November 8, 2010
This
document presented by the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade
(DFAIT) is a deliberation on Canadian-Israeli economic relations and how best
to deal with the Palestine-Israel conflict. Canada’s involvement in the conflict is
important to analyze because “one way to lessen
Israeli-Palestinian tensions would be to stop increasing them,” which happens
when diplomatic, military, and economic support is offered unconditionally to Israel[1]. The
fact that Israel is a small and trade-dependent country makes it important to
analyze whether or not we need to diminish our economic ties to Israel. Two
policy options will be presented to deal with this issue. One policy is to
continue trade with Israel without restrictions, while the other policy is to
implement economic sanctions on the country. This paper proposes that Canada should
choose to implement economic sanctions because it is a method of protesting
international human rights violations, it reduces domestic threats, it allows pressure
to be put on the peace talks, and it resolves issues over certain trade
agreements.
Importance of the Issue:
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is an important issue
for Canada to discuss due to a variety of reasons. Firstly, it is a possible factor
as to why Canada lost the bid against Portugal for a UN Security Council Seat
on October 12th, 2010. A Canadian foreign policy analyst commented
that “we have followed policies that are frankly and strongly in support of the
government of Israel” and this has affected relations with Arab and Islamic
states in the UN[2].
There are 57 countries in the UN that make up the Organization of Islamic
Conference, who tend to object to a strong pro-Israel stance.
The second reason is that the conflict has potential
threats to Canadian domestic security. Many terrorist organizations, such as al
Qaeda, the Palestine Liberation Front, and the Popular Front for the Liberation
of Palestine (PLFP) claim to be motivated by the Palestinian cause. In the
twelfth 9/11 Commission Hearing Report, FBI Special Agent Fitzgerald explains
that the 9/11 Hijackers “feel a sense of outrage against the United States” and
they “identify with the Palestinian problem”[3]. Canada
may continue to suffer terrorist threats as long as it affiliates itself
strongly with Israel. These threats are as recent as August 25th,
2010, when three men in Ontario were arrested for allegedly conspiring to
commit a terrorist attack. Noam Chomsky states that “those
who want victory against terror without addressing underlying grievances want
an unending war”[4].
Therefore, Canada’s policies in the Middle East are important to analyze
because it inextricably affects domestic security.
Lastly,
the Palestine-Israel issue is important to Canada because of the scale of the
conflict. Countries from all over the world have been involved and it has
sparked more than seven major wars. Resolving this issue is a necessary
condition for ensuring stability across the Middle East, which is of geopolitical
importance due to its access to oil and natural resources. Canada has economic
ties to the region, which means that Canadian businesses suffer if there is
instability. Before Canada’s economic relationship is
analyzed, it is important to explore the historical context of the conflict.
Historical Context:
The Arab-Israeli conflict began with a mandate by the
League of Nations giving Britain control of Palestine as an aftermath of World
War I. In 1947 the UN passed a resolution to partition this area in order to
create the Jewish state of Israel. The Arab League opposed the partition, which
was responsible for the displacement of 711,000 Palestinians[5]. In 1948
when Israel declared its independence, the first Arab-Israeli war erupted with
Arab states invading the region. Hostilities did not cease following this war,
but rather wars and conflicts have occurred frequently, such as the Suez Canal
Crisis in 1956, the Six-Day War in 1967, the War of Attrition in 1969, the Yom
Kippur War in 1973, the 2006 Lebanon War, and the Gaza Crisis in 2008.
The current context of the conflict is that although
there is a present cease-fire between Palestine and Israel, tensions and
hostilities remain prevalent among not only the two states but also between the
Arab and Western world. Direct peace talks began on September 2, 2010 and are
currently taking place between Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, and Israeli
leader, Benjamin Netanyahu[6]. The
negotiations are now being threatened by both parties involved. Israel enacted
a ten month moratorium on settlements, which expired on September 26, 2010. The
recommencement of settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem has derailed
negotiations because Abbas refuses to continue until the building freeze is
reinstated. Palestinian militancy is also threatening to derail the
negotiations. Hamas is leading a coalition of thirteen Palestinian militant
groups who have used actions, such as rocket attacks and drive-by-shootings to
disrupt the talks[7].
