Manuel Rozenthal, a long-time international solidarity activist and surgeon, is a member of the Association of Indigenous Councils of Northern Cauca, a political organization that works with indigenous communities in Southwest Colombia. He recently toured Canada, sponsored by the Canadian Labour Congress, in which he spoke about the proposed Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, a deal which has been kept almost completely out of the public eye by the Harper government.

Stuart Neatby interviewed Rozenthal in the midst of his speaking tour. In Part I of this interview, Rozenthal discusses the culture of absolute secrecy that has hung over the Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, as well as the role of multinational corporations in Colombiaâe(TM)s political violence. In this second part, Rozenthal discusses the attacks upon the labour movement in Colombia, the role of CIDA in Colombia, and the possibilities of solidarity between the people of Canada and Colombia.

Stuart Neatby: On his visit to Colombia last July, when confronted with the question of the high rate of assassination of labour leaders in the country, Stephen Harper tried to deflect this question by arguing that the number of killings of labour leaders had diminished. He viewed this as a source of progress in Colombia. Whatâe(TM)s your response to Harperâe(TM)s argument?

Manuel Rozenthal: First of all more than two thousand labour leaders [have been killed] and more than 3 million people have been displaced in a country of 44 million. There used to be almost 15% of labour that was unionized about five years ago. Now, less than 3% is.

Itâe(TM)s the impact of terror that has lead to the reduction of assassinations and not the fact that terror has been removed, or that there is less terror today. Itâe(TM)s the fact that they have achieved their goals, therefore they donâe(TM)t murder as much as they did before. That doesnâe(TM)t mean that they are not doing it. It just means that they have become more selective. They are targeting the specific sectors of people that are a threat to them.

So if this is what Harper calls an achievement of this government, an achievement he supports, heâe(TM)s actually coming in when the horror has been established and when the rich have closed the doors on any democracy.

What role have you seen international aid, particularly that of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), playing in this political violence?

We know that the Canadian International Development Agency, under the Harper government, is targeting more and more aid to harmonize [Colombian laws] with the corporate interests, with the Canadian government. So this trade agreement is negotiated, by way of making resources and cheap labour accessible to transnational corporations that have some component of Canadian ownership. That will lead in economic terms immediately to a comparative advantage for these companies to work wherever these free trade agreements have been signed.

Now, hereâe(TM)s something else to analyse: I spoke to a former Canadian Ambassador in Bogota years ago, and I asked him what the position of the Canadian government was on the issue of displacement. This is the key area of work for CIDA in Colombia. His answer was: âe~there is displacement in Colombia because there is war. So what we have to do is to look after the displaced.âe(TM)

If you think of the conflict, what CIDA is doing is providing assistance, much-needed of course, to those displaced in resource-rich territories. In other words, the corporate interests come in, the dirty war displaces people, and then Canada amongst others comes in to help those displaced establish themselves away from the territory and the resources that are right there. So, in this assistance, what Canada is doing finalizes this forced displacement.

When I mentioned this, the Ambassador said to us, âe~the displacement is due to the war, and we have not caused the war, so weâe(TM)re not responsible for solving the war.âe(TM) It is in fact the opposite: there is war so that there can be displacement for the sake of mega-projects, corporate projects in our country. If you continue to invest in a country where human rights abuses are pervasive and used for the sake of corporate interests, youâe(TM)re actually promoting abuses and not solving them.

So we have this horrendous extortion where, by helping those who are exploited, you end up protecting those who committed the crime.

Here in Nova Scotia, we have a unique campaign that has been undertaken by the Atlantic Regional Solidarity Network. They have focused on the fact that the two major power utilities in Atlantic Canada, Nova Scotia Power and New Brunswick Power, import more Colombian coal than any other power utility in Canada.

So what theyâe(TM)ve done over the past three years has been to make links with indigenous communities that have been displaced by coal mines and with some trade unionists, and have attempted to really bring pressure regarding these human rights abuses using consumer pressure of NSP and NBP. What other possibilities do you think there are for solidarity in Canada, with the people in Colombia, dealing with this economic and political repression?

Well first, itâe(TM)s fantastic that youâe(TM)ve brought this example up. Itâe(TM)s one of the most fantastic, excellent, comprehensive actions of solidarity that not only involves compassion with the poor there, but in fact raises awareness for both countries.

But the first point I would make is for Canadians to be aware of the fact that the economic model that is being used, and that which the Canadian government represents, is the problem for Canadians and for Colombians. The urgency now is to try and stop the signature of that free trade agreement between Colombia, Canada, and Peru. My suggestion is that every Canadian immediately contact their MPs, and write letters, phone them, and demand that no free trade agreement be signed with Colombia precisely because of the human rights conditions, and the conditions of exploitation.

But even if the free trade agreement were signed, that doesnâe(TM)t mean it would be the end of our struggle. The consciousness-raising requires that we carry on, even if this agreement is signed. My suggestion would be to not only carry on the pressure on the parliament, but also on the multinational corporations. I think that there is a basic ethical principle that most Canadians I know would sign for: no corporate investment in a country or a region where human rights abuses are endemic. If we could achieve that then occurrences and abuses such as those of Drummond or Chiquita could not happen, or at least would be monitored very carefully.

Thirdly, if I asked most people in Canada if they would trust corporate interests to make political decisions about their social welfare or well-being, Iâe(TM)m sure most Canadians would say that they would not deliver their interests into private hands. Canadians donâe(TM)t want healthcare to be privatized. So why would you then allow foreign policy to be privatized and to be in the hands of corporate interests? My suggestion would be that any and every trade agreement that Canada negotiates and signs with any other country should have the direct involvement of labour and social organizations, and cannot be legitimate unless there is a referendum, or at least the involvement in the negotiations, of representatives of social movements and organized civil society. Not of corporate civil society, but of unions [and others] so that you are directly involved as a people in what your government is negotiating on your behalf for corporate interests. I think that is an essential point to work on.

And finally: target solidarity in a different way. We have had ups and downs in our relationships of solidarity with Colombia and with other countries in the Americas, such as Haiti. I think the time has come now to rethink solidarity and to not just concentrate on addressing, through compassion, the abuses of human rights. We, Colombians, Haitians, Salvadorians, Latin Americans, we are subjects of our own histories âe” we have our own approaches, proposals, ways of life.

What we deserve is that we work together with Canadians jointly as partners, as friends, to resist and to develop alternatives to the [economic] model that is hurting our lives here and there, so that the relationship is not a patronizing one from the donors to the recipient, but actually from reciprocal counterparts that work together for resistance.

We actually do not need your help. We need to be together in this.