that previous witnesses have painted for us, is significantly different from what we see on the entertainment news on CNN and other places. We see far more conversation about democracy. In other places, Mr. Chavez is put forward as quite the tyrant, quite the dictator.
One of the things we have to be careful of in our analysis of any country, I think, is that the leader is only a part; he's only the face. And for that democratic process and engagement that you and others have been talking about actually to be taking place across the broader government, there has to be an acceptance of democracy in a way that's quite new to that part of the world. Would you agree with that?
Professor, Department of Sociology and Director of the Observatory of the Americas, Montreal Institute of International Studies, Université du Québec à Montréal
Yes.
To go even further, I would focus again on the issue of engagement. It is something that I teach my students in a course on democracy. It means two things: effectively engaging in politics, not only voting, but doing a great deal more, and a subjective dimension which gives a person the feeling that he or she is part of the process. I believe that in Venezuela something very interesting is occurring. Many people feel engaged, not only because they effectively have access to certain parts of the political and economic system, in terms of the distribution of wealth, but also because they are proud to take part in a process for social change.
This process can lead to extreme polarization, as we've seen in other countries, namely among our neighbours to the south. We're noticing this currently in Venezuela and elsewhere as well. It is an inherent fault within democracy, especially these days, given the divisions within society, regardless of what the root cause of that might be. In these conditions, excessive rhetoric and even action is unfortunately increasingly widespread. This is something we are seeing in Venezuela.
Is democracy facing an imminent threat in Venezuela, more so than in Colombia or elsewhere? I do not believe so. Venezuela is dealing with specific and serious challenges, but there are challenges in Colombia, in Honduras, as you've mentioned, and elsewhere. It affects left-leaning and right-leaning governments, liberals and socialists, equally.
NDP
Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Well, you can bring wedge issues in Canada, in our own democracy. I'd like to import some of that engagement here.
Professor, Department of Sociology and Director of the Observatory of the Americas, Montreal Institute of International Studies, Université du Québec à Montréal
I did not know that.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
Unfortunately, we've used up all the time available to Mr. Marston.
We now turn to the Conservatives.
Mr. Hiebert, please.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thank you for your testimony, Professor Armony.
I have some information here that I'd like to bring to your attention, and then I'd like to get your response to it.
A few days ago, we heard from a group named Hands Off Venezuela. They made some remarkable claims about the state of affairs in Venezuela. I want to contrast their testimony a little bit with your perspective on it, because they said some things that I found a little surprising.
I'm going to be quoting to you from the U.S. State Department 2008 human rights report on Venezuela.
You mentioned PROVEA, the Venezuelan Program of Education-Action in Human Rights, and you stated that the organization had a great deal of credibility.
According to PROVEA, as noted in this U.S. State Department report, there were 205 deaths due to security forces in the past 12 months, just prior to September. Over half of them were characterized as executions, and 5% were the result of torture. Other NGOs have reported as many as 57 political prisoners in the country at the present time. This same report states that while the constitution does declare a right to freedom of expression, there are practical limits that create a “climate of self-censorship”, such as a law punishing individuals with six to 30 months in prison without bail for insulting the president, and lesser penalties for lower-ranking officials. The government continues to suppress the organization of labour by restricting the composition of union leadership and by refusing to negotiate collective bargaining.
We know, based on his public statements, that Chavez strongly supports Ahmadinejad in the Iranian regime, a regime whose human rights violations we have spent the last year documenting.
This is what we know, based on a fairly reliable source. You made some reference to some of the atrocities--or some of the “activities”, if you want to use a less volatile term--happening there. But then you suggested, at the very end of your testimony, that it should be taken in context.
Actually, you said two things. You said that relativizing human rights is not a good idea. A violation is a violation, regardless of historical context...and then I added your “regional” context. Subsequent to that, you said that Canada should play the honest broker role and not interfere.