Canada’s Position:
Canada’s current position on the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict is based on what Stephen Harper calls a “principled approach”[8]. Canada supports “Israel’s right to live in peace with
its neighbors,” while recognizing “the Palestinian right to self-determination”[9]. Although Canada tries to portray an image of
evenhandedness, many argue that “Canada is not, nor has it ever
been an honest broker in the Palestine-Israel conflict”[10] and that “Canada‘s approach has in fact long tilted in favor of Israel”[11]. Historically Canada’s position has showed strong
diplomatic, military, and economic support for Israel.
Diplomatic support can be seen with the UN voting
pattern. In 2006, Canada voted against the Palestinian Refugees Right of Return
at the UN; during the Lebanon War the government supported postponing a
ceasefire, allowing Israel to expand; and Canada does not recognize the
democratically-elected, Hamas. Canada’s military position on the
Palestine-Israel conflict is through intelligence cooperation, and financing.
Canadian weapon-makers sell their products to the Israeli security forces and
in 2009 it was determined that Israel imported goods from more than 140
Canadian weapon-makers[12]. Economically, Canada’s position in the
Palestine-Israel conflict is to trade, give credit, and provide aid through charities
to both Palestine and Israel. Numerous economic agreements have been signed,
such as the 1997 Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement (CIFTA). Bilateral trade
now amounts to 1.8 billion dollars annually, while direct investment between
the two countries is about 3-4 billion dollars[13]. However,
in 2006 aid and trade was cut off to Hamas when it was elected and many
Palestinian organizations are labelled as terrorist groups, which makes trade
and financial support illegal. Whether or not Canada should
maintain this economic relationship with Israel is the issue of contention. The
first policy option is to continue enhancing trade with Israel.
Policy Option #1: No Sanctions
This
policy suggests that rather than implementing sanctions, Canada should enhance
economic relations with Israel. This may be of benefit to Canada because of the
economic interests involved from trading with Israel. The Middle East contains
a large supply of resources and it may lead to other markets in the Middle East
opening up for Canada. Israel’s economy is inextricably linked to the United
States; therefore, increasing trade with Israel may lead to more ways of
accessing American markets. Another reason for continuing trade with Israel is
because if sanctions are implemented solely on Israel and not on Palestine then
there will be a perception that we are biased towards Palestinians.
In analyzing these arguments, it is evident that there
are negative aspects to continuing trade. Firstly, the argument about
increasing trade with the U.S. is unnecessary. Canada already has a free-trade
agreement and in 2009 bilateral trade amounted to more than 1.2 billion dollars
per day[14].
Especially since the 2008 financial crisis Canada should think more about
creating counterweights to U.S. trade. Also the idea that trade with Israel is
beneficial to Canada is not necessarily true, especially if considering the
Arab League’s boycotts in 1954. These boycotts targeted not only direct Israeli
businesses, but they had secondary boycotts with those that do business with
Israel, and tertiary boycotts with businesses that shipped or flew to Israeli
ports[15]. Although
the boycotts have diminished greatly, it is important to note that “although
[Israel] is an important trading partner, it does not compare to the Arab
states”[16]. Israel
only has seven million inhabitants; whereas, there are more than twenty-states
in the Arab League with a combined population of more than 317 million people
calculated in 2008[17]. Having
Arab support is important not only for economic reasons but for diplomatic
objectives, which was evident with Canada’s 2010 loss of the UN Security
Council seat.
The second argument about not wanting to seem bias towards Palestinians should not be an issue because
our trade with Palestine is what the Canadian government describes as “modest”[18]. There
is no free trade agreement exclusively with Palestine; whereas, Israel has the
Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement (CIFTA). Although Canada agreed to the 1999
Joint Canadian-Palestinian Framework on Economic Cooperation and Trade with the
Palestinian Liberation Organization, this is an inactive document and bilateral
trade with the Palestinian Authority has been extremely limited. Since the
election of Hamas in 2006, Canada has frozen economic relations with the
Palestinian Authority and was the first to do so. Bill C-36 lists many
Palestinian political parties as terrorists, which make it illegal to give Palestinian
organizations, such as Hamas financial support[19].
In
addition, Canada’s only significant source of aid to Palestine is a five year
agreement signed in 2007 to give $300 million in aid[20]. Canada
distributed some of the funding to the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA),
which provided aid to Palestinian refugees; however, in 2010 Canada cut off
this funding and redirected the money to bolster Palestinian security. This aid
was used to “support U.S./Israeli moves to create a Palestinian
security/government apparatus to oversee Israel’s occupation”[21]. Creating
stability in the region would be in the best interest of Israel because having
militant groups suppressed would mean diminished security threats. Therefore
putting sanctions on Palestine would not be a way to be more evenhanded and unbiased
but instead it would cause further harm to Israel.
Policy #2: Sanctions
The second policy option is to implement sanctions
on Israel, based on the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction campaign (BDS), which
entails stopping Canadian trade, military support, and foreign investment with
Israel. The BDS movement has gained popularity among people all over the world,
including Israelis. During the Gaza Crisis, letters were sent to foreign
Ambassadors in Israel by 500 Israelis, which called for “the adoption of
immediate and restrictive measures and sanctions” and numerous Israelis
supporting the boycott have done so under the label “Boycott from Within”[22].
These sanctions should remain in place until Israel recognizes its obligations
to Palestinian people under international law, such as the dismantling of the
Wall, the recognition of the “fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestine citizens
of Israel to full equality,” and an end to settlement expansion[23].
There are many
reasons to support this policy of sanctions. Firstly, sanctions need to be
implemented because Israel is not complying with international law and
universal principles of human rights. This Canadian support of Israel is a
method of complicity and acceptance of Israeli actions. There are political
implications for Canada supporting Israel because if it is
“supporting a security force that’s carrying out widespread human rights
abuses, legally in international law before the International Criminal Court,
Canada is participating in war crimes”[24].
An illustration of Israeli violations is reported in
the UN Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. The report determined that
Israel conducted “deliberate attacks on civilian objects in violation of the
rule of customary international humanitarian law whereby attacks must be
strictly limited to military objectives”[25].
There were grave incidents where Israel destroyed infrastructure, water
instillations, such as the Namar Wells, housing developments, sewage treatment,
and food production[26].
The only flour mill, the Al Bader flour mill, was also bombed “for the purpose
of denying sustenance to the civilian population, which is a violation of
customary international law and may constitute a war crime”[27].
The Mission found numerous other examples of violations of international law,
yet Canada still was the sole country to vote against a motion
condemning Israel’s January 2009 massacre in the
Gaza strip at the UN Human Rights Council.
Another issue is the construction of a wall that was
built surrounding the Gaza strip as well as the West Bank. The International
Court of Justice stated that “the construction of the wall being built by
Israel, the occupying power, in the Occupied Palestine, including in and around
East Jerusalem, and its associated regime, are contrary to international law”[28].
It says that Israel needs to stop building the wall and that “all states are
under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the
situation created by such construction”[29] Canada has violated the advisory
opinion by not pressuring Israel to dismantle the wall. It is crucial that Canada’s
trading partners respect International law and it is obvious that Israel does
not.
Canada’s support of Israel also damages our values
of nuclear deterrence. Although Canada has implemented sanctions on Iran
because of its developing a nuclear program, it still supports Israel, which
has an undeclared stockpile of nuclear weapons. An example of this support is
with Canada’s attempt to stop the UN nuclear assembly from making Israel open its
nuclear facilities to UN inspection and sign up to the non-proliferation
treaty.
The second reason to implement sanctions on Israel
is because it would also work to reduce the threat of terrorism in Canada.
If the government focuses on “addressing the roots of the “campaigns of hatred,” not only can we reduce the threats we face but we can
also live up to ideals that we profess”[30]. Therefore, ending our financial support of Israel
would be a way to end complicity in the conflict, thus giving terrorist groups
less motivation to target Canada.
The third reason is that sanctions could be a
valuable tool to pressure Israel in the peace talks. Since Israel has refused
to reinstate the freeze on settlement construction, taking away financial
support could lead others to do the same. Diplomatic pressure has not been
effective; therefore, “the reason the BDS strategy should be tried against
Israel is practical: in a country so small and trade-dependent, it could
actually work”[31].
The threat of economic pressure could be enough incentive to lead to a
continuation of the talks.
The last reason supporting economic sanctions is
because of the problems with the current economic agreement, namely the Canada-Israel
Free Trade Agreement (CIFTA). A major issue with CIFTA is that it legitimizes
Israel’s control of the entire region because it includes the Gaza strip and
the West Bank in the agreement as a part of Israel. The European Union’s
agreement makes distinctions and follows internationally recognized borders,
which do not include the territories with settlements, such as the West Bank,
East Jerusalem, or the Golan Heights. The goods produced in these settlements
do not receive preferential treatment and they are even required to provide a
certification of origin so that consumers are aware about the origins of the
product so that a distinction could be made between goods produced in Jewish
settlements in the Occupied Territories and goods produced in Israel. This is a
way that the EU discourages these settlements through economic policies and
Canada is lacking. These agreements need to be removed and sanctions need to be
put in place in order to act in accordance with Canadian values.
There are still arguments as to why putting
sanctions on Israel is not an effective and realistic policy. Sanctions may
have a limited effect on Israel because of the strong role of the U.S. In 2009,
bilateral trade between the U.S. and Israel amounted to 28 billion dollars;
whereas, Canada-Israel trade only amounted to 3-4 billion dollars. Therefore, it
is doubtful that Canada can enact change because Israel is not dependent on
Canadian trade but rather “any real chance for a political settlement…depends
on the United States”[32].
The second issue is the difficulty in passing the legislation on sanctions
because the Israeli lobby has a strong hold on the Canadian government. This
policy may strain Canada’s relationship with its allies, such as the United
States, who have significant trade with Israel.
Despite
these arguments, putting sanctions on Israel is the optimal policy choice for a
variety of reasons. Overall, it is true that the effects will be minimal
because of the role the U.S. has played; however, “focusing primarily on American support for Israel…are
other ways of shirking our responsibility”[33].
Although Canada’s actions most likely will not result in the resolution of the
Palestine-Israel conflict; this does not mean the policy is not worthwhile. It
would be symbolic and effective on Canadian policy because by refusing to be
complicit in violating international human rights and laws, Canada will be able
to reestablish its identity as a peacekeeping state. Canada’s role as a
mediator may be enhanced as a result of this policy, which shows that “there
are small and middle-sized players in addition to large players in the
diplomacy game and that Canada’s role need not be compared to that of the
United States”[34].
This policy is a contribution and a way to show the world that Canada is
supportive of an Israeli state, yet not to the extent that it violates our
values.
Secondly,
passing the legislation may not even be an issue because there has been
evidence that the “Jewish Lobby has had little influence in the development of
Canada’s Middle-East foreign policy” and rather that national and economic
interests are a major factor[35]. Despite
this argument, it is still evident that “decision-makers are no longer shielded
from the pressures and preferences emanating from civil society”[36]. There
are certain steps that Canada can take to counter a strong pro-Israel lobby in
Ottawa. Canada throughout the years has cut funds to pro-Palestinian groups,
such as Kairos Canada and the Canadian-Arab Federation. Funding needs to be
reinstated for groups such as these because “we need to create a political climate where supporting
the killing of Palestinians and stealing their land is no longer acceptable”[37]. The changing of public opinion makes passing
legislation easier.
The
policy could still have a significant effect on Israel, especially if other
countries reinstate the BDS movement. Economic actions may be a way to
influence Israel and “the multiple forms of aid this
country provides Israel, and that country’s dependence on foreign
support, make it important to devote significant political energy to weakening
Canada’s support for Israeli
belligerence”[38]. Canada’s
economic interests, international reputation or fear of retaliation by
different actors, such as the United States, should not be enough to allow
Canada to violate its values and principles. Fear of reaction is not necessary
because Canada is America’s largest supplier of energy; therefore it not an
adequate excuse for not taking a strong stance on the issue[39].
In
conclusion, this paper has presented two options for Canada to deliberate on
concerning its economic position in the Palestine-Israel conflict. The proposed
and recommended policy option is to implement sanctions on Israel, based on the
BDS movement and until Israel fulfills its obligations to Palestinians under
international law. This policy is beneficial because it allows Canada to not contradict its own values, it improves
domestic security, and it resolves issues with agreements, such as CIFTA. The
implementation of this policy is important because Canada and “those outside
can help substantially to ease the way, though not until they are willing to
face honestly their own roles and responsibilities”[40]. The
policy of economic sanctions is instrumental to allow Canada to address
legitimate grievances and to adhere to international law.
[1] Noam Chomsky, Interventions (New York: City
Lights Books, 2007) 3.
[2] “Tories Blame Ignatieff for Losing UN Seat” CTV Globe
Media. Tues. Oct.12 2010. http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20101012/security-council-vote-101210/
[3] Thomas H.Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, Without
Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission (New York: Random House, 2006)246
[5] Yves Engler, Canada and Israel: Building Apartheid
(Vancouver: Fernwood Publishing Company, 2010) 9.
[6] CBC News, “Mideast Clashes Erupt as Peace Talks End”
The Canadian Press, 15 Sept.2010.
<http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/09/15/middle-east-peace-talks-abbas-netanyahu-clinton.html>
[8] Paul Heinbecker, Bessma Momani, Canada and the Middle
East: in Theory and Practice ( Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press,
2007) 3.
[9] Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, <http://www.international.gc.ca/name-anmo/peace_process-processus_paix/canadian_policy-politique_canadienne.aspx?lang=eng>
[10] Engler 9
[11] Peyton Lyon, Canada’s Middle East Tilt (International
Perspectives, 1982) 3.
[12] Engler 61
[13] Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, “Canada’s
International Market Access Report – 2008 Chapter 10 Opening Doors in Other
Markets” 14 July. 2009. <http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/cimar-rcami/2008_10_08.aspx?lang=eng>
[14]
Congressional Research Service “Canada-US Relations” 3 Sept. 2010. <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/96-397.pdf>
21.
[15] Constance A. Hamilton, Effects of the Arab League
Boycotts on US businesses (Washington: Diane Publishing Company, 1994) 2.
[16] Engler 136
[17] Cris E. Toffolo, The Arab League (New York:
Infobase Publishing,2008) 8.
[18] Canada-West Bank/Gaza Strip relations, Government of
Canada. 2009 http://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/west_bank_gaza-cisjordanie_bande_de_gaza/bilateral_relations_bilaterales/canada-wbg-cg.aspx?lang=eng
[19] Engler 52
[20] Engler 104
[21] Engler 105
[22] Naomi Klein, Israel: Boycott, Divest, Sanction (2009)
1.
[23] Engler 143
[24] Matt Gardner, “Jon Elmer Slams Canadian Policy on
Israel-Palestine” Kingstonist <http://www.kingstonist.com/2010/03/06/jon-elmer-slams-canadian-policy-on-israel-palestine/>
[25] Human Rights Council, Human Rights in Palestine and
Other Occupied Arab Territories: Report of the United Nations Fact Finding
Mission on the Gaza Conflict <http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/specialsession/9/docs/UNFFMGC_Report.PDF>
11.
[26] Human Rights Council 17
[27] Ibid
[28] International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences
of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July, 2004 <http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=71&code=mwp&p1=3&p2=4&p3=6&case=131&k=5a>.
[29] Ibid
[30]
Chomsky 5
[31]
Klein 2
[32] Chomsky 63
[33] Engler 142
[34] David Taras, The Domestic Battleground:Canada
and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (Montreal: Queen’s University
Press,1989) 4.
[35] Adam Cutler, Canada’s Middle East
Policy and the “Jewish Lobby,” Canadian Jewish Journal, <http://web2.concordia.ca/canadianjewishjournal/pdf/adam_cutler.pdf> 2.
[36] Taras 5
[37] Engler 10
[38] Engler 142
[39] Congressional Research Service, “Canada-US Relations,”
3 Sept.2010 <http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/96-397.pdf>
20.
[40]
Chomsky 33
No comments:
Post a Comment