How do you juxtapose, or how do you justify, acknowledging some of these atrocities and recognizing that they can't be taken in context, historical or regional, and then state that we shouldn't really get too involved because we might taint our own reputation?
Professor, Department of Sociology and Director of the Observatory of the Americas, Montreal Institute of International Studies, Université du Québec à Montréal
No, I did not say we should not get involved. In fact, I said quite the opposite. I said Canada should never remain indifferent to this type of transgression and I specified that that should be the case regardless of the political stripe of the government in power. Again, I insist upon this point. Not only did I study reports from PROVEA, but I also printed up some work done by the Red de Apoyo por la Justicia y la Paz, known as Justice and Peace Support Network in English, which is also recognized and respected in Venezuela and internationally. They are extremely harsh in their condemning of police brutality and repressive actions of the state.
I never said that, quite the opposite. From the start, I have been saying we need to consider these aspects and denounce them. I said we needed to continue to condemn all breaches of freedom of expression and any operation or action by the state which violates human rights. As I have stated, as a Canadian citizen I suggest we should contextualize the matter and I would hope that Canada could remain a reliable partner, an honest broker, etc. As a country and as a nation, we must denounce violations of human rights in Venezuela and we must also do the same, as forcefully, when it occurs, for instance, in Colombia or Honduras.
Further, I fear that we tend to find the problems and human rights violations more concerning in some countries we do not have an ideological affinity with or focus our attention more squarely on those countries than on others. We should set aside the context and know that human rights involve a great many things. Obviously, the rights of journalists to say what they want, including to criticize the government, should absolutely be supported and upheld, but we must also advocate for human security, and everything it involves, including the right to life and dignity, access to health care, education and the rest.
We need to have this comprehensive view of the matter to say that the situation in the country of Venezuela is grave in some regards but in others we can say that the country is comparatively better off than other countries in the region.
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
You mentioned that we need to be careful not to pay special attention based on differences in ideology. I firmly agree. I think we need to be observant of human rights violations no matter where they occur. But do you have any evidence that our interest or the public's interest in the human rights violations in Venezuela are being motivated by ideological differences? I have no evidence of that. I think we are here to find out why these things are happening, because they are getting more and more attention. I've never come across any suggestion or indication that the primary reason we're interested in Venezuela has to do with ideology.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that it's due to ideology differences?
Professor, Department of Sociology and Director of the Observatory of the Americas, Montreal Institute of International Studies, Université du Québec à Montréal
No, not at all. As an observer of Latin America and, in a general sense, when it comes to the relationship between Canada the rest of the hemisphere, as any political analyst, I tend to find that ideological or political affinity directs the actions of various states. It seems perfectly normal to me, but the fact that it is normal should not prevent us from calling these things into question or even criticizing them if need be. From that point of view, I did not say that the Government of Canada was acting based on ideological affinity, I simply said that I would be very disappointed if such were the case.
Conservative
Conservative
Russ Hiebert Conservative South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, BC
Very briefly, I would be interested in your comments on the relationship between Iran and Venezuela, and any possible connection between the two.
Professor, Department of Sociology and Director of the Observatory of the Americas, Montreal Institute of International Studies, Université du Québec à Montréal
I do not have anything substantive to say on that, as I am not an expert on Venezuela's international relations. That said, generally speaking, these relations are indeed troubling or may seem that way. Of course, there is a geopolitical dimension we should not lose sight of.
In the case of Venezuela—and perhaps also in the case of Iran, but I would not venture to discuss that issue—there is a great deal of rhetoric and actions on these facts, but none of it seems to lead to effective action.
I would say that much of what we see as the relationship between Venezuela and Iran calls to mind political rhetoric and the taking of certain positions, especially a type of anti-American posturing. We understand this from a geopolitical standpoint, again, but I do not foresee a long-term strategic alliance there or anything which could amount to a geopolitical threat to the hemisphere.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Scott Reid
Professor Armony, I thank you for your very informative testimony.
This adjourns the meeting. Thank you